Oooo yes. Lets make up stupid stuff to explain a phenomeon that for all intents and purposes doesn't work. Let's ignore the fact that every single Astrologer is using the wrong sign because of the established fact that the stars were not in the same spot 2000 years ago than they are today.
Yes we all know about that. It is also an established fact that precession is created by the earth shifting not by the stars moving.
You have made a number of common arguments that have been adressed on these forums countless times - not least of which is that anecdoatal evidence by itself carries no useful weight simply because people can be mistaken, misremember, lie, exaggerate etc.
Almost any paranormal claim imaginable should in theory be perfectly acceptable to objective measurement.
Well all evidence is anecdotal. Even your objective measurements are merely someone looking at stuff or whatever. Remember the can of worms your in when you start crying illusion without reason.
A regular ghostly presence? Fine - seperate research groups can investigate.
People claim to have seen aliens. Very different aliens.
Are they all correct in your opinion?
Is the anecdotal evidence for Fairies, The Loch Ness Monster and Leprechauns enough to convince you?
People have investigated ghostly presences and even caught the ghosties on film. That's been done. Of course all of the films are fake of course, but that just goes to say what I said earlier about evidence
Is the anecdotal evidence for the above enough to convince me. Yes is the answer. I reckon the Loch Ness Monster is probably more of a demon/god than a mortal creature though.
Ashles Ghosts are not scary if you don't believe in ghosts. I am no more scared of ghosts than I am of the kids in The Innocents or the Event Horizon ship (in the sense that none of these in my opinion is actually real).
I don't have to believe something is real to have a real emotional response to its description.
Exactly my point. Ghosts are not scary if you don't believe in ghosts.
1) The evidence is ambiguous. Sure, a ghost sighting could be evidence for the existence of ghosts, but it can also be evidence of the existence of pareidolia, deer, teenagers running around in sheets, atmospheric effects, etc. This is why someone who is skeptical of the claim asks for further evidence with less ambiguity.
Unless you can prove that any of the above are actually responsable, then ghosts exists.
The simplest explanation if you see a ghost is that ghosts are real.
There exists no conceptual neccesity to explain away objects with any explanation that would eliminate their existance, however implausable.
2) The evidence is extremely subjective. You may conclude that the sighting is a ghost, but a meteorologist may have a different conclusion, and a person who is raised in a culture that has different beliefs may see something else (an angel, a demon, a trickster god, or migraine headaches).
Sure, there are people who will dismiss the conclusion out of hand, but there are also people here who will work to determine if the conclusion is justified, or if it is simply a dogmatic leap in the opposite direction based on the sightee's cultural expectations.
A meterologist! Are Ghosts now a form of weather condition. Oh the hilarity.
Culture is interesting but is your assertion even correct. The concept of Ghosts exist in all cultures that I know of. Paranormal Phenonoma tied to particular regions would not necceserily appear outside of the region.
Not a good student in your Science 101 class were ya?
I'm reasonably certain no one has poked an atom, or black hole, or red giant, or white dwarf, or Tyrannosaurus nestling, or idea, or radio wave, or Neandertal dropping with a stick.
It's a metaphorical expression.
What it means is precisely the following.
That simply because ghosts aren't there when you want to go ghost-hunting in a particular place and time, doesn't mean that there are no ghosts.
All it means is that the Ghosts have gone away to some other place. Possibly where the Ghosts came from in the first place.
As for "admitting" to being blinkered. Wrong again Mal.
Rooting out the explanation for things that defy easy explanation is the very bread and butter of science. I'd suggest it's woo-fans like you who cover your eyes to what's really happening around you and prefer instead to take the easy way out.
Then again, that's just me...
Not really. Ignoring and eliminating anything that defies easy explanation within established theories is the bread and butter of Science.
And here I was thinking it wasn't so much that astrology has been shown to be false, but that it has never been shown to be true...
ETA: Welcome SlayerofCliffraces. I recognize your name from various discussions with woodwater/idunno/rudeboy.
It has been shown to be true at least to some limited extent twice that I know off hand.
Gauquelin proved it to be true.
Gunter Sachs proved it to be true.
Both of them used statistics, proving Astrology in the only way that does not test the skills of Astrologers.
It may be unreasonable to ask one person to catch one specific incident of a supposed ghost, but is it really unreasonable in the age where cameras are everywhere (cellphones, amirite?) that not one clear-cut, undeniable mugshot has been taken of Casper?
Possibly because Casper has no interest in making such a clear-cut, undeniable mugshot? And you are totally and completely wrong.
Ghosts don't make clear-cut images, because ghosts are ghostly. And there are loads of ghosts that have been caught on camera in just the way you said. Indeed ghosts have been caught on camera that were never noticed by people who were actually there.
I am not allowed to post urls yet, but you should just go to google or youtube and you will find films of ghosts. Caught on camera just like you said.
