Talk:Spectral evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On this page, "spectral evidence" there is a ref. to Cotton Mather urging the acceptance of such evidence, whereas on the biography page of Mather it is said that he argued against its acceptance. I'm not sure which view is correct, I just wanted to point out the discrepancy.
- The Cotton Mather article is being too "kind" to him: he may have argued for caution (I don't think he did so in a way which suggested he was serious), but he certainly argued that it should be accepted as evidence. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Though apparently "Wikiproject Paranormal" wants to claim it, "spectral evidence" is a legal term, and has nothing to do with actual paranormal phenomena. - Nunh-huh 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say a 'vision' is pretty paranormal. --InShaneee 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'd say something induced by ergotamine is paranormal? Good think you don't have final say in the matter, then. - Nunh-huh 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of "[sic]"-cing the use of "Personate" in the title of Cotton (senior)'s book. It may be an uncommon form these days (more often replaced by "Impersonate" in it's various cases and conjugations), but it's perfectly correct English. Actually, in some English-speaking countries, it's language you'd find every week in the newspaper, if not almost every day - Scot's legalese talks of "personating" someone when (for example) you get sign a claim form in someone else's name at the Social Security (American English : "Welfare") office while claiming to be them. Very common crime. A Karley 07:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)