Ghosts (Real or Bull)

[Batmensch]

You would reasonably expect a skeptical adult to remain indifferent in the event he or she happens to meet a corpulent white-beard man with a red coat with white collar & cuffs walking down the street around Christmas time!

Similarly you would expect a skeptic placed in a similar predicament, to stand up and calmly go check the TV out or the moving object that was on the table for instance. Not go beserk as in the video. I think that’s a fair prediction!

No, it's not. It's likely it would be more a fear of "somebody's messing with me, and I don't know why", not, after a lifetime of skepticism, they would suddenly believe that ghosts are real and they're out to get them just because of parlor tricks. If that were true, then they wouldn't be genuine skeptics.

 

[Batmensch]

to split hairs, that criterion isn't quite good enough, since what satisfies an individual could very well be in conflict with the "right" explanation (as far as that goes).

sagan to the rescue! Link Removed

We could use Carl Sagan these days.

 

[Noseferatu]

I've had a few experiences, but it's like I've said before:



You can use whatever means to disprove it that you like: electromagnetic fields, mental issues, etc, but you sing a whole different tune when you're on the business end of it, trust me.

 

[flypejose]

No, it's not. It's likely it would be more a fear of "somebody's messing with me, and I don't know why", not, after a lifetime of skepticism, they would suddenly believe that ghosts are real and they're out to get them just because of parlor tricks. If that were true, then they wouldn't be genuine skeptics.

I would have known immediately that it was a prank. I don't believe in ghosts.

I’m almost certain that If any skeptic sees a dead loved one floating above his or her bed at 3:00am, the same gonna lose control of his or her sphincter!

 

[Batmensch]

I’m almost certain that If any skeptic sees a dead loved one floating above his or her bed at 3:00am, the same gonna lose control of his or her sphincter!

IF They saw a dead loved one.
But they wouldn't, because ghosts aen't real. At least that's what a true skeptic would think. They would think that someone's messing with them using cheap parlor tricks. Not saying they wouldn't initially be startled, but they wouldn't change their world view just like that.

 

[flypejose]

IF They saw a dead loved one.
But they wouldn't, because ghosts aen't real. At least that's what a true skeptic would think. They would think that someone's messing with them using cheap parlor tricks. Not saying they wouldn't initially be startled, but they wouldn't change their world view just like that.

If they’re not willing to change their views then I would qualify that as militancy rather than skepticism! What should ghosts do to prove they do exist apart from showing up (when they’re least expected)?

 

[Batmensch]

Why should they change their views just because they've witnessed something that can be explained quite easily without resorting to the superntural?

 

[fdeck]

If they’re not willing to change their views then I would qualify that as militancy rather than skepticism! What should ghosts do to prove they do exist apart from showing up (when they’re least expected)?

Burden of proof is on the shoulders of the claimant. Presumably the proof would depend on the nature of the ghosts. There's no way that one can have a procedure for dealing with that which doesn't even have any specific substance.

As for changing views, of course one should do so when confronted with robust evidence. But it also makes sense to maintain a position of some resiliency as opposed to changing one's entire world view in response to every empty claim or mysterious anecdote.

 

[Munjibunga]

You know, what's troubling to me these days is that there are plenty of idiots out there who eat up stuff like Ghost Hunters and Conspiracy Theory like they actually have validity. I don't know how anyone could watch the moronic drivel that comes out of those shows and believe a word of it.

 

[flypejose]

Burden of proof is on the shoulders of the claimant. Presumably the proof would depend on the nature of the ghosts.

True!

There's no way that one can have a procedure for dealing with that which doesn't even have any specific substance.

As for changing views, of course one should do so when confronted with robust evidence. But it also makes sense to maintain a position of some resiliency as opposed to changing one's entire world view in response to every empty claim or mysterious anecdote.

Something meaningful here! I think many people don’t realize what they’re demanding when they summon immediate proof for something of that nature.

Last Wednesday evening I attended a presentation by Dr Hugh Ross at the University of Maryland College Park. He reminded us how astrophysicists have found ways to quantify the most elusive characteristics of physical objects like the light coming from distant stars and galaxies, etc. It’s amazing! But I was thinking how about things like love or charisma? Whenever you experience their effects you know it instantaneously! Don’t even think about the supernatural.
I personally don’t care about ghost in the sense that I don’t look out for them, but to me naturalism fails miserably to explain the whole human experience!

 

[flypejose]

You know, what's troubling to me these days is that there are plenty of idiots out there who eat up stuff like Ghost Stories and Conspiracy Theory like they actually have validity. I don't know how anyone could watch the moronic drivel that comes out of those shows and believe a word of it.

I agree partly! the reason why there are conspiracy theories out there is bcause there are secret societies out there.

 

[Batmensch]

I agree partly! the reason why there are conspiracy theories out there is bcause there are secret societies out there.

Exactly right! And just because you suffer from clinical paranoia doesn't mean they're not out to get you!! (ahem)

 

[champbassist]

Conspiracy Theory like they actually have validity.

I see you're from Groom Lake, NV. Maybe there's a connection?

Honestly, what freaks me out isn't some 'undead entity', but possibly real living creatures, i.e. cryptids: the yeti, sasquatch, the Mongolian sand worm, etc.

 

[thumpbass1]

I believe that there are honest, credible, people, that believe that they have experienced paranormal events. Even skeptics, agnostics, and atheists, sometimes have reported uncanny experiences. How each individual experiencing such events interprets their experience will vary in many degrees, and that's where the difference is found. I am a healthy skeptic, who has had an uncanny experience in my younger days, and I'll leave it at that. I won't claim to have any solid evidence beyond a witness, and in general the paranormal research field hasn't come up with smoking gun evidence that skeptics want in the scientific sense. If anything has done damage to the credibility of paranormal research of a serious nature is the ever popular ghost hunting t.v. shows that every cable network wants to cash in on. I wouldn't trust the Ghost Hunters bunch to properly read a volt-meter, let alone a thermal camera image. Sweet mercy, on one show, they picked up a cat in a barn window, misread the color of the signature, watched the cat move back inside of the barn window they were looking at, and spewed bunk about, 'It looks like it's morphing, we don't know what it is!' type nonsense. The other shows are just as laughable at times. I also wonder why such television research groups never submit their so called evidence to an independent investigative review. Anyways that's my 2 cents worth of discussion for today.

 

[champbassist]

I believe that there are honest, credible, people, that believe that they have experienced paranormal events. Even skeptics, agnostics, and atheists, sometimes have reported uncanny experiences. How each individual experiencing such events interprets their experience will vary in many degrees, and that's where the difference is found. I am a healthy skeptic, who has had an uncanny experience in my younger days, and I'll leave it at that. I won't claim to have any solid evidence beyond a witness, and in general the paranormal research field hasn't come up with smoking gun evidence that skeptics want in the scientific sense. If anything has done damage to the credibility of paranormal research of a serious nature is the ever popular ghost hunting t.v. shows that every cable network wants to cash in on. I wouldn't trust the Ghost Hunters bunch to properly read a volt-meter, let alone a thermal camera image. Sweet mercy, on one show, they picked up a cat in a barn window, misread the color of the signature, watched the cat move back inside of the barn window they were looking at, and spewed bunk about, 'It looks like it's morphing, we don't know what it is!' type nonsense. The other shows are just as laughable at times. I also wonder why such television research groups never submit their so called evidence to an independent investigative review. Anyways that's my 2 cents worth of discussion for today.

We seem to be on the same wavelength. I agree with whatever you said here.

Or, as they'd say in other, less intense threads, +1

 

[dave64o]

If they’re not willing to change their views then I would qualify that as militancy rather than skepticism! What should ghosts do to prove they do exist apart from showing up (when they’re least expected)?

Maybe show up in a situation where multiple people see it, where skeptics and believers alike see it, where it's in a public and populated place, etc? Why is always at 3:00 and when the person they visit is asleep and groggy and, to put it bluntly, *still dreaming* and has no one else around to corroborate the situation? If they're not of this world then why are they so fearful of it and us that they have to sneak around at night and only visit people when they're alone in order to freak them out? Wouldn't it be a lot more fun for a ghost to show up in public in the daytime and freak out an entire city?!

Same with the little green men in the UFOs. How come they never visit populated areas in the day time? If they're so advanced that they can travel distances at the universe level, then what do they have to fear from *us* that they have to be so sneaky? How come they only show up in remote places and appear to drunk people people who've already talked to The National Enquirer about a story deal?

 

[fdeck]

Something meaningful here! I think many people don’t realize what they’re demanding when they summon immediate proof for something of that nature.

Oh, it's not really very demanding at all. Immediate proof, such as personal anecdotes, is easy and plentiful. Compare your typical ghost story to the level of proof demanded of general relativity.

It's not that I reject immediate proof in all cases. It's a judgment call. For instance I know pretty much right away if the chain falls off my bike, or if somebody is calling my cell phone.

Last Wednesday evening I attended a presentation by Dr Hugh Ross at the University of Maryland College Park. He reminded us how astrophysicists have found ways to quantify the most elusive characteristics of physical objects like the light coming from distant stars and galaxies, etc. It’s amazing! But I was thinking how about things like love or charisma? Whenever you experience their effects you know it instantaneously! Don’t even think about the supernatural.
I personally don’t care about ghost in the sense that I don’t look out for them, but to me naturalism fails miserably to explain the whole human experience!

And supernaturalism has succeeded? According to supernaturalism, there are at least 3000 gods, and at least hundreds of prophecies that are mutually contradictory but vehemently believed to be proven. Over the space of 6000+ years, all that supernaturalism can offer us is millions of incommensurable factoids.

 

[flypejose]

Maybe show up in a situation where multiple people see it, where skeptics and believers alike see it, where it's in a public and populated place, etc? Why is always at 3:00 and when the person they visit is asleep and groggy and, to put it bluntly, *still dreaming* and has no one else around to corroborate the situation? If they're not of this world then why are they so fearful of it and us that they have to sneak around at night and only visit people when they're alone in order to freak them out? Wouldn't it be a lot more fun for a ghost to show up in public in the daytime and freak out an entire city?!

Same with the little green men in the UFOs. How come they never visit populated areas in the day time? If they're so advanced that they can travel distances at the universe level, then what do they have to fear from *us* that they have to be so sneaky? How come they only show up in remote places and appear to drunk people people who've already talked to The National Enquirer about a story deal?

I’m precisely questioning the research methodology of some and not much come to the defense of any ghosts or UFO story. If for example you suspect the existence of creatures in the deep sea you probably won’t require them to show up in your laboratory before you begin your study.

You will certainly need some adapted equipments + the acknowledgement that you don’t know everything that be in the universe. That’s to me is the picture of a true scientist. But you know very well as I do that this topic is not strictly about science!

Oh, it's not really very demanding at all. Immediate proof, such as personal anecdotes, is easy and plentiful. Compare your typical ghost story to the level of proof demanded of general relativity.

It's not that I reject immediate proof in all cases. It's a judgment call. For instance I know pretty much right away if the chain falls off my bike, or if somebody is calling my cell phone.



And supernaturalism has succeeded? According to supernaturalism, there are at least 3000 gods, and at least hundreds of prophecies that are mutually contradictory but vehemently believed to be proven. Over the space of 6000+ years, all that supernaturalism can offer us is millions of incommensurable factoids.

Yeah plentiful and universal. Judgment could easily be clouded by one’s personal belief be it naturalism or else. But it’s obvious that naturalism has some serious handicaps even in the realm which it claims its domain! The human experience is much more than nature, atoms and biochemistry!

 

[fdeck]

But it’s obvious that naturalism has some serious handicaps even in the realm which it claims its domain! The human experience is much more than nature, atoms and biochemistry!

Evidence? I honestly can't think of a failure of physicalism, which is the hypothesis that consciousness is a physical process.

 

[flypejose]

Exactly right! And just because you suffer from clinical paranoia doesn't mean they're not out to get you!! (ahem)

Read history a bit! There are plenty of researches on the subject and not necessarily from loonies. In every secondary school text book (at least in French) you read about the role of secret societies in WWI (ever heard about “Archiduc Francois Ferdinand”?

To acknowledge that doesn’t mean I give credit to every conspiracy theories or conspiracy TV programs, or even ghost stories under the sun! I was precisely calling for restraint from incivilities. Mods help may be needed!

Evidence? I honestly can't think of a failure of physicalism, which is the hypothesis that consciousness is a physical process.

I respect your beliefs!