What would constitute proof of a ghost?

The short answer would be repeatable experiments that verify a "ghost hypothesis" that you've formulated based on your observations.

Pictures and video don't even begin to come up to the level of evidence required. We can make pretty much any image we want at this point given enough money.
 
Nursedan said:
Yeah mighta been too harsh. It sounded like he was asking me to answer my own question. I don't know what a ghost is, do you? Does anyone? How would I know the properties and mechanics of a ghost?
Click to expand...

No. The definition is very much the problem. You can't answer the question about proof if you don't first define the term.

The problem is illustrated by the question, "What would constitute proof of the existence of a 4-sided triangle?" Or "What would constitute proof of a gerzulflimp?"

The term ghost conventionally means something that is logically inconsistent.* If you're not using that definition, then you're asking about proof of the existence of something that is undefined.

*For example, a ghost can walk through walls, which suggests it is immaterial, but the fact that it can walk suggests that it has material (you can't walk without being a mass).
 
Wow some great responses. MissKitt seems to have nailed - that makes total sense.

If I'm committing a logical fallacy with my premise, someone tell me!
 
MikeSun5 said:
Sheesh. :rolleyes: Methinks you're being intentionally difficult.

For those who have never heard of a ghost before: Here's the dictionary entry... I'd imagine that definitions 1 or 2 would probably be okay for the sake of this conversation. ;)
Click to expand...
I must be being intentionally difficult again because I don't see how that helps at all, but obviously you do. So, based on those definitions, what are the properties of ghosts that we would set out to find and measure?
 
Nursedan said:
If I'm committing a logical fallacy with my premise, someone tell me!
Click to expand...

See my posts in this thread. It's not a specific logical fallacy, but you're asking either how to prove a contradiction or you're asking about the existence of something that is undefined.

A logical definition is a list of properties or characteristics of the class such that what you mean is included in the class and what you don't mean is excluded.

So again, what's the definition of ghost?

If you're talking about inductive proof, you must give a formal definition of the term.

If you're talking about inductive (experimental evidence), then you have to give an operational definition (this has to do with what measurements you would take). That is, you've got to have a hypothesis before you can test it.

One way or another, it's not good enough to say everyone knows what ghost means.

ETA: In covering both inductive and deductive support for the existence of ghosts, I'm trying to address the issue Resume raised. I don't think it's as clear cut as that (that anytime the word "proof" is used, deductive/mathematical reasoning is meant, and anytime the word "evidence" is used, inductive/scientific reasoning is meant), but at least there is ambiguity in the term "proof".
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
Immaterial and capricious. Or non-existent. Either way, I don't think it's possible to prove they exist.
Click to expand...

Immaterial. . . sort of or sometimes. Other characteristics usually attributed to ghosts point to them having a material/physical existence of some sort.

So again, it depends on what you mean. As MikeSun points out, according to the dictionary, the word can be used to mean something like a soul or the seat of animation in a living person (as in "give up the ghost") or it can mean a wholly non-human spirit or demon, or it can mean something else.

I think definition #2 is the only one Nursedan is talking about, BTW, and it includes the logical contradiction I've been mentioning: something disembodied that has physical manifestations. And it uses the equally poorly defined term soul in the definition such that you can't define ghost without defining soul. (A logical definition isn't a synonym, but a list of characteristics such that what you mean is included and what you don't mean is excluded. And an operational definition is one that tells you what to measure.)
 
Anyone have copies of those old time faked photographs of ghosts? The one where they stuffed cotton around a lady's face to simulate smoke?

Those always made me laugh :D
 
And those of us demanding a definition aren't being unreasonable. There's a history of ghost claims of material manifestations. Even today "ghost hunters" claim to be able to photograph ghosts sometimes. They claim ghosts can change the temperature and give of electromagnetic radiation. They claim ghost voices can be recorded onto magnetic tape, and so on.

So the definition is contradictory: it's a non physical thing with physical properties. Again, what would it take to prove the existence of a four-sided triangle?
 
A good start would be to apply the "Hamlet" test: Encounter a non-corporeal apparition that actually provides you with knowledge of something you didn't (or couldn't) know, but having learned it, you could verify its truth.

In "Hamlet," Hamlet sees a mysterious apparition that appears to be his father (although he can't be sure). This ghost tells Hamlet details of how Hamlet's uncle murdered Hamlet's father. Hamlet thereafter prompts some actors to put on a play for the new king (Hamlet's uncle) in which this exact mode of murder is played out, and the king's emotional reaction shows that the ghost's information was indeed correct.
 
I would simply ask the unidentified entity or hitherto known to me to be dead person,

"Are you a ghost"?

I assume ghosts are honest coves and would expect an honest answer.

Hopefully my entities and ghosts would all speak English or at least a little bit of French, Spanish and Bahasa Melayu.
 
What constitutes proof of anything?
Repeted , consistent results under blinded conditions.

Ghosts (if they exist outside human minds) would actually seem to interact with matter and electromagnetism to a far higher degree than neutrinos, yet scientists who sneer at the idea of ghosts, take neutrinos pretty seriously.
 
Nursedan said:
If I'm committing a logical fallacy with my premise, someone tell me!
Click to expand...
You can only make a logical fallacy when you're making an argument. You're just asking a question.

However, as I've shown, your question is meaningless unless you define the term ghost.
 
"If they _exist_" is the key point. If ghosts existed, they'd have some effect/impact on their surroundings that would be detectable, observable and measurable. They'd take up space, leave traces, have measurable effects on their environments ... unless their environment/existence is completely in the mind (which is more the case).

They'd weigh something, set off motion detectors, have a measurable presence, smell like something (leaving, thus, some sort of organic or chemical trace that could be detected, measured and analyzed) ...

Everything that exists ... well ... exists. Something that doesn't have an impact on its surroundings in tangible, measurable, repeatable, observable ways doesn't _exist_ and therefore is very likey only a figment of the imagination.

Or maybe ghosts are the ultimate Heisenberg joke of the universe on the rest of us.
 
Before I could believe in the existence of ghosts, I think I'd have to see a body first.
 
Well these responses have been very eye opening. I can conclude that there is no such thing as a ghost.

I have been asked to define my terms, but darnit, I just don't know how, but I'll try; a ghost is an entity that has an effect on sentient beings but.....

Oh heck I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom