why we need ghosts

[sideshowbob]

"I met my first ghost at the age of six."

I met Santa Claus earlier than that. Eventually, I understood that he wasn't real; there was a better explanation.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR:

I have what they say they saw and heard. That's all you have, too. Everything else is interpretation, on our parts.

That's why we go by what they say they experienced instead of making up excuses to deny it. Because we weren't there and they were.

So you think that the issue of whether somebody saw a ghost ought to be decided based on who gives you the best vibes in terms of trust? What if you tend to trust the people with the woo more than you trust skeptics? Does that make the ghosts more likely to be real?

I trust what they say they experienced over what you say they experienced. They have no reason to lie. And they are unlikely to be mistaken. You otoh have an agenda to debunk. And that's a bias I can't trust.

I have an agenda to ask sensible questions about extraordinary claims, and thereby to promote critical thinking.

No you don't. You have an agenda to debunk because you don't want to believe in the paranormal. That's neither objective nor critically thoughtful. It's confirmation bias.

You don't know them, so how can you say that?

They're random office workers working in a building. There is no agenda for them. They are simply telling us about experiences they had while working there.

They thought it was a cry for help from the car, you mean.

They heard the cry for help from the car.

No, I can't. I hear what sounds like some random noise. You hear a cry because that's what you expect to hear.

I hear a cry for help because that's what's recorded and that's what was heard by the four rescue workers.

You're saying you don't know the answers. I see. No surprises there.

I don't have to know the answers to your made up questions. I have only to present compelling evidence for the paranormal. Which is what I've done.

Totally reliable, eh? No eyewitness has ever been mistaken about anything. Okay, if you say so.

Mistakes have occurred. But eyewitness accounts and human perception are still very reliable.

Every one of your "accounts" that I have ever glanced over has has holes big enough to drive a truck through.

You've never debunked a single one of my paranormal posts.

 

[DaveC426913]

And they are unlikely to be mistaken.

Why?

Why is it unlikely that they are mistaken?

 

[DaveC426913]

So what is it?

It's just a fanciful idea that pleases the author. It is worse than useless as an explanation, since it just raises more questions than it tries to answer.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why?

Why is it unlikely that they are mistaken?

Because they experienced it. How often are you wrong about something you experienced?

 

[DaveC426913]

Because they experienced it. How often are you wrong about something you experienced?

I .... What?

That's your logic?

People just don't get things wrong?

Worse yet, third-hand, paraphrased, published accounts of extraordinary events are, in general, just ... "unlikely" to be wrong?

 

[Magical Realist]

I .... What?

That's your logic?

People just don't get things wrong?

Worse yet, third-hand, paraphrased, published accounts of extraordinary events are, in general, just ... "unlikely" to be wrong?

People rarely get what they experienced wrong. I trust what they say over what some biased armchair skeptic who wasn't there says about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, here's the thing MR.

Far be it from any of us to tell you what to trust and what not to trust. that is your business.

But science does not go on such trust. Things aren't strong evidence until other, more plausible explanations have been ruled out. Reports that cannot be sufficiently corroborated do not rise to the level of strong evidence.

And 'because he said so' is simply insufficient for any kind of scientific rigor. And this is still a science board after all, so we are warranted in requiring a degree of rigor.

While you are entitled to your views on any matters, their standard of rigor often do not meet that of science.

Moving forward - in this discussion and in others like it - it will be important to return to this point about what is good enough for you, versus what is sufficient for the general science community.

This account of rescue workers hearing a voice does not meet the quality standard for any kind of serious science to be done on it.

 

[Magical Realist]

While you are entitled to your views on the matter, their standard of rigor do not meet those of science.

We rely everyday on what people tell us without scientific verification. The old fisherman who says where to catch the big ones. The gas station attendant who says a cold front is coming in tomorrow. It is simply a cop out to say that these office workers are all wrong because there is no scientific validation of their experiences. We don't do that. Ever. To start it now is intellectually dishonest and in line with the biased skeptical agenda to debunk every paranormal experience. That's bullshit and you know it. People know what they experience. And the fact that it occurs repeatedly in this one location makes it even more unlikely that it is all just mistaken perceptions.

 

[DaveC426913]

We rely everyday on what people tell us without scientific verification. The old fisherman who says where to catch the big ones. The gas station attendant who says a cold front is coming in tomorrow.

Sure. None of which are scientifically sufficient.

This is a science board, not a farmer's almanac.

Thanks for highlighting the crux of the matter.

 

[Magical Realist]

Sure. None of which are scientifically sufficient.

This is a science board, not a farmer's almanac.

Thanks for highlighting the crux of the matter.

Oh fuck'n well. So much for science explaining everything that happens as posted in the fringe section..

 

[Write4U]

People rarely get what they experienced wrong. I trust what they say over what some biased armchair skeptic who wasn't there says about it.

Then you are misinformed. It is very easy to fool the brain into seeing things that aren't there.
I am willing to bet you will always get this wrong even when you know the answer. Be honest with yourself.

Some of the other illusions make you see moving objects after receiving a repetitive stimulus

Some of the other illusions make you see ghosts like moving walls.
Now think this through and you will understand that seeing ghosts is highly suspect in view of the brains limitations in processing certain information.

 

[Magical Realist]

I am willing to bet you will always get this wrong. Your mind will fool itself into seeing something that is not really there.

Paranormal experiences are not some contrived optical illusions meant to deceive anyone. They happen in the normal everyday mode of perceptual operation, in rooms and hallways and offices and buildings that are anything but illusions.

 

[Write4U]

Paranormal experiences are not some contrived optical illusions meant to deceive anyone. They happen in the normal everyday mode of perceptual operation, in rooms and hallways and offices and buildings that are anything but illusions.

Casting a shadow is a contrived optical illusion? You are just not getting it, do you? It's your brain that has the limitation.

Imagine walking around in the sunlight and seeing many objects in the shade lighter than what they really are. You are seeing ghosts constantly, you just don't know that.

 

[Magical Realist]

Casting a shadow is a contrived optical illusion? You are just not getting it, do you? It's your brain that has the limitation.

Resorting to ad homs now? I'm not much disposed to responding to that shit.

Imagine walking around in the sunlight and seeing many objects in the shade lighter than what they really are. You are seeing ghosts constantly, you just don't know that.

Uh no. I'm merely seeing various shaded objects.

 

[Write4U]

Resorting to ad homs now? I'm not much disposed to responding to that shit.

WHERE IS THE AD HOMINEM?
LOL, it's the same for everybody, don't you understand? My brain has the same limitation, everybody's brain has the same limitation. It's peculiar to the human brain.
We can and do see things that are not there.

 

[Magical Realist]

We can and do see things that are not there.

No we don't. We overwhelmingly see things that are there. That's how good human perception is.

 

[Michael 345]

It's just a fanciful idea that pleases the author. It is worse than useless as an explanation, since it just raises more questions than it tries to answer.

Ah I mis read

I thought you WANTED it to be a theory

Got it

 

[Write4U]

No we don't. We overwhelmingly see things that are there. That's how good human perception is.

How much of reality do we actually see? 1% , 2 % ?
That's how poor human perception is. A fly can see infra red, that's better than humans.

Visible spectrum

The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nanometers. Wikipedia

 

[Magical Realist]

How much of reality do we actually see? 1% , 2 % ?
That's how poor human perception is. A fly can see infra red, that's better than humans.

Most paranormal experiences involve seeing and hearing and feeling. There are no limitations set upon it from the spectral range of vision.