Universal EVP Classification System

Aedryan Methyus · Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject:

My loathed scientists? Childish/fearful exclusion of scientists? Whoa! Where did all that smack just come from? If that were the case, I would be loathing Frank and fearfully excluding all of his theories and it is quite the opposite, I assure you. Frank is more of a scientist and far more educated than I could ever be in the area of science and I value his scientific insight greatly.

I approach ghost study from a totally neutral, sensible, honest and EXPERIENCED angle. Between hundreds of hours of investigation and analyzing evidence, I think i've put enough time into this stuff that I am as qualified as anyone to "execute scientific methodology". Hence; This classification system, which ONCE AGAIN, is based entirely on EVIDENCE that I have maticulously analyzed and documented. And in addition to that, giving ratings to EVP's once and for all, based entirely on actual hZ and dB readings? How exactly would this not be considered "executing scientific methodology". I really think you are missing something here, OMS....

"not until they present facts. not just assertions, theories or strong opinions based solely on their own experience."

Assertions? Strong opinions? Own experience? Rolling Eyes

I really think you need to spend some time sifting through the amount of EVIDENCE I have documented (namely the EVP's). Again, you are either seriously missing something here or just throwing around a lot of presumptions, because you have nothing to base these assumptions on....

- Aedryan
_________________

fratka · Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

You did sound a little defensive Aedryan. I don't know, maybe it's just you. I don't think that OMS is going to stomp off and pout like the others! Laughing

I think she is more of the, "you hit me I will hit back harder" type!

Then again, like you said you are misunderstood, a lot. You seem to me like a rebelling teenager with all the black clothes and listen to "Cradle of Filth".
_________________
Frank Ratka

Death does not exist!
http://thecontactfield.blogspot.com/
http://www.myspace.com/fratka

Aedryan Methyus · Posted: Dec Tue 05, 2006 12:42 am Post subject:

And.... @#POW@# Aedryan takes yet another sucker punch to the left eye. Wink

It's cool though.... I'm used to being made out to be the dickhead. *shrugs* Confused

_________________

fratka · Posted: Dec Tue 05, 2006 8:50 am Post subject:

Wait...you mean were not supposed to be dickheads?! Okay...well I guess I could be nicer! I mean, I think I remember how! AAAhhhh...fuck it! I will stick to what I'm good at!

Wink

_________________
Frank Ratka

Death does not exist!
http://thecontactfield.blogspot.com/
http://www.myspace.com/fratka

OMS Transmitting · Ghost Lovin Phreak! Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Posts: 119

OMS Transmitting · Ghost Lovin Phreak! Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Posts: 119

fratka · Posted: Dec Tue 05, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject:

OMS Transmitting · Ghost Lovin Phreak! Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Posts: 119

fratka · Posted: Dec Wed 06, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

OMS Transmitting · Ghost Lovin Phreak! Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Posts: 119

I like you. You make good points. Actually I agree w just about everything you said.

Sadly enough, I agree w your assessment of the politics w/in the scientific community. My thing is I think there’s a lot of value in classical scientific methodology, but (as you said) it’s the egos that botch everything up at times.

So while I value clinical methodology enough to endorse it or follow it, it’s clear that the extreme scientists (esp. extreme skeptics) pull the whole thing down.

And to some degree it is who you know or blow (agreed). Still it stands to reason that the method shouldn’t be tossed because of some closed and arrogant people who abuse it.

My theory is: We need all types of researchers, whether they’re out in the field or conducting standard, scientific clinical tests. I see tremendous value - maybe some breakthroughs in knowledge, resulting from multiple sources.

Seems many of us come into this w our own (valid) visions about how we want to study and/or further our understanding of paranormal activity. Part of mine happens to be encouraging just a few of us (who feel the calling) to educate themselves about classical scientific method and incorporate scientific rigor into their study methods. Once ppl like me increase in number, our collective voice will reduce concerns about getting noticed by other scientists because they will be our scientific peers, whether they like it or not. And as scientists we will have collective resources so dependency on cynical professionals won’t be such a concern.

Yeah, it sounds like a pipe dream I know but what the Hell Wink

Meanwhile politics are just as big a problem w field researchers as w those cynical lab bastards lol. At least from what I can tell so far. They don't seem to be on the same page about anything, as an overall group.

fratka · Posted: Dec Thu 07, 2006 8:26 am Post subject:

I agree with everything you said in the last post. I would like to expand on your last comment:

OMS Transmitting · Ghost Lovin Phreak! Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Posts: 119

Well-stated! Funny, despite the reputation scientists have for being rational, I’m sure you know some (like a number of paranormal researchers) will contaminate their studies w faith-based bias and cop-out assumptions & conclusions, in place of admitting when - like you said – they’ve hit a brick wall.

Actually, I consider pathological skepticism the “religious” disease of many scientists. Many debunkers assert total faith in some shakey alternative explanation to try and nullify the possibility of genuine paranormal activity.

For example (sticking to something I know a little about) …

Here's a hypothetical claim about EVP from a person who’s captured & studied some strong and clear-sounding EVPs in relatively well-monitored conditions. Then I’ll show what I see as extreme reactions from both camps:

Experiential claim by paranormal field investigator): My observation is that EVP exists because of clear voices I’ve captured, where said voiced answers appear to be in strong context w/questions being asking, where there was relative environmental silence … and where (collective) independent interpretations of the voice/s concurred well beyond that of chance, said interpretations defeated the probability of “matrixing” effect. I was in a well-guarded room w/skeptical peers monitoring my every move as I recorded.

They listened to results immediately afterward and heard anom. voices. Like other independent subjects, they had independently concurring interpretations of the words.

A. Extreme scientist (pathological skeptic): Well then obviously your imaginary voices were caused by EM interference.

B. Extreme paran. researcher (religiously “tainted”): I have been a demonologist for over 30 years. I am a true professional and EVP is dangerous, a proven gateway to possession.

C. Open-minded Skeptic: Sounds interesting. Let’s discuss the details of your study as I’d like to further investigate your claim/s.

With “A” you have someone who is clearly putting faith in an ill-thought out, popular skeptics’ assumption. This argument doesn’t hold in light of the fact that the worded EVP replies were in strong context w the questions asked by the querent. EM waves do not produce interactive voiced responses.

So A is guilty of having faith in a shakey pre-canned argument that simply doesn’t logically hold.
With B it’s an abuse of the “Appeal to Authority” logic, w the demonologist having appointed himself the "Authority" able to single-handedly settle the matter. Unfortunately his 30 years of observation and exorcisms do not justify his claim to authority where it regards EVP and its possible dangers. He has nothing to prove there are demons to begin with, plus he hasn’t tried EVP so his claims are objectively useless.

At least he was open-minded enough not to reflexively shoot down the reality of EVP like the skeptic did. But he still puts faith in front of reason in making his claim of religious danger. He is one person w one set of experiences. Other demonologists will have other opinions on the matter. Some w more than 30 yr.s experience. As you’ve already stated so well in your own words, religion is not a safe platform when it comes to research.

For me, the smart choice is to use logic, careful analysis & explorations; sensible objective testing and admit when you don’t have the answers!