Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Are ghosts real?

#1
C C Offline
https://www.livescience.com/26697-are-ghosts-real.html

EXCERPTS: If you believe in ghosts, you're not alone. Cultures all around the world believe in spirits that survive death to live in another realm. [...] vague criteria for ghostly happenings is part of the reason why myths about the afterlife are more alive than ever.

[...] One difficulty in scientifically evaluating ghosts is that a surprisingly wide variety of phenomena are attributed to ghosts ... many people who go on record as claiming to have had a ghostly experience didn't necessarily see anything that most people would recognize as a classic "ghost," and in fact they may have had completely different experiences whose only common factor is that it could not be readily explained.

Personal experience is one thing, but scientific evidence is another matter. Part of the difficulty in investigating ghosts is that there is not one universally agreed-upon definition of what a ghost is. Some believe that they are spirits of the dead who for whatever reason get "lost" on their way to The Other Side; others claim that ghosts are instead telepathic entities projected into the world from our minds.

Still others create their own special categories for different types of ghosts, such as poltergeists, residual hauntings, intelligent spirits and shadow people. Of course, it's all made up, like speculating on the different races of fairies or dragons: there are as many types of ghosts as you want there to be.

There are many contradictions inherent in ideas about ghosts. For example, are ghosts material or not? Either they can move through solid objects without disturbing them, or they can slam doors shut and throw objects across the room. According to logic and the laws of physics, it's one or the other. If ghosts are human souls, why do they appear clothed and with (presumably soulless) inanimate objects like hats, canes, and dresses...

[...] Ghost hunters use many creative (and dubious) methods to detect the spirits' presences, often including psychics. Virtually all ghost hunters claim to be scientific, and most give that appearance because they use high-tech scientific equipment [...] Yet none of this equipment has ever been shown to actually detect ghosts. ... it's likely that many of the signs taken as evidence by today's ghost hunters will be seen as just as wrong and antiquated centuries from now.

[...] Either ghosts exist and appear in our ordinary physical world (and can therefore be detected and recorded in photographs, film, video and audio recordings), or they don't. If ghosts exist and can be scientifically detected or recorded, then we should find hard evidence of that — yet we don't. If ghosts exist but cannot be scientifically detected or recorded, then all the photos, videos, audio and other recordings claimed to be evidence of ghosts cannot be ghosts. With so many basic contradictory theories — and so little science brought to bear on the topic ... not a single piece of hard evidence of ghosts has been found.

And, of course, with the recent development of "ghost apps" for smartphones, it's easier than ever to create seemingly spooky images and share them on social media, making separating fact from fiction even more difficult for ghost researchers.

[...] Most people who believe in ghosts do so because of some personal experience; they grew up in a home where the existence of (friendly) spirits was taken for granted, for example, or they had some unnerving experience on a ghost tour or local haunt.

[...] It is widely claimed that Albert Einstein suggested a scientific basis for the reality of ghosts, based on the First Law of Thermodynamics: If energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change form, what happens to our body's energy when we die? Could that somehow be manifested as a ghost? ... The answer is very simple, and not at all mysterious. After a person dies, the energy in his or her body goes where all organisms' energy goes after death: into the environment. The energy is released in the form of heat, and the body is transferred into the animals that eat us ... and the plants that absorb us. There is no bodily "energy" that survives death to be detected with popular ghost-hunting devices.

[...] ultimately, ghost hunting is not about the evidence at all (if it was, the search would have been abandoned long ago). Instead, it's about having fun with friends, telling stories, and the enjoyment of pretending to search the edge of the unknown. After all, everyone loves a good ghost story... (MORE - details)

RELATED: Can information be conserved, and why would it matter? ..... No-hiding theorem
- - - - - -

(Seisen Ghost Post) Urban Legend of the Slit-Mouthed Woman

There are not ghosts at Seisen


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/v5aoFXszDq4
Reply
#2
Magical Realist Online
Trust Science when it says something is. Distrust Science when it says something is not.
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
(Jun 20, 2021 10:11 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Trust Science when it says something is. Distrust Science when it says something is not.

Science doesn't say things don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. It just presumes the null hypothesis until someone can provide sufficient evidence of something existing. Like it or not, the null hypothesis is that odd occurrences have mundane sources until reliably demonstrated otherwise. So science isn't saying the paranormal isn't, it's just satisfied with saying the mundane is.
Reply
#4
Magical Realist Online
(Jun 20, 2021 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Jun 20, 2021 10:11 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Trust Science when it says something is. Distrust Science when it says something is not.

Science doesn't say things don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. It just presumes the null hypothesis until someone can provide sufficient evidence of something existing. Like it or not, the null hypothesis is that odd occurrences have mundane sources until reliably demonstrated otherwise. So science isn't saying the paranormal isn't, it's just satisfied with saying the mundane is.

But assuming all paranormal accounts are really just mundane events like car lights or pipes creaking or camera glitches is logically equivalent to saying there are no paranormal causes. It is affectively banning from the outset what it should ideally be open to objectively investigating. That's not science. Real science is open to the possibility of new phenomena. That's how it has made progress for 500 years. Not by defending negative assumptions.
Reply
#5
Syne Offline
(Jun 21, 2021 09:07 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Jun 20, 2021 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Science doesn't say things don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. It just presumes the null hypothesis until someone can provide sufficient evidence of something existing. Like it or not, the null hypothesis is that odd occurrences have mundane sources until reliably demonstrated otherwise. So science isn't saying the paranormal isn't, it's just satisfied with saying the mundane is.

But assuming all paranormal accounts are really just mundane events like car lights or pipes creaking or camera glitches is logically equivalent to saying there are no paranormal causes. It is affectively banning from the outset what it should ideally be open to objectively investigating. That's not science. Real science is open to the possibility of new phenomena. That's how it has made progress for 500 years. Not by defending negative assumptions.

No, you just don't understand simple logic. Scientific methodology is strictly about acknowledging what can be reliably demonstrated. All else just doesn't rise to the level of scientific scrutiny. There is no possible objective investigation of something that cannot be replicated or controlled in some manner. Real science is open to actual, verifiable evidence, nothing else. There are no negative assumptions in science, only the null hypothesis. And it would be your own personal problem if you think that things are only validated if science says so.
Reply
#6
Magical Realist Online
You keep touting the null hypothesis as if it is used by science in all of its investigations. I did a Google search on it and can only find a very specific definition of its use in statistics. See below. Perhaps you can post something to prove your use of that term as a general scientific principle? It's certainly not a step in the scientific method.

null hy·poth·e·sis
/nəl hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
"(in a statistical test) the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error."

https://www.google.com/search?q=null+hyp...e&ie=UTF-8
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
Try googling "null hypothesis in science."
https://www.thoughtco.com/null-hypothesi...les-609097
(^ first page of your Google results)

The null hypothesis "assumes that there is no meaningful relationship between two variables," like lights in the sky and space aliens. Claiming there is such a relationship is a testable hypothesis, if you're doing science at all. Any time a hypothesis is made, there is a null hypothesis, which would be a negative result in an experiment hoping to confirm a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is something that requires evidence to prove. The null hypothesis is the default assumption.
Reply
#8
confused2 Offline
The Internet does give nice, safe definitions of 'science'. Any progress in science relies on the (default) assumption that what you know (or think you know) is either wrong or incomplete.
Reply
#9
Syne Offline
^No, any real progress in science relies on not accepting things that have not been reliably demonstrated to be true. It's never wrong or incomplete to wait for evidence before believing things, otherwise science would just be another word for religion or fantasy.
Reply
#10
Magical Realist Online
(Jun 22, 2021 05:34 PM)Syne Wrote: ^No, any real progress in science relies on not accepting things that have not been reliably demonstrated to be true. It's never wrong or incomplete to wait for evidence before believing things, otherwise science would just be another word for religion or fantasy.

What's to wait for? There are probably thousands of photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts of ghosts and paranormal incidents all over the world. Why not go into the abandoned asylum or prison at 1 in the morning with the investigators and see for themselves if there is evidence? Maybe it's not worth science's time if the phenomenon doesn't repeat itself and is unpredictable. But if that's the nature of it, why not accept that and give it some time to manifest itself? It would certainly transform science as we know it if the paranormal turned out to be real.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Loch Ness monster: a modern history + "Ghosts" in the gut may cause long COVID C C 1 79 May 14, 2022 03:48 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  Why ghosts don't haunt Asians (#2 and #1) C C 2 133 Jan 18, 2022 08:37 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  People with mind-blindness not so easily spooked: "I ain't afraid of no ghosts" C C 0 116 Mar 12, 2021 08:24 PM
Last Post: C C
  Should scientists take UFOs & Ghosts more seriously? C C 1 170 Jun 3, 2020 07:00 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Reasons not to scoff at ghosts, visions & near-death experiences? C C 0 214 Jan 11, 2020 02:33 AM
Last Post: C C
  Can dogs see ghosts/spirits? Leigha 14 933 Sep 8, 2019 04:12 AM
Last Post: Leigha
  "Ghosts" of boy & pet captured on home security camera + UFO Welcome Center of SC C C 2 335 Aug 29, 2019 10:54 PM
Last Post: Syne
Lightbulb How Ghosts Work Leigha 7 737 Jul 24, 2019 10:31 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  We can build a time machine + Brian Cox on ghosts, flat earth, multiverse C C 1 345 Jul 13, 2018 06:06 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Ghosts exist.....now what? Magical Realist 4 787 Aug 10, 2017 06:37 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)