The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I've been thinking about this question for a bit and I was wondering what others views on it are.

Who would you consider to be a better witness to something paranormal? A completely skeptical person or someone who has interest in the subject. If someone had to give an account of an extraordinary happening who do you think would give the most accurate depiction of what they experienced? Please elaborate on your answers.

This could be ghosts, aliens, bigfoot etc.

I think a skeptic would give a more accurate description, the other guy would probably give a more detailed one though. A skeptic being.. well.. a skeptic would probably bring more truth and realism to the table, so I would rather hear from a skeptic.

Definitely the skeptic. They would be know by their friends, family, and aquanitances as being a skeptic.

If they all of a sudden freak and speak about something they have observed and believed to be true, there is a greater likelyhood others would believe them.

A believer has already loaded the dice against themselves. If one believes in aliens all of their lives, and everyone knows that they "believe" then they are more likely going to discount any observations that they make.

In my opinion, both could be very reliable witnesses to phenomenon... then again, not every one believes in what the witnesses may present...
To answer your question, a skeptic would be more believable. Why would someone who is skeptical change their view? As opposed to some one who is interested in whatever paranormal happenings, they could be so interested to the point where people are used to hearing about it from that person. I would think that someone who has that interest would be shrugged off compared to some one who never believed in it and suddenly changes their mind.
The person that would give the more detailed version of whatever happened, would be either person... The skeptic might be so shocked that they remember it exactly or it could be the opposite: they could be too scared or shocked to remember correctly. Then again, the one who is interested in it might go into very accurate details since they are so familiar with it...

I suggest you read a book a biography on Houdini this very subject comes up in reference.Sir Author conan Doyle had hyper faith in Spirit mediums even after they where debunked,Science figures where split even after being told of the fraud the center of an investigator/witness is edged by the encounter type UFO back ground in aviation in a skeptic would reinforce observation,as most pilots are credibly associated people,most give them a solid ear.A ghost hunter who is also a magician that uses gimmickry for entertainment may be able to phsically spot factors that create a projected ghost.Example a dell in scotland it was told had a apparition that could be filmed from a distance on foggy nights once in a rare great while a phsics professor went and witnessed the apperition and filmed it.They where ready to go to the press when it was noted the pinckh at the top was clearly a curtain and not the peek of a cape it had turned out that the servants quarters across an exanse beamed to the spot as the resort seldom was rented out (the suite room) it was seldom seen projection.So the background of the skeptic is a factor.

Bias is likely from a jaded spiritualist.More beleivers flood the research field with light impressioned photos.

LOL!!!

Spirit photos! You are correct. That is a perfect example to bring up in this thread!

I really think the skeptic would be better because he would be looking at it more objectively were the believer would be more prone to see more then was is actually there do to wishful thinking

a skeptic will discard more Photos then a "hunter". I notice that the photos are always distorted by light angles If you want to know how to make an apparition that can be photoed with out rigged cameras just message me.

I agree; probably the skeptic would be more truthful in relaying the experience. A believer would be more prone to adding a detail here or there to make it more believable to the audience.

who they choose to tell makes a difference as well if I go to report a ghost photo to a ghost photo collector,as apposed to a skeptical source for examination to astablish and eliminate common trickery and distorted effects that effect the photoed area as well as objects the spiritualist believer is less likely to duplacate the condition the film was taken in.Yet a skeptic will take note of other factors that could have been likly Example though it had the appearance of a ghost there was a narrow pass that car lights creeped up from as we walked back.The drive to get more info and source.

i think a skeptic would be a good witness someone that would now be a believer

Has to be the Skeptic, the other sort might be prone to embellishment or think they are seeing something just because they want to so badly.

Ok, I might as well throw my two cents in now. I think leaning too far in one way or another would be a problem. If you are a firm believer then you might embellish upon what you have seen. If you are a total skeptic you might just try to dismiss everything. I still prefer to hear a skeptics account though.

And dabbler, I am very familiar with Ehrich Weiss, or Houdini as he was more commonly known, and his dealings with Mr. Doyle. Doyle was the creator of Sherlock Holmes by the way. ;)

Doyle is a good example of what can happen if you get sucked into a blind faith. Even after Houdini had exposed a lot of methods concerning "spiritualist" events Doyle insisted that Houdini was in fact a very powerful medium himself and was using his powers to deceive others. Twist your mind around that one haha.

I would be worried that the skeptic might have trouble fully processing what it was they saw and try to make something that really was a ghost into a trick of light or something like that. With that said I think the beliver would give a better account because they already have experience in what they are discussing.

a completely skeptical person because if they believe what they saw then you got to yourself..... I would believe a skeptical person more than someone who was a 'believer' if they said they saw a ghost.

I believe a skeptical would be a better witness becuase someone who has interest in the subject could be obsessed and bring the most usual thing into a paranormal situation and not see the truth where a skeptical person would see more logic and truth.

i belive the sceptical will give a more accurate answer. Because they who really belive in it often tend to dont be able to see it clearly and see what they belive it is.

definately a skeptic that turned believer i have seen several skeptics that have seen stuff in my home that quickly turned them into believers

I would have to go with credibility over someone who is a skeptic or well known in the subject.

If someone's credibility isn't all that great, then whether or not they are well known in the subject or just a skeptic, how could you believe anything they say without some kind of proof?

Well I would have to say someone who had interest in the subject, but wasn't crazy about finding proof. To me if they are crazy about finding proof then they could see something they thought was something else. Then could make people see less of their thoughts or what they have seen.

A sceptic might overrexagurate what he saw, and ultimatly deny the whole thing by thinking on some other causes, like I had not enough sleep, or I have high pressure, or I havent eaten so the hunger is causing halucinations, while somebody who has an honest interest in paranormal by witnessing it, might give a realistic detailed description of what he saw, and what might have happend, thanks to his familliarity with a certain subject, and a certain reserved approach to it.

When it comes to ghosts especially, a sceptic is the best to be a witness; they're a lot harder to convince.
When you get people inspecting a haunted house at night, most believers will think they're experiencing something paranormal when they feel a tingle, or feel cold, or see a shadow... most of it's just the 'power of suggestion', because they expect to experience something, so assume that a tingly hand means a ghost is grabbing it.
A sceptic will not be mystified quite so easily. They are always looking for hard evidence, and an argument that someone has seen something paranormal, always sounds better coming form someone who previously refused to believe.

I think a skeptic would be the best kind of witness as their more likely just to state what they have seen or heard then look for an explanation. Where as a believer will tell you oh yes it was a ghost or bigfoot whatever it was and may gloss over some of the facts in there belief in what they saw

I think a skeptic would make a better witness as they would be harder to convince on the whole.

Some one that is a believer would possibly want to believe in what they were seeing.

Whatever label you wear, you also have limitations it would seem.

Given the choice I would prefer the eyewitness account of a down to earth level headed sort of person.....you can call him/her whatever you like.

Dabbler > jaded Spiritualist indeed..bloomin cheek...lol

I also believe that a skeptic would be better, mostly because they are all of the sudden convinced in something they earlier did not believe in. Personally, I try to stay open minded about a number of things and am open to new things generally.

The Skeptic by far! A believer is expecting to see something and look for something. A skeptic doesn't expect anything which makes it a more creditable find.

That's almost impossible to answer...A skeptic doesnt want to believe.....A believer wants to see so badly that there blinded...and could see things that there mind wants to believe.

Unlike Tamari's definition above, a skeptic is not someone who "doesn't want to believe," but instead someone who will not believe without evidence... and the more extraordinary the belief, the more extraordinary will be the evidence in support of it.

A skeptic, by definition, is someone who will not accept a premise (belief, theory, etc.) without sufficient supporting, preferably empirical, evidence needed to reach a likely and logical conclusion.

In other words, a true skeptic is objective... not caring one way or the other but dedicated only to the pursuit of Truth. And who better to be relied upon as a witness... whether to the paranormal or a crime or anything else?

I would pick the sceptic. Reasons are already stated above.

One thing though. If you want to make a sceptic belief some evidence, you've already lost. A sceptic or scientist (seems rather interchangeable here) would accept fact but to believe in those same fact is rather unprofessional. Facts by themselves will support or destroy a theory, believes will only earn ridicule...

I don't agree SarraS.....either one may hold too much prejudice.

Neither do I think that one's beliefs automatically call for ridicule.

But that's your problem in understanding:

The ability to accept facts without believe excludes prejudice.

And the ability to believe without facts when trying to get scientific proof incites ridicule.

Seems to me it would be a skeptic. A paranormal event would affect them more as it would be something they didnt believe in. Therefore they are more likely to remember and be able to reaccount the events.

skeptic by far
if they witnessed it and they don't believe in it people might side with them.

SarraS

My point was....going back to the original question, a diehard sceptic is as unlikely to find a truth as a gullible fool.

Which is why in my original post I decided against both of them.....I hope I have made myself understood now ?

in my opinion,a skeptik would be a better witness,just for the fact that if they saw it,theyd tell the truth,because they believe it wouldnt happen otherwise.

Well maybe they would do better in knowing that people don't always take to the best of things. But I think someone who finds it interesting but not obsessed with it would be the best for justifying what you have said.

Skeptik are less likely to stay behind the controled atmosmhere of hoaxsters.

a skeptical person because if something really happend they would tell everything.

As far as a witness, I think a skeptic.

Having said that, one would wonder to whom would the person bear witness. To a jury, the skeptic would certainly be more believable. Few juries would, as a group, accept paranormal activities as forensic evidence.

For a group who believed in paranormal activities, the believer would be more believable.

As far as truth or proof. These days, what would we accept as proof. Photographs, videos, scientific measurements? Probably not. I think we would be left to well observed and docuemented experiments. Possiblibly double blind studies. Published results in peer review journals detailing methods used.

The skeptic is likely to have a larger shearch field then a believer providing more scrutiny by existing evidence both proven hoaxes and still unclassifiable evidence.

There is a difference between a skeptic seeker ,and skeptic debunker,a bebunker will look into the history of the person that claims the siting they will request access to the location and attempt to recreate events.
Suspected frauds or scams are exposed this way and data bases are updated regularly with evidence of evolved complexity.

A skeptic seeker may only go to a site or investigation to interview and document the site location.More for documentation and research then for investigation.

The ideal witness would be methodical skeptic who is willing to go through all possible scientific reasons before concluding.

What I find interesting is that a lot of people think that a skeptic would be the better choice. Yet, many people on the rave seem to be believers in various paranormal events. Some even seem to be quite studied about the various areas.

I admit that I have read lots about various paranormal topics, mostly out of curiosity. So, I'm guessing that would make myself and others less than ideal candidates for giving an account haha.

An educated person is not a believer. They just know things, or have experienced them at some point. Those people are, in my opinion, even better sources than the skeptic.

Fair enough. I do enjoy reading material about various topic but I still consider myself to be quite the skeptic as far as believing any of it. Even when I read something that is meant to be factual (about a paranormal event) I still essentially take it as fiction because there is rarely any substantial proof.

When you see that people refuse to except a likely possibility without Neon proof (the same people that are willing to beleive on faith the existence ,and "Evidence"bfore them as authentic) yet when shown case studies that where identified as either hoax or other then paranormal yet they still hold fast to their faith,harmless really but with the exeption of the motive behind the event that attracts the fancy of the believer.A guy found that by projecting a strobe like spotlight with various patterns of black light against a cloth kite he could make ufo's appear outside of a town. He went to a popular talk show format and build a following,then started aranging siting groups to go out to his time share property.he converted three air force retired personal to his group. A background check revealed his discarge from the coast guard for selling duty rosters,a low down person who uses seekers as dupes.

as a curious person I enjoy the phenomna that comes in the form of behavior of people to such unwavering faith in the presence of clear evidence to other then paranormal explainations.

Definitely the skeptic. They would be know by their friends, family, and aquanitances as being a skeptic.

I think both would be a good witness. The skeptic would give a unbiased account of what they saw. Draw back is they will try to explain it in other ways. The believer will give more accurate accounts of what they see. drawback is that it could be said they will exaggerate the story to get the point across

I would have to say a skeptic.... my reason being is they are already weary of being decieved thus they would focus more clearly on the details of a paranormal thing rather than just see something flit like a ghostly shadow and automatically conclude its a ghost. a skeptic would work hard to reason it away rather than just believe for the sake of believing

I think some here confuse the term skeptic with cynic.

A skeptic, as many have also pointed out, are people for whom evidence figures first and foremost. A skeptic has honed a keen intellect and a scientific mind.

The cynic, on the other hand, is primarily someone who has been far too much a believer in the past and has gotten burned time and time again because of it without realizing even after all of that how to avoid it: by developing and honing the keen intellect and scientific mind of the skeptic. No... instead of investing themselves in their own education, they instead become bitter and jaded and... well... cynical.

In other words, cynics are believers who've had their own gullibility thrown in their faces once too often. ;)

Gregory > I don't think education affects one's eyesight, or the ability to give an honest statement.

In my dictionary :

Cynic > someone who sees little good in anything.

Sceptic > person who doubts.

In terms of the paranormal, being educated on a certain subject does give the person better "eyesight" (or a better understand of what they saw or felt), and a more accurate answer than a simple skeptic who doesn't know anything.

Gregory > then we must agree to differ, which is fine.

My answer was based on the original question.

UpirLikhyj, you have a good point there. I can see how some might have gotten those terms mixed up. I am definitely still leaning towards the skeptics account though haha.

Skeptic or believer... I think it really depends more on the person.

a skeptic is more likely to admit when the are duped by a formerly acredited item then a believer who may even seek to denounce the exposer/research,with that in mind if an event was witnessed by a skeptic and believer then the skeptic will bear more interviews then the believer.But if a skeptic has a record of just denouncing cases without research or exposer ,then they would be less sought out by any interested parties,a believer is one thing but a seeker is another I look for paranormal events but the shear volume of submitted items is enough to make even believers cynical as Upir points out.Hoaxsters are even unable to keep up with there own scams.

I think that the skeptical person would be the better witness. They would most likely give a better and more truthful account of what they had seen. Someone that believes in them would probably make stuff up to make it look even better.

The skeptic would give the more honest description. The believer would be thinking too much about other stories they had heard, the coincidences between other experiences similar to theirs, etc. The skeptic would tell exactly what they saw, possibly trying to come up with different reasons and scenerios but definately more accurate.

I would go with a sceptic. Realism is what most people want they don't want to hear about how bigfoot had a mohawk.....(I don't think that would happen) but many would rather hear more ralistic facts than what people's imagination concocted.

nether or both it would depend more on their back ground an knowledge of subjects at hand.

A skeptic. they would be known as someone who wouldnt believe in the paranormal and wouldnt exagerate or misunderstand something. If they have education on ht ematter and knew what they were talking about theyd be even more believable.

I'd say they both would. the skeptical person would be in denail and the believer would be in gaaa. So they have their strengths and their weaknesses.
But they are pretty much both reliable.

definately the skeptic, after he realize there is no logical reason for what happened he would give and honest and nonbias explanation.

the skeptic would give a detailed account but a believe may not leave out something a skeptic would because he may thing people would think he is nuts and not believe his own eyes.

i think the skeptic would tell the truth more than the believer...the believer would "try" to make the Event "fit" their beliefs, whereas the skeptic would report the facts.