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

[fuelair]

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

Obake as it says on Wikipedia.



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



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.

So, unfortunately I was correct and you did pull it from your nether regions. Thanks for verifying!!!

 

[Patricio Elicer]

A lot of water has passed under the bridge already on this thread, but since it is a subject that interests me, and since I'm short of time, I will make a short reply without reading the whole of it.

Just because you can't catch something doesn't mean it isn't real

This is an argument believers use over and over to defend their position. It usually takes the form of:

Observation: our ancient ancestors couldn't demostrate that big bird-like metalic man-made objects will once fly in the skies, but it later proved to be a reality.

Conclusion: we now can't demonstrate that UFOs are ships from other worlds, so UFOs are alien ships from other worlds.

OK, I'm exaggerating with this, but I only want to illustrate how a "false analogy" fallacy works.

Yes, our ancestors couldn't catch that airplanes would later be real, and they are!!!.

Yes, our ancestors couldn't catch whether or not a human could reach the center of the Earth, and they can't!!!

Do these examples tell you something about your "just because you can't catch ...." argument?

 

[Belz...]

There's my point right there, the admission that science is ill-equipped to test or even define the nature of the subject in question.

It is also ill-equipped to deal with the question of invisible flying miniature pink elephants under my bed. Doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Belz...]

The ability to fake evidence does not prove anything. The higher the standard of evidence you require, the more vulnrable you are to fake evidence naturally.

It's the other way around, actually. But then you'd know that if you knew anything about science.

 

[Ashles]

I'm waiting for SlayerofCliffracers to answer this question:

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?

 

[Hokulele]

Well, this thread is now all over the map, maybe it would be a good idea to take one claim and start a new thread discussing that one claim? One for ghosts and one for astrology? If an astrology thread is started, I recommend notifying Garrette and Tricky, as they both have considerable experience in the field, and have previously tackled the studies mentioned (Sachs, etc.).

Anyway, a few last words on obake/yurei. The definitions and descriptions of yurei are fairly recent compared to most other types of obake, and the physical description of yurei can be easily tied to the development of plays, literature, and other artistic media. In other words, life is trying to imitate art. And once again, the distinguishing characteristic of any Japanese supernatural being is the ability to manifest completely physically in this world. As such, they would be subject to any kind of scientific examination (recordings, clear, unambiguous photos, etc.). Earlier you claimed that the type of evidence that would be available for ghosts isn't something that could be easily acquired. Now you are claiming that it is people the world around interact with them.

What type of interaction do you mean and why can't it be recorded and examined? You seem to be contradicting yourself in this thread.

 

[SalG13]

To Cliffslayer:

SlayerofCliffracers; I'm still slightly offended by the "all evidence is anecdotal" argument. I pulled this from dictionary.com:

anecdotal - "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"

This definition (which is like all the other ones on that site, as well as the common usage in our society) implies there is a difference between anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence. This forum requires the latter.

Your definition of anecdotal is arbitrary. It is like arguing that we cannot know anything as truth, and then wondering why people won't accept your stories.

 

[Malkuth]

It is also ill-equipped to deal with the question of invisible flying miniature pink elephants under my bed. Doesn't mean a thing.

Invisible flying miniature pink elephants under anyone's bed has not been one of the main central topics of every mythology known to man since the dawn of the species.

Disembodied spirits of one vague description or another has.

ETA: Has anyone ever described the type of thing you just did as "Pulling a Dawson"? 'Cos I think you just did that

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

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?

I don't know any. It's just that even if such a culture existed it wouldn't prove anything other than they were universal Skeptics of such phenonoma.

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?

If they agreed with eachother than there would be evidence for you claim Astrology hasn't progressed. That it has remained unchanged.

Why would I give readings to a bunch of people who would reject everything I say practically on principle even if it was 100% accurate?

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

Cars, Planes, Computers, Ex-Rays, Internet and Electricity. Really you do look think asking such questions.

Aquarius is supposed to rule Electricity. Maybe it does or maybe it doesn't, that is not important. There was no concept of Electricity 2000 years ago. But it proves that new phenonoma has been integrated into Astrology.

Please link to these studies.

It doesn't let me link yet because I haven't posted enough!

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?

Yes, if all I have to work on is the claim and I can find no way of disproving the claim, the claim is true. Assuming the person isn't lying.

You theorise about what is real or not based upon what has been observed, you do not decide what is real and then eliminate everything that doesn't fit what you have decided is real.

there is no reason to. We have explained this.

If people have seen something, this means that it is real unless they are lying or decieved.

There is no rational basis given the number of ghosts that have been observed to doubt the existance of ghosts.

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?

It means that Astrology is limited inherantly by our lack of knowledge at the present point in time. Just like any other Science.

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

But I have personally seen ghosts. So I know that they cannot all be lies.

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

Nope. That's exactly what we don't do. Hence what I was saying. You don't give up just because you get contradictory results, you find out why.

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'.

The fear of people with more power than you. And the fear of being decieved and cheated by charlatens.

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?

Because they are not in the position to possess such knowledge. However a person that has seen a ghost or a T-Rex is in a position to possess that knowledge. A better position than I as a third party am in.

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

How so?

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?

The pretty numbers are merely the compiling of HUMAN OBSERVATIONS!

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.

Ghosts don't have permanant locations and physical presence. They appear temporerily and then dissapear again.

That is why they called supernatural rather than natural. Because they only have a tempory physical presence when they appear.

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...

Well last time I looked I was buried in ghost photos.

And if Ghosts don't appear in places with CCTV, then why do we have Ghosts that were caught on CCTV. If I was allowed to post links, I would show you a ghost that was caught on CCTV.

As for ghosts not appearing in crowded places, does the fact that Deer don't appear in crowded places but deep in the woods prove the non-existance of Deer?

Some things naturally avoid people. What makes you think Ghosts aren't one of them?

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

What does that prove? That people can be decieved by cleverness.

No, all it proves is people are credulous.

Yes and it also proves what I said. Any bieng capable of decieving the senses of so many people in so many places at once all over the world, is more impressive than any ghost and would have to be real.

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'?

How can seeing something be a limitation of knowledge. You make no sense. Seeing something is an increase in knowledge.

Ghosts constitute knowledge, because they constitute something that was seen that could have not been seen.

And until you have identified what the typical characteristics of a ghost are in order to distinguish the hallucinatory ghosts from the real one's, it is logically impossable to claim all ghosts to be hallucinations.

Since this would allow you to logically claim that anything whatsoever is a hallucination.

If you cannot determine what a real ghosts property's are, you cannot logically claim that any ghosts at all in the world are hallucinations.

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.

That is a serious point that I actually uphold too.

The above must be true, otherwise I can simply raise the bar forever by demanding ever increasing levels of proof.

Since I cannot do that, I must accept that any evidence is enough to prove something, assuming that the evidence is valid.

And if seeing things isn't valid evidence, then what *is* valid evidence.

 

[desertyeti]

And if seeing things isn't valid evidence, then what *is* valid evidence.

sheer brilliance...

 

[Darat]

Serious question: What is your definition of a ghost?

Your question really exposes the fundamental error the opening post makes, its conclusions simply do not follow the evidence.

Of course ghosts exist, many people have seen them over the years, just like many people have seen the sun set and the sun rise. What does not follow is that a ghost is a spirit or some other supernatural phenomenon just like seeing the sun setting is not evidence that the sun orbits the earth.

 

[Myriad]

Invisible flying miniature pink elephants under anyone's bed has not been one of the main central topics of every mythology known to man since the dawn of the species.

Disembodied spirits of one vague description or another has.

Fermented spirits of one vague description or another has also.

Perhaps there's a connection there?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

SlayerofCliffracers; I'm still slightly offended by the "all evidence is anecdotal" argument. I pulled this from dictionary.com:

anecdotal - "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"

This is a contextual statement. What I am actually saying is actually this.

"As regards the question of the reality or non-reality of OBJECTS all evidence is anecdotal".

That is to say, one cannot test the existance of something. You can only experiance something and accept or not accept your own personal experiance.

This means that all evidence as regarding the existance or non-existance of objects is anecdotal.

This is distinguished from relationships between Objects, which can be studied by systematic scientific investigation.

Something like Astrology or Tarot Cards fits the latter category. But the existance of anything at all, is only anecdotally based.

 

[Malkuth]

Fermented spirits of one vague description or another has also.

Perhaps there's a connection there?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Wine as a central defining point of every mythology known to man?

I'm not so sure that's a valid comparison.

Wine as a vaguely defining point of nearly every orgy known to man?

That's a bit closer to the mark methinks

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Your question really exposes the fundamental error the opening post makes, its conclusions simply do not follow the evidence.

Of course ghosts exist, many people have seen them over the years, just like many people have seen the sun set and the sun rise. What does not follow is that a ghost is a spirit or some other supernatural phenomenon just like seeing the sun setting is not evidence that the sun orbits the earth.

After people observe phenonoma then they can form theories as to it's nature.

We arrive at the conclusion that a Ghost is a supernatural phenonomon because Ghosts do not appear to have a purely natural existance. That is to say they appear to 'come' from somewhere outside of what we can see and then return there.

We arrived at the conclusion that Ghosts were dead people come back temporerily, because they often bear a physical resemblance to deceased people.

Our ideas about the nature of Ghosts may be wrong, just as our ideas about the Sun may be wrong.

However our ideas about Ghosts are probably the most reasonable one's to arrive at based upon the evidence we have access to at the moment.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

page 3, wine and ghosts, shazam!

 

[prewitt81]

Why would I give readings to a bunch of people who would reject everything I say practically on principle even if it was 100% accurate?

Then give readings to 10 people who believe in Astrology and see if those people could pick which reading was theirs. It could be worth a million dollars. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...However our ideas about Ghosts are probably the most reasonable one's to arrive at based upon the evidence we have access to at the moment.

I know mine are. I doubt yours are.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Then give readings to 10 people who believe in Astrology and see if those people could pick which reading was theirs. It could be worth a million dollars. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Yes I would accept that kind of deal. On the condition that I was allowed to know afterwards who chose what horoscope.

Whether I won or lose is not important. As long as I get the test results to examine so as to improve my own knowledge of Astrology.

I don't think anyone is going to give my 1 million dollars. Because I cannot really imagine how anyone would be able to pay me and secondly I don't think the King of Skeptics would accept any standard of evidence whatsoever as valid. H

I can already think of a number of objections he could cook up even if I succeeded in the test.

 

[Malkuth]

I'll be a control subject for that experiment.

The 'popular' perception of astrology, the dumbed down version of it, is quite absurd, what with the precession caused slip of the signs and all. The simplicity of the purely solar and planetary mechanism. The older traditions of it are quite an interesting study though, linking to alchemy and the eastern contemplative traditions no longer adhered to in western esotericism.

It was of course largely subjective, as are most of these types of topics. I'm not at all surprised that the subtler portions of the traditions have been removed to popularise them.