Scary or unexplainable things that have happened to you

[taks]

For me, and for most people with common sense, supernatural is the very last option for an explanation.

 

taks

[taks]

I have a theory that ghosts are in fact the result of weird temporal distortions, that simply open a sort of window to the past or future.. freaking out people in the 16th century when they see you and freaking you out because you think they are dead..

interestingly, i don't think there is any scientific reason this is not, or can not, be true. there is no supporting evidence for such a concept, however, and certainly it is an untestable hypothesis at the moment. perhaps in the future, eh?

 

taks

[Purkake]

I have a theory that ghosts are in fact the result of weird temporal distortions, that simply open a sort of window to the past or future.. freaking out people in the 16th century when they see you and freaking you out because you think they are dead..

interestingly, i don't think there is any scientific reason this is not, or can not, be true. there is no supporting evidence for such a concept, however, and certainly it is an untestable hypothesis at the moment. perhaps in the future, eh?

 

taks

 

Ghosts being the result of a pink unicorn singing Elvis Presley's songs is also an untestable hypothesis. Shall we make a list?

Edited September 5, 2009 by Purkake

[Walsingham]

*sigh* MUST we go over this again? You can't prove things scientifically, gentlemen. You set up a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it.

 

*muttering* Bloody engineers...

[Purkake]

I thought that you set up a hypothesis and then find supporting evidence.

[kingofsquid]

Scientific Method:

State the Problem

Gather Information

Form a Hypothesis

Perform an Experiment

Analyze Data

Draw Conclusions

 

Hypothesis not Supported-Revise Hypothesis

Hypothesis Supported-Repeat Experiment 2 or more more times

 

Once you write something 15 times in Science Class, you don't forget it.

[Gorth]

Scientific Method:

State the Problem

Gather Information

Form a Hypothesis

Perform an Experiment

Analyze Data

Draw Conclusions

 

Hypothesis not Supported-Revise Hypothesis

Hypothesis Supported-Repeat Experiment 2 or more more times

 

Once you write something 15 times in Science Class, you don't forget it.

Gorths simplified science:

 

Bash it with a hammer.

 

It breaks? Try new theory

It doesn't break? Good enough, lets keep it

 

 

Can't really say I've experienced anything of the sorts from the thread title. The things that has scared me has been my own over stimulated imagination. But man, can your imagination play tricks on you. Perceived things can be as convincing as real things where the mind is concerned.

[mkreku]

How very enlightened of you.

Some people say the moon is a quadrahedon. Believe them!

 

Am I enlightened enough for you now?

 

Believe all the BS you want. Just don't drag me into it.

[Walsingham]

I thought that you set up a hypothesis and then find supporting evidence.

 

 

The simplest way to give an example is the coin toss one.

 

I have a coin. I toss the coin and observe how it lands. It lands heads up four times. I form the hypothesis that it has a head on both sides. I can toss the coin 100 times, and it can land heads up 100 times. This passes what we would normally regard as 'proof' that my hypothesis is correct. However, this is not proof at all, since it is perfectly possible that the coin has a tail and by chance (0.5 ^100) it has simply not landed tail up. In fact even after 100,000 observations the coin only has to land tails ONCE in order to violate my hypothesis. This is why supporting observations are not the strongest form of proof.

 

This is also why the best hypotheses are what is called 'falsifiable'. They have clearly defined terms which permit the hypothesis to be declared false.

 

This may sound needlessly pedantic to you. In normal life we look for supporting evidence. But it is misleading and even dangerous to do so. For illustration consider teh conspiracy theorist who wastes the better part of their life on a few consistent facts supporting their theory.

 

A less political example of how hypothesis testing should work can be taken from cryptography. But i'll be interested to see if anyone knows what it is.

[Purkake]

I get what you're saying.

 

Why can't we observe both sides of the coin without tossing it?

[Blarghagh]

I have a theory that ghosts are in fact the result of weird temporal distortions, that simply open a sort of window to the past or future.. freaking out people in the 16th century when they see you and freaking you out because you think they are dead..

 

I've toyed around with thoughts like these, or perhaps echoes of movements and energies or something (maybe consciousness? I dunno, just shooting thoughts here).

 

Anyway, here's mine: My grandfather always had a dog, Zendy, a black flea-ridden mongrel of a dog, and he was the only one that could handle it. The beast would bite everything and everyone else and was just generally not fit for being a pet. She was also very old and had lots of defects. A few days after my grandfather died, my family and my grandmother and I were discussing what to do with the dog. We knew nobody could handle her, and so we decided that "putting her down would be for the best". To this day, every single person present (about 8 people), remember the voice of my dead grandfather angrily replying "IS THAT SO?!".

 

Threw me off for weeks, because I'd have written it off as imagination if there weren't so many others who heard it too.

Edited September 6, 2009 by TrueNeutral

[Walsingham]

I get what you're saying.

 

Why can't we observe both sides of the coin without tossing it?

 

most systems have more than two states!

[Slowtrain]

On a related note:

 

 

Discovery Channel is starting a new series next week called Ghost Lab in which the team of investigators from Everyday Paranormal travel around the country invesitaging haunted locations in their state of the art traveling lab. Or something.

 

 

Should be awesome!

[Hiro Protagonist]

My

. It's never been explained to me how some cats know what a toilet is used for and why they use them as a toilet. It's one of those mysteries science can't explain.

[taks]

*sigh* MUST we go over this again? You can't prove things scientifically, gentlemen. You set up a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it.

i think you should go back and reread what purkake i both said. not once did either of us claim anything was "provable." in fact, we boith mentioned the concept of an untestable hypothesis.

 

don't lecture us on what is and is not science, please. poizymon is the only one that even used such a word (prove), and i've seen nothing to indicate he is an engineer.

 

and, FWIW, your last bit about engineers is what is known as an argumentum ad-hominem.

 

taks

Edited October 1, 2009 by taks

[Walsingham]

The next man to use latin will be shot by firing squad.

 

Unless we're listing what the Romans did for us.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You form a theory on the basis of all available evidence. At that point it should predict all new evidence coming in. If it doesn't, it has to be modified or discarded. It's true that in science there's no absolute proof, you must be ready to discard any theory, although some are so established they're unlikely to ever be discarded, like evolution.

[Rosbjerg]

The next man to use latin will be shot by firing squad.

 

Homo homini lupus...

[Walsingham]

The next man to use latin will be shot by firing squad.

 

Homo homini lupus...

 

ready, aim, FIRE!

 

Good, now I hope you've learned your lesson.

 

Actually, speaking of which, I'd have to count one of the weirdest things I've ever seen was that guy Onur the Courageous. The one who claimed Nirvana were British, and US helicopter pilots fly about masturbating all the time.