Ghosts?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Kooz, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. Wereghost

    Wereghost Part-time poltergeist Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland
    I am less skeptical about ghosts than I am about the afterlife. I dunno, I think that there may be something there (or lots of somethings, conflated into one supposed phenomenon). There are more things in heaven and earth, etc. But I don't think that even if there is a truly weird phenomenon going on it has much to do with a self-aware entity that has survived the death of the body. That would probably be like a computer program continuing to run on thin air after the computer and monitor have been smashed up and sent to the junkyard. One can wildly hypothesise, though, that some element in old stone buildings can somehow record and pay back the memories that pass through a person's mind in their final moments. But then, there are no arbitrary limits on wild hypotheses.
     
  2. Tora Ziyal

    Tora Ziyal Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Perhaps. There's really no proof either way.
     
  3. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    I believe in the afterlife, but not ghosts.
     
  4. Gaseous Anomaly

    Gaseous Anomaly Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    A padded cell
    I've watched Ghost Hunters, good for a laugh, but NO I don't believe in ghosts. (Well except for ghost07.)
     
  5. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    I suspect a lot of "ghosts" are just gaseous anomalies.
     
  6. Coloratura

    Coloratura Snuggle Princess Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    At the Piano
    Spot on.
     
  7. MHT1138

    MHT1138 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ, USA
    I don't really believe in ghosts, but I don't know everything, so who knows :)
     
  8. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Ghosts are a silly primitive supernatural explanation of possibly unusual or completely normal events that may otherwise be explained when not in the moment. I believe people are generally given license to believe in such things because of certain religious and cultural beliefs.

    http://www.skepdic.com/ghosts.html
     
  9. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Well not quite right....those who express a belief in ghosts must support their position, the current evidence is that they do not exist. Lack of evidence however is not proof.

    In addition there has been a long standing prize for proof of paranormal events, including ghosts, and it would seem to be an easy $1 million if such things happen at the frequency claimed by the devout believers. So far 1000 people have failed..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...n#The_One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

    RAMA
     
  10. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    That's not how science works. It works via the falsification of hypotheses. So claiming that ghosts do not exist without providing evidence is dubious from a scientific point of view (while being of course totally sound from a commonsensical point of view). In science the burden of proof is always on the guy who says this is wrong, not on the guy who theorizes and comes up with funky hypotheses.
     
  11. EnterpriseF

    EnterpriseF Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    5th level of Hades
    I am not sure. I firmly believe in Occam's razor, but I have "experienced" things happening that I can't explain how or why.
     
  12. Kooz

    Kooz Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2011
    Location:
    Stamford, CT
    That's not quite right. You start with a null hypothesis. If you want to assert the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works. Plus, there's no way of proving a negative, so science can't work that way.
     
  13. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    You do not validate a null hypothesis, you only reject it. Burden of proof is never on the theoretician. That's why the only scientifically sound statement so far on ghosts is "maybe".
    If people could not come up with all kind of funky hypotheses in science we would hardly make any progress.
    In theoretical physics the folks opposed to string theory commit the same fallacy by the way. It is not unscientific just because it is not testable yet. One day it might very well be.
     
  14. Deckerd

    Deckerd Fleet Arse Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    the Frozen Wastes
    Have there not been many scientific studies to try and find anything that could be construed as paranormal? And, although this has already been mentioned it bears repetition, not so much as a ghost of proof has been found. I'd say that puts the paranormal squarely in the faith camp.
     
  15. Chemahkuu

    Chemahkuu Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Decades of constant research, using equipment outside the reach of the combined income of most of the board and not one single shred of proof, ever.
     
  16. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Sounds highly dubious. Which scientist would seriously try to hunt ghosts? Doesn't sound like something which could get published.

    Of course ghosts do not exist. We cannot imagine to not be anymore one day so we make up this kind of stuff. But from a scientific point of view you could not say that they do not exist, just like you could not say that unicorns to not exist. There might be a funky planet after all where these horses actually roam through the forests. Doesn't mean that you cannot doubt the sanity of anybody who thinks that unicorns are real, merely means that the scientific method is fairly rigorous and doesn't always allow you to say the commonsensical thing.
     
  17. backstept

    backstept Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    I ain't afraid of no ghosts.
     
  18. Chemahkuu

    Chemahkuu Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Wereghost

    Wereghost Part-time poltergeist Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland
    Not sure where you're coming from on this. Criminal law employs the scienttific method, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, any scientific analysis of reported ghost encounters should presume the paranormal to be innocent of being the culprit until proven otherwise.
     
  20. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    You confuse in dubio pro reo with the scientific method where you never affirm but merely reject a hypothesis.
     

Share This Page