if something unexplainable happened to you would you believe in the paranormal?

Answer 1

If something happened to me--preferably repeatedly and predictably--that had *no* natural explanation then I would certainly consider taking "the paranormal" more seriously. However, I have not illusions of personal infallibility and am aware of the unreliability of human sense and memory. I also respect objective data collected from unmotivated studies and the current scientific explanation of the universe. So even if I saw something questionable I would not immediately jump to the conclusion that my solitary subjective experience trumps all else.

So now that you've asked us skeptics what it would take for us to believe in the paranormal, I'd like to know what it would take to make you *not* believe in the paranormal.

Answer 2

No... that would just make me believe that something happened that I can't readily explain, but not necessarily the supernatural.

This is a good question because it highlights a flaw of logic that is often used, something along the lines of, "if it isn't explainable, it must be supernatural". Of course this does not follow. Simply because you cannot offer natural explanations for your particular perception of the event in question does not mean someone else cannot explain it, or that a supernatural mechanism must be at work. It just means you don't understand it, that's all.

This false dichotomy -- either it's explainable or its supernatural -- is relevant to ghost hunters who use all their gadgets to try accumulate as much data as possible that they can't explain. But is this evidence of ghosts? No, at the very best it's only evidence of unexplained meter readings and so forth. In reality, ghost hunters are "unexplained hunters", but that name doesn't have quite the zing :)

Answer 3

Unexplainable is a broad term.Some folks see a light flash or "feel" some thing in the shadows.That to them is enough to believe in the paranormal.I would have to see a ghost,demon or Bigfoot.Or verify a prediction or message from the dead.The last two seem to be the easiest.With so many claiming to be able to do it.It's unexplainable to me why someone hasn't.

Answer 4

I just read another answer that said "people who don't believe in ghosts, haven't seen one yet."
Let's take a close look at this "brilliant" example. If we follow this intuitive burst of logic, it follows that Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, and yes, for you Charles Schultz fans, even the Great Pumpkin exist.
Another one of these gems, is "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence".
This one is often thrown in my logical and educated face by inDUHviduals, who often point out to me that we cannot see atoms but we know they are there.
This is true to an extant. We cannot see them, but we know they exist through the observable effects of there presence; (weren't there two Japanese cities that were destroyed a few years back.?)
The only evidence of "Ghosts" I have ever seen are two plumbers, creeping around "spooky" places in the middle of the night saying things like; "OOohhhh, did you hear that?", and my favourite "proof" of all; "I don't know, I just get a weird feeling in that room"
I can show you direct evidence of invisible things such as the radio waves, and atoms, can you show me DIRECT evidence of the paranormal aside from spurious eyewitness accounts, and grainy photographs with "orbs" in them...? I thought not.

Answer 5

If something unexplainable happened to me, there would be no choice except to believe in the paranormal.
unexplainable is a pretty strong statement

Answer 6

It's not qutie that simple, I'm afraid.

If multiple incidences were observed and documented scientifically, and no other phenomenon could explain them, then it could be considered.

Seeing something you can't explain on a dark night isn't enough. here are some of the things you need for it to be scientifically viable:
-It must be observed.
-Other people must be able to observe it.
-It must be possible to falsify it.
-You must assume as little as possible.

The second last one seems a little weird, so I will explain: It msut be possible to construct a test to prove or disprove it. You can't just say "I think that there are invisilbe and undecteable dragons in my garage, and it must be true because you can't disprove it".

In short, no it probably wouldn't be enough.

Answer 7

Well, there's a big, big gap between, for example, saying, "I saw something in the sky, and don't know what it was", and "therefore it was alien space creatures", but some people seem to go from statements like the former to statements like the latter in the blink of an eyelid.
.

Answer 8

if it happened, then it would be an observation in the real world, and there would be an explanation, we just wouldn't have it, if that explanation involved accepting ideas that had been considered 'paranormal' then i would, but once they had been accepted, they would no longer be paranormal, light globes would have seemed paranormal, until we understood how electricity worked

Answer 9

No. Unexplainable is my middle name.

Answer 10

What you are trying to say, is " A skeptic is just a person who has not had a paranormal experience yet"