73 replies to this topic

[Beany]

notoverrated, on 03 September 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

how would you scientifically measure a ghost or something? if you can thn tht would be the best way i guess, idk ghosts are confusing to me more then god and the beginning of the universe is -.-

I don't know how one could scientifically measure a ghost right now. On the other hand, at one time we couldn't see or even fathom stuff that can be seen only through a microscope or powerful telescope, like Hubble, and because we were unable to see those things many people disbelieved in their existence. Who knows where science will be 50 years in the future? I think it's going to take us to some strange and marvelous things. And I'm with you, I'm probably more confused about ghosts than the existence of God, even though I've seen "ghosts" but have never seen God. But I'm getting pretty good at being confused these days, because that sometimes means I've thrown out some pre-existing ideas & concepts that haven't yet been replaced. So in my little world, being confused is a good thing, a sign that change is occurring.

Edited by Beany, 03 September 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[Seeker79]

Chrlzs, on 02 September 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Nope, sorry.  It does NOT, especially if there is any sort of bias.  You don't think there is perhaps a cultural bias to believe in ufos=aliens/ghosts/paranormal/etc?
The plural of anecdote in this case simply means that the anecdoter merely saw some other anecdotes and/or movies/books/forum posts and/or is a troll.

In fact, I would argue the absolute opposite of your assertion.  How is it that we have increasing numbers of anecdotes, yet any actual evidence that passes even the most basic tests of 'proof' is becoming even scarcer than it has ever been?  There's a very obvious answer to that.  See if you can join the dots...

Well I don't know about ufos, but how is there increasing numbers of anecdotes with spirits? I would think as a percentage of people there is a decreasing number... You are not makeing assumptions on this are you?

It means nothing of the sort... That is a total bias assumption. I'm sure some anecdoters just copy others, but I can promise you there are those that don't.

Evidence is not proof it's evidence...there is plenty of evidence that hints at a spiritual side of existence ... But empirical fundamentalists can never accept it. Instead when they feel threatened they cling to empiricism like fundamentalist Christians do the bible. empiricism is just as flawed as annecdote just in different ways.

What are these basic tests of proof, what authority do they have?

Edited by Seeker79, 03 September 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[scowl]

FlyingAngel, on 03 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Science can't prove whatever can't be sensed with human's 5 senses.

You have to build a device that will reveal something to our five senses which was previously undetectable to us. We can't see x-rays but film sensitive to them will reveal them. We can't see electrons but materials will convert them into visible photons. All scientific instruments are extensions of our senses.

[JesseCuster]

FlyingAngel, on 03 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Science can't prove whatever can't be sensed with human's 5 senses.

Then how do radio telescopes and X-ray telescopes work when they detecting things incapable of being detected by our 5 senses?

How does infrasound and ultrasound technology work if they detect and record things outside human's 5 senses?

How do scientists create and detect electromagnetic phenomenon that can't be sensed with human's 5 senses?

How do electron microscopes work when detect things that can't be sensed with human's 5 senses?

How do X-ray and MRI machines work when they detect things in a human body that can't be sensed with human's 5 senses?

Etc.

The great thing about modern science is that it CAN detect all sorts of weird, wonderful, strange, bizarre, etc. things that are outside the scope of our natural senses and I don't know how it's possible for a scientifically literate person to not be aware of these things.

I don't think you've thought this patently false concept through to its logical conclusions.

[lone wolf2]

Sheets true photos can be faked but there is one little thing most people don't realize about digital pictures.
there is a file embedded with in the picture that tells the camera's settings at the time of the picture as well as any modifications to the photo.   That makes it easy to tell if there a fake with the right programs.  
The thing that convinced me is I went out with a paranormal group. With my camera and recorder and downloaded it onto my computer.   Then you know the equipment and photos haven't ben tampered with

[lone wolf2]

I noticed a lot of people here want scientific proof of spirits.  You forget one thing spirits are people.    So let me ask you this.  How many of you would like to be a lab rat? Cause with out a spirit to volunteer to be just that your not going to be able to test anything scientificly

[JGirl]

Sheetz, on 24 August 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

For all skeptics and non-believers, what proof (or type of proof) would you need in order to change your mind.  Is there anything you can think of that, if shown to you, would make you believe in ghosts?  (outside of you actually witnessing your own event of course)  Can you give us those things whether its scientific or otherwise which would be deemed as proof and believable by you once said evidence was shown or exhibited?



What we do know:

no photographs - all non-believers will say in this digital age anything can be doctored
no recordings - will be deemed as outside RF interference or our brains trying to form words from the "noise"
no videos - same outlook as photos
no evps - same as recordings

so...what is left as what could be considered actual and real evidence?

note, I'm not trying to be facetious - I'm genuinely wondering if there is anything at all that could be presented that made you a believer.

for an absolute nonbeliever to turn around i'd say they would have to actually have a personal experience that they could not explain away.
for a skeptic, same as above, or irrefutable scientific proof of the phenomenon
for a skeptical believer, pretty much anything that looks or rings true is given consideration and/or benefit of the doubt. after all, we want it to be true, don't we? lol

Edited by JGirl, 07 December 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[JamieSymptom]

FlyingAngel, on 03 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Science can't prove whatever can't be sensed with human's 5 senses.

Hahaha! If you truly believe that, you should have paid more attention in school.

lone wolf2, on 07 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Sheets true photos can be faked but there is one little thing most people don't realize about digital pictures.
there is a file embedded with in the picture that tells the camera's settings at the time of the picture as well as any modifications to the photo.   That makes it easy to tell if there a fake with the right programs.  
The thing that convinced me is I went out with a paranormal group. With my camera and recorder and downloaded it onto my computer.   Then you know the equipment and photos haven't ben tampered with

Actually, a lot of people know about metadata. And they would know your statement is not entirely accurate:
- EXIF, the piece of metadata most are familiar with can be easily changed and 'faked' by pretty simple programs, as it is just a block of text. Some of the manufacturer specific data is harder to spoof due to it's undocumented binary formats - but not necessarily impossible. If a forensic program claims to be able to read that data, then it can likely be inserted also.
- If you save a picture onto your computer, that act alone changes some of the metadata and identifies the picture as not fully original.

If someone were to present a ghost photo for metadata analysis, it would be easy to disprove it as being shoddily faked (this happens all the time) - however it would be much harder to prove that a picture HADN'T been expertly fiddled.

True, most hoaxers don't have these expert metadata manipulation skills, which I guess is why the photos that are trumpeted as being 'unaltered' just show unimpressive orbs or paraedolia, and the more dramatic ones get dismissed instantly.

TL:DR - don't put too much trust in metadata.

[JesseCuster]

lone wolf2, on 07 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

there is a file embedded with in the picture that tells the camera's settings at the time of the picture as well as any modifications to the photo.   That makes it easy to tell if there a fake with the right programs.  
The thing that convinced me is I went out with a paranormal group. With my camera and recorder and downloaded it onto my computer.   Then you know the equipment and photos haven't ben tampered with

EXIF data can be easily edited.

Lots of photos don't even have EXIF data at all because the image data has been copied and pasted into a new file before resizing, uploading, etc., which doesn't transfer the EXIF data along with it, therefore there is no info at all to be examiend.

The metadata attached to a photo tells you when the photo was last modified, but gives no clue to the actual modifications.  Merely resaving or resizing a photo counts as a "modification".

[Hazzard]

Spirits, ghosts, aliens, angels or God,...?

It seems that some people have a problem separating between personal evidence and scientific evidence.

Personal evidence (in science) isnt worth the paper its written on.

The reason is simple. In science, all measurable effects are measured several times, often in several different ways by different scientists. The methods and conclusions are then examined by other scientists to try to remove any and all bias that may be present. This ensures that the results obtained are objective.

So it doesnt matter how much you believe something to be true or real, that does not make it objectively true.

[ArthurDales]

Seeker79, on 03 September 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Evidence is not proof it's evidence...there is plenty of evidence that hints at a spiritual side of existence ... But empirical fundamentalists can never accept it. Instead when they feel threatened they cling to empiricism like fundamentalist Christians do the bible. empiricism is just as flawed as annecdote just in different ways.

I'd like to see some of this evidence.

[Oppono Astos]

lone wolf2, on 07 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Sheets true photos can be faked but there is one little thing most people don't realize about digital pictures.
there is a file embedded with in the picture that tells the camera's settings at the time of the picture as well as any modifications to the photo.   That makes it easy to tell if there a fake with the right programs.  
The thing that convinced me is I went out with a paranormal group. With my camera and recorder and downloaded it onto my computer.   Then you know the equipment and photos haven't ben tampered with

Notwithstanding EXIF editing utils; composite images created in-camera will show as unedited metadata.

[shaddow134]

I would accept any evidence if it was verified by a recognised Scientific source but please don't plaster a random Youtube video on here and then expect it to be immediately accepted as proof.

[lone wolf2]

I can't say for certain that a random youtube video hasn't ben tampered with. And we don't post our videos on youtube as a matter of privacy.