(July 9, 2009 at 8:44 pm)padraic Wrote:Quote:Please give me a link to these scientific enquiries which disproves the poltergiest phenomenon please.
I see you are still struggling with the notion of the burden of proof. It is you who are claiming poltergeists are real. The burden of proof is yours.
I'm not sure the phenomenum is falsifiable, as no one knows how many causes there may be lumped under the single heading. I'm not necessarily questioning the events per se. I'm questioning the interpretations of the events as proof of survival after death or some other supernatural cause.THOSE claims require extraordinary proofs.
No, I have provided proof. You can not dismiss my evidence just because you would like me to be wrong, that is not how it works. If you do not think the evidence provided is suitable, that is another matter, but so far no-one has said why the evidence I have provided is un-suitable. Instead you have shouted that I am wrong without telling me why I am wrong.
Kyu, answer the question: why does my evidence fail? You say that it does not appear in scientific journals. How can you possibly know that? Are you omnipotent or perhaps all new scientific evidence is passed through your office before publication?
Anyway, your lack of a link suggests to me that articles about the poltergeist phenomenon (for or against) just have not reached the mainstream of scientific enquiry. Why is this grounds for dismissal? Are we just to blindly except that what is in the mainstream will always be mainstream? Remember, all scientific theories/hypothesis start on the fringes. I can hear your answer now 'there is no evidence to suggest that this is legitimate grounds for scientific enquiry'. I have provided evidence so to continue with this denial you must dis-prove the evidence at hand. Surely that is how science works?
