Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
lestatdelioncourt

Response to "no scientific evidence" of ghost

357 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Frank Merton

Are you trying to troll? Because if you're not, you certainly are giving the appearance of it.

The words are not remotely synonymous, and I can't imagine any reason you'd say such a thing except to generate outrage in those who take paranormal subjects seriously.

I don't think you do your views any good by dismissing those who see things otherwise as trolls.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

So...you admit that, of two possible phenomena with similar qualities of evidence, you take one more seriously than the other, purely because that one fits within your belief system while the other does not?

We all do that; that you credit anecdotes and other unscientific evidence shows you are doing the same thing. The question is whether one has a realistic or a wishful-thinking basis from which they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

I suppose I'd call that a myth complex...and to be sure, there's an enormous and ancient myth complex built up around the subject of ghosts. Thankfully, there's a little more substance to the evidence than just that. Not that you'd find that out just trolling the internet or watching TV, of course...

But to be more specific:

If there is more to it, where it is it? I keep hearing about it but like a ghost, it never seems to show up. I started looking into this long before anyone knew what the Internet and ghost shows are and I still have not found anything compelling.

All of those are true of ball lightning as well. That's why ball lightning is such an excellent litmus test to bring up when other unverified phenomena are discussed.

No, they are not. Ball lightning has been documented to some degree. Physicists and meteorologists still don't know the formation mechanism but generally agree it happens.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to a specific study or group of studies, or are you generalizing based on your overall impressions of ghost evidence? What do you mean by "enhanced"—that more noise generates more reports, or that more noise generates higher quality reports? What data sets are you considering, and what kind of "noise?" You'll have to give me more information to work with here.

Examples of adding noise to the data:

1. Working in the dark

2. Cheap audio recorders prone to RF ingress and CODEC noise. Some ghost busters use compression and gain techniques to amplify this noise.

3. Random and rapid RF scanning (ghost box et al)

4. White noise and TV static used as transmission medium. Some methods use the old TVs tuned between stations.

5. Automatic writing

6. Mediums parlor tricks

7. Using the miligauss range on EMF detectors (makes tiny changes seem much bigger)

8. Looking for meaning in the CODEC artifacts seen in low light and night vision videos.

There are others but you get the idea.

I don't believe that ghost evidence requires any such things. Certainly, if you take the entire "myth complex" that's built up around ghosts as an inseparable part of the phenomena, you'd get that impression; but there's nothing that requires one to do that. In fact, I'd say that abandoning the popular theories of why and how ghosts operate is the first and most necessary step to treating the subject scientifically.

ANY phenomena that isn't understood is going to have specious ideas build up around it, because human beings are a curious lot—we don't like not understanding things. If there aren't any valid explanations around, we'll formulate our own with what limited data we have access to. Of course most of those are going to be wildly wrong; but that doesn't mean the phenomena behind them is non-existent.

So many times here people have said that science is inadequate when it comes to explaining ghosts. Ghosts somehow exist outside of science and science it to blame for not seeing the obvious. People say they can see, hear, feel, and even smell ghosts but science is somehow not equipped to detect them. Unless of course, the person doing the detecting is carrying a $25 EMF meter. Most importantly, there is no connection between the ghost hypothesis and any established science. Some feel that is due to limitations of science and refuse to accept mundane explanations.

Again, you have to separate the evidence from the myths that build up around the evidence. The "unverified assumptions" that you're talking about are all part of the myth complex, yes—but the myths are not the phenomenon itself.

Unverified assumptions such as:

1. Ghosts are said to be electromagnetic in nature.

2. Ghosts can somehow change the electrical values in the tuner in a Frank's box.

3. The inventor of the Frank's box received the design psychically from the spirit world.

4. Ghost are said to draw energy from their surroundings.

5. Ghosts are said to create cold spots.

6. Ghosts are said to be more active at night / in the dark.

7. Ghosts are said to be able to drain batteries.

8. Ghosts are said to be rooted to a location.

9. Ghosts are said to be the result of stress, tragedy, violent death.

10. Some ghosts are said to be playbacks of past events.

There is no reason to believe any of these things are true but are frequently cited in evidence.

No; as far as science is concerned, beliefs without substantial evidence are irrelevant.

Steadfastly clinging to the belief despite the lack of evidence is fantasy.

Making a statement using exaggerated and emotionally laden terms designed to insult one's opponents is, in fact, taking cheap shots.

Opponent? Interesting choice of words. Getting emotional about it indicates an attachment to the idea that transcends reason. That is called belief.

Well, of course not. They're tested by experimentation.

And peer review which includes challenging the hypothesis.

Of course not; I just really don't see how any of this testing and rigorous verification is accomplished by calling something "synonymous with fantasy."

Show that it is not. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Look, I can see that the reality or non-reality of ghost phenomena is a highly charged subject to you, and I know what feels like to be frustrated and angry when it seems like your words are falling on deaf ears; but that doesn't make it okay to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Packing your statements with inflammatory words doesn't make your argument any stronger—quite the opposite, in fact. It makes it look like you're trying to hide the weakness of your argument behind a smokescreen of insult.

When you go around waving red flags in front of your points, no one actually sees your points—all they notice is the red flag.

It is not a charged issue to me. I have no attachment to it. There is no frustration or anger on my part. I just want the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It is not a charged issue to me. I have no attachment to it. There is no frustration or anger on my part. I just want the truth.

Ah the objective, unemotional truth. Good luck. :yes:
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

I don't think you do your views any good by dismissing those who see things otherwise as trolls.

Well, that's all right, then, because I didn't do anything like that.

I didn't dismiss sinewave; I asked him if he meant his words to sound as insulting as they appeared. (I try to give everyone some benefit of doubt—sometimes people honestly don't realize how their words or actions look to others.)

I didn't call sinewave a troll; I said he was giving the appearance of troll behavior. (I always try to focus on the behavior and not the person. We all have faults and make mistakes from time to time, but no one wants to be defined by them.)

And I didn't say any of these things because sinewave "saw things otherwise;" I said them because he phrased his statement in exaggerated and inflammatory language that seemed designed not to convey information but to provoke anger. It wasn't his sentiment I objected to, but the form in which he expressed it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

There are ways of accusing people of something without actually doing it, such as asking rhetorical questions the way you did. It's kinda clever actually because later you can deny doing it, as you just did, although people see through such things better than I think you give them credit for.

Personally I think ghosts are real enough, but I think the vast majority of reports are not ghosts and I would never trust even my own experience on something of this sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz

Anecdotes are the lowest form of evidence. Feelings, and perception are no more useful. EVPs, and other evidence gathered using common ghost busting tools are not valid for several reasons. The first being the use of those devices is not based on established knowledge but wild assumptions often attributed to a single person. On top of that, the average ghost hunter does not have a clue about how a given device works much less what mundane things can affect the data. The evidence then becomes a matter of belief. Belief without rational reason is for all practical purposes, is fantasy.

I wasn't really talking about that. And the evidence can't become a matter of belief. That's just you trying to impose it to give purpose to your opinion that ghosts are fantasy. So, there's a crack in that logical chain of yours. If you want to accept small criticism, do so. If not, well I'm fine with that too.

A person't reputation or standing in the community does not matter.

It does because in the society such as ours the more reputation you have the easier it is for others to get to the investigation. If you read in the news "John Smith found a ghost in his cellar" you'd think "I'll pass, it's probably that and that, pfff" but if you read "President Obama claims to have seen the ghost" it'd be everywhere because it's sensationalism. And as such, the mere sensation that someone who's reputable, more so if the person is in the scientific waters, is what will make you to get curious (general speech). The same is with everything and especially Science. Carl Sagan, for an example, is the prime resource for astrological debunk of many people, yet he didn't even learn anything about astrology to make it be a proper debunk.

Human perception is highly flawed and subject to an infinite number of variables.[ There are many reasons why a person might think they experienced something that did not really happen. I have been looking at these claims for years and so far, the best evidence is anecdotes and pseudoscience.

The anecdotal and pseudoscientific evidences are your mere perception for the given area. I respect when someone does research, but I don't respect when someone denies the possibility simply because there's no proper evidence. And yet, people experience and claim. As I stated before, the reputable sources also have claimed to have seen ghosts and for that were/are the subject of mockery. I'm not fond of such approach since I can't claim that they didn't see what they saw, nor it is in my power to claim that they're lunatics. We're talking about some perfectly healthy, intelligent people of different ages, too. And many people are afraid to speak about such experiences because they're literally quite personal, terrifying and will make others uneasy, producing different reactions. Clearly the subject is delicate, more so since there're no known methods to (dis)approve the (non)existence of ghostly apparitions (or to that effect).

Yes but the problem here is most ghost claims were experienced using noting more than basic senses.

There're numerous scientific researches which are based on "basic senses", mainly in psychology and medicine. And are constantly updated, too. In fact, the area is so broad that each particular psychiatrist or a doctor do their own research. That's because people are quite complex, but it's possible to collect statistics based on fundamental (and mutual) feelings. I know that you'd say how it can be tested over and over, of course, however the method does have to start somewhere and collecting the data, info etc is a good start.

That pretty much puts ghosts right in the physical world if they exist at all, Coincidences happen and are often the substance of paranormal claims. They and other statistical anomalies are not really evidence. Show me the serious work being done by people taking it seriously. Show me one piece of evidence that is not an anecdote or a judgment call made about some kind of recording. Show me one verifiable thing that suggests it is rational to accept the existence of ghosts. Without rational analysis it is just a belief. Belief without understanding is fantasy. That does not make it bad just not based in reality.

Again the broken chain logic. The physical world or, rather, the way that we understand it currently isn't our absolute knowledge (or absolute truth). As I mentioned several times, the mere existence of the phenomena and constant reportings over the course of several millennia prove to be existential and as such a valuable material for proper investigation.

In the reports the acclaimed ghosts do not exactly have substantial physical properties even though they do appear as images, personalities, foggy apparitions or to that effect. As for the serious research, who'd fund it? There's no money involved and researchers need to eat. That's why it's more of a hobby than a real "hunt" for evidence. And even those who do it are following a certain pattern didn't provide any particular evidence, at least to my knowledge. I can't deny the existence of ghosts simply because I didn't "see one", but even if I did who'd believe me other than people who also have seen a ghost? I experienced astral projection two times and there's no scientific explanation for such manifesto. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means that science fails to find the evidence because science isn't competent enough to provide a suitable and logical explanation. And I always add that "yet".

Silver platter? You really don't understand science do you? How many silver platter have there been in science? Every hypothesis ever accepted as theory has been roughed up, challenged, doubted, tested, and dragged through the mud. The process is not always pretty or pleasant but it works. Why do you expect things to be different for this particular hypothesis?

Yes, the silvery or awaiting the evidence while playing in the mud :) heh, proper metaphor. Thing is, one can't wait in the mud for the evidence. The subject is very perplexed even for the people who are confident in what they saw.

Which is why I state. Out of the respect to the people who have experienced it as well out of the respect to the people who want to do proper science, the subject needs further investigation and the hard asphalt in his case might be - science doesn't have a method to (dis)approve the (non)existence of ghost. Let's take that as a viable reality.

Edited by Nenaraz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The above argument seems to say nothing more than you can't prove a negative, so ghosts might be real.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

:blink:

There are ways of accusing people of something without actually doing it, such as asking rhetorical questions the way you did. It's kinda clever actually because later you can deny doing it, as you just did, although people see through such things better than I think you give them credit for.

:blink:

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there was nothing in what I said to "see through" because at no point was I attempting to conceal anything. I was following the basic rules of handling conflict: having perceived what seemed like an attempt to provoke anger, I did not seize the bait, but instead called attention to it and asked if it was meant as intended. I did not ascribe motives, and I addressed the behavior and not the person. No cleverness involved; just sticking to the rules for difficult communication.

What, exactly, do you think I was being deceptive about?

(Honestly, I wish I were as clever as you take me for; I'd certainly have an easier time in life if I were less inclined to say exactly what I think.)

Is it the term "troll" you find troubling? Trolling is saying something designed to provoke anger or outrage. By phrasing it the way he did, sinewave's statement did come perilously close to troll-like levels of rudeness. Using the actual word was on the blunt side, 'tis true, but I don't think it inaccurate, nor entirely uncalled-for. It was certainly no ruder than saying the paranormal is "synonymous with fantasy" in a thread addressed to those who take the subject seriously.

Personally I think ghosts are real enough, but I think the vast majority of reports are not ghosts and I would never trust even my own experience on something of this sort.

I agree almost entirely with that...though, oddly enough, I'm not sure I'm quite as convinced that ghosts are "real." I think there's a good chance they may be, and that even if they're not I certainly think any myth as persistent and pervasive as that is worthy of serious study; but most of all, I'd like science (that is, scientists) to take ghosts seriously, if only to take the bulk of the investigation OUT of the hands of schlocky television shows and too-credulous amateurs and put it into more methodical (if not always more objective) hands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The fact that lots of people think something is true tells me little; I am more interested in who thinks it is true and what their credentials are. I go to doctors for advice about health but not about spooks.

As a Buddhist I tend to think (on weekdays I believe, on weekends I don't) that the process we think of as mind which arises from brain activity is nevertheless independent of the brain and we ultimately after we die are reborn in an effort this mind makes to get back what it lost.

As such one has to presume such minds (or whatever one wishes to call them) are in some sort of transitional state for at least a little while. How a disembodied intelligence could manifest itself is hard to imagine, but we do know that it manifests itself in living beings (that is, in terms of the Cartesian dualist idea, mind moves body). So there you have ghosts, but one that is going to be noticed has got to be in a really miserable state, so I would prefer to keep my distance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz
Trolling is saying something designed to provoke anger or outrage

I have to mention that such a thing is flaming. But I didn't see any flame. A slight provocation, yes, but I'm sure it was unintentional and that it was just an expression (a bad choice of words, really). The person under the pseudonymous sinewave does have sound arguments and it's completely fine if he believes that ghosts are the domain of fantasy. Nobody can stop him from thinking such a thing, but I gave an explanation of why it might not be wise to think so. It's completely up to him/her to decide whether will there be any reconsideration of the statement.

However, it shouldn't be a surprise that people state how ghosts and such things are fantasy (well, rarely do I see "fantasy" written as an addendum to something which is categorized as supernatural). Usually the lack of knowledge is not going to provide a quality opinion. But that's something that has to be dealt with with some apparent tolerance.

I'm always more for the understanding than the tolerance, but the subject will kittle some people.

The above argument seems to say nothing more than you can't prove a negative, so ghosts might be real.

Hehehe, more or less :)

Edited by Nenaraz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

I wasn't really talking about that. And the evidence can't become a matter of belief. That's just you trying to impose it to give purpose to your opinion that ghosts are fantasy. So, there's a crack in that logical chain of yours. If you want to accept small criticism, do so. If not, well I'm fine with that too.

As far as science is concerned yes, evidence can indeed be entirely belief based.

It does because in the society such as ours the more reputation you have the easier it is for others to get to the investigation. If you read in the news "John Smith found a ghost in his cellar" you'd think "I'll pass, it's probably that and that, pfff" but if you read "President Obama claims to have seen the ghost" it'd be everywhere because it's sensationalism. And as such, the mere sensation that someone who's reputable, more so if the person is in the scientific waters, is what will make you to get curious (general speech). The same is with everything and especially Science. Carl Sagan, for an example, is the prime resource for astrological debunk of many people, yet he didn't even learn anything about astrology to make it be a proper debunk.

A person's character whether real or perceived is not any assurance of their perceptual integrity. Everyone experiences perceptual miscues but not everyone finds meaning in them.

The anecdotal and pseudoscientific evidences are your mere perception for the given area. I respect when someone does research, but I don't respect when someone denies the possibility simply because there's no proper evidence. And yet, people experience and claim. As I stated before, the reputable sources also have claimed to have seen ghosts and for that were/are the subject of mockery. I'm not fond of such approach since I can't claim that they didn't see what they saw, nor it is in my power to claim that they're lunatics. We're talking about some perfectly healthy, intelligent people of different ages, too. And many people are afraid to speak about such experiences because they're literally quite personal, terrifying and will make others uneasy, producing different reactions. Clearly the subject is delicate, more so since there're no known methods to (dis)approve the (non)existence of ghostly apparitions (or to that effect).

To be fair here, you have no idea what kinds of work I have done on this. Besides, research is not studying an thing then adopting its hypothesis. It could also go the other way. I am not denying anything much less out of hand as you have implied. Rather, I am looking to be convinced, which should be the right approach.

A person's mental health may play a role in paranormal belief but many "normal" healthy people whether for religious reasons or otherwise are predisposed to notions of ghosts and an afterlife. That is faith, not science. This is not a faith discussion. And apart from that, everyone regardless of faith, experiences perceptual errors every day, most are very small but are there nonetheless. The difference is some people attempt to find meaning in those miscues. Science takes this and other things like researcher bias and in extreme cases, fraud into account. That is why there is peer review before a hypothesis is accepted as theory. This subject is "delicate" as most beliefs are. Again, this topic is about scientific evidence not faith.

There're numerous scientific researches which are based on "basic senses", mainly in psychology and medicine. And are constantly updated, too. In fact, the area is so broad that each particular psychiatrist or a doctor do their own research. That's because people are quite complex, but it's possible to collect statistics based on fundamental (and mutual) feelings. I know that you'd say how it can be tested over and over, of course, however the method does have to start somewhere and collecting the data, info etc is a good start.

The point of my remark is, on one hand it is said ghosts cannot be detected or quantified by science but on the other hand they seem to be readily detected by the 5 basic senses. That's a pretty huge contradiction.

Again the broken chain logic. The physical world or, rather, the way that we understand it currently isn't our absolute knowledge (or absolute truth). As I mentioned several times, the mere existence of the phenomena and constant reportings over the course of several millennia prove to be existential and as such a valuable material for proper investigation.

In the reports the acclaimed ghosts do not exactly have substantial physical properties even though they do appear as images, personalities, foggy apparitions or to that effect. As for the serious research, who'd fund it? There's no money involved and researchers need to eat. That's why it's more of a hobby than a real "hunt" for evidence. And even those who do it are following a certain pattern didn't provide any particular evidence, at least to my knowledge. I can't deny the existence of ghosts simply because I didn't "see one", but even if I did who'd believe me other than people who also have seen a ghost? I experienced astral projection two times and there's no scientific explanation for such manifesto. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means that science fails to find the evidence because science isn't competent enough to provide a suitable and logical explanation. And I always add that "yet".

The repeated occurrence of a belief pattern over long spans of time in no way implies a thing is real. In actuality it is probably more indicative of the way we are wired. Ghosts are much the same as dragons in that they are part of the lore of many unconnected cultures. Those occurrences do not make either thing real outside of the imagination.

Yes, the silvery or awaiting the evidence while playing in the mud :) heh, proper metaphor. Thing is, one can't wait in the mud for the evidence. The subject is very perplexed even for the people who are confident in what they saw.

Which is why I state. Out of the respect to the people who have experienced it as well out of the respect to the people who want to do proper science, the subject needs further investigation and the hard asphalt in his case might be - science doesn't have a method to (dis)approve the (non)existence of ghost. Let's take that as a viable reality.

The point of my remark here is that even the Theory Of Relativity had a period of peer review where it was doubted and challenged. In fact, it is still being challenged as all theories should be. That is to ensure we have the best possible understanding of the way things work. Again, this is a discussion about scientific evidence for ghosts and whether any exists not whether people believe or if the belief has value. Respect for belief does not and should not enter into it. If there is any value to paranormal beliefs, they should be able to stand the rigors of science. If proper testing methods are not there, it is up to those who would have us believe to devise them. The burden of proof lies squarely with the claimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

I have to mention that such a thing [saying something designed to provoke anger or outrage] is flaming.

Not really. To me, flaming is not merely being provocative, but moving to the level of actual insult: "Your ideas suck, and so do you! Only an idiot/sadist/lunatic/Nazi would believe that!" And so forth. I certainly didn't think he was trying to do that.

But I didn't see any flame. A slight provocation, yes, but I'm sure it was unintentional and that it was just an expression (a bad choice of words, really).

Obviously, I perceived it as a little more than slight. I didn't think it was an actual troll, just veering close; going right up to the edge and dangling a foot over, as it were. Part responding as I did was to say, "Excuse me, but you're on the brink of a honking great cliff, there; you sure you want to continue in that direction?"

The person under the pseudonymous sinewave does have sound arguments

Well, sure. (That just wasn't one of them. ;) )

and it's completely fine if he believes that ghosts are the domain of fantasy. Nobody can stop him from thinking such a thing,

I wouldn't dream of it. I enjoy discussion and debate, and it would be pretty dull without contrasting points of view. And I certainly understand someone thinking the evidence for ghosts isn't strong enough to suggest their reality; I've held that opinion myself. Even now, I'm certainly not 100% convinced they're objectively real. The only thing I am 100% convinced of is that the subject is too important to dismiss lightly--and saying it's "synonymous with fantasy" seemed to be doing just that, without conveying anything useful. (His other reply to me had much more substance to it, and I'm currently working on a response. I really would much rather discuss the subject of ghosts than discuss the discussion about them.)

However, it shouldn't be a surprise that people state how ghosts and such things are fantasy (well, rarely do I see "fantasy" written as an addendum to something which is categorized as supernatural).

Nor was it. But if a person states things in that manner, they should not be surprised to get a somewhat sharp reply, either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz

Well, you talk about elementary scientific approach as if it matters here. Whether you respect someone's belief, it is irrelevant.

I'm failing to see how your point wasn't obvious to me, or anyone else, but it seems that you solely don't care.

"The burden of proof lies squarely with the claimer."

As i spoke earlier, the ~silvery~ factor at hand.

When someone experiences something that's already a proof enough for the individual. When 10.000 more people talk about very similar experiences, that's already a phenomenon.

So, instead to laugh at people who claim to have seen something, be happy to hear and compare the experience(s) of others along the line. Forum might not be suitable because of the anonymity, however it's possible to follow a particular pattern.

-------

than discuss the discussion about them

Hehehe. Well, I'm under the learning process to not be led astray by others who ask "questions" of no particular value to the topic. Usually personal things such as "oh, you don't know science, bua" or "no, you're wrong, you see there is no God because yadda yadda", so I share the pain. :)

However, given that those people who believe to be scientists usually mock others there's no particular chance for a mature discussion in the solely esoteric sense. For them anything that doesn't have peer-review is as good as non-existent. So don't bother with such attitudes.

Regards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Well, you talk about elementary scientific approach as if it matters here. Whether you respect someone's belief, it is irrelevant.

I'm failing to see how your point wasn't obvious to me, or anyone else, but it seems that you solely don't care.

In a scientific discussion, belief is not relevant and should not be used to avoid answering questions.

As i spoke earlier, the ~silvery~ factor at hand.

So in other words you want ghosts to be respected as a scientific hypothesis but feel that asking for proper evidence is somehow out of line?

When someone experiences something that's already a proof enough for the individual. When 10.000 more people talk about very similar experiences, that's already a phenomenon.

So, instead to laugh at people who claim to have seen something, be happy to hear and compare the experience(s) of others along the line. Forum might not be suitable because of the anonymity, however it's possible to follow a particular pattern.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Besides, the longer the evidence remains at the level of anecdote, the less likely a thing is to be true.

Hehehe. Well, I'm under the learning process to not be led astray by others who ask "questions" of no particular value to the topic. Usually personal things such as "oh, you don't know science, bua" or "no, you're wrong, you see there is no God because yadda yadda", so I share the pain. :)

However, given that those people who believe to be scientists usually mock others there's no particular chance for a mature discussion in the solely esoteric sense. For them anything that doesn't have peer-review is as good as non-existent. So don't bother with such attitudes.

Regards.

Which question have I asked that are of no particular value?

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz

Why do you assume that forum is a proper place to do scientific research on ghosts, to begin with? That's irrelevant. And furthermore impossible given what's considered to be "ghosts" in general public. So why do you assume that someone will be willing to prove things on the forum? That's a major waste of time, first and foremost. Secondly, if you want to discuss whatever you want, feel free to do so, nobody's stopping you. And third, drop the accusations whenever someone disagrees with you or your words. By now such act is tremendously boring. nobody here is an imbecile who's unable to discuss or prove something if there's a chance to do so and nobody's here to discuss the scientific method. Stating it doesn't prove any of your points, it only proves that you're unwilling to take a note of criticism thus inevitably accusing others of being unable to understand something.

Don't give me that "in other words" because it is as I wrote. There's no need to make some alterations to it or to develop a subtree where there's no root. I didn't say that ghosts should be respected, for laughing out loud, so don't put words into my posts trying to act smart by providing some elementary scientific and obvious points trying to teach what is science and what is not and all of a sudden accuse others that they're not familiar with science. I don't tolerate such behavior where you try to make someone a fool and use various methods to provoke unnecessary discussion such as this one.

Which question have I asked that are of no particular value?

Questions? This one right here. And it was about statements from your side. And, you have confirmed that you don't care for other peoples beliefs. So what are you going to do? To prove that someone didn't see a ghost on a forum? To prove that you are correct and someone who claimed to have seen is not? You want a scientific discussion with random people where you're going to quote the fundamentals of scientific approach thus making others to appear as ignorants? Well, that play didn't pass with me. First you'd need to take my words into account properly and exactly as I wrote and only then adress me because, clearly, otherwise it's just an elaborate trolling without any respect towards the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Why do you assume that forum is a proper place to do scientific research on ghosts, to begin with? That's irrelevant. And furthermore impossible given what's considered to be "ghosts" in general public. So why do you assume that someone will be willing to prove things on the forum? That's a major waste of time, first and foremost. Secondly, if you want to discuss whatever you want, feel free to do so, nobody's stopping you. And third, drop the accusations whenever someone disagrees with you or your words. By now such act is tremendously boring. nobody here is an imbecile who's unable to discuss or prove something if there's a chance to do so and nobody's here to discuss the scientific method. Stating it doesn't prove any of your points, it only proves that you're unwilling to take a note of criticism thus inevitably accusing others of being unable to understand something.

Well for one, discussion is the purpose of this forum. And for another the title of the thread is kind of implies science talk is OK. why would you participate in a thread of this nature if you are so easily offended by frank discussion of the phenomena?

Don't give me that "in other words" because it is as I wrote. There's no need to make some alterations to it or to develop a subtree where there's no root. I didn't say that ghosts should be respected, for laughing out loud, so don't put words into my posts trying to act smart by providing some elementary scientific and obvious points trying to teach what is science and what is not and all of a sudden accuse others that they're not familiar with science. I don't tolerate such behavior where you try to make someone a fool and use various methods to provoke unnecessary discussion such as this one.

I pointed out that the burden of proof lies with the claimer in response to your remark suggesting science does not have tests for this phenomenon. Then you gave a vague and more or less meaningless response that was apparently a reference to your "silver platter" remark a few posts back. You made a direct assertion as to the inadequacy of science regarding ghosts and I responded by suggesting the believers should devise better tests then. You feel compelled to defend something for which you are not prepared to defend.

Questions? This one right here. And it was about statements from your side. And, you have confirmed that you don't care for other peoples beliefs. So what are you going to do? To prove that someone didn't see a ghost on a forum? To prove that you are correct and someone who claimed to have seen is not? You want a scientific discussion with random people where you're going to quote the fundamentals of scientific approach thus making others to appear as ignorants? Well, that play didn't pass with me. First you'd need to take my words into account properly and exactly as I wrote and only then adress me because, clearly, otherwise it's just an elaborate trolling without any respect towards the discussion.

Again, we are discussing science here not belief. You should not participate if you are so easily offended by such discussions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz
Again, we are discussing science here not belief.

Oh, ok. Please continue to do so. Hopefully I'll see the scientific proof for a ghost from you. :)

You should not participate if you are so easily offended by such discussions.

Offended by a discussion?

At this point I call you on elaborate trolling since it's quite obvious that you're the one who offended me. Well, I leave you to your thoughts.

Edited by Nenaraz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Oh, ok. Please continue to do so. Hopefully I'll see the scientific proof for a ghost from you. :)

Offended by a discussion?

At this point I call you on elaborate trolling since it's quite obvious that you're the one who offended me. Well, I leave you to your thoughts.

You have made quite a big deal about respecting beliefs so yes, you are obviously offended. Any serious discussion of the topic precludes off limits questions and hiding behind belief.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz

So you reject that you stated that I don't know how Science works?

You really don't understand science do you?

And you want to blame, again, me that I'm offended by a discussion. First you put words into my mouth, then you develop weird theories to suit your perception, then you try to make it sound as if I don't know how to lead a discussion. Please, keep on with the elaborate trolling. I'd like to see what else can you devise. :)

Also, "made a big deal" because I stated that perhaps people actually did see something or have very real experiences for which there's no scientific method of investigation? The mere implication that it's a belief is already rude towards those who'd like to share something and as I stated previously, such behavior is a perfect portrayal of unnecessary mockery at work. Even if what people experience is based purely on their belief and not an actual event (like de facto is), it's still much better to take the data into the account rather than to make a mockery out of people who report.

If all of a sudden thousands of people of various ages report a slimy, goofy pink elephant flying in a tram, it's a resource for investigation. And the sole number of people who've experienced it is a component enough for proper investigation even if, basically, such a thing would be a product of imagination. So, really, what is there which you can say that proves that ghosts don't exist?

Edited by Nenaraz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gatekeeper32

Despite science stating what is real and what is not has yet net been able to stamp out the occurrence of paranormal phenomenon. True in the wake of science and the age of information may past supernatural beliefs were disproven such as dragons, luck, moon made of cheese, fairies, elves and so on. Yet encounters with ghosts, Bigfoot, demonic possession and so one, such phenomenon where science declares not to be real are still being experience by many. Which one can only assume the situations are real yet the cause remains to be unknown or any eye witness testimony in any case be supernatural or criminal should all be toss aside.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Despite science stating what is real and what is not has yet net been able to stamp out the occurrence of paranormal phenomenon.

More accurately, "--the reporting of paranormal phenomena". And, to be fair, science hasn't really tried.

True in the wake of science and the age of information may past supernatural beliefs were disproven such as dragons, luck, moon made of cheese, fairies, elves and so on.

Actually, no, the only thing on that list that has been disproven is the makeup of the moon.

Yet encounters with ghosts, Bigfoot, demonic possession and so one, such phenomenon where science declares not to be real are still being experience by many.

"--reported by many."

Which one can only assume the situations are real--

Why would you make an assumption like that?

--yet the cause remains to be unknown--

Oh, the most probable cause is known pretty well.

or any eye witness testimony in any case be supernatural or criminal should all be toss aside.

So simplified as to be just plain wrong.

But feel free to ask why every single line in your post is not an accurate reflection of the situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Despite science stating what is real and what is not has yet net been able to stamp out the occurrence of paranormal phenomenon. True in the wake of science and the age of information may past supernatural beliefs were disproven such as dragons, luck, moon made of cheese, fairies, elves and so on. Yet encounters with ghosts, Bigfoot, demonic possession and so one, such phenomenon where science declares not to be real are still being experience by many. Which one can only assume the situations are real yet the cause remains to be unknown or any eye witness testimony in any case be supernatural or criminal should all be toss aside.

It's hard for the layperson to distinguish real science from cleverly done pseudo-science. Sometimes the pseudo-science puts on such a "scientific" performance, with all the right jargon and all the right credentials (that of course we can't possibly confirm) and even the right "peer review (again impossible to confirm)."

To a large extent we have to accept the authority of the scientific community. Isolated "findings" that get ignored by the community are to be suspected, and when debunkers appear from within that community, then one feels pretty confident.

However, as we all know, "science" can be wrong (although this is less common than many would have us think).

I use a few personal tests. First, I discount personal stories and testimony. It is too bad that this has to be, but it has to be. Even the most honest person can have moments of delusion, moments of "filling in" details that aren't real (psychologists have demonstrated this many times). Also of course not everyone is honest. Liars abound, and not just those out for personal gain. The history of religion is filled with pious frauds where the motive for the lies and exaggerations are to save someone's soul.

Second, I discount certain kinds of physical evidence that are subject to manipulation that may not be detectable, such as footprints and lie-detector tests and of course photos.

Third, I try to apply "common sense" and a sense of probability. If something is too good to be true, it probably is. If something is totally awe-inspiring and wondrous, I doubt. One-headed bicyclists mistaken for two-headed bicyclists are more common than real two-headed bicyclists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I also watch out for when an alleged researcher cannot explain his tools, which kind of nudges up against your second point. If a ghost hunter tells me his EMF reader detects ghosts, and I ask him why, I expect a better answer than "Ghosts emit EMF signals".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Despite science stating what is real and what is not has yet net been able to stamp out the occurrence of paranormal phenomenon. True in the wake of science and the age of information may past supernatural beliefs were disproven such as dragons, luck, moon made of cheese, fairies, elves and so on. Yet encounters with ghosts, Bigfoot, demonic possession and so one, such phenomenon where science declares not to be real are still being experience by many. Which one can only assume the situations are real yet the cause remains to be unknown or any eye witness testimony in any case be supernatural or criminal should all be toss aside.

Science does not disprove anything. You really can't prove something does not exist. Science makes no declarations. Science merely puts the evidence into a rational framework where it can be tested and assigned a value based on its likelihood to be true.

What is at issue here is the the large volume of low grade evidence and pseudoscience presented whenever science and the paranormal meet. To the believer, an alleged paranormal experience is the end of the causal chain and stands as evidence that God is there and that Jesus loves them and they will indeed see grandma and grandpa again. To the critical thinker, it is the beginning of the causal chain. Why did I experience that?

The former is a conclusion and the later is a new path of inquiry and potential discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.