why we need ghosts

[DaveC426913]

Doesn't even remotely resemble the baby cam footage.

Are you then asserting that camera tricks cannot be used to make a person look ghostly?

Actually, strike this.
It is not necessary to posit that there was any tampering going on here. The footage is perfectly consistent with known video artifacts - especially in low lighting.
There is nothing unusual in the footage at all.

 

[sweetpea]

It is not necessary to posit that there was any tampering going on here. The footage is perfectly consistent with known video artifacts - especially in low lighting. There is nothing unusual in the footage at all.

I think this clip shows the limits of some night cams. Watch the cat as it accelerates. The cat fades before vanishing.
Long run-in ...Best shots starts about 1:05 and close-up rerun at about 1:17

 

[Michael 345]

The cat fades before vanishing.

Cat obviously beamed up by a UFO not caught on the cam

Undeniably and compelling

 

[DaveC426913]

I think this clip shows the limits of some night cams. Watch the cat as it accelerates. The cat fades before vanishing.
Long run-in ...Best shots starts about 1:05 and close-up rerun at about 1:17

Good example.
I considered going and looking for examples myself, but video artifacts are too banal to find posted videos of (excepting as part of a hoax).

It'd be like looking for videos of somebody overfilling their tires, or burning a fried egg.

 

[billvon]

I think this clip shows the limits of some night cams. Watch the cat as it accelerates. The cat fades before vanishing.

GHOST CAT! There is NO other possible explanations. And the witnesses reported hearing a "ghostly mewing" before the event. And a cat was killed by a dog in the neighborhood 17 years ago.

 

[Michael 345]

GHOST CAT! There is NO other possible explanations. And the witnesses reported hearing a "ghostly mewing" before the event. And a cat was killed by a dog in the neighborhood 17 years ago.

Undeniably and compelling the cat lost its 9th life

It's strange the cam only picked up the last ghost cat and not the previous 8 ghost cats

It must be they were not as pissed off as the 9th ghost

Makes perfect sense



PS
Have any cat videos with the cat sitting on those round automatic vacuum cleaners?

Even better if a ghost cat sitting on round vacuum cleaner and as it jumps off gets sucked up

Sure to be one

 

[Write4U]

Even better if a ghost cat sitting on round vacuum cleaner and as it jumps off gets sucked up

A vacation?

 

[sweetpea]

Have any cat videos with the cat sitting on those round automatic vacuum cleaners?

Sorry no ghost cat on vacuum cleaner, just the plain old ghost cat fading and vanishing.
This is a quickie clip.

 

[Michael 345]

Sorry no ghost cat on vacuum cleaner, just the plain old ghost cat fading and vanishing.
This is a quickie clip.

Thanks for the quickie



BTW is MR MIA?

 

[DaveC426913]

Every time MR posts something that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the technology sees, he is confirming what has been apparent to us all along - that:
Perfectly mundane events are routinely interpreted as ghostly. Even (indeed, especially) those who think they know what they're talking about, but don't.

But he is also teaching us about himself, that:
For someone who claims to have studied the subject, MR is conspicuously uneducated about Imaging Technology and Cognitive Perception science - two pillars of forensics.



Frankly, I don't think he is actually that naive. I think his enthusiasm overran his judgment. I posit that he has not even bothered to seriously analyze this video (and that, in retrospect, he privately realizes it's an imaging artifact). He's been just picking up whatever he can find and throwing it at the wall as fast as possible, hoping to cover the wall before it all slides off.

How about it MR? Are you willing to acknowledge that perhaps you gaffed on this one?

 

[Write4U]

The disappointing part is that there are truly remarkable natural (ghost-like) phenomena, but they are not super-natural.
It's just as much fun to track and discover those natural phenomena, without having to resort to staged fake animated "ghosts".

Bioluminescence is one such phenomenon. Who would have guessed that this phenomenon is a result of chemical communication and group "quorum sensing", where all bacteria switch "on" at the same time, a literal "hive mind".

Or that a species of cuttlefish uses this natural bacterial technology to hide from predators.
It has learned to use the bacteria to imitate moonlight and thus become invisible from below.

 

[sweetpea]

BTW is MR MIA?

One month in the slammer, but with us in spirit

 

[RainbowSingularity]

 

[Yazata]

If there are 3500 paranormal researchers busy at work with the most sophisticated equipment and still no evidence which will lend itself to propositions by "real* theoretical scientists, such as Joe Nickel, PhD.

Except that Joe Nickell isn't a "real theoretical scientist". He does have a legitimate PhD, but it's in English literature.

I'll take his sceptical viewpoint over every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a selfie showing a ghost in the background.

Isn't that an argument from authority? It's like my saying that I will accept the views of Catholic theologians on the existence of God over the views of mere atheists, because the former are trained in the subject, have advanced degrees and enjoy the imprimatur of the Church.

I agree with you in that I don't think that the selfies with ostensible "ghosts" in the background are very convincing. They certainly haven't convinced me to believe in ghosts' literal existence. I'm inclined to agree with most of you that MR is full of shit much of the time. But he does have the virtue of exploring the margins of the scientistic worldview and presenting it with problem cases. I see that as healthy since our implicit assumptions need to be made explicit and continually tested.

But having said that, I don't think that the existence of the selfies justifies bad philosophy either. Just because we don't accept his conclusions doesn't mean that every argument against those conclusions must be a good argument. Right here on Sciforums, we often see what appears to me to be bad epistemology and bad metaphysics, often being justified by the argument that it's intended to combat some kind of perceived epistemological or metaphysical evil such as belief in ghosts. (The assumption that ghosts don't and can't exist seems to be gratuitous and a-priori, just kind of slipped in as an article of pre-existing faith.) That's not the right way to pursue these arguments.

 

[Write4U]

That's not the right way to pursue these arguments

I don't believe any argument about "ghoulies , ghosties and things that go bump in the night", is the right way to pursue the occurrence of natural phenomena or photographic incompetence.

 

[James R]

Except that Joe Nickell isn't a "real theoretical scientist". He does have a legitimate PhD, but it's in English literature.

More importantly, he has decades of experience in on-the-ground investigations of claims of ghosts. That is what qualifies him, not his PhD in English literature.

Isn't that an argument from authority? It's like my saying that I will accept the views of Catholic theologians on the existence of God over the views of mere atheists, because the former are trained in the subject, have advanced degrees and enjoy the imprimatur of the Church.

It is an argument from authority. However, it is wrong to think that proponents of UFOs and ghosts and other woo don't argue from authority. They quote authorities and pay deference to the claims of authorities, too. It's just that their preferred authorities are non-mainstream ones. In fact, what you see in the UFO or ghost "scene" is a huge respect among the followers for certain perceived "authorities", combined with a massive lack of trust directed at traditional authorities (scientists, the government, qualified investigators, etc.)

If you read a Joe Nickell report on one of his investigations it reads very differently to any of the credulous ghosts stories from believers in the woo. He sets out what he did and what he found. When he speculates, he clearly flags the speculation as such. He makes efforts to corroborate stories and to test theories - something that the woo crowd virtually never does.

I'm inclined to agree with most of you that MR is full of shit much of the time. But he does have the virtue of exploring the margins of the scientistic worldview and presenting it with problem cases.

The "problem cases" you refer to are mostly problematic due to a scarcity of testable, reliable evidence from which definite conclusions can be drawn. It would be far more interesting if problems arose due to truly mysterious circumstances, but they seldom do in the realm of the pseudoscientists. While the woo crowd chat among themselves and congratulate each other and coo over faked "evidence", real scientists are out there doing their thing investigating real unsolved mysteries in the natural world.

But having said that, I don't think that the existence of the selfies justifies bad philosophy either. Just because we don't accept his conclusions doesn't mean that every argument against those conclusions must be a good argument. Right here on Sciforums, we often see what appears to me to be bad epistemology and bad metaphysics, often being justified by the argument that it's intended to combat some kind of perceived epistemological or metaphysical evil such as belief in ghosts. (The assumption that ghosts don't and can't exist seems to be gratuitous and a-priori, just kind of slipped in as an article of pre-existing faith.) That's not the right way to pursue these arguments.

I can't disagree with that.

 

[Write4U]

(The assumption that ghosts don't and can't exist seems to be gratuitous and a-priori, just kind of slipped in as an article of pre-existing faith.) That's not the right way to pursue these arguments.

I disagree and submit the opposite is true.

If you are an atheist it is the right way to pursue truth about ghosts just as pursuing truth about gods.
Else, you can accuse all atheists of argument from authority by assuming that a god cannot exist.

But, IMO, that's not the way it works. Neither Atheists, nor Ghost-busters need prove a negative.

And, just as in religion, there is no verifiable evidence of "real" ghosts in the entire hstory of ghosts. Just like there is no evidence of a real classical god.

 

[sweetpea]

That's not the right way to pursue these arguments.

So would the proper way be:

I'm inclined to agree with most of you that MR is full of shit much of the time.

Great argument.
People play MR the way s/he plays them. Like for like. It's not that serious here.

 

[Yazata]

I wrote: "(The assumption that ghosts don't and can't exist seems to be gratuitous and a-priori, just kind of slipped in as an article of pre-existing faith.) That's not the right way to pursue these arguments."

I disagree and submit the opposite is true.

If you are an atheist it is the right way to pursue truth about ghosts just as pursuing truth about gods.

You're confusing things without shining any light on them, W4U.

Else, you can accuse all atheists of argument from authority by assuming that a god cannot exist.

I raised two issues that you seem to be confusing.

1. The argument from authority. That seemed to be implicit in your phrase "...propositions by real theoretical scientists, such as Joe Nickel, PhD". Of course Joe Nickel isn't really a scientist at all, instead he's an activist. Nor is he a theoretical scientist, that word just seems to be some sort of honorific. Finally, Nickel's PhD is in English literature, it isn't scientific training.

2. The problem of circular reasoning. That crops up when people address a question with their conclusion already in mind, then look for arguments and evidence that will support that preexisting conclusion. Religious people and atheists both typically do it when they address the question of God's existence. Ghost-believers like MR do it when they assume that what most of us would consider flimsy evidence is in fact conclusive evidence of the existence of ghosts. And self-styled "skeptics" do it when they approach purported hauntings with the intention of persuading others that they are bullshit. In fact, this kind of circular reasoning is exceedingly common in most human thought. It's how people typically think.

But, IMO, that's not the way it works. Neither Atheists, nor Ghost-busters need prove a negative.

No, no, no, W4U. I'm not going there with you.

Anyone who asserts the truth of any proposition, and wants to convince somebody else to believe it who doesn't believe it already, has the burden of persuading that other person. (Otherwise he or she won't agree.) That's going to be true whether the proposition asserts the existence or non-existence of something. "Negatives" don't get a special 'Get Out of Epistemological Justification Free' card.

When physicist Ernst Mach questioned the literal existence of atoms, he wasn't absolved of having to argue for that idea or from the need to convince his peers, just because he was asserting atoms' non-existence.

 

[Write4U]

When physicist Ernst Mach questioned the literal existence of atoms, he wasn't absolved of having to argue for that idea or from the need to convince his peers, just because he was asserting atoms' non-existence.

I still see a subtle difference.
Mach's assertion of non-existence of atoms was in the face of proof of the real existence of atoms.
IOW, he made a counter claim and that does require evidence.

If there had been no proof of the existence of atoms Mach would not have been required to prove the absence of atoms and could have made his hypothesis, without requiring proof, pending evidence to the contrary.

This is dilemma was addressed in the Kitzmiller trial, where Behe was required, but could not prove "irreducible complexity" (argument from authority) in the face of scientific evidence that "irreducible complexity" was not an issue in the evolution of the flagella. Behe lost that case.