Paranormal: Yes or No?
- Thread starter Ashley_Price
- Start date
Haunted Worlds said:
Randi's challenge had nothing to do with photographs or videos - he simply asked the people that claim to be able to perform these amazing tricks to do them under scientific conditions - they all failed.
The saddest were the dowsers. They were asked to demonstrate that their dowsing rods pointed to the water when they knew which bin the water was in. They all could. When they didn't know which bin the water was in they couldn't do it.
What's even sadder, after they'd failed, the majority still thought they could dowse. Our minds are very easily fooled.
Because they're religious wackos that can believe in anything, why else?
Upvote
0
Yes
Pretty amazing accident .
Well we don't actually know what the odds are or even that it's amazing. It may be like tossing a coin 50 times - almost inevitable. And what's so special about us?
That's fine so long as you actually understand that being agnostic means. Most 'agnostics' don't.
Upvote
0
R
Root 66 Woodshop
I know it had nothing to do with Photo's/video's I know it was more to do with a "personal experience" for Randall... the point I was trying to make was that there is no way of proving anything of a paranormal nature... Randalls shown everyone this.
The main factor in the field of the Paranormal is actually "Personal Experience"... people claim to have bore witness to a spiritual event or ghostly event, some even demonic... but as I said previously, the fact still remains that 99% of my visit to people's homes have been due to man made phenomena... the experience has just been misunderstood.
For me personally, I honestly can't explain what I do in words... other than I am able to tell people something about themselves when meeting them for the first time... in some cases it does feel as though someone is telling me something of importance to tell that person in particular... other times it's like a "day-dream"... on one occasion I had pains in my groin area when I was stood next to a woman that I'd never met before and probably never will... when I doubled over she turned and asked what was up me with... I told her about the pain in my groin and I said it was as if something was missing... I don't know why I said it, it just felt right to... she literally went pale and said that she'd just had a miscarriage the day before, called me a freak and moved away from me very quickly... some people claim to do what I do and they're a "Medium"... I don't class myself as one of these people... I call it simply a "Connection"...
Call me mad, a cooke, ... I really don't give two hoots... it doesn't offend me at all... what does offend me is when people call me a fraudster or a liar without actually knowing me as a person... in my line of work I have to keep the jobs separate although they do tend to come hand in hand at times.
The main factor in the field of the Paranormal is actually "Personal Experience"... people claim to have bore witness to a spiritual event or ghostly event, some even demonic... but as I said previously, the fact still remains that 99% of my visit to people's homes have been due to man made phenomena... the experience has just been misunderstood.
For me personally, I honestly can't explain what I do in words... other than I am able to tell people something about themselves when meeting them for the first time... in some cases it does feel as though someone is telling me something of importance to tell that person in particular... other times it's like a "day-dream"... on one occasion I had pains in my groin area when I was stood next to a woman that I'd never met before and probably never will... when I doubled over she turned and asked what was up me with... I told her about the pain in my groin and I said it was as if something was missing... I don't know why I said it, it just felt right to... she literally went pale and said that she'd just had a miscarriage the day before, called me a freak and moved away from me very quickly... some people claim to do what I do and they're a "Medium"... I don't class myself as one of these people... I call it simply a "Connection"...
Call me mad, a cooke, ... I really don't give two hoots... it doesn't offend me at all... what does offend me is when people call me a fraudster or a liar without actually knowing me as a person... in my line of work I have to keep the jobs separate although they do tend to come hand in hand at times.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
Have I stepped into a parallel universe, populated by nincompoops???
The World is happily going to hell in a hand basket -
The World is happily going to hell in a hand basket -
- A lunatic has taken over the White House and is now alienating Western governments everywhere.
- Russian software engineers have managed to infiltrate government and company IT systems in every major economy.
- UK government spending is spiralling out of control.
- UK government debt is also spiralling out of control.
- UK private debt is at an all-time record high.
- Inflationary pressures are building up.
- Neo-Nazis are on the rise in every European country.
- Britain is about to commit economic suicide.
- Chinese companies are buying their way into Western industry, using vast amounts of borrowed money that they will be very lucky to be able to pay back.
- Scotland is about to leave the Union.
- Poverty and homelessness is rising in the UK and every town and city now has to have food-banks.
- There is a full-scale civil war being fought in the Ukraine.
- Nicki Minaj hasn't released a new CD in over two years.
- Our new Great Dane is still limping and nobody knows why.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #93
Produce a new technology and someone will find a way to use it for a hoax...
As it happens, exactly 100 years ago to the year, there was the case of two sisters (one of 16, the other of 9) taking photos of fairies in their garden. The pictures were examined by people like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and a photography expert of the time, Harold Snelling. Both of whom deemed the photos as genuine.
Here is one of the photographs:
It was only many years later, when they were elderly, that one of the sisters admitted that they had cut out pictures from a book on fairies, had positioned the cut out, and posed while the other took the photograph.
Upvote
0
R
Root 66 Woodshop
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - I find it annoying though when people who claim that it is fraudulent have no reasoning other than the plain old "it just is" argument... No one has proven anything of a paranormal nature, likewise no one has ever disproved it all completely... I'd rather have an open mind than a closed one... having a closed mind reminds me of members of the KKK or ISIS
Next minute, people will be telling me that we haven't really been to the moon either!
Next minute, people will be telling me that we haven't really been to the moon either!
Upvote
0
It's not 'likewise'. The two sides of the argument are not equal. Thousands of paranormal claims have been proven false - either by deliberate fakery or by finding natural causes for the event. Not a single paranormal event has been shown to be real. We now have vastly improved methods of detection and a group of physical laws that say that the paranormal can not exist.
The evidence is all in one direction - away from these ancient superstitions.
And, of course, it's impossible to prove a negative. But this is no reason to say that it's ok to believe in it - it would be irrational given what we actually know.
This open mind/closed mind stuff is merely an excuse for an irrational belief. The scientific process itself is an open one. It forms tentative conclusions given the facts available to it. If the facts change, the theory changes. But until there's evidence for something, it's irrational to belief in it anyway.
I know this is meant as a joke but it's the same sort of reverse logic. There is real evidence that the moon landings happened and none that it didn't.
Upvote
0
So let me see ,a while ago the idea that splitting something that can not be seen could blow up the whole planet.
Correct, that idea only occurred when science discovered some things about how matter works, they built a theory about it supported by mathematics, predicted an outcome, created an experiment and confirmed it. No-one said they could build a bomb by splitting atoms before there was any concept of atoms.
Dowsing was not built around that paradigm. Someone just imagined that a forked stick could find water based on nothing at all. Science said, 'well ok, this is bonkers but it's easily tested' they build an experiment, it fails. It repeatedly fails. No matter how many ways it's tested, it fails. Science bins the idea. But wtf? the dowser is still convinced.
Can you see the difference? It's not a defence of a failed belief, that we know about things today that we didn't know about yesterday.
Upvote
0
I've found this thread an interesting read but that point on dowsing caught my eye. I self built a detached property in a remote spot of the Highlands and whilst I personally had relatively easy access to the water main (500 mts away) I lived there long enough to know that as the area was primarily farm land, that didn't prevent farmers offering plots of building land with outline planning consent up for sale. The common problem was that many of these plots didn't have any sensible access to mains water.
There was at least two guys that I knew of that dowsed for water and it didn't involve luck at any stage of their work. Plot owners proceeded to erect properties in very rural areas knowing that water was there.
Only my 2cents
Upvote
0
There was at least two guys that I knew of that dowsed for water and it didn't involve luck at any stage of their work. Plot owners proceeded to erect properties in very rural areas knowing that water was there.
Only my 2cents
Yes I know. There are folk tales of this sort everywhere you look. My mother-in-law was convinced she could do it.
But the fact remains that this has been tested over and over again with people who say they can do it, agree that the tests are fair, then fail.
This is a short Dawkins test
This is a long and extensive Randi test. Towards the end you hear why dowsers can detect water in Australia that explains why your Scottish friends can too. I really recommend you watch both.
Upvote
0
So, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy? Nobody's PROVED they don't exist.
Isis are religious nutters. Another bunch that believe in things that don't exist.
Upvote
0
Something I do find quite interesting in regards to the paranormal is how humans can have a tendency to go from one extreme to the other.
They take the concept of questioning everything, which is so often extolled by the scientific community, and proceed to question the proven conclusions of science.
The flat earth societies are a good example, as are the moon landing conspiracy theories.
Some of it is religious, but others simply refuse to believe anything they are unable to conclude for themselves. They do not trust science, or the experiments conducted, as they may be flawed or doctored in some way. They even consider themselves "above" the scientific community as they are more sceptical.
I actually knew of a chap once who was unsure about the existence of air. He couldn't see it or touch it for himself, so he was always sceptical of any evidence which attempted to prove its existence.
But at the end of the day, aren't we all believers to some degree? Science is one of my favourite topics, and I'll occasionally talk about discoveries in space and physics. However, I've never ran these experiments myself. I simply have a belief - faith - that what the scientific community tells me is correct.
Sure, there are white papers and huge amounts of data available, but I don't read these in any great detail, much like 98% of amateur enthusiasts don't either. In fact, I put complete faith in other scientists to scrutinise the claims for me, and I tend to side with the majority verdict like most do.
When you strip everything back, you have to wonder if this belief is really that different. After all, whilst I understand everything I've mentioned above, I'll still continue to have an unwavering belief in what the scientific community tells me they've discovered and tells me they've proven without really questioning it, and I don't think anyone could convince me to do otherwise. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
They take the concept of questioning everything, which is so often extolled by the scientific community, and proceed to question the proven conclusions of science.
The flat earth societies are a good example, as are the moon landing conspiracy theories.
Some of it is religious, but others simply refuse to believe anything they are unable to conclude for themselves. They do not trust science, or the experiments conducted, as they may be flawed or doctored in some way. They even consider themselves "above" the scientific community as they are more sceptical.
I actually knew of a chap once who was unsure about the existence of air. He couldn't see it or touch it for himself, so he was always sceptical of any evidence which attempted to prove its existence.
But at the end of the day, aren't we all believers to some degree? Science is one of my favourite topics, and I'll occasionally talk about discoveries in space and physics. However, I've never ran these experiments myself. I simply have a belief - faith - that what the scientific community tells me is correct.
Sure, there are white papers and huge amounts of data available, but I don't read these in any great detail, much like 98% of amateur enthusiasts don't either. In fact, I put complete faith in other scientists to scrutinise the claims for me, and I tend to side with the majority verdict like most do.
When you strip everything back, you have to wonder if this belief is really that different. After all, whilst I understand everything I've mentioned above, I'll still continue to have an unwavering belief in what the scientific community tells me they've discovered and tells me they've proven without really questioning it, and I don't think anyone could convince me to do otherwise. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #106
As someone said early on it is very hard (impossible?) to prove a negative, and that's where the conspiracy theorists have a field day.
Do you know there are those that believe the chemtrails left by planes as they fly are actually poisonousness chemicals meant to keep us brainwashed or subdued?
But some things like the paranormal/multiple universes/other dimensions etc. are more difficult because (again as has been said before) although science has "disproved" them that's only up to this point in time. But then even when Galileo proved the earth revolved round the sun he was accused of heresy and even forbidden by the church from teaching or advocating these theories, because they still wanted people to believe the earth was the centre of the universe and that everything revolved around it.
I often wonder if there are things we cannot see (call them what you will) simply because of the way animals, especially cats, will suddenly get spooked or attracted and so stare at an "empty space". Are they actually seeing something beyond our visual range? I know some theorists believe our eyes actually see far more than we think, but our brain filters out all the unnecessary visual information.
Do you know there are those that believe the chemtrails left by planes as they fly are actually poisonousness chemicals meant to keep us brainwashed or subdued?
But some things like the paranormal/multiple universes/other dimensions etc. are more difficult because (again as has been said before) although science has "disproved" them that's only up to this point in time. But then even when Galileo proved the earth revolved round the sun he was accused of heresy and even forbidden by the church from teaching or advocating these theories, because they still wanted people to believe the earth was the centre of the universe and that everything revolved around it.
I often wonder if there are things we cannot see (call them what you will) simply because of the way animals, especially cats, will suddenly get spooked or attracted and so stare at an "empty space". Are they actually seeing something beyond our visual range? I know some theorists believe our eyes actually see far more than we think, but our brain filters out all the unnecessary visual information.
Upvote
0
This is a common thought but I think it's just a confusion of ideas and words.
Belief is only needed if you have no evidence for something. So you can say correctly that you believe that fairies exist even if that belief is a pure delusion.
But If you say you believe the Higgs Boson exists even though you can't see it or understand the evidence for it, it's not the same thing at all. It's more accurate to say that you accept the existence of the Higgs Boson. This is because we know that the scientific process is behind it and that those that understand these things have proven that it does actually exist.
To put it crudely, we know science and the scientific process works. It's self correcting - when someone gets something wrong there's thousands of others ready and willing to pounce on it and make a name for themselves. And it ends with technology that works. Even though we might not be able to test everything science says ourselves, we know that if we made the effort and life was infinite we could do it. Because there's evidence.
We accept and trust in science rather than believe in it.
Upvote
0
Ugh, you put paranormal alongside multiple dimentions!
You can't/mustn't do that. The evidence for multiple dimensions and universes is mathematical. They're hypotheses awaiting confirmation by empirical science. There is no such evidence - even theoretical - for ghosts etc.
Galileo was a scientist using observations to establish the truth. The church already knew the truth and insisted he was wrong for dogmatic and power reasons. That's the face off and it's exactly what's going on in this discussion; it's irrational belief versus rational science. We need to seperate these two 'magisteriums' in our minds. When we talk about the paranormal, we're talking about believe. And we only need belief because we haven't a scrap of evidence for it. There are no such theological barriers in science, no-one can declare you wrong if you have the evidence.
Sheesh. The search for the paranormal in the ordinary continues.......
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #110
I wasn't specifically meaning the paranormal with that paragraph about the possibility of animals seeing things beyond our visual range, I literally meant is there anything that we can't see that cats and other animals can. Many animals can hear sounds outside our audio range, so who is to say there are not things outside our visual range? I am not suggesting that there is some life form or other entity, simply something there.
Upvote
0
We know what other animals can see - bees can see UV, kestrels have extremely accurate movement detection, dogs don't see colours as well as us, some insects have colour vision at night, bats have awful vision but have radar etc, etc etc.
We know this because we know how the receptors in animal eyes work and how animals behave. There's nothing mystical about any of this and there's nothing that all the animals in the world have that humans haven't got themselves or in their instruments.
And your evidence for this is what?
Upvote
0
R
Reba
And this is where your narrow mindness fails you. We know all this NOW there was a time when didn't know it. Neither you or I know what science will come up with tomorrow. If the world was only populated by people with your lack of inquisitiveness then we would still be in the stone age. You need to step away from your precious knowledge chest that is Google and start thinking for yourself, then you may discover new things rather than just rehashing the old.
Upvote
0
Yes, and that ignorance caused us to believe all manner of ridiculous things which all these primitive superstitions are based on.
This isn't about narrow mindedness or closed mindedness - it's about lack of any evidence at all for the things you dream about, and the extraordinary amount of evidence pointing the other way. Did you watch those dowsing videos? People really want to believe this stuff but every time it's properly tested it falls flat on its face.
Now this is just insulting - you're just going to have to put up with me knowing things if you want to continue discussing them.
And please stop making excuses for your lack of anything at all to back up your beliefs. The things that you desperately want to believe in can't interact with our real, physical world in the ways people say they do without detection. If ghosts appear in doorways so that we can see and hear them, they are creating visual and auditory signals that in the rod and cone receptors in our eyes and the hair receptors in our ears can detect we'd have hard, non-controversial evidence of the paranormal all over the place. We don't find any. The most rational reason for this is because it just doesn't exist.
Upvote
0
An interesting off-shoot of this is the idea of the universe being a computer simulation.
Elon Musk seems to think the chance of us not being in a simulation is one in billions:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...mulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html
Many scientists and physicists also believe it is possible:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
Of course, a larger number of scientists believe it's nonsense as there's zero evidence, but it's interesting how many of those deeply rooted in science, logic and reasoning are asking such questions.
This is what worries me though: If we can't detect something with our evolved senses, and we are currently unable to build tools which can detect something, then the idea of its existence is deemed remote and often ridiculed.
We can certainly continue to use the scientific method and test theories based on the mathematical calculations of what we currently understand. It's all we can really do at this stage.
However, I sincerely hope that we don't shirk asking more extreme questions for fear of being ridiculed or damaging reputations. That will take us backwards, not forwards.
Elon Musk seems to think the chance of us not being in a simulation is one in billions:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...mulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html
Many scientists and physicists also believe it is possible:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
Of course, a larger number of scientists believe it's nonsense as there's zero evidence, but it's interesting how many of those deeply rooted in science, logic and reasoning are asking such questions.
This is what worries me though: If we can't detect something with our evolved senses, and we are currently unable to build tools which can detect something, then the idea of its existence is deemed remote and often ridiculed.
We can certainly continue to use the scientific method and test theories based on the mathematical calculations of what we currently understand. It's all we can really do at this stage.
However, I sincerely hope that we don't shirk asking more extreme questions for fear of being ridiculed or damaging reputations. That will take us backwards, not forwards.
Upvote
0
R
Reba
You don't get it do you? It's because people did believe things could be done when most others ridiculed them that you have your precious facts today. We are a long way from knowing everything. So tomorrow when someone comes up with conclusive evidence of ghosts, aliens or the afterlife then you'll accept it without question because there is evidence. So why close your mind today rather than seek out tomorrow's facts? After all if all humanity thought like you the world would still be flat because there was no evidence to the contrary so it couldn't be anything else.
Upvote
0
This sort of stuff just makes me laugh out loud. The joke is on us of course, if it's impossible to tell whether we're in the matrix or not it doesn't matter if we are - this is what we've got. And, of course a swift kick up the backside is enough for most of us to know what's real.
And, btw, the odds of being in the matrix are between 1 and infinity and no-one can say which. The thing about probability is that you need to know the bounds to know the likelyhood. We know that the odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 17 million because we know how many tickets were sold. If we didn't know that, we can't know the probability.
Not particularly - scientists are also human. I understand some of them even belive in God(s)
Then we're in the matrix. We can't see it or detect it - so to actively believe in it would be rather crazy wouldn't it? I keep making the point but it keeps getting ignored - the paranormal that people talk about are things that have supposedly been seen or heard - that means they CAN be detected. But they're not. Ever.
Plus, of course, we have the inconvenience of the thousands of hoaxes and scams on the paranormal, plus claims that CAN be tested - like the dowsers - that are routinely shown to be plain wrong.
What questions? There are no hypothesises and everytime science looks at this stuff it falls apart. There's no conspiracy here, this is Nobel prize stuff, but you're unlikely to get a research grant for it. And there's a good reason for that.
But if and when there's anything to look at science will be all over it.
Upvote
0
Get it? The 'there are more things in this workd than we can possibly imagine' argument has been used by charlatans, high priests and woo merchants for thousands of years. It's hardly a difficult argument to 'get' - but it's just an excuse for having no evidence for an irrational belief.
Of course I get it. It's just wrong headed and naive. You can't tell me a single thing, not even a hint of anything properly paranormal. Yet I can point to thousands of things that have been claimed to be paranormal but have since been shown to be absolutely normal. From lightening to viruses. Science exposes paranormal claims, it never ever confirms them. It wasn't science that believed in geocentricity, it was the church that held a belief without evidence and it was science that debunked it.
Science tests everything, that's why we found that the world isn't flat. No one has a 'closed' mind. Find it something to test and it will test it, But you can't can you?
Upvote
0
Seems to me that if something is observed / heard / felt / happens then either its the result of something science can explain or something science cannot explain. Yet.
There have been many eyewitness statements about seeing something they themselves cannot explain except in terms such as ghost, poltergeist, feeling etc.
Eyewitness statements are always going to be subjective and quite likely edited by people over time as they come across theories, ideas and discussions that seem to explain it in a manner to which they are inclined.
A conspiracy theory nut who thinks he saw an alien will accept the explanation of an alien but won't accept an explanation that is mundane. He leans towards the idea of an alien so it colours his eyewitness statement.
There are other eyewitnesses who do not have the preconceived notions and merely describe what they perceived.
If several hundred people - likely thousands or more - observe something over the course of many years in many places that are not explained then that does suggest science has some catching up to do.
After all as was pointed out earlier in the thread, science relies on observation.
I'm not for one minute suggesting every ghost sighting is evidence of ghosts. However there are enough unexplained things to suggest science has not yet finished discovering all there is to know.
In Victorian times there was at one time a belief that science had discovered everything and there was nothing more to discover.
I keep an open mind, perhaps science and technology will at some point catch up to what is happening and explain it all. Or maybe there will always be mysteries - like where that item I had in my hand just a few minutes ago has gone to?
Or why is the duck billed platypus?
There have been many eyewitness statements about seeing something they themselves cannot explain except in terms such as ghost, poltergeist, feeling etc.
Eyewitness statements are always going to be subjective and quite likely edited by people over time as they come across theories, ideas and discussions that seem to explain it in a manner to which they are inclined.
A conspiracy theory nut who thinks he saw an alien will accept the explanation of an alien but won't accept an explanation that is mundane. He leans towards the idea of an alien so it colours his eyewitness statement.
There are other eyewitnesses who do not have the preconceived notions and merely describe what they perceived.
If several hundred people - likely thousands or more - observe something over the course of many years in many places that are not explained then that does suggest science has some catching up to do.
After all as was pointed out earlier in the thread, science relies on observation.
I'm not for one minute suggesting every ghost sighting is evidence of ghosts. However there are enough unexplained things to suggest science has not yet finished discovering all there is to know.
In Victorian times there was at one time a belief that science had discovered everything and there was nothing more to discover.
I keep an open mind, perhaps science and technology will at some point catch up to what is happening and explain it all. Or maybe there will always be mysteries - like where that item I had in my hand just a few minutes ago has gone to?
Or why is the duck billed platypus?
Upvote
0
Well, as the argument goes, we are moving forward at such a speed regarding virtual reality and simulations that we will very quickly reach a point where virtual reality is indistinguishable from reality. This is likely to happen within three or four human lifetimes from when the microchip was first invented, so it's the most miniscule blip in the age of the universe.
Given the size and age of the universe, it's therefore likely that many other civilisations have achieved such simulations already, given the speed of progress which can be attained after basic technology is invented.
If this is the case, and billions of indistinguishable simulations exist in the universe, the odds of us not being in one of these simulations (i.e. base reality) is indeed one in billions. It's basic maths.
And furthermore, if we aren't in a simulation, then this is a big concern, as given the statistical likelihood of being in a simulation, it becomes far more likely that no civilisation has survived for long enough to advance that far.
One thing Musk said is spot on though. The human race itself will either eventually create a simulation that we can't tell apart from the real world (and soon), or we'll die out before we get there.
The same goes for any civilisation in the universe, and given that we only know the size of the observable universe, and that alone contains at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, there is an extremely high probability that there are many simulations already out there (especially as it would be possible for a civilisation to create far more than one).
So looking at the basic statistical probabilities, it's far, far more likely that we're either in a simulation, or no civilisation exists long enough to create one, than us being in base reality.
Now this argument falls apart if you believe we're the only advanced civilisation in the universe (or one of the very few). However, with the Drake Equation:
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-pl...species-universe-are-extremely-low-180958975/
We find that the odds of us being the only civilisation to have ever existed in our galaxy alone is 1 in 60 billion, and given the number of galaxies, it's highly probable that hundreds of billions of civilisations exist today in the universe.
That would (unless civilisations die out quickly), result in billions of indistinguishable simulations, so we are either in one of them (highly probable), or we aren't, or we're one of the few/only advanced civilisations in the universe (both probabilities of one in billions).
Proof? No. But even Stephen Hawking, and pretty much any mainstream scientist, thinks the chance of an abundance of advanced civilisations having never existed in the universe is extremely low. The math just makes sense.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Why Your Team Keeps Asking the Same Questions (And What to Actually Do About It)Every small business owner knows the moment. You're halfway through...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
