Never doubted it
After all a lot of people saw and reported it and you can't get more compelling evidence than that
why we need ghosts
- Thread starter birch
- Start date
Never doubted it
After all a lot of people saw and reported it and you can't get more compelling evidence than that
MR:
I'm agnostic as to the explanation. All I point out is that there's no evidence of ghosts to be had here. For example, I'm not committed to the idea that the baby in the car cried out, although that might be one possibility.
This is par for the course in science. It's why the idea of falsifiability is considered relevant to whether something is scientific or not.
Let me revise to be a little more specific. I'm not protecting the physicalist worldview. I am defending the worldview in which critical thought should be applied before accepting dubious claims.
The paranormal "experience" is valid in the sense that any subjective experience is "valid" to the individual who experiences it. But that's not what we're interested in; we want to see some convincing evidence for ghosts. Anecdotes won't do the job.
Only there's no voice that is obviously apparent in the audio.
Among other reasons, some of them might be reticent about appearing on TV as some kind of nutty supporter of woo, guilt by association.
You're explaining why you're not skeptic, not why I'm not one.
I'm agnostic as to the explanation. All I point out is that there's no evidence of ghosts to be had here. For example, I'm not committed to the idea that the baby in the car cried out, although that might be one possibility.
Not to protect a worldview. Rather, it's standard scientific procedure to do your darnedest to try to debunk whatever phenomenon you hypothesise is happening. The easiest person in the world to fool is yourself. You ought to be most suspicious about what you'd like to be true. And if you're not, somebody else will be.
This is par for the course in science. It's why the idea of falsifiability is considered relevant to whether something is scientific or not.
Let me revise to be a little more specific. I'm not protecting the physicalist worldview. I am defending the worldview in which critical thought should be applied before accepting dubious claims.
The number is important because, for example, in an office where 100 people work, if 3 people report ghosts regularly then the obvious question arises as to why the other 97 never see anything ghostly.
The paranormal "experience" is valid in the sense that any subjective experience is "valid" to the individual who experiences it. But that's not what we're interested in; we want to see some convincing evidence for ghosts. Anecdotes won't do the job.
Those have not by any means been established as facts. One of your problems is that the standard you set yourself for "proof" of ghosts is so much lower than it ought to be.
It's nowhere near good enough, and it wouldn't be good enough for you either, if you had any sense and if you weren't so desperate to believe.
Just as you don't have enough information to confirm.
Neither you nor I has access to the people giving the accounts. We can't interrogate them. We can't check for discrepancies in their stories. We have next to no useful evidence.
I haven't tried to debunk this. I merely point out the obvious: that there's insufficient evidence to suggest a ghost, let alone to prove one.
Last edited:
MR:
But you can't have it both ways. Either you say that ghosts are provable using scientific methods (in which case you endorse the applicability of such methods) or you say that ghosts sit apart from science as unfalsifiable, unconfirmable objects.
Your line up to now has been that it is possible to prove ghosts using technology, such as video, audio, EM detectors, geiger counters, thermal imaging - all scientific methods and instruments. Are you changing your mind on that now and saying that ghosts are special, magical beings that defy scientific proof? If you're saying that, then why are you so insistent on all this "evidence" stuff you keep going on about?
It's worth noting, though, that it's quite possible to put out these credulous ghosts shows without needing to resort to outright fakery or deception. The believers are generally happy to believe in ghosts, based on the same kind of crappy evidence that you are happy to rely on.
These shows typically spend a lot of time "priming" the viewers to accept the ghost explanation, by talking about the "spooky" history of whatever place they're focussing on in this week's episode. It doesn't even have to be verified history. Usually anecdotes and rumours are a sufficient substitute for actual research. Then the shows will present some crappy video footage (if they have it), of about the same standard as in the typically MR cut-and-pasted youtube video. A few talking heads will be interviewed to give their credulous accounts of the sightings. A few token "experts" might also be called on to agree that, yes, it's a ghost all right. All the discussion will be about how the footage shows ghostly activity. Skeptics never get a look in, apart from the occasional brief grab from a token skeptic, whose comments are invariably edited down to make the skeptic look like the stand-out fool who is denying the undeniable, among all the "expert" paranormal believers. In fact, a lot of shows dispense with the need for actual skeptics by having in-house "investigators" who will put up weak skeptical-sounding suggestions, immediately followed by their own dismissal of their "skeptical" ideas as impossible or unlikely explanations. A segment usually ends in a question: ghost or not? - make up your own mind! But with such a biased presentation of only one "side" of the story, only one conclusion is possible for the naive viewer: it was probably a ghost, not explainable by "science". And the comes the teaser for next week's breathlessly enthusiastic ghost-promoting episode. And the advertising dollars keep rolling in as long as the gullible are kept that way.
It's the basis of all science: the assumption that the universe is comprehensible, that it exhibits regularities that can be studied, etc.
But you can't have it both ways. Either you say that ghosts are provable using scientific methods (in which case you endorse the applicability of such methods) or you say that ghosts sit apart from science as unfalsifiable, unconfirmable objects.
Your line up to now has been that it is possible to prove ghosts using technology, such as video, audio, EM detectors, geiger counters, thermal imaging - all scientific methods and instruments. Are you changing your mind on that now and saying that ghosts are special, magical beings that defy scientific proof? If you're saying that, then why are you so insistent on all this "evidence" stuff you keep going on about?
Skeptics say: if you have some evidence of the paranormal, bring it! If you don't, or you think that evidence is impossible to obtain, then don't keep pretending you have some.
Those aren't assumptions. They are deductions from the fact that no compelling evidence has been presented. Of course, like any conclusion in science, these ones are only provisional. Who knows? One day some good evidence might come to light.
That's a big claim that you have not checked. Perhaps you should.
It's worth noting, though, that it's quite possible to put out these credulous ghosts shows without needing to resort to outright fakery or deception. The believers are generally happy to believe in ghosts, based on the same kind of crappy evidence that you are happy to rely on.
These shows typically spend a lot of time "priming" the viewers to accept the ghost explanation, by talking about the "spooky" history of whatever place they're focussing on in this week's episode. It doesn't even have to be verified history. Usually anecdotes and rumours are a sufficient substitute for actual research. Then the shows will present some crappy video footage (if they have it), of about the same standard as in the typically MR cut-and-pasted youtube video. A few talking heads will be interviewed to give their credulous accounts of the sightings. A few token "experts" might also be called on to agree that, yes, it's a ghost all right. All the discussion will be about how the footage shows ghostly activity. Skeptics never get a look in, apart from the occasional brief grab from a token skeptic, whose comments are invariably edited down to make the skeptic look like the stand-out fool who is denying the undeniable, among all the "expert" paranormal believers. In fact, a lot of shows dispense with the need for actual skeptics by having in-house "investigators" who will put up weak skeptical-sounding suggestions, immediately followed by their own dismissal of their "skeptical" ideas as impossible or unlikely explanations. A segment usually ends in a question: ghost or not? - make up your own mind! But with such a biased presentation of only one "side" of the story, only one conclusion is possible for the naive viewer: it was probably a ghost, not explainable by "science". And the comes the teaser for next week's breathlessly enthusiastic ghost-promoting episode. And the advertising dollars keep rolling in as long as the gullible are kept that way.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
I love inspections of old basements with flickering candles instead of a 300 watt shoplight.
Spoooookeeeeeeeeeee...............
more so with lots of highly flammable dust & cobwebs and leaking old metal gas cans
faulty pilot light gas boilers and 100 year old never serviced leaking gas mains
how many houses and people have the US gas company blown up in the last few years ?
dozens ?
no charges ?
Got to keep up the ghost supply to haunt the new house built over the demolished one
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, we don't want to give up the ghost.......Got to keep up the ghost supply to haunt the new house built over the demolished one
About 10 a year from gas main explosions.
Usually not. Most utilities are public, and so cannot do things like spend more money on maintenance, raise prices to pay for it, take a gas line out of service for repair etc without public (i.e. PUC) approval. Thus the public shares much of the blame for such incidents.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What's a spirit?Going way back to the OP - aren't ghosts human ''spirits?"
Not sure we need them, but they hang around just the same.I've just thought of something, don't really hear about sightings of animal ghosts.
Yes, we don't want to give up the ghost.......
But please remind me, as per thread title, why do we NEED ghost?
What function do they perform which is needed?
They make some children's cartoons, and at least one major movie franchise, possible.
Yes agree
But we really did not need the female version
Yes and yes also the small print
You well know the huge range of imaginative stuff which the brain puts out I wonder, as per title, what niche ghost fill?
The angry disembodied soul seems to be the main role of ghost
Which makes me wonder how a angry disembodied soul gets permission to stay?
Or do they get rejected, making them angry both from this world, and the afterlife, do they get rejected from the afterlife for being such a pain in the backside
Seriously angry if other dead people don't want you
It would seem like the these ''disembodied souls'' have a chip on their invisible shoulders, don't they? Most hang around, rattling chains in the attic, hoping to scare the new inhabitants of the homes that these ghosts once resided in, before their death. If nothing else, ghosts or perhaps ghost stories, are quite fun.Yes agree
But we really did not need the female version
Yes and yes also the small print
You well know the huge range of imaginative stuff which the brain puts out I wonder, as per title, what niche ghost fill?
The angry disembodied soul seems to be the main role of ghost
Which makes me wonder how a angry disembodied soul gets permission to stay?
Or do they get rejected, making them angry both from this world, and the afterlife, do they get rejected from the afterlife for being such a pain in the backside
Seriously angry if other dead people don't want you
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
SciFo owner(s): 'to keep site traffic up'.
There's a lot of politics on "the other side". See Harry Potter.
It's a variation on, "Get off my lawn!"
The attack of the curmudgeon apparition!
Just remember - we are spirits in the material world.