|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2005 : 06:21:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you fault most physicists, then, for failing to pursue perpetual motion machines?
I would if they had just made an assumption, gave me no proof and expected me to believe them. But they didn't. There's a good reason why they don't work.
quote:
My point was that those factors - with regard to EVP - appear to be overwhelming.
Isolate each factor and test each one?
quote:
What are the proper controls for an EVP experiment?
Storm's link tells me EVP are weird noises recorded in places where there was no such noise. The noise only appears on play back. So find a location where this is supposed to have occured. Make the place noise proof and record I guess.
quote:
How would one know one has made mistakes in a field which science doesn't touch?
Compare what you did against what EVP supports said you should do.
I don't really know much about EVP. But if we follow the correct method then we'll show EVP to be rubbish. I'm sure they already have. Though I admit, this might be difficult for a little kid.
quote:
If that's the point of science fairs, then I'm annoyed that my science teachers (way back when) spent so much effort getting us to make nice presentations which taught other kids (and adults) what we learned. I mean, we got tested on our understanding of the scientific method - short essay format, even. In class. We didn't bother showing off those exams in a fair, though.
I guess this is my fault. I only spent 1 yr in the US school system and never attended a science fair. I simply assumed that one would have to do some science. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 09:29:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
I would if they had just made an assumption, gave me no proof and expected me to believe them. But they didn't. There's a good reason why they don't work.
Well, what counts for "proof" for you? Just like we know of no way to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to create a perpetual motion machine, we know of no way for an unmeasurable and immaterial "being" (a "ghost") to affect the physical world. Or, given a particular receiver, we could measure the amount of energy needed to impart a barely audible signal in amongst noise, and then argue against the spontaneous generation of however many milliwatts it is. There are a lot of good, scientific reasons why ghost-generated EVP should not happen.
[Edited to change a 'no' to 'know' - Dave W.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 11:18:47 [Permalink]
|
Wooly,
The entire concept of EVP is predicated on some large assumptions.
1. Ghosts exist.
2. Ghosts are capable of ineracting with the living.
3. That sound recording devices can detect the spoken words of ghosts.
and so on and so on.
In Storm's OP, she said her son wanted to make a ghost communication machine (Storm's words) for a science fair project.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2005 : 15:26:31 [Permalink]
|
I would break it down this way:
1. Some people report hearing voices in sound recordings where they are not expected to be.
2. Some attribute this to ghosts or another paranormal explanation.
Before hypothesizing about explanations for a phenomenon, you need first to establish whether the phenomenon exists in the first place, so I really think that the first thing to do would be to investigate #1. Are people really hearing something?
What degree of consistency is there in when different listeners report hearing something in the same recording, and in what they report hearing, when neither the listener nor the person operating the playback system and recording the results knows which of a set of recordings having a similar background noise floor is being played for each pass?
What degree of consistency is there in what each listener reports for multiple listening passes when the set consists of multiple recordings with similar noise floors, with each one repeated at least once, when neither the listener nor the operator knows which recording is being played at a given time?
Having gathered that data with the listeners blinded as to what they might be expected to hear and which recording they're listening to, what is the effect of repeating the tests with the listeners given clues about what to expect, but still blinded as to the identity of each recording?
What I expect is that the results would show that unprompted listeners aren't identifying something with any significant consistency and that listener expectations profoundly influence what they report, but that's not the point. The point is to work out a way to test the proposition that they are hearing something identifiable, and to do it in a way that eliminates bias as far as possible.
The reasoning is somewhat similar to that behind Emily Rosa's science fair project testing therapeutic touch, although the physical setup would obviously be more elaborate.
Doing such an experient isn't beyond the capability of a private person, even a student. The equipment involved can be found in the homes of quite a few musicians; the rest is a matter of thinking carefully about possible sources of bias and error and how to eliminate or neutralize them.
I can't help but think that such an experiment- an original investigation carried out with a scientific method of thinking- could be a helluva student project. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 02:23:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can't help but think that such an experiment- an original investigation carried out with a scientific method of thinking- could be a helluva student project.
If the intent of the experiment were only to determine if there were voices actually recorded, then ok. You could easily set up an expiriment to determine that. Double blind and all, use some forensics software to analyze the recordings for voice patterns.
Pick a series of locations to record in that have been reported as having EVP before. Pick a series of locations that it is known to have never been reported in before. Record detailed observations of the areas selected. Age of the building, proximity to radio stations and cell towers, type of lighting used, and so on. As detailed as you can make your observation of the area.
Have somebody who isn't 100% in on the expiriment actually make the recordings (i.e. don't tell them what the recordings are for, and have it be a person who isn't a ghost believer). Same person, same equipment for all recordings. Use brand new DATs for the recording, and a high quality mic and digital recorder. Also, make recordings on magnetic tapes (also brand new) at the same time as the DAT recordings. Label all the tapes the same (i.e. white label, numbered with the same marker, etc), so the person doing the analysis won't be able to tell which tape came from what location. The PI of course keeps a list of what number tape was recorded where. Have them analyzed for voice patterns. The local or county criminalistics lab may be willing to help, if asked.
Of course, the problem is still there in phrasing the hypothesis. What do you say you are predicting? That voice patterns can appear on random recordings from no apparent source? Dead people communicate with the living by whispering into their tape recorders?
Maybe: Voice patterns can be detected in silent rooms via sensitive recording devices.
I dunno....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 16:24:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cune
quote:
you can't even define what a ghost is besides using undefinable things like "energy"
Bullshit!!!! Through numerous threads I have defined the many different possibilities of what a Ghost is....
I have been especially discussing the thought that ghosts are possiblity the breakdown of consciousnes... The fact is not that I have not defined ghost... you just do not agree with my definition!!!
Originally posted by Woolytoad
quote:
I don't really know much about EVP. But if we follow the correct method then we'll show EVP to be rubbish.
I am not sure what this really means... Although it has the tone of debunking to me...
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 16:53:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
Bullshit!!!! Through numerous threads I have defined the many different possibilities of what a Ghost is....
I have been especially discussing the thought that ghosts are possiblity the breakdown of consciousnes... The fact is not that I have not defined ghost... you just do not agree with my definition!!!
No, the fact is that you've defined 'ghost' only by using vague and nebulous terms which also require definition if any meaningful discussion is to take place. Example from the above: what is consciousness, how does it break down, and through what mechanism might such a breakdown produce a 'ghost'?
You may consider some of these things to be self-evident, but given the miscommunications we've had in the past, I (and, I have little doubt, at least a few others here) can't assume anything about what you mean by these words, used as you have used them. Plus, there is certainly very little - if any - scientific literature on the "breakdown of consciousness," so precise definitions would serve us all well, to ensure we're all reading from the same page.
For another example, you once defined a ghost as an apparition of a dead or living person. But after I pointed out that "apparition" simply means something with a ghost-like appearance (and so your defintion was actually that a ghost is something ghost-like), you failed to expound upon it any further, and left the circular definition as-is.
Besides which, "breakdown of consciousness" is not a definition of a ghost, but instead a possible explanation of how ghosts come into being. The two - what something is, and how it was made - are not synonymous. My hand is an appendage with five digits attached to my arm. My hand is not "my mom and dad had sex." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 23:53:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bullshit!!!! Through numerous threads I have defined the many different possibilities of what a Ghost is....
I have been especially discussing the thought that ghosts are possiblity the breakdown of consciousnes... The fact is not that I have not defined ghost... you just do not agree with my definition!!!
Well, there is just one small hurdle you have yet to cross Storm.
You have not provided any solid evidence that the phenomenon you call "ghosts" actually happens. Nor has anyone else. Ever.
Waving an EM field detector at an antique chair (probably built with iron nails) is not evidence of ghosts. Fuzzy pictures are not evidence of ghosts. And so on and so on.
Atleast you picked the right folder for discussion of a "science" project about ghosts....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 06:10:02 [Permalink]
|
| Just thought of an easy way to test this, have a bunch of people listen to recordings are report what they hear, if they all hear their own language(which Im sure they do) then its clear that this is all mental. as a majority of dead people will not be native speakers no matter what language you speak. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
