why we need ghosts

[Magical Realist]

This is a tautology. You are attempting to use your conclusion as your premise.

"We conclude that these are paranormal incidents because - if paranormal incidents were real - they would look like this. Since they do look like this, they must be real."

Wrong. We already know paranormal phenomena is real. Not everyone is as ignorant of the phenomenon as you are. Thousands accounts of it from all over the world. Hundreds of investigations proving it. So when the activity matches what we know about the paranormal, we conclude paranormal. Got it?

So please stop using this term incorrectly.
Most forum members here - whether you respect them or not - are not so foolish that they can't see ineptly mangled attempts at logic.

Don't tell me what to do. I'll post whatever words I choose to post here. And don't insult me either. That's called trolling.

 

[Daecon]

No, people might want paranormal phenomena to be real, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, people might want paranormal phenomena to be real, but that doesn't make it so.

No..when you live in a haunted location or have to work there, you do not "want" paranormal phenomena to be real. It's stressful and uncomfortable and not welcome by anyone. Unfortunately not wanting the paranormal to not be real doesn't make it unreal.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wrong. We already know paranormal phenomena is real. Not everyone is as ignorant of the phenomenon as you are. Thousands accounts of it from all over the world. Hundreds of investigations proving it. So when the activity matches what we know about the paranormal, we conclude paranormal. Got it?

Fallacy of foregone conclusion.
We have thousands of accounts of unexplained phenomena. They have not actually been explained yet. Saying "they're paranormal" is not an explanation.

We have no hard evidence of communication from lifeless corpses (for example, it cannot be repeatably demonstrated under controlled conditions by independent parties).
We have no model of how it might work.
Same things are true of the requirements underlying the idea of ghosts: such as life after death, wherever that place might exist, etc.

What you have there is an hypothesis that these phenomena are due to ghosts. There is as-yet no evidence of what ghosts are, the mechanism by which they operate, or how lifeless corpses can get up and move around transparently i.e. how ghosts actually explain the accounts.

This means the hypothesis, whether logical to you or not, is baseless. It is not based on any model or mechanism.

Magic is as equally plausible an explanation as ghosts.
So is God.
Why do you dismiss these hypotheses so quickly?

I'll post whatever words I choose to post here.

Indeed, and apparently without a hint of remorse for their pain.

 

[Magical Realist]

Fallacy of foregone conclusion.
We have thousands of accounts of unexplained phenomena. They have not actually been explained yet. Saying "they're paranormal" is not an explanation.

We have no hard evidence of communication from lifeless corpses (for example, it cannot be repeatably demonstrated under controlled conditions by independent parties).
We have no model of how it might work.
Same things are true of the requirements underlying the idea of ghosts: such as life after death, wherever that place might exist, etc.

What you have there is an hypothesis that these phenomena are due to ghosts. There is as-yet no evidence of what ghosts are, the mechanism by which they operate, or how lifeless corpses can get up and move around transparently i.e. how ghosts actually explain the accounts.

This means the hypothesis, whether logical to you or not, is baseless. It is not based on any model or mechanism.

Magic is as equally plausible an explanation as ghosts.
So is God.
Why do you dismiss these hypotheses so quickly?

Wrong. The evidence for the paranormal is compelling and abundant. Only people ignorant of it would think otherwise.

Indeed, and apparently without a hint of remorse for their pain.

You don't speak for anyone's pain but your own. Why don't you take up meditation? It's great for soothing stress.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wrong. The evidence for the paranormal is compelling and abundant.

Read first, then respond.
Paranormal is not an explanation; it is a categorization (by process of elimination, no less).
It does not explain the phenomena.

Magic and God neatly fit into that category too and posit a mechanism equally as plausible.

 

[Daecon]

Wrong. The evidence for the paranormal is compelling and abundant. Only people ignorant of it would think otherwise.

Ah yes, this magical evidence that would like, totally confirm the existence of ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, and everything else - if only those mean old scientists would stop being mean and accept all the blurry photos and videos and anecdotes.

But we know they wont because they're scared of being ostracized from the rest of science and wont be allowed to play with the other scientists anymore instead of what would actually happen - winning all of the Nobel prizes and being world famous until the end of time.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll post whatever words I choose to post here.

And I'll continue to save those poor words from painful torture.

And don't insult me either. That's called trolling.

I am not calling you inept. I have called the attempted use of the term logic inept.

If one is going to explicitly insist that something is "logic 101", it behooves one to not commit a basic logical fallacy.

You're ept. So don't.

There. It's a compliment.

 

[Magical Realist]

So tell us..How many paranormal investigations have you observed?

And like I said...Don't insult me. Are we clear?

 

[DaveC426913]

So tell us..How many paranormal investigations have you observed?

Safe to say you're abandoning the 'logic' argument then.
Good, that's what I set out to do.

To recap:

• no explanation exists for all the unexplained phenom you've posted, it is simply a general categorization of 'paranormal' (which is simply a categorization by process of elimination).
• you have no mechanism or model by which these ghosts operate - it is merely an hypothesis
• your evidence of compelling explanations is tautological: it is only true if it's true.
• you arbitrarily choose one explanation over several others with equal plausibility

And like I said...Don't insult me. Are we clear?

We are not. I have not insulted you. I have dismantled your argument, which was poorly constructed.

I get to do that. You don't get to claim to be personally insulted for having a poorly-constructed argument dismantled.

 

[James R]

...you arbitrarily choose one explanation over several others with equal plausibility

Not arbitrarily...

 

[DaveC426913]

Not arbitrarily...

Do you mean that 'ghosts' is a more/less compelling explanation than 'magic' or 'God'?
Or do you mean MR is biased in his selection?

 

[sideshowbob]

Saying something isn't explained is not an explanation.

Of course it isn't. When there is no explanation, there is no explanation. Don't make up some fairy-dust nonsense and call it an "explanation".

... science mocks and ridicules this field relentlessly.

Along with creationism, alchemy, etc. Science rejects "fields" that have no basis in reality.

Saying you can't explain it is a failure.

No. Saying you can't explain it is an invitation to further research. Concluding prematurely that it's "spirits" is just falling back on religion.

 

[Magical Realist]

Safe to say you're abandoning the 'logic' argument then.
Good, that's what I set out to do.

To recap:

• no explanation exists for all the unexplained phenom you've posted, it is simply a general categorization of 'paranormal' (which is simply a categorization by process of elimination).
• you have no mechanism or model by which these ghosts operate - it is merely an hypothesis
• your evidence of compelling explanations is tautological: it is only true if it's true.
• you arbitrarily choose one explanation over several others with equal plausibility

We are not. I have not insulted you. I have dismantled your argument, which was poorly constructed.

I get to do that. You don't get to claim to be personally insulted for having a poorly-constructed argument dismantled.

Funny how you completely sidestep the fact that the evidence is overwhelming for this phenomena. Is that why you won't talk about how many investigations you've observed? Because it would expose your complete ignorance in a field of research you pretend to logically argue out of existence? Why don't you do some research on this? Isn't that the scientific way? Explore a field before pontificating about what it is or isn't? Here's a website with over 16,000 first hand accounts of paranormal activity. Start there:

http://www.yourghoststories.com/

 

[Magical Realist]

Of course it isn't. When there is no explanation, there is no explanation. Don't make up some fairy-dust nonsense and call it an "explanation".

No one is making up anything. The phenomenon shows typical characteristics over hundreds of investigations and thousands of accounts. It is a totally legit explanation and should be included at all times.

Along with creationism, alchemy, etc. Science rejects "fields" that have no basis in reality.

Science rejects fields it can't get funding for.

No. Saying you can't explain it is an invitation to further research. Concluding prematurely that it's "spirits" is just falling back on religion.

As I've already said several times, the mundane is ruled out as a matter of habit and good science. When no other explanations fit, then the paranormal is used. And when the facts fit what we know about how the paranormal typically manifests, then that's the explanation. Only a moron would be content with "unexplained". Or else a scientist more concerned with funding than with the truth.

 

[Daecon]

And only the gullible would be content with "ghost".

 

[sideshowbob]

No one is making up anything.

Of course you are. You're making up "spirits".

Science rejects fields it can't get funding for.

It can't get funding for fields that have no basis in reality.

Only a moron would be content with "unexplained".

Nobody is "content" with unexplained. As I said - and you quoted - unexplained is an invitation to further research. We look for explanations to the unexplained. But it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend you have an explanation when all you have is a para-explanation.

 

[Magical Realist]

Of course you are. You're making up "spirits".

I didn't make up spirits. That concept has been around for a long time, even before the birth of civilization.

It can't get funding for fields that have no basis in reality.

Reality defined for science as economic profitability.

Nobody is "content" with unexplained. As I said - and you quoted - unexplained is an invitation to further research. We look for explanations to the unexplained. But it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend you have an explanation when all you have is a para-explanation.

When the facts match what we know about this phenomenon, it becomes the most logical explanation. That's just basic science.

 

[Magical Realist]

Confessions of a paranormal investigator:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-d-mimms/scariest-ghost-encounters_b_5568137.html

 

[James R]

DaveC426913:

Do you mean that 'ghosts' is a more/less compelling explanation than 'magic' or 'God'?
Or do you mean MR is biased in his selection?

The latter. MR goes into these things with a pre-formed conclusion already in mind.


Magical Realist:

Science rejects fields it can't get funding for.

Hmm... well, yes. Funding of scientific research is a competitive process, because there are always more research proposals than available money to fund them. So, what happens is that the best research proposals get funded, while the weakest proposals do not.

Paranormal research attracted quite a bit of funding back in the 1970s, as it happens. A number of prestigious universities ran labs investigating things like ESP. It turned out that a lot of the research produced was sub-standard for various reasons. In many cases, the experimenters themselves turned out to be hopelessly biased, with some even falsifying their results. In other cases, there was exceptionally poor experimental control, so that there were extensive opportunities for fraud on the part of the experimental subjects themselves. And the research with the best controls never produced any persuasive results that supported the existence of any of the phenomena under investigation.

Science has learned its lesson from the "golden era" of paranormal research. Funding for this kind of thing these days is more tightly controlled, so that only the best research will qualify.

Reality defined for science as economic profitability.

There is always some tension between scientists, who tend to want to do "pure" science, and governments (who are the majority funders of scientific research) who want economic outcomes from scientific research. Experience shows, however, that in the long term the greatest economic benefits flow from "pure" research, whose long-term benefits are often not apparent from the start.