My Ghost Story

[Maurice Ledifficile]

An anecdote is an observation. Science is based on observations. Because something is yet unproven does not mean it does not exist.

Simple elementary logic.

Mind-science and consciousness is proving to be one of the hardest challenges.

You are now saying that science is based on anecdotes. Therefore you are far worse than simply wrong. Perhaps you meant simple minded logic.

The paranormal is not "yet unproven". It has been extensively researched and nothing of value was ever found.

Again, anecdotes are useless. You should take the time to educate yourself on the subject and finally understand WHY anecdotes have no value.

 

[EdipisReks]

Old wood floors are like old ninja turtles; you never know what you're going to get.

 

[Agatha]

A derail about PartSkeptic's health and the healing powers of prayer has been split to a new thread here. Please use the new thread for discussions of health and prayer, leaving this thread focused on ghost stories.

Posted By: Agatha

 

[PartSkeptic]

Thanks.

 

[dlorde]

How many people like to believe that multiverses, cyclic universes and other dimensions are possible, despite the fact that proving any of these is harder than looking for glitches in reality?

And why do they?

Because they derive from the models that currently best describe how our universe behaves?

To my jaundiced eye the supernatural is not an explanation, but quite the opposite - a label for whatever you can't conceive of an explanation for. So it is often either a failure of imagination or knowledge - or both.

 

[dlorde]

An anecdote is an observation. Science is based on observations. Because something is yet unproven does not mean it does not exist.

Simple elementary logic.

If you observe with a tool that is demonstrably unreliable, your observations will be unreliable. The reliability of our inferences depends on the reliability of our observations. Science is based on making the most reliable observations possible. Anecdotes are, in general, insufficiently reliable to do more than indicate an area of interest for science to examine.

I assume you mean 'unobserved' rather than 'unproven'? Whatever, that doesn't mean that anything unproven/unobserved can exist.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

If you observe with a tool that is demonstrably unreliable, your observations will be unreliable. The reliability of our inferences depends on the reliability of our observations. Science is based on making the most reliable observations possible. Anecdotes are, in general, insufficiently reliable to do more than indicate an area of interest for science to examine.

I assume you mean 'unobserved' rather than 'unproven'? Whatever, that doesn't mean that anything unproven/unobserved can exist.

This "yet unproven" meme is all about the idea that woomeisters are so much more clever than scientists. They have it all figured out and maybe, just maybe, someday, those close-minded scientists will catch on and finally realize the quacks were right all along. Nothing is woo, it's all just undiscovered science.

 

[PartSkeptic]

If you observe with a tool that is demonstrably unreliable, your observations will be unreliable. The reliability of our inferences depends on the reliability of our observations. Science is based on making the most reliable observations possible. Anecdotes are, in general, insufficiently reliable to do more than indicate an area of interest for science to examine.

I assume you mean 'unobserved' rather than 'unproven'? Whatever, that doesn't mean that anything unproven/unobserved can exist.

Consider that many people claim to observe ghosts. Many such claims can be disregarded as unreliable. But what of the claims that are relatively free of the "woo" element? And the "usual suspects" such as mass hallucination, etc do not seem to adequately apply given the circumstances. Is it then possible that ghosts exist?

So I do not mean unobserved. By unproven I mean that the observations lack the scientific criteria for acceptance as a phenomenon.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Consider that many people claim to observe ghosts. Many such claims can be disregarded as unreliable. But what of the claims that are relatively free of the "woo" element? And the "usual suspects" such as mass hallucination, etc do not seem to adequately apply given the circumstances. Is it then possible that ghosts exist?

So I do not mean unobserved. By unproven I mean that the observations lack the scientific criteria for acceptance as a phenomenon.

Reliability is irrelevant. Anecdotes are useless and inadmissible when evaluating extraordinary claims.

Not having all the facts to actually explain every experience does nothing to support supernatural explanations. Funny that when we do have all the facts, there's always a mundane explanation. When we don't, you can always invoke the woo of the gaps, but that doesn't mean a thing. Anecdotes are nothing.

 

[PartSkeptic]

This "yet unproven" meme is all about the idea that woomeisters are so much more clever than scientists. They have it all figured out and maybe, just maybe, someday, those close-minded scientists will catch on and finally realize the quacks were right all along. Nothing is woo, it's all just undiscovered science.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. Mankind has always observed the universe around him, and tried to find explanations. Those explanation have gone from mystical to technical. But science is a long way from explaining why the universe exists, and cannot say for sure that it is not all an illusion that may be subject to anomalies.

 

[Donn]

But what of the claims that are relatively free of the "woo" element? And the "usual suspects" such as mass hallucination, etc do not seem to adequately apply given the circumstances. Is it then possible that ghosts exist?

Special ghost anecdotes, check.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

It has nothing to do with intelligence. Mankind has always observed the universe around him, and tried to find explanations. Those explanation have gone from mystical to technical. But science is a long way from explaining why the universe exists, and cannot say for sure that it is not all an illusion that may be subject to anomalies.

Nice word salad. The point is, obviously, that woo is not "yet undiscovered science", no matter how you slice it.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Nevertheless, I had an experience not to long ago, that I am struggling to come up with a rational explanation for.

So far with over half a year of "struggling", old honest Al the "extremely skeptical" person still can't come up with a rational explanation for floors creaking, despite his trade as a building safety inspector. He claimed to be inspecting the ceilings specifically, so nothing could be more important to that professional judgement than, uh, the ceiling itself, attached directly to the second story creaking floor above.

It's antisocial behavior to ignore repeated questions after demanding someone's attention to a problem you claim is a "struggle" for you and asking for their help.

So it is a lesson to those who think that enjoying a little "duper's delight" by fibbing to people - exaggerating, embellishing, leaving out important story components, etc. - the only way out of the trap you have set for yourself (besides the more ethical strategy of coming clean) is to be rude.

He concealed anything that would instantly solve this "struggle" of his: like the building itself, or the engineer he is pretending believes in ghosts.

There is zero doubt in my mind that I could ask this engineer why the floors in that building creak and he will give me a straight answer that doesn't involve ghosts.

When we fib about Santa Claus, our intention is the delight the children have in it. We get joy out of seeing their faces light up, their glee, and decades later those children still look back with happy memories about Christmas. They don't resent being lied to about Santa Claus.

Look how this contrasts with the OP's little game of duper's delight. Parents come clean about Santa Claus. We "confronted" our parents in my family - my sister had discovered the presents in their closet the night before Christmas. Our parents did not double-down on the lie. They came clean. To ignore our question, to evade or divert us, to put effort into manipulating us into a false belief in Santa Claus after this bullet-proof evidence is discovered... that would have been abusing us. For the parents, children maturing to the point of reasoning like this is also a joy. Growing, maturing, learning - so we are proud of them.

Honest Al had to think ahead about how he would be questioned. So he knew what questions to expect, how to evade answers, what to conceal... He posted on a skeptic site for crying out loud, not a kindergarten class.

What would be a lot more beneficial to skeptics concerning themselves with bogus ghost stories is to come clean on his own bogus ghost story. The benefit of the doubt I can give him is that he thought it would be a fun little game, without sufficient thought to how it had to end logically: it is a bogus story and skeptics will probe the places where they are being deceived. You have to be rude to them in order to defeat the logical lines of inquiry. He didn't think through how rude he had to be at the end, sans coming clean.

You ran away Al, hoping we would forget about it. But that just proves beyond any doubt that your claims about "struggling", about needing our help to solve the problem, and most especially about being "extremely" skeptical were merely classic embellishment/exaggeration.

This lending of our credentials to woo always backfires under scrutiny. The game being played is to say that you are a professional building inspector that can't figure out why floors creak. To a skeptic, we conclude in the context of all this other deceptive behavior that you are either incompetent at your professed trade, or you are lying.

Why not model your behavior, Al, after the parents who come clean about Santa Claus. Because evading, diverting, running away - that is what makes it trolling.

 

[Pixel42]

Consider that many people claim to observe ghosts. Many such claims can be disregarded as unreliable. But what of the claims that are relatively free of the "woo" element? And the "usual suspects" such as mass hallucination, etc do not seem to adequately apply given the circumstances.

I have never read such a claim where the "usual suspects" of fallible perceptions, cognitive biases (eg pareidolia) and desire for attention were not perfectly adequate explanations. If you know of one by all means let's discuss it.

 

[steenkh]

I have never read such a claim where the "usual suspects" of fallible perceptions, cognitive biases (eg pareidolia) and desire for attention were not perfectly adequate explanations. If you know of one by all means let's discuss it.

Exactly. That was the right answer.

 

[yog_sothoth]

As a skeptic who had an intense visitation dream (Google it), I have some sympathy for those who have realistic ghost encounters. If not for a skeptical background I would absolutely have zero doubt that I had seen and touched a ghost. I have less sympathy for fakers, however.

If a reasonable way is found to overcome the awkwardness of recruiting bereaved subjects and surveilling their bedrooms, paranormal researchers should look into visitation dreams. If I was going to look for ghosts it would start there. I am not going to, but it looks more fruitful than hanging out in old houses with video equipment.

 

[Jodie]

As a skeptic who had an intense visitation dream (Google it), I have some sympathy for those who have realistic ghost encounters. If not for a skeptical background I would absolutely have zero doubt that I had seen and touched a ghost. I have less sympathy for fakers, however.

If a reasonable way is found to overcome the awkwardness of recruiting bereaved subjects and surveilling their bedrooms, paranormal researchers should look into visitation dreams. If I was going to look for ghosts it would start there. I am not going to, but it looks more fruitful than hanging out in old houses with video equipment.

I'm not certain how you would go about researching visitation dreams. I know without a doubt that my mother visited me after she died. We were still young at the time, both my younger siblings were still in school. My mother told me what was going to happen to them and asked me to look after them. Amazingly, what she said came true.

 

[Jodie]

Anecdotes are nothing.

Unless they are your anecdotes, then it defines your reality.

 

[Nonpareil]

Unless they are your anecdotes, then it defines your reality.

Only if you let it.

You are free to choose rationality over credulity. Most people don't, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I've seen quite a few things that I can't explain. I have utterly failed to make the leap to ghosts.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I'm not certain how you would go about researching visitation dreams. I know without a doubt that my mother visited me after she died. We were still young at the time, both my younger siblings were still in school. My mother told me what was going to happen to them and asked me to look after them. Amazingly, what she said came true.

Nope. Your mother did no such thing.

How normal do you think it is that you might dream about your mother visiting? Considering she planted the idea in the first place, it's not amazing at all. Trivial at best.