|
Post by asdfg on Jan 9, 2009 11:29:13 GMT
You call yourselves sceptics? I know many sceptics and enjoy their company, but going by what I have experienced so far on this site, Im sorry but you give the title "sceptic" a bad name. Ah!!! The 'nasty skeptic' gambit. Perhaps if you'd been honest upfront and said what your new series was really like instead of trying to pass it off as something new and scientific then you might not have got such a frosty reception. If you want debate then fair enough. What about a debate on dowsing, or the worth of mediums on paranormal investigations? But bear in mind that as skeptics we'll probably have very different explanations for things than you. You'll just have to accept that. Playing the victim and crying "everyone's being nasty to me" wears a bit thin after a while.
|
|
|
Post by cracker on Jan 9, 2009 12:18:59 GMT
Jigsaw
An improving post, well, thats a start, but I never said the series was a purely scientific format, it involves three elements, some of which you may find interesting. As I said before I respect your sceptic views, they are healthy and well worthy of hearing. Thankyou for your post, I hope you enjoy the series, but now I am going to take my ball away, log out for good and head back to the planet Dowser 5, where I came from 5000 years ago. ;D All the best.
|
|
|
Post by starx on Jan 9, 2009 13:01:47 GMT
Well, i will still be watching it, although from my perspective, i'm not chuffed that you have bought Marion Goodfellow into it. However, i will also reserve judgment until the show airs.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 9, 2009 14:15:23 GMT
This is not a skeptical site............. its a Cynical site So your first post on over 18 months is to call us cynical,lol Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 9, 2009 14:20:37 GMT
What do you expect? You come on claiming to have worked on this idea for 2 years, and all you done is replicate Most Haunted Series 1!
Why didnt you come to us at the beginning, we could have told you to avoid Marrion Goodfellow, to avoid NIPs, we could hav helped you produce a credible television program, instead we have yet another MH.
You came here and you told lies. Simple as that. You said you had academics, I'm sorry but a believer with a psychology degree is NOT an academic in my opinion.
You said that you had people doing science on the program, instead you have NIPS a bunch of MH wannabes conducting silly experiments they have COPIED from Most Haunted.
You know that Ciaran O'Keeffe is a member here. Did you also know that I above anyone else criticise him more than anyone else.
Yet as a sceptic he understands this criticism and accepts it. For deep down he knows i am right, and deep down i understand the reasons for why he does what he does.
You are welcome here mate, but do not think that we will gie your show an easy ride (if anyone bothers to watch it).
You describe a MH show, why would we support that which we have spen the past few years fighting against?
I also wonder what LivingTV will have to say about your show as they own the rights to Most Haunted, hell ANTIX even had to change the format for their ITV2 series.
You could end up facing a lawsuit for copying their format
|
|
|
Post by girlseeksghosts on Jan 9, 2009 17:03:23 GMT
There really does not seem a solution to this one. An honest, scientific investigation to be aired on tv would be incredibly boring so all the ghost hunting shows so far are basically hammed up with those taking part being told to fake and make the show entertaining and thus gain viewers.
Is there really a way round the problem? Can there be a format (purely scientific with no mediums) that would work as a tv program? I don't think so (I would watch it though). I have been on many investigations and remain highly sceptical and keep asking myself why am I doing this.
Would anyone here really watch an investigation with scientists and acedemics anyway? Surely in the eyes of the sceptics here at BP there would be no need to because I get the impression they feel they have almost all the answers anyway.
I think Jon was unnecessarily harsh in the way he spoke to cracker but nonetheless right. However, I will continue attending investigations and will watch NI Greatest Haunts - even if nothing is gained - because thank goodness there is still an element of what can be called 'the unknown' (I think anyway) and until science is ready to answer every single last question I have, I will remain sceptic but seeking......
|
|
|
Post by starx on Jan 9, 2009 17:19:07 GMT
Welcome back girlseeksghosts. Yes, i would bloody applaud if they did provide a decent programme whereby they concentrate soley on the claims of so called mediums/psychics, because it's about time all this crap was exposed. In all this time since the Fox sister's started kicking their heels we have to not had one shred of concrete evidence to prove that there is an afterlife and that communication between living beings and those that have died exists. We don't need more 'Scream Team' wannabies.:)x
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jan 9, 2009 19:49:05 GMT
Is there really a way round the problem? It would have to be a show with a completely different format. I think it would be possible to make a series of programmes showing the scientific investigation of hauntings but I think it would need to be cases where rational explanations were found. Obviously, doing an investigation where nothing ever happens wouldn't be the best of TV. So, it may be that such a series would be reconstructions of successful past scientific investigations as you can't guarantee results. Lots of features could be done on the methods and equipment used so it could be educational too. That's just off the top of my head, but something along those lines could be done and still be highly watchable. until science is ready to answer every single last question I have, I will remain sceptic but seeking...... 'Remain sceptic'? You mean you don't believe? Not believing in something doesn't mean you're a skeptic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2009 20:51:30 GMT
I can't quite believe that Cracker actually put the words - an open mind - in quotation marks in case us sceptics "didn't get it" - too funny.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 9, 2009 21:19:10 GMT
There really does not seem a solution to this one. An honest, scientific investigation to be aired on tv would be incredibly boring so all the ghost hunting shows so far are basically hammed up with those taking part being told to fake and make the show entertaining and thus gain viewers. [/quote]
The problem is we are so conditioned to Most Haunted that when we think of a serious program we just imagine MH but without the faking and sillyness, which would yes be very boring.
We need to remove MH from our minds and think differently.
There is a demand for serious scientific type shows, Richard Dawkins has shown that, his shows were fascinating. Derren Brown too has shown that such things can also be interesting.
How about a show that mixed psychology with real investigation. You could have theboring serious scientific stuff, but you could mix it with psychological experiments in the Richard Wiseman/Derren Brown style, showing how people can be fooled, mistaken, mislead etc. This would give the show the entertaining factor, while still being serious and educational.
Having the answers doesnt matter, if something is interesting I will watch, even if i reckon i know it all.
I watch Derren Brown because its entertaining, even if i know how he does it.
Same with Uri Geller, i am a big fan of him, even though i know exactly how he does it.
Someone like Richard Wiseman who is likeable and entertaining would be great to watch, even if conducting serious experiments.
|
|
|
Post by girlseeksghosts on Jan 10, 2009 10:36:17 GMT
Thanks for welcome back Star I rarely post, surprised you noticed me! I do actually agree with you and would be more than willing to watch something like it. But of course its still the age old problem you cannot prove that something does not exist - its why I suppose scientists (and I am talking purely on tv here) just don't go there. That said there is a lot more that could be done to prove the non-existence (on any one investigation) of a spirit presence.
Jigsaw and Jon you are right and have some good ideas - why do you think its just not happening in tv? I really enjoy watching Derren and what he does but is he too entertaining in as much as I think a lot of people (and I am talking about people not as interested in science and the genuine study of the so called paranormal) just think of him as doing really neat tricks and playing with people minds with hypnotism. He can make people believe in ghosts and then prove it was a trick - but does little to provide evidence that they do not exist.
Oh dear I am really crap at getting my point across - it is honestly why I do not post - I have it in my head but cant seem to write it down and I can be so torn down because I have not made myself understood. Please bear in mind my comments relate solely towards televised investigations and not in general.
No I know what I am - highly sceptical of all things paranormal. I need my own personal conclusive evidence, don't we all? If I do not believe in ghosts doesn't that make me sceptical of the belief of someone who does?
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jan 10, 2009 11:43:15 GMT
I need my own personal conclusive evidence, don't we all? 'Personal proof' is absolutely not the way to decide issues! That's because we're all extremely fallible and can easily be fooled by things - including ourselves. I would go so far as to say that belief in things like the paranormal arises largely because people do have this "seeing is believing" attitude; and you do often see people dismissing rational explanation or even masses of scientific knowledge because "they've seen it for themselves". Science (scientific methods) tries to remove the personal factor from investigation simply because we are so fallible when it comes to our senses and perceptions. If I do not believe in ghosts doesn't that make me sceptical of the belief of someone who does? Yes; but, being sceptical and being a skeptic are different things. Sorry, I have a bee in my bonnet with this issue, but I think it's important that we know the difference between doubt, disbelief, denial, and skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by girlseeksghosts on Jan 10, 2009 13:07:05 GMT
My 'own evidence' is probably equal to that expected of science and therefore probably yourself. We can all regale stories of odd things that happen in life with no immediate answers - I know I could. I still would not cite my stories as being evidence to myself or anyone else because there is nothing to back it up. If I were to allege I had been visited by a ghost - my own belief would be I've had a dream or hallucination, or gone into some sort of temperary fugue state (I do not drink/not on medication). Now I've read that back it made realise better what you are saying, unless I could get that 'ghost' to perform for others it doesn't count for anything - on which I agree. Reading this was useful to me: www.ukskeptics.com/cms/are-you-skeptical-of-skepticism/I guess I have to say I am sceptical but not a skeptic in that case ;D Am I right? Don't get ratty I am open to helpful constructive comments and criticism of my way of thinking. I come here to learn.
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jan 10, 2009 18:08:44 GMT
An recent example of the difference between 'personal proof' and 'scientific findings' as evidence of something is the Extraordinary People programme where The Baby Mind Reader, Derek Ogilvie, was tested by Prof. Chris French in London and James Randi in the USA. When Derek does his act for parents it's quite clear that he convinces people that he really is tuning into their baby's mind and telling them things 'he couldn't possibly have known'. People are convinced at this level as they've 'seen it for themselves'. It's 'personal proof'. When tested under scientific conditions, however, his telepathic ability reduced to precisely zero. This is because proper testing conditions were used and Derek's ability to interact with the parents was removed. So his amazing psychic 'baby mind reading' is really an illusion created by him interacting with the parents (via Cold reading). This is what I mean by scientific evidence being far more robust and much more reliable than personal experience. Personal experience fools people because they often don't know what they're really dealing with, how to assess it, and what other alternative explanations are available that also explain the effect. Look on paranormal-type forums and you will discover what it is that convinces people of things like alternative medicines, psychic abilities, mediumship, etc. It's Personal Experience: "I've seen it for myself", "I tried it for myself", "I can't think of a logical explanation", etc... But skeptics know, through the science of psychology, just how fallible we humans are. In fact, it's because humans make so many many mistakes when 'seeing for themselves' that the scientific method was developed: to try to eliminate these mistakes so we can find out what's really going on. I guess I have to say I am sceptical but not a skeptic in that case ;D Am I right? Well, you can be sceptical without being a skeptic. The fallacy of equivocation (explained in that linked article) is what I was getting at. Nothing personal though - I'm always nagging fellow skeptics about it as they're often just as guilty of using skeptic to mean disbeliever. A skeptic could and should believe in ghosts/psychics/whatever if the evidence was there to support the claim.
|
|
|
Post by clur on Jan 22, 2009 15:51:13 GMT
this forum is well harsh haha. being from northern ireland i watched part of this programme last night and found it to be very enjoyable and spooky.i didnt know it was even on so it was interesting to see somewhere that i know and have seen myself being investigated. as far as mediums go though,im still undecided.i never rule anything out as a possibility but i think i am a lot more skeptical these days than i used to be. they did seem to pick up quite a lot of evp and in the 'ghost nest' the main guy set up there did seem to be some kind of activity. nonetheless entertaining,real or not.
|
|
|
Post by starx on Jan 22, 2009 17:34:34 GMT
Sh*t, i forgot it was on.
|
|
|
Post by starx on Jan 22, 2009 17:44:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jan 22, 2009 18:20:11 GMT
Well what can I say? I'll sum up it up with this:
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 22, 2009 19:22:03 GMT
So was i right then abot it being another MH rip off?
|
|
|
Post by traceyg on Jan 22, 2009 21:19:32 GMT
Well guys, i didn't think much of this programme, it's just the usual stuff, spooky music a medium up her own arse, equipment that cannot detect paranormal activity, hearsay stories that at the end of the show it's gives you the impression that the medium was correct in her final analysis. The only thing that was bearable about this programme was listening to James Nesbitts voice (bloody good actor by the way) even im surprised he was wanted to do the voiceover, but then again it's all work for him...
|
|