I agree with mirrorglass, the definition of a ghost should come after proof of existence of a ghost, once every other non ghost cause has been ruled out.
ie if it is not of human origin then it is paranormal (call it a ghost or whatever).
I always chuckle at threads that get stalled on definitions. It's let's argue the words and not the statement/question.
Definitions are quite important in discussion. Especially in a case like this, where there was no actual statement, but just a question, and the question turned out to be inadequately defined. Answering the question required defining the term 'ghost', and we've yet to reach a consensus on that.
And am very surprised this has not already been decided (definition of ghost) on a thread for sceptics. How can you say those with 'ghost evidence' are wrong if you have not decided what they are wrong about.
You're looking at this backwards. It's not up to the skeptic to prove something
doesn't exist, especially if we don't know what that something is. If you claim a ghost exists, then you must give an adequate definition of 'ghost' in order for your claim to be falsifiable.
We don't decide what those with 'ghost evidence' are talking about. The problem is, those people usually don't either, which is why their claims are impossible to investigate.
But I do also realise the fact sceptics do not believe in the possibility of ghosts means defining what one is (when it does not exist) is confusing, and possibly unanswerable....because to answer it is to admit it exists.
Not at all. I can easily offer you any number of definition of a ghost, a dragon, a grue or a skewsaddach, and that won't mean any of those things exist. The trouble is, the people who actually believe in these things won't accept my definitions.
The definition of 'ghost' I go by is 'an apparition, often human-like, that is considered supernatural by the viewer due to confusion, illusion or other mistake'. Obviously a believer won't like that. Another definition I've discussed above. However, that definition demands that the 'ghost'
cannot be explained by any fakery or illusion. Most believers don't accept this definition, either, mostly because ghosts only seem to appear in environments where trickery and illusion are quite possible.
On top of that, many believers insist on claiming a ghost is 'the soul of a deceased', 'residue life energy' or such like, and invariably fail to offer consistent definitions of 'soul' or 'life energy', making their definitions meaningless.
I am actually reminded of the discovery of TB
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/tuberculosis/readmore.html
It was suspected a bacterium may be responsible for the disease, but the bacteria could never be seen in standard microbiology practices. Once a method of viewing it was found the bacterium was named and defined. And regarded as a great discovery.
Certainly it's within the realm of possibility that ghost could one day be found. However, there's a decisive difference between the idea of ghosts and the idea of M.tuberculosis: the latter actually
explains a detectable phenomenon. Ghosts don't offer an explanation for anything but themselves, and despite attempts, no one has been able to show the whole phenomenon is more than illusion and fakery. That's why claims of ghosts are fare less believable than claims of new, smaller bacteria.
Believe it or not Resume, some of us choose to think along those lines. We also consider ourselves openminded and willing to be proven incorrect. Our juries are still out on a lot of issues.
I suppose though we do consider anecdotal evidence as valid in some instances. This no doubt is based on the fact we can't consider ALL instances of anecdotal evidence as false and lies.
So simply think until all of them are disproven logically, maybe there is something in some of them.
This may make us non critical thinkers or irrational , but as I have posted before, basically humans are all irrational thinkers. And does not make our opinion any less important to others either.
In the case of proof of the existance of a ghost.
You misunderstand what critical thinking means. People here don't consider anecdotal evidence valid in most debates, sure. But that doesn't mean we systematically
disbelieve all anecdotal claims - we simply hold the default state of not believing a claim, such as ghosts, until proper evidence is shown.
We don't deny that there is plenty of evidence for ghost
sightings. However, the logical thing to do is assume those sightings are due to known, natural causes, such as fakery and human error - both very common and well understood,
especially since many, many sightings have been shown to be false, yet
no investigation has ever yielded proof of anything 'supernatural'.
So yes, there is
something to all the sightings. But until someone can show that something is supernatural, we'll just assume it isn't.
I would say a lot of anecdotal evidence (repeatable), with multiple witnesses, and followed up by all non paranormal causes being discounted, as well as the accepted 'ghost hunting' devices giving suitable readings, that have also had non paranormal causes discounted. Would suggest further study be worthy.
With the exception of the devices - there's no such thing as an 'accepted' ghost hunting device - yes, such a discovery would be quite marvelous. But the point is, evidence such as you describe has never been reliably presented.
Okay so nothing will prove the existence of a ghost. Okay let's all get back to our lives now.
I don't see my OP as opening up a debate, per se. At least, that's not what my objective was. It is because it is so hard to define a ghost that we ca conclude they don't exist. No definition is available, for lack of a better term.
My question has been answered.
Go now in peace. Amen.
Sweetie, a thread is like a baby bird. You can't
own it, you just start it off and let if free. After that it will fly where it wills. If your question was answered, you have no obligation to keep posting here, but the conversation will continue as long as there are two people who
hate each other disagree. So don't worry about it, the thread will die when it's time has come.
And some killer bees.
