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

White Crane Feather

Auquatus,

You keep trying to defend science. You don't need to. What science is is not the point of contention. As i have mentioned science has nothing to say on the matter, but people defiantly do. Why you cannot see that only accepting "scientific" realities is form of fundamentalism is beyond me. Though I would like to see what science it is that you are talking about that does not require physical validation to be considered valid.

Hell why did we need to build the large hadron collider just to find subatomic particles that the standard model already predicted? We could have just assumed we were right about the higgs boson instead of spending billions of dollars. Hawking's radiation is nearly certain to exist, why test for it? They can't seem to create the tiny black holes we need to test the theory anyway.

Now I'm the one defending science.

Anyway, as much as it hurts my ego to not answer and argue with you on every point above, im out of attention span on this particular subject to continue. We will have to agree to disagree. Though do tell me what science doesn't need material verification.

I know spirits. Some are treasured friends and teachers. That's all the evidence I need, and I have seen material verification. I'm certifiably sane, and a functioning member and leader in my community.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

It's not insignificant. It's massive.

I've been waiting for compelling evidence for a long time that ghosts exist outside of human imagination and perception. There are stories and tons of pseudo-scientific BS designed more to validate the belief than to enlighten. Ideas fall into the the margins of science for good reasons. Yes, that means some infrequent and hard to observe phenomena may go undocumented but that it not a free pass to legitimacy for any belief. I don't fault you or anyone else for believing but I take exception to the assertion there is any kind of compelling evidence.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

If there was scientific evidence for ghosts, or any alleged paranormal phenomenon, then they wouldn't be paranormal.

Juxtaposing "paranormal" with "scientific evidence" suggests a misunderstanding of both concepts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Auquatus,

You keep trying to defend science. You don't need to. What science is is not the point of contention. As i have mentioned science has nothing to say on the matter, but people defiantly do. Why you cannot see that only accepting "scientific" realities is form of fundamentalism is beyond me. Though I would like to see what science it is that you are talking about that does not require physical validation to be considered valid.

Hell why did we need to build the large hadron collider just to find subatomic particles that the standard model already predicted? We could have just assumed we were right about the higgs boson instead of spending billions of dollars. Hawking's radiation is nearly certain to exist, why test for it? They can't seem to create the tiny black holes we need to test the theory anyway.

Now I'm the one defending science.

Anyway, as much as it hurts my ego to not answer and argue with you on every point above, im out of attention span on this particular subject to continue. We will have to agree to disagree. Though do tell me what science doesn't need material verification.

I know spirits. Some are treasured friends and teachers. That's all the evidence I need, and I have seen material verification. I'm certifiably sane, and a functioning member and leader in my community.

It is not a question of sanity. We've all lost people close to us. It's a fact of life and it sometimes really sucks. There are so many people I would like to have back even if just for a moment of conversation. We all feel that pain and cope with it in our own ways. I sincerely hope you find peace in believing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz

What would you say to those who say there is no scientific proof of paranormal (ghosts)?

*If you believe in them in the first place.

I'd say "To your knowledge" or, rather, to "our knowledge" or "yet". Basically, (dis)approving something which doesn't hold measurable unit is not really following scientific method. While the scientific knowledge isn't complete and is constantly updating there's always a higher chance for (dis)approving the (non(existence of such entities, whatever they might be.

However, belief in "presence" or spirits, ghosts etc predates any science and pretty much every single culture does have "ghost" in a very similar form to that of the other culture, from the early civilisations up to the modern society and even modern science itself. Our existence knows only for two forms of possibilities - action and reaction, as simple as that. There have been some very serious images of ghosts caught on camera which are not something to be taken lightly, such as "The Brown lady", "Freddy Jackson", "Lord Combermere" and such.

So in my experience, keep an open mind and personally investigate when there's a chance, instead to wait things on a silver plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

If there was scientific evidence for ghosts, or any alleged paranormal phenomenon, then they wouldn't be paranormal.

Juxtaposing "paranormal" with "scientific evidence" suggests a misunderstanding of both concepts.

Calling something paranormal does not exempt it from proper scrutiny. No matter how it is presented, based solely on the evidence, paranormal is synonymous with fantasy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

No matter how it is presented, based solely on the evidence, paranormal is synonymous with fantasy.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

I have to be honest and say I think you have got your priorities mixed up. Ghosts imply an entire array of metaphysical consequences that ball lightning does not. The burden of proof for the former, because it is so much more extraordinary, than the latter is much, much greater.

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

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.

No, I am looking for someone to produce something that is not an anecdote, fuzzy picture, feeling, or evidence based on pseudoscientific assumptions. If critical discussions cause outrage there may be some fundamental problems with the hypothesis. This discussion is about scientific evidence so it should not be unreasonable to apply scientific standards to the evidence.

Edited by sinewave
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

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?

Ball lightning has a precedent as a form of atmospheric plasma. We know plasmas exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

Ball lightning has a precedent as a form of atmospheric plasma. We know plasmas exist.

So, in other words, yes.

(Though the question wasn't directed at you....)

Edited by Avallaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

If critical discussions cause outrage there may be some fundamental problems with the hypothesis. This discussion is about scientific evidence so it should not be unreasonable to apply scientific standards to the evidence.

Saying that none of the evidence for ghosts is conclusive is accurate. Discussing why it's not conclusive, and how far it has to go to become so, is critical discussion. Saying that it is synonymous with fantasy is not only inaccurate, it's insulting (and it seems pretty obvious you meant it to be).

You claim to be an advocate for science and reason...is that really how you want to represent it? By making cheap shots?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Saying that none of the evidence for ghosts is conclusive is accurate. Discussing why it's not conclusive, and how far it has to go to become so, is critical discussion. Saying that it is synonymous with fantasy is not only inaccurate, it's insulting (and it seems pretty obvious you meant it to be).

You claim to be an advocate for science and reason...is that really how you want to represent it? By making cheap shots?

What else would you call something that is evidenced only by perception, related entirely by anecdote, cannot be reproduced or demonstrated, is enhanced by increasing noise in the data set, requires that established science be bent or suspended altogether, and is predicated on huge unverified assumptions? I would call that a belief system. As far as science is concerned, beliefs without substantial evidence are very likely fantasy. You may see this as taking cheap shots but it is not. Hypotheses are not tested by handling them with kid gloves. They have to be pushed over, prodded, and kicked around. If you are so emotionally invested in the idea that you cannot bear to see it tested, you are probably also incapable of looking at it objectively. Do you really want any idea to be accepted without some kind of rigorous verification?

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

So, in other words, yes.

(Though the question wasn't directed at you....)

But we don't know ghosts do. It is a public forum after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

So, in other words, yes)

(Though the question wasn't directed at you....)

How are you equating a phenomena that has a viable, arguably repeatable, known, measured, and recognized precedent available, with a phenomena that has no precedent at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

The thing with that is, ball lightning is extraordinarily rare. I don't think I know anyone who claims to have seen it. On the other hand, I know LOTS of people who think or thought they saw ghosts. In my experience they are not even statistically similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

The thing with that is, ball lightning is extraordinarily rare. I don't think I know anyone who claims to have seen it. On the other hand, I know LOTS of people who think or thought they saw ghosts. In my experience they are not even statistically similar.

Most claims of paranormal activity can be demonstrated as mesinterpretations of natural phenomenon. That's a fact. The media play a role in this increase of popularity of the paranormal and of resulting claims of alleged activity. Ghost Hunting shows make it appears cool and special to have a ghost at home and now tons of people wants to have their own experiences and join the popularity club.

I am sure that if ball lightnings had a special place in Western societies and had 4 or 5 reality shows on week nights featuring all kinds of lighting ball hunters in spooky locations there would be a hype and a resulting increase of sightings. Plenty of books and forums treating of the subjects would sprout like mushrooms. It would be a la mode. Also, intricately, in our societies, ghosts imply the after life and people want to believe that there is something after life. Ghosts have a special place in history through legends, myths and stories that ball lightings will simply never have.

That said, even though there is no concrete proof of ghost or psychokinesis, to be honest there are interesting cases that have been documented. One that comes in mind is the St-Catherine, Ontario (Canada) poltergeist case of 1970. Police reports of more than five officers (that have been retrieved and are still available today) and multiple witnesses who swear by their words have described very strange events.

So, we have to distinguish facts and interpretations. Unusual events have been documented in history that we have no satisfying answer for. That is a fact. Could it be activity of ghosts, psychokenises ect.? These are interpretations that no solid proof support.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soulseeker

This can't go unchallenged; odds are when someone invents a ghost capturing camera it will show proof they aren't there.

I really tire of the believing the world is round bit; no "scientist," even in the ancient world, has thought the world was flat since maybe the Egyptians, and science wasn't invented them. Science grows, largely by discarding theories that don't fit, and ghosts are probably one of these that needs to be discarded.

ok so how about scientists believing that the earth revolved around the sun or the fact that doctors use to treat coughs with cigarettes... or are you going to say that never happened too...... or that science believed Pluto was a planet now they say its not... so how exactly is science truly "proving" or "disproving" anything... it is not ... science itself falls under the category of chance .....for every scientific theory tested there is a 50/50 chance that proof is actually achieved... science is a guessing game so how does it ever solidly prove anything....millions of people have died because "scientists" prove that this pill or that treatment is safe only to find later after people die that is was not safe...you cant prove anything through the guessing game of science ....all science is pretty much pseudoscience ...because all science is a game of chance... a guess is made experiments pursue and a result is found.....prove dark matter, anti matter, strange matter...because I cant see it... how do I know it really exists? all I'm saying is science has been wrong before and it will be wrong again...so claiming that something isn't real simply because science cant prove it...YET... is not an intelligent move....sounds like your angry at believers for believing ... want to change my mind?... prove to with me facts and scientific data that the paranormal is NOT real.....lack of paranormal proof is not then scientific proof so "no ones ever caught one one film" or other such nonsense will not be accepted... I look forward to your evidence. :whistle: Edited by soulseeker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nenaraz

The thing with that is, ball lightning is extraordinarily rare. I don't think I know anyone who claims to have seen it. On the other hand, I know LOTS of people who think or thought they saw ghosts. In my experience they are not even statistically similar.

Yeah, I agree that "fantasy" element isn't the correct term since it's based on imagination. The ghost evidences and data report apparitions, voices, sounds and so much more which isn't something anyone would put into "fantasy" element. Which is why the "cheap shot" was adequate since it basically is. Proper investigation is needed, always.

The reported cases involve both reputable people as well as people of many ages, be it kids or old folk, in many different cultures, countries etc and most of them are related to the dead relative. While the obvious and most logical conclusion would be that it's about the stress and is based on the psychological level, the personal experience in this manner is the most important data collected.

The question is whether the photo can "catch" a ghost, or a camera, or any known technological method which people possess. There are claims how it works, but it doesn't make it true. However it's also just to think of a possibility that there is something which can't be traceable with known methods nor experimentation, especially not if the components are of emotional nature.

I.E. cases where strong emotions are the component for the ghostly apparition, often in the mirror and often in the moment of death. There are also cases of great compassion and even people who share the pain at specific places the more involved they are emotionally. Heck, me and my girl usually share the same pain in the knee, elbow or tooth, and often laugh at the coincidence. But too many coincidences and that's already a case for a hypothesis. People who report similar things without really being aware one of another also is a case for a hypothesis.

And, the last word, there's enough material and data about ghosts for it to gain some proper investigation and not to be disregarded as "fantasy". It exists for more than several millennia and as such it holds the value of one of the most prominent unexplained phenomena. Calling it "fantasy" isn't respectful, at all, to the people who want to investigate it seriously.

Regards.

Edit : I've been ninja'd. I agree with you Soulseeker simply because I know that real scientist don't wait things on a silver plate. Most of the people who try to portray scientific skill lack the elementary discipline of testing the data, regardless of what it is. Stating that something's rubbish, without proper investigation nor method involved, portrays an arrogant mind. When people state that something doesn't exist they're not aware just what a monumental mistake they might do. And you are absolutely correct about the solid stagnation in the scientific waters. Instead of "Doesn't exists until proven" there should be "Known mechanism or method not found". I'm not saying that something does exists and that science is wrong, no, however I'm saying that by such strong rejection it's often used to mock other people who might develop some curiosity towards the subject and people who state that it's "fantasy" or anything to that effect are not helping to develop any particular theory or hypothesis regarding the evident data, which de facto exists.

And, yes, science is long way from being based purely on factual concept. But that's good since science evolves and human knowledge evolves as well along the line. What's wrong is to take into account only the scientific approach to a subject. That's practically biased if the scientific approach never found any evidence, however there are different evidences which can both be untrue and true, depends upon the factors which are not based on scientific research.

When for an example someone knows what they've seen or experienced, at least in the sphere of "supernatural", it opens the questions about more things. The curiosity emerges. "What else is there?" "Who else shared the similar experience?".

Like for an example the Shadow people. Same thing. No scientific approach to it. Usually just regarded as something of a deep REM state. Yet, that doesn't prove why everyone dream the same thing, of course. Thanks to the internet and FREE information sharing such things, which exist for a long time, are becoming evident to public masses.

Edited by Nenaraz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

ok so how about scientists believing that the earth revolved around the sun or the fact that doctors use to treat coughs with cigarettes... or are you going to say that never happened too...... or that science believed Pluto was a planet now they say its not... so how exactly is science truly "proving" or "disproving" anything... it is not ... science itself falls under the category of chance .....for every scientific theory tested there is a 50/50 chance that proof is actually achieved... science is a guessing game so how does it ever solidly prove anything....millions of people have died because "scientists" prove that this pill or that treatment is safe only to find later after people die that is was not safe...you cant prove anything through the guessing game of science ....all science is pretty much pseudoscience ...because all science is a game of chance... a guess is made experiments pursue and a result is found.....prove dark matter, anti matter, strange matter...because I cant see it... how do I know it really exists? all I'm saying is science has been wrong before and it will be wrong again...so claiming that something isn't real simply because science cant prove it...YET... is not an intelligent move....sounds like your angry at believers for believing ... want to change my mind?... prove to with me facts and scientific data that the paranormal is NOT real.....lack of paranormal proof is not then scientific proof so "no ones ever caught one one film" or other such nonsense will not be accepted... I look forward to your evidence. :whistle:

I don't know where you got your percentages but yes, science is not in the business of proof but rather the business of probability.

Science is not a guessing game. Good science begins with a hypothesis that is often driven by observations. In one sense you are right, hypotheses should be educated guesses. Good hypotheses are not random or haphazard but rooted in established knowledge and ideally attempt to extend that knowledge.

Millions? Perhaps you are overstating things just a little? Sure, there are mistakes and abuses but science as a whole has give us a great many things. Clean drinking water, sustainable crops, viable transportation systems, electrical power, life saving medicines, and global communications systems. It has greatly extended human life expectancy, mapped much of the visible Universe, reveled the nature of matter and energy, cataloged the flora and fauna of our planet, plumbed the depths of the oceans and ventured into space, unlocked the human genome, and provided sanitation systems for our cities. Men have walked on the moon and we have sent probes to Mars and beyond. Despite your cynical outlook, science has contributed to nearly every aspect of your life.

And for the record, science does not say ghosts don't exist, the evidence does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Yeah, I agree that "fantasy" element isn't the correct term since it's based on imagination. The ghost evidences and data report apparitions, voices, sounds and so much more which isn't something anyone would put into "fantasy" element. Which is why the "cheap shot" was adequate since it basically is. Proper investigation is needed, always.

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.

The reported cases involve both reputable people as well as people of many ages, be it kids or old folk, in many different cultures, countries etc and most of them are related to the dead relative. While the obvious and most logical conclusion would be that it's about the stress and is based on the psychological level, the personal experience in this manner is the most important data collected.

A person't reputation or standing in the community does not matter. 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 question is whether the photo can "catch" a ghost, or a camera, or any known technological method which people possess. There are claims how it works, but it doesn't make it true. However it's also just to think of a possibility that there is something which can't be traceable with known methods nor experimentation, especially not if the components are of emotional nature.

I.E. cases where strong emotions are the component for the ghostly apparition, often in the mirror and often in the moment of death. There are also cases of great compassion and even people who share the pain at specific places the more involved they are emotionally. Heck, me and my girl usually share the same pain in the knee, elbow or tooth, and often laugh at the coincidence. But too many coincidences and that's already a case for a hypothesis. People who report similar things without really being aware one of another also is a case for a hypothesis.

And, the last word, there's enough material and data about ghosts for it to gain some proper investigation and not to be disregarded as "fantasy". It exists for more than several millennia and as such it holds the value of one of the most prominent unexplained phenomena. Calling it "fantasy" isn't respectful, at all, to the people who want to investigate it seriously.

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

Edit : I've been ninja'd. I agree with you Soulseeker simply because I know that real scientist don't wait things on a silver plate. Most of the people who try to portray scientific skill lack the elementary discipline of testing the data, regardless of what it is. Stating that something's rubbish, without proper investigation nor method involved, portrays an arrogant mind. When people state that something doesn't exist they're not aware just what a monumental mistake they might do. And you are absolutely correct about the solid stagnation in the scientific waters. Instead of "Doesn't exists until proven" there should be "Known mechanism or method not found". I'm not saying that something does exists and that science is wrong, no, however I'm saying that by such strong rejection it's often used to mock other people who might develop some curiosity towards the subject and people who state that it's "fantasy" or anything to that effect are not helping to develop any particular theory or hypothesis regarding the evident data, which de facto exists.

And, yes, science is long way from being based purely on factual concept. But that's good since science evolves and human knowledge evolves as well along the line. What's wrong is to take into account only the scientific approach to a subject. That's practically biased if the scientific approach never found any evidence, however there are different evidences which can both be untrue and true, depends upon the factors which are not based on scientific research.

When for an example someone knows what they've seen or experienced, at least in the sphere of "supernatural", it opens the questions about more things. The curiosity emerges. "What else is there?" "Who else shared the similar experience?".

Like for an example the Shadow people. Same thing. No scientific approach to it. Usually just regarded as something of a deep REM state. Yet, that doesn't prove why everyone dream the same thing, of course. Thanks to the internet and FREE information sharing such things, which exist for a long time, are becoming evident to public masses.

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?

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soulseeker

I don't know where you got your percentages but yes, science is not in the business of proof but rather the business of probability.

Science is not a guessing game. Good science begins with a hypothesis that is often driven by observations. In one sense you are right, hypotheses should be educated guesses. Good hypotheses are not random or haphazard but rooted in established knowledge and ideally attempt to extend that knowledge.

Millions? Perhaps you are overstating things just a little? Sure, there are mistakes and abuses but science as a whole has give us a great many things. Clean drinking water, sustainable crops, viable transportation systems, electrical power, life saving medicines, and global communications systems. It has greatly extended human life expectancy, mapped much of the visible Universe, reveled the nature of matter and energy, cataloged the flora and fauna of our planet, plumbed the depths of the oceans and ventured into space, unlocked the human genome, and provided sanitation systems for our cities. Men have walked on the moon and we have sent probes to Mars and beyond. Despite your cynical outlook, science has contributed to nearly every aspect of your life.

And for the record, science does not say ghosts don't exist, the evidence does.

actually my cynical outlook is not toward science itself as I am well aware what great things science has given us my cynical outlook is toward the idea that if science cant prove something that it does not exist....if you look at my quote you will see I have no problems with science just the thought process that science is the be all and end all of what is possible. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

actually my cynical outlook is not toward science itself as I am well aware what great things science has given us my cynical outlook is toward the idea that if science cant prove something that it does not exist....if you look at my quote you will see I have no problems with science just the thought process that science is the be all and end all of what is possible. :rolleyes:

Science does not prove anything it merely assigns probability based on the evidence. it's all about the evidence. There is nothing wrong with science simply because it does not rate the ghost hypothesis very high. As I said, science does not say ghosts don't exist It is the evidence that is letting you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avallaine

What else would you call something that is evidenced only by perception, related entirely by anecdote, cannot be reproduced or demonstrated, is enhanced by increasing noise in the data set, requires that established science be bent or suspended altogether, and is predicated on huge unverified assumptions?

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:

...evidenced only by perception, related entirely by anecdote, cannot be reproduced or demonstrated...

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.

...is enhanced by increasing noise in the data set..

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.

...requires that established science be bent or suspended altogether
...

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.

...and is predicated on huge unverified assumptions?

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.

I would call that a belief system. As far as science is concerned, beliefs without substantial evidence are very likely fantasy.

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

You may see this as taking cheap shots but it is not.

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

Hypotheses are not tested by handling them with kid gloves.

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

If you are so emotionally invested in the idea that you cannot bear to see it tested, you are probably also incapable of looking at it objectively. Do you really want any idea to be accepted without some kind of rigorous verification?

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."

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

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.

Except that ball lighting has a highly probable theory than can be reproduced, tested, recorded, and which does exhibit much, if not all, of the behaviour shown in reports of ball lightning, while having no reasons why it shouldn't work out in nature. The only thing we don't actually have is a snapshot of the actual event of ball lighting being formed in the wild to compare to our explanation.

It is a bit similar to claiming that we don't have an explanation for how snow forms. We may not have a video of a water molecule in the atmosphere bunching up with others, slowly crystallizing into ice, bunching up with other crystals, eventually forming an entire flake, and drifting down, but we do have an explanation for it, and that explanation is repeatable, and it does answer all the questions we have about snow, and there really isn't any reason to believe that the explanation is not correct.

With ghosts...heck, we don't even have a decent explanation of the phenomena, let alone a similar precedent, let alone a repeatable example.

Start with the basics: What the heck is a ghost anyway?

Edited by aquatus1

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.