Ghosts?

[Skellington]

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.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Perhaps. There's really no proof either way.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I believe in the afterlife, but not ghosts.

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

I've watched Ghost Hunters, good for a laugh, but NO I don't believe in ghosts. (Well except for ghost07.)

 

[sojourner]

I suspect a lot of "ghosts" are just gaseous anomalies.

 

[Amaris]

No.

Spot on.

 

[MHT1138]

I don't really believe in ghosts, but I don't know everything, so who knows

 

[RAMA]

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

 

[RAMA]

Perhaps. There's really no proof either way.

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

 

[horatio83]

Perhaps. There's really no proof either way.

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.

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.

 

[EnterpriseF]

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.

 

[Kooz]

Perhaps. There's really no proof either way.

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.

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.

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.

 

[horatio83]

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.

 

[Deckerd]

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.

 

[Kemaiku]

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.

 

[horatio83]

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.

 

[backstept]

I ain't afraid of no ghosts.

 

[Kemaiku]

Unicorns

 

[Skellington]

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".

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.

 

[horatio83]

You confuse in dubio pro reo with the scientific method where you never affirm but merely reject a hypothesis.