There is never enough evidence for what you don't believe in. What is evidence?

[SlayerofCliffracers]

No, you seeing what you interpret as a ghost is not proof that ghosts exist. You are free to see it as proof, but it isn't - it is an anecdote. If 20 people all together see a ghost, it is still an anecdote, but if the people are reputable then some scientific person or organization may choose to check out their claim.
Might I trouble to ask where you obtained your degree in Psychology or Psychiatry and what your research specialty was? I ask only because I have hope that I can correctly assume you did not pull your theory of ghost/fear from your nether regions.

So what makes you a Scientific Organisation then? Cannot 20 people actually see with their own eyes what is actually there?

I am applying logic to work out what the overall motive for the irrational refusal to accept what has actually been seen by countless people comes from.

It struck me that people are known to be scared of ghosts, despite the fact that this is totally irrational, since ghosts have never actually hurt anyone.

People want a worldview that gives them security and it follows that people would wish to have a paranormal world, because what cannot be poked with a stick is terrifying.

And what is the relevance of that?
The number of actual planets has changed over time, our understanding of heavenly bodies is constantly developing... but astrology doesn't.
Anyway, the mechanism by which astrology might work would only be of interest if it actually worked.

Astrology doesn't develop? You are evidently completely ignorant of Astrology.

Astrology is constantly developing as new theories get invented and old one's get forgotten or recycled. New phenonoma that exists now in the real world and didn't exist in the past needs explanation.

New planets we have just discovered need figuring out.

I see how Astrology works all the time. I know that there are statistical studies that support Astrology. I need no more evidence really to know that Astrology is at least partly right.

It's really hard to imagine how much more wrong you could be.

This is beyond ignorance.

Evidence involves replicability. If someone says certain experiments yield certain results, another person can carry out the same experiment.
Objective equipment details specific measurements. Certain patterns or extant behaviours are objectively observable... I can't believe this has to be explained.

To describe all evidence as anecdotal because it is "merely someone looking at stuff or whatever" actually makes me a little embarassed for you.

Experiments are frequently not replicated or contradicted by new experiments.

But yes I am right. All evidence is anecdotal. All your pretty numbers are the result of someone marking down what they have observed.

So link to what you believe are the strongest examples of such instances.

Firstly I am not allowed to link yet and secondly DO YOUR OWN LEGWORK!

So if a random person tells you tomorrow about a giant T-Rex in their garden you would instantly accept this?
I just don't believe you.

I would check the calander to see if it was April Fools. What I said presumes honestly on the part of the person reporting the information.

As an evidential principle, if someone says they say a giant T-Rex in their garden, then the giant T-Rex is real unless say.

A) They are lying.
B) They were in a hallucinatory state.
C) They mistook something else mundane for a giant T-Rex.

You have a point?

The point is the basic motivation behind why people wouldn't believe in ghosts in the first place.

However you have just caused me to add another motive.

People are afraid of being decieved by others.

Anyhow, the entire motivating principle behind all Skepticism is Fear. And the motivating principle behind Anti-Skepticism is I guess Trust.

Absolutely wrong.

If I say you smell powerfully of old socks are you goping to say that until you prove otherwise we have to logically accept that you smell of old socks?

Claims must be demonstrated - the burden of proof is on the claimant. Any other approach is logically ridiculous.

Yes if the person is in a position to smell me, I would accept I smell of old socks if they told me so. And I would have a bath.

The simplest explanation is that realitry as we understand it is completely overturned?
No the simplest explanation is that one of many explanations that we know exist in the real word is the reason someone thought they saw a ghost.

You don't understand the first thing about Occam's Razor. Or logic.

The simplest explanation is not defined as the one with fewest words.

There is no overturning involved. You are merely expanding your worldview to encompass all that exists rather than just what you think should exist.

Neurochemistry, perceptive processes and memory are also identical in all cultures. And storytelling, lying, exaggeration...

And? If I can correctly identify mundane objects, then why not ghosts?

I am starting to wonder if you are simply joking.

Not really. I saw the same ghost twice and have never seen it again since.

This is what I said about poking things with sticks.

I see you really have never read a single Science book.
Many examples could be listed to easily refute this (ever heard of QM?) but I doubt there would be any point.

You are the dictionary definition of closed-minded.

Cheers. Maybe I am wrong, but I recall that Quantum Mechanics got plenty of opposition from Science, even Einstein. 'God does not play dice' remember.

Do you have details of these studies?

Do your own legwork. You know what studies I am talking about.

And that's your best evidence? Dreadfully unconvincing Google images?

What quality of evidence do you demand? Do you want murky real images of real ghosts or do you really want glossy pictures that are obviously fake.

You reject anecdote, you reject photographic evidence. What exactly do you want then.

How many people must see ghosts? How many photos must be taken. Give me the number?

 

[desertyeti]

You reject anecdote, you reject photographic evidence. What exactly do you want then.

How many people must see ghostsElvis? How many photos must be taken. Give me the number?

I give up.
How many?
Why is it so important to you that others belive what you believe?

 

[Hokulele]

I would suggest that many of the cultures that never had the concept of 'ghosts' as we think of them possibly had a different way of thinking about any such phenomena, such as gods, ancestors, spirits in the american indian tradition etc They may not have had the cultural disposition to fear such things and therefore when presented with our popular concept of ghosts, reported that they had no such phenomena.

And several of those cultures simply didn't experience such phenomena. It was completely outside their realm of experience. Most of what you listed as being "gods, ancestors, spirits" were tangible and subject to verification, etc., etc. SoC is suggesting that ghosts are not, and I am assuming that was the position you took in your first post in this thread. Hence we can dismiss the other things you are trying to bring in as equivalents to ghosts as being something else entirely.

The Paranormal Phenomena tied to particular regions may suggest poltergeist activity which traditionally has been linked to small geographic areas of intense emotional significance to individuals.

Once again, you are using an example that should be susceptible to the scientific method. Poltergeist activity implies something that can be recorded and measured.

Just my 2 cents on that issue.

[disclaimer] - This poster in no way endorses belief in or assertion of the objective existence of any of the above mentioned subjectively reported phenomena.[/disclaimer]

Oh, I am not suggesting that you personally believe in ghosts, I just wanted to show why your explanations and examples do not support the premises of the OP.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

But the cultural variation between these are quite different. Japanese obake aren't the same as British ghosts. What does cross cultural bounds are phenomena such as pareidolia, meteorological events (which you earlier denigrated and dismissed, not very open-minded, eh?), and yes, even lying.

So which would be more rational to believe?

I denigrated them because I find the idea of Ghosts being a form of weather rather funny. I couldn't help myself. The lengths people will go to deny what has actually been seen.

Japenese obake aren't the same British ghosts. What do you mean by that. What are the identified differences?

 

[catbasket]

Japenese obake aren't the same British ghosts. What do you mean by that. What are the identified differences?

Whatever happened to "DO YOUR OWN LEGWORK!"?

 

[Hokulele]

I denigrated them because I find the idea of Ghosts being a form of weather rather funny. I couldn't help myself. The lengths people will go to deny what has actually been seen.

Ah, argument from incredulity. Got it.

Japenese obake aren't the same British ghosts. What do you mean by that. What are the identified differences?

For one thing, Japanese obake can be felt, scented, and otherwise interacted with. For the most part, obake cannot be distinguished from people, animals, or other objects until or unless they choose to reveal some sort of supernatural power. In other words, they would be subject to scientific examination.

If they existed...

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

And several of those cultures simply didn't experience such phenomena. It was completely outside their realm of experience. Most of what you listed as being "gods, ancestors, spirits" were tangible and subject to verification, etc., etc. SoC is suggesting that ghosts are not, and I am assuming that was the position you took in your first post in this thread. Hence we can dismiss the other things you are trying to bring in as equivalents to ghosts as being something else entirely.

Everything is subject to interpretation. The interpretation is culturally determined because different societies come up with different theories.

Ancesters and Ghosts are pretty much the same thing for instance. Ancesters are just Ghosts in cultures that give Ghosts a Social Role.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

For one thing, Japanese obake can be felt, scented, and otherwise interacted with. For the most part, obake cannot be distinguished from people, animals, or other objects until or unless they choose to reveal some sort of supernatural power. In other words, they would be subject to scientific examination.

If they existed...

People do interact with Ghosts too. So even your argument doesn't work entirely.

Obake as it says on Wikipedia.

These words are often translated as ghost, but primarily they refer to living things or supernatural beings who have taken on a temporary transformation, and these bakemono are distinct from the spirits of the dead.[1] However, as a secondary usage, the term obake can be a synonym for yūrei, the ghost of a deceased human being.[2]

They are distinct from the spirits of the dead. They aren't ghosts. The word for ghost is yurei.

Whatever happened to "DO YOUR OWN LEGWORK!"?

Well if you make a claim I expect you to be able to clarify your own information. I just refuse to be sent on a wild goose chase through the internet to conjure up 100s of images just so a bunch of ignorant skeptics can dismiss it all with their ultra-suspicious "everyone is lying unless someone with a Science phd says otherwise" minds.

 

[desertyeti]

Everything is subject to interpretation.

Not everything.
e.g.,
1+1=2
abosulte zero is as cold as it gets.
Paris Hilton has no deiscernable talent.

None of these is subject to interpretation.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Not everything.
e.g.,
1+1=2
abosulte zero is as cold as it gets.
Paris Hilton has no deiscernable talent.

None of these is subject to interpretation.

Everything you wrote there is wrong.

1+1=2 is mostly interpretation.

Because you are using symbols that refer to something else. If the symbol 1 meant 3 whilst the symbol for 2 still meant 2, then the above would be incorrect.

It would be.

1+1=6.

Absolute 0 is as cold as it can get is also subject to interpretation. Because a region of Absolute 0 can itself expand to get bigger.

But I don't know about Paris Hilton. She must have some sort of talent for something otherwise we wouldn't know about her.

Getting famous despite having no talent, is itself a talent.

 

[Malkuth]

I just wanted to show why your explanations and examples do not support the premises of the OP.

I was not attempting to support the premise of the OP. I was commenting on your reference to SOC's points, suggesting that the narrow definition we have of 'ghosts' did not apply to certain cultures because our conception is a cultural one. Other cultures simply did not think of these types of phenomena as 'scary ghosts' so perhaps when asked if the believed in 'scary ghosts' they reported none.

This does not show that they did not have any cultural reference to a type of paranormal phenomena that could be loosely desribed as disembodied spirits or some such. The examples I gave are other ways in which primitive cultures have addressed such phenomena, without using OUR cultural description and popular conception of 'scary ghosts'.

What cultures do you know of that reported zero reference to any paranormal belief or spiritual entity?

 

[Correa Neto]

Paris Hilton has no deiscernable talent.

Well, there's that video... It may be evidence that she has some talent...

See? No pun with talent and suck!

 

[Ashles]

So what makes you a Scientific Organisation then? Cannot 20 people actually see with their own eyes what is actually there?

20 people can all easily make the same mistake. Hundreds of people think they see David Copperfield fly unaided.
Doesn't mean that is what is happening.
The whole world thought they saw the sun going round the earth. They were all wrong.

No amount of people is considered an acceptable number to accept something as true because people can be fooled, in any numbers.

I am applying logic to work out what the overall motive for the irrational refusal to accept what has actually been seen by countless people comes from.

It struck me that people are known to be scared of ghosts, despite the fact that this is totally irrational, since ghosts have never actually hurt anyone.

Wait a minute wait a minute... There are many anecdotes of ghosts hurting and even killing people. The ghost of Berkeley Square instantly springs to mind.

Why do you reject those anecdotes?

 

[desertyeti]

Well, there's that video... It may be evidence that she has some talent...

See? No pun with talent and suck!

D'oh!
Well, at least I know who to call if I ever get bitten by a venomous snake.
But back on track,

we left off with Slayerguy explaining how 1+1=6
and also something about an area of expanding absolute zero...somehow making absolute zero less cold ?????????

I am frankly stumped by this all and yet can't look away.
I hate myself.

 

[godless dave]

Imperial battle cruisers have been caught on film ... They must be real ...

Not the local bulk cruisers, mind you. I'm talking the big Corellian ships.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

I was not attempting to support the premise of the OP. I was commenting on your reference to SOC's points, suggesting that the narrow definition we have of 'ghosts' did not apply to certain cultures because our conception is a cultural one. Other cultures simply did not think of these types of phenomena as 'scary ghosts' so perhaps when asked if the believed in 'scary ghosts' they reported none.

Actually Malkuth, if there is a society which has no ghosts, all that proves is that the society is totally Skeptical of the existance of ghosts.

It doesn't prove that they are right. Only that a society where no-one believed in Ghosts could survive.

20 people can all easily make the same mistake. Hundreds of people think they see David Copperfield fly unaided.
Doesn't mean that is what is happening.
The whole world thought they saw the sun going round the earth. They were all wrong.

No amount of people is considered an acceptable number to accept something as true because people can be fooled, in any numbers.

David Copperfield is a magician. He is deliberately setting out to decieve people. If ghosts deliberately set out to decieve people with their existance, then ghosts must be real. Actually no, it only proves the existance of some kind of supernatural deciever making people believe in ghosts.

People though the Sun went around the earth because of the limitations of their knowledge. People who see ghosts certainly aren't limiting their own knowledge of the world by doing so, because ghosts constitute knowledge.

Your final sentance was exactly my point all along. Numbers is not a valid argument, which therefore means by extension that any amount of evidence is enough evidence to prove pretty much anything.

You can't say that ghosts aren't real just because not everyone has personally seen a ghost can you? Because that would be arguing based upon numbers.

 

[Ashles]

People want a worldview that gives them security and it follows that people would wish to have a paranormal world, because what cannot be poked with a stick is terrifying.

Maybe to you.

Astrology doesn't develop? You are evidently completely ignorant of Astrology.

Really? That's odd because having worked for a year in a holistic healing centre I worked with people who professionally gave astrological readings. And they didn't agree with each other.

Or are you claiming you know the one true way of Astrology?
Fancy giving some readings here then?

Astrology is constantly developing as new theories get invented and old one's get forgotten or recycled. New phenonoma that exists now in the real world and didn't exist in the past needs explanation.

Really? What phenomena exist now and didn't exist 2000 years ago?

New planets we have just discovered need figuring out.

So it was wrong before and as new planets will doubtless be discovered it will be wrong now as well?
Or does astrology only work according to what we know right at that moment?

I see how Astrology works all the time. I know that there are statistical studies that support Astrology. I need no more evidence really to know that Astrology is at least partly right.

Please link to these studies.

Experiments are frequently not replicated or contradicted by new experiments.

So then we find out why.
Or, if we are you, we give up and make random assumptions based on stories.

But yes I am right. All evidence is anecdotal. All your pretty numbers are the result of someone marking down what they have observed.

Well the 'pretty numbers' that the grownups actually study have allowed us to land on other planets, improve lifespans, eradicate diseases, reduce infant mortality.

And the made up stories you enjoy have... given us... what exactly?

Firstly I am not allowed to link yet and secondly DO YOUR OWN LEGWORK!

Oh how original.
Yes that's very different from "I have no links"

Oh wait, no it isn't.

I would check the calander to see if it was April Fools. What I said presumes honestly on the part of the person reporting the information.

As an evidential principle, if someone says they say a giant T-Rex in their garden, then the giant T-Rex is real unless say.

A) They are lying.
B) They were in a hallucinatory state.
C) They mistook something else mundane for a giant T-Rex.

But you don't know anything other than what they have told you.

You have tried to sidestep answering this.
So, bearing in mind all you have is this claim, what is your view of whether the story is true or not?

The point is the basic motivation behind why people wouldn't believe in ghosts in the first place.

there is no reason to. We have explained this.

However you have just caused me to add another motive.

People are afraid of being decieved by others.

The fact that people lie/exaggerate is undoubtedly an explanation for some ghost stories.

Anyhow, the entire motivating principle behind all Skepticism is Fear. And the motivating principle behind Anti-Skepticism is I guess Trust.

Wow that's quite the strawman you are attacking.

If someone tells me they can dowse for water what 'fear' motivates me to doubt this?

I believe you are confusing the word 'trust' with 'credulity'.

Yes if the person is in a position to smell me, I would accept I smell of old socks if they told me so. And I would have a bath.

But they are not in a position to smell you.

I have made a claim that you smell of old socks.
Surely by your logic everyone on this forum now has to believe you do until you demonstrate otherwise?

There is no overturning involved. You are merely expanding your worldview to encompass all that exists rather than just what you think should exist.

No this would directly contradict what we understand of consciousness, thought, information transfer, biology... many other things.

And? If I can correctly identify mundane objects, then why not ghosts?

People make mistakes with mundane objects and situations every single day.
That's why.

Not really. I saw the same ghost twice and have never seen it again since.

There's an old saying - the plural of anecdote is not data.

This is what I said about poking things with sticks.

And it still doesn't make any sense.

Cheers. Maybe I am wrong, but I recall that Quantum Mechanics got plenty of opposition from Science, even Einstein. 'God does not play dice' remember.

And science demonstrated it to be correct.
I gues my point went right over your head then.

Do your own legwork. You know what studies I am talking about.

Ah the "I can't be bothered" method of evidencing your theory.
We cartainly haven't seen that one more than, ooh, hundreds of times here.

What quality of evidence do you demand? Do you want murky real images of real ghosts or do you really want glossy pictures that are obviously fake.

How about actual locations with ghosts that appear with a regularity that can be studied. Or is all your evidence poor photos?

And if ghosts show up on film they have physical presence that should be able to be studied.

You reject anecdote, you reject photographic evidence. What exactly do you want then.

How many people must see ghosts? How many photos must be taken. Give me the number?

It's not a number it's a quality of evidence.

And isn't it strange that with all the camera phones and video cameras around these days there still seem to be so few ghost photos.

And ghosts never appear in crowded places, or places with CCTV...

 

[GeeMack]

Well if you make a claim I expect you to be able to clarify your own information. I just refuse to be sent on a wild goose chase through the internet to conjure up 100s of images just so a bunch of ignorant skeptics can dismiss it all with their ultra-suspicious "everyone is lying unless someone with a Science phd says otherwise" minds.

No, really, when do you get out of grade school and into high school? Things will be much different for you there, I assure you. I know you said you're "already in university". But being the good skeptic that I am, and being that you've presented zero evidence of that other than your say-so, and being that you've presented an abundance of evidence that would suggest you're no older than about 13 and no better educated than an eighth grader, I guess I'm right. Until you can prove for sure that I'm wrong anyway, eh, kid?

 

[Ashles]

David Copperfield is a magician. He is deliberately setting out to decieve people. If ghosts deliberately set out to decieve people with their existance, then ghosts must be real.

But even knowing he is a stage magician, people come out believing he flew.

Actually no, it only proves the existance of some kind of supernatural deciever making people believe in ghosts.

No, all it proves is people are credulous.

People though the Sun went around the earth because of the limitations of their knowledge. People who see ghosts certainly aren't limiting their own knowledge of the world by doing so, because ghosts constitute knowledge.

Or else they are, duh, being fooled by limitations of their knowledge.

How many people swear they have been atacked by ghosts in bed.
People not familiar with Hypnopompic or Hypnagogic hallucinations?
Jumping to paranormal conclusions is hardly an application of logic or a from of knowledge.

How do 'ghosts constitute knowledge'?

Your final sentance was exactly my point all along. Numbers is not a valid argument, which therefore means by extension that any amount of evidence is enough evidence to prove pretty much anything.

That may be the stupidest thing ever written on these forums.
If I had room in my sig line that would be going in.

"any amount of evidence is enough evidence to prove pretty much anything."

Wow.

You can't say that ghosts aren't real just because not everyone has personally seen a ghost can you? Because that would be arguing based upon numbers.

Yes, And I never said that.

That would be a strawman you are arguing with. Again.

 

[Malkuth]

Actually Malkuth, if there is a society which has no ghosts, all that proves is that the society is totally Skeptical of the existance of ghosts.

It doesn't prove that they are right. Only that a society where no-one believed in Ghosts could survive.

The assertion I was commenting on was that there existed cultures with no concept of paranormal phenomena of any kind even resembling ghosts, not gods, not ancestor or nature spirits, not disembodied entities of any kind.

I don't know of any primitive culture, except our modern, secular one that even remotely resembles that description.

Do you?