Project Confirmation Bias

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I never watched these guys when they had a show, but I gave their YouTube channel a shot. 

The first video I watched irked me because they immediately did the fucking flashlight (torch) trick.

* Which is unscrewing the flashlight enough to no longer fully connect and then set it down. Inevitably it randomly makes contact due to vibrations or expansion/contraction. 

And while they claim it is the timing is all that matters it still seems slight of hand to not disclose you unscrewed the flashlight while left on..

But then his sink turned on while sleeping, which ALSO has a scientific explanation, but could also not... right?

That it picks while they are there to happen is the thing that gets me. 

But on the video used, The Satanic Portal Kansas House.

By the end of their experience with their devices they became convinced they were talking to a demon pretending to be a little girl.

And while the proof they provided like; electromagnetic disruptions, randomly chosen words, and radio signals were compelling, it's not rigorously tested. 

If you pay attention to the selection, timing, and interpret what the distorted voices say you see whatever narrative you are expecting.

******************************

And I think you can test it. Prove or disprove. 

Could you go to a day care with colorful animal painted walls built in the last 10 years at night and declare it haunted by spirits?

Is there a component where belief changes the outcome of the word selection and experience?

The Experiment:

Divide the ghost hunters into 2 groups to test the same mundane location, such as suggested above.

Group one:

Tell them, "The place you're going to although new, carries a dark history."

Then make up something about a girl that went missing, was later found deceased, and that her spirit is said to still be there. 

Group Two:

Tell them, "We Are trying to test if a non haunted location can be determined haunted using ghost hunting tools."

Hypothesis: 

Both groups will experience "activity," but the one with a specific belief about the place will have a more specific and real feeling encounter. Where as the test Group of debunker's experience will be more random, while still doing the same things.

The theory being the seemingly precise answers (if beyond confirmation bias or editing) are more a product of the HUMAN MIND influencing what the random devices generate then it is otherworldly, and it can happen anywhere you want it to with belief. The more sincere the belief, the more compelling the results.

[Sirius]

Suppose someone proposed to get to know you. What if that person said to you “The best way of getting to know you is for me to remain aloof from you. I will break you up into pieces and analyze your parts. I want to examine all the little facts of your life with a computer. I am going to learn how to predict your every move. Furthermore, to prove that I have obtained this real power of knowledge of you, I will gain total control over you, and make you behave as I choose.” Would you rush to reveal yourself to a person making such a proposal? You’d probably be amused or horrified.

Yet that is exactly the stance that science takes towards nature. It calls it “objective “ and values detachment over intimacy, analysis over experience, prediction over involvement, and control over dialogue. Women have sometimes recognized this set of values in their male friends. In fact, some modern philosophers have proposed that the supposed objectivity of science is no more than a rationalization of masculine values.

Secrets Revealed: The Mind and its Mysteries as Viewed by Edgar Cayce
Henry Reed