What would constitute proof of a ghost?

Mister Earl said:
The way I see it, if ghosts were real, they'd outnumber the living by now.
Click to expand...

Even that conclusion makes a number of assumptions about the definition of ghost. (Primarily that they're defined as something that can accumulate and that lasts forever.)

Even so, it's not an argument one way or another about their existence. Plenty of things that really exist outnumber living humans. And that's actual, material things that occupy space.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Not if reincarnation was an actuality .. :D
Click to expand...

And that every (or most) humans who have died result in a ghost. (Plenty of people don't believe that--but that ghosts only result in exceptional situations.)

Again, it's a pointless question unless one defines ghost.
 
Nursedan said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are two classes of real things.
Objectively real - and imaginary.
Imaginary things exist in human minds- and can extend from there to physical reality of sorts. This is art. Banquo's ghost is real enough- as a creation of a playright. Dragons are real. But only imagined dragons.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And that every (or most) humans who have died result in a ghost. (Plenty of people don't believe that--but that ghosts only result in exceptional situations.)

Again, it's a pointless question unless one defines ghost[/I].
Click to expand...


That's the problem with all these ghosthuntin' shows . . . What are they calling a ghost? Of course these boneheads couldn't spell hypothesis if you spotted them the hypo. And the thesis.
 
Sledge said:
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?
Click to expand...

:D Hey, you seemed confused as to what a ghost was, and I was trying to help. I knew what the OP meant by ghost.

I linked to the Merriam-Webster definition to give you guys a hard time show that common accepted definitions of words are easy to find. I don't see why people don't just go with dictionary entries when looking for definitions... if the OPer was using the word incorrectly, or basing an entire argument on say, definition number 14, I could see why it'd be needed to demand clarification.
 
Last edited:
MikeSun5 said:
:D Hey, you seemed confused as to what a ghost was, and I was trying to help. I knew what the OP meant by ghost.

I linked to the Merriam-Webster definition to give you guys a hard time show that common accepted definitions of words are easy to find. I don't see why people don't just go with dictionary entries when looking for definitions... if the OPer was using the word incorrectly, or basing an entire argument on say, definition number 14, I could see why it'd be needed to demand clarification.
Click to expand...

Did I use too many big words for you? I'm not some credulous halfwit that will run screaming from you linking to a dictionary definition, especially when said definition does not help with the discussion. So, stop trying to be clever and bring something useful to the party.
 
Sledge said:
I'm not some credulous halfwit that will run screaming from you linking to a dictionary definition, especially when said definition does not help with the discussion.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to get you all pissy, but that was all you needed to say: The definition did not help you. Although I do wonder what discussion you thought you were having where a different definition for "ghost" was applicable. (don't answer that)
And as far as me bringing something useful to the party, I'll have to take a back seat to the wealth of useful information you've contributed thus far. :rolleyes: Color me defeated.

Oh, and here's what the ghost-hunters think they're "measuring."
 
MikeSun5 said:
I didn't mean to get you all pissy, but that was all you needed to say: The definition did not help you. Although I do wonder what discussion you thought you were having where a different definition for "ghost" was applicable. (don't answer that)
And as far as me bringing something useful to the party, I'll have to take a back seat to the wealth of useful information you've contributed thus far. :rolleyes: Color me defeated.

Oh, and here's what the ghost-hunters think they're "measuring."
Click to expand...

It's not just the definition but how that definition might be examined critically. Does the definition enable one to assemble a hypothesis? Is there content that might be tested?

Oh and the EMF meters these "ghosthunters" use are just silly.
 
Soapy Sam said:
There are two classes of real things.
Objectively real - and imaginary.
Imaginary things exist in human minds- and can extend from there to physical reality of sorts. This is art. Banquo's ghost is real enough- as a creation of a playright. Dragons are real. But only imagined dragons.
Click to expand...

(cue dismissive Dr. Evil voice)

Riiggghhhttt....

Real things are imaginary?
 
MikeSun5 said:
I don't see why people don't just go with dictionary entries when looking for definitions...
Click to expand...
Then maybe you haven't been reading my posts.

For a logical argument (deductive proof) a term must defined by listing all the characteristics that include what you mean and exclude what you don't.

For inductive proof, you have to give an operational definition of the term (so you know what you're going to measure).

The dictionary definition, as you say, reflects conventional usage. It offers several completely different meanings for the term, and the one I think the OP was using comes with a logical inconsistency.

If that's the definition he's using, it excludes all things that exist (in the sense of the question asked in the OP--sorry, SoapySam, but there's no way the question in the OP was about the "existence" of fictional or imaginary things), and the question is no more meaningful than the question, "What would constitute proof of a 4 sided triangle?"
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Then maybe you haven't been reading my posts.

For a logical argument (deductive proof) a term must defined by listing all the characteristics that include what you mean and exclude what you don't.

For inductive proof, you have to give an operational definition of the term (so you know what you're going to measure).

The dictionary definition, as you say, reflects conventional usage. It offers several completely different meanings for the term, and the one I think the OP was using comes with a logical inconsistency.

If that's the definition he's using, it excludes all things that exist (in the sense of the question asked in the OP--sorry, SoapySam, but there's no way the question in the OP was about the "existence" of fictional or imaginary things), and the question is no more meaningful than the question, "What would constitute proof of a 4 sided triangle?"
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much going with this.
 
To the OP...

1. First, provide a detailed definition of "ghost", as others here have already mentioned.

2. Second, identify some kind of specific physical mechanism by which a "ghost" can be detected, AND provide a coherent explanation for why it is that a "ghost" would be detectable by these means.

3. Third, provide a method by which a "ghost" can be distinguished from any other well-understood natural phenomena that could give the same results as in #2.

Addressing these three points would be critical in proceeding seriously on this subject. Anything less is basically hand-waving and arguing from ignorance.
 
Last edited:
MikeSun5 said:
Oh, and here's what the ghost-hunters think they're "measuring."
Click to expand...

I couldn't get the link to work, but from the name of the link, I assume it's an article about ghost hunters using EMF meters. I think this illustrates the problem of looking for "proof" without yet defining the term. They attribute any so-called "anomalous" reading to ghosts, and of course we know this is NOT evidence of anything supernatural.
 
Resume said:
Oh and the EMF meters these "ghosthunters" use are just silly.
Click to expand...

It's not that the meters themselves are silly - EMF meters are the real deal... it's just the manner in which the "ghost hunters" use & misinterpret the readings that is silly.

It would be like using a ruler to prove the existence of leprechauns :rolleyes:

ETA: I did an interview with Seth Shostak of SETI Radio last month on this very topic. Linky - skip ahead to the 24:00 mark for my interview.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
It's not that the meters themselves are silly - EMF meters are the real deal... it's just the manner in which the "ghost hunters" use & misinterpret the readings that is silly.

It would be like using a ruler to prove the existence of leprechauns :rolleyes:

ETA: I did an interview with Seth Shostak of SETI Radio last month on this very topic. Linky - skip ahead to the 24:00 mark for my interview.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. EMF meters are not designed to find ghosts. It's silly people that use them for that purpose.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I couldn't get the link to work, but from the name of the link, I assume it's an article about ghost hunters using EMF meters. I think this illustrates the problem of looking for "proof" without yet defining the term. They attribute any so-called "anomalous" reading to ghosts, and of course we know this is NOT evidence of anything supernatural.
Click to expand...

I think the ASSAP might agree with you concerning the problem of looking for "proof" without yet defining the term of "ghosts". Here is their view on the subject:

When ASSAP started, there were no such things as ghost hunting kits. There wasn't even much in the way of cheap hand-held electronic equipment. Ghost hunting is now one the biggest uses for EMF meters around. Today, you can buy a ready-made brief case full of exciting bits of electronic kit designed to help you record and even detect a ghost.

But do ghost detectors really work? The first problem is - what is a ghost? If you don't know what one is then how do know how to detect it! From the evidence ASSAP has accumulated down the years, all we can say with certainty is that a ghost is something that looks like a person that a witness experiences.

Some 'ghosts' are undoubtedly hallucinations (eg. hynopompic, hypnagogic, sleep paralysis, etc). Other 'ghosts' are real people or objects mistaken for apparitions. Of the remaining unexplained sightings, no one seems to have been using any instrument when they were seen (or if they were it wasn't widely reported!). So, even supposing it is possible to detect ghosts, we at ASSAP certainly don't know how to do it. If anyone else does, please do get in touch.
Click to expand...
 
Dmarie said:
I think the ASSAP might agree with you concerning the problem of looking for "proof" without yet defining the term of "ghosts". Here is their view on the subject:

<snip>
If you don't know what one is then how do know how to detect it! From the evidence ASSAP has accumulated down the years, all we can say with certainty is that a ghost is something that looks like a person that a witness experiences.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Problem is, that's no where near a definition. It fails to exclude a great many things that aren't generally meant by the word ghost.

And, since they have no formal logical definition or operational definition, using their gadgets to gather "evidence" makes no sense whatsoever.

So no, I don't think my position agrees with that of ASSAP at all. Even though they admit that defining the term is necessary, they fail to do so, and yet they go right on pretending that they can gather evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom