You and I have the same definition of what a skeptic should be: someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in anything without factual proof to back it up, but who keeps their mind open to possibilites of the unknown.
Will do, Snake–thanks. 
(Geez, the people on this board are awesome!)
And another word of advice, Kythereia: don’t attach too much importance to how one side labels its opponents. In an era when “liberal” has become an insult instead of a political philosophy, it is distressing to watch Aeschines constantly hand-wave away all dissent by saying something akin to, “that’s a skeptic for you,” or “that’s what all skeptics say,” or “that’s the skeptic mindset,” or whatever.
I am, in fact, a skeptic who does not stonewall on the subject of ghosts in particular. I have, in many past threads, admitted to the existence of observed phenomena of as-yet-discovered origin. I have not, to date, made the (to me) illogical leap of “because we can’t explain it, therefore it’s a human spirit returned from the dead.” I said and continue to say, “Gee, that’s interesting. I wonder what it is.”
I have not examined the volumes of evidence to which Aeschines points because I am naturally somewhat suspicious of pro- or anti-ghost evidence available on the Internet; and even that which exists in paper form may not necessarily be any more true or free from bias. Big, big money is involved when it comes to proving the afterlife or the existence of a human soul: billion-dollar church organizations and billion-dollar scientific organizations are taking their fight to the streets, so to speak.
You’ll note that Aeschines is reserving for himself the very argument he takes away from the anti-ghost camp. On one hand he vaunts the thousands, nay, millions of sightings throughout history, and as we know, if something is believed by many, it’s true. However, when thousands of skeptics have examined the data and found them lacking, they’re “just skeptics (handwave).”
But being a skeptic who doesn’t stonewall doesn’t earn me any points; to some I still have a “skeptic mindset” and therefore am not to be heeded when I disagree. I still have hopes for a productive debate on the possibilities, but as we are unlikely to unearth any new conclusive data by blue-skying on a message board, I don’t believe the debate will resolve anything.
And Aeschines, I do agree that understanding the phenomenon of near-death experiences would greatly enhance our understanding of human consciousness and sensation; I don’t want to jump to any unfounded conclusions about their meaning until we understand why they happen. It is my belief that more explanations will surface for “sightings” when we more fully understand how the human brain translates signals from the eye, how the eye translates the light, and importantly, how our saggy bag of pink skull tissue is able to composite that into the recognition of an old song, or a familiar face, or a spoken voice on the edge of hearing.
It is much more within our scope of knowledge to explain how a camera functions, which is why photo evidence is more readily attacked: its flaws can easily be replicated.
“Side”? I wish I had a side here. It’s just me and Snakespirit (sometimes).
As for labeling, the people here are self-labeling as skeptics! You talk as though I’ve been calling people names ‘n’ stuff. I haven’t even used the moniker “close-minded skeptic.” I’m civil, dammit.
Dissent?! I’m the one dissenting here. I’m the miniscule minority. Jezus, if only my waving hand were as powerful as you’d make it out to be. 
And why not actully quote something I said in this thread, instead of making up the kinds of things I say, none of which I actually said. 
All I’m saying is your rhetoric here needs to match the target better. I ain’t indignant, otherwise I’d be giving you this face::mad: He’s mad and red as hell, and he’s not taking it any more from Duval and Dunaway.
Well sir, very good sir!
Yes, if it will take billions to develop the next Boeing or Airbus, think about how much it will take to develop a new worldview for makind. And I mean this only semi-facetiously.
I call crud! The skeptics on the board here are my opponents on this topic. I never used the name pejoratively or in the sense of “mere skeptics.” Quote me if I did.
The second thing you’re accusing me of here is argumentum ad all those folks. But you slipped in a neat little equivalence. I’m not saying that it’s true because all those people believe it; I’m merely saying that we have, as you admit, millions of reports of (what I’m calling) ghost phenomena throughout history, reports that show remarkable consistency across eras and cultures. These are data; the interpretation is open to dispute.
The third chip off the block of sophistry here is another equivalence. Your pitting my supposed “all those believers” against “all those skeptics” who’ve rejected the data. Yes, many people have rejected the data and various interpretations of it. Yes, many people have accepted the data and many interpretations of it. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up. Now stop putting foreign arguments in my mouth, or, dammit, you’ll get that mad little smiley again: :mad: . Dude is pissed!
OK, I’ll give you 15 points. You’re a Kerry supporter, right? OK, make that 25 points.
Yes, and once we have the periodic table drawn up, we’ll have the right to conjecture whether atomic theory is correct or not. First things first. What you call “unfounded conjectures” I term “pretty damn fine hypotheses, if not theories.”
Or corroborated.
Let me finish this post on a positive note: 
Now, that’s what I call a skeptic!
No leaps required. I like it when a true skeptic says, “I can’t explain it, so I wonder what it is.” Rather than the all-too-common resonse ion this gboard, which says, “I can’t explain it, therefore it doesn’t exist (or it’s a hallucination, or you are schizophrenic, or you are deluded, misled, etc., etc.”
I love skeptics. Skeptics stand between observation and identification, with a filter that helps our perception.
Unfortunately, too many hallucinate they are skeptics because they accept nothing, and consider nothing. In my experience, anyway.
It’s really easy to tell them apart. See if their arguments stand the test of logic. Apply the same test of logic to believers, as well, it’s only fair.
SnakeS
For the record, I’ve never seen Aeschines stoop to such common rejection. In fact, it is a technique more used by cynics-who-think-they-are-skeptics against those presenting evidence for consideration and subsequently labeled as “naieve believers” or “deluded” and such.
I think more money is being spent by George Sorous trying to elect John Kerry. I wish what Fish is saying was true, but I fear it is not.
Nor will silence or ignorance…
In orer to progress, we have to take chances. If we remain with only that which has been proven “safe,” we have no progress. If we jump to conclusions, we have false progress, which will unwind before our eyes. Both an investigative, critical thinking mind, and a conservative, skeptical mind are necessary if we wish to learn about heretofore unexplained phenomenon. What we don’t need is the unfiltered “believer” and the unconditional cynic. With those two we might as well discuss religion. With the investigator and the skeptic (editor/questioner) we have science, which is what we desperately need.
SnakeS
I await the cite of a peer review scientific journal that documents the existence of ghosts. Thousands of people believe in fairies, too, and claim to have seen them over and over. It means nothing until it’s been put throught the rigorous methods of scientists.
Oh, too weak for GD, this. Really.
Quick, give me a rundown of the history of the Journal of Parapsychology, the various journals its competed with over the years, major contributors, topics covered, treatment of ghosts or lack thereof, treatment of ghosts in other journals, political infighting here and there, etc. etc.
Any info? None, right? Not even really a hint of what research has been done by whom over the last half century, right?
Ignorant, right? Me too. I really ought to look into it so that when people start talking nonsense about what’s been in “peer-reviewed journals” or not, I can call them on it. And you ought to take the same basic steps before you imply what is or what isn’t, when in fact you know nothing.
Aeschines and Snakespirit have a point.
Science is all about physical phenomena. If science can explain a physical phenomenon, then that physical phemonenon does not present evidence for the super-natural. If we find a physical phenomenon for which there is no scientific explanation yet, this might be evidence for “ghosts”. And it might not. We would have to have evidence of some kind of “consciousness” in that physical phenomenon and, most crucially but most challengingly of all, we would have to rule out simple legerdemain.
So, first we must ask “Is there any physical phenomenon which might be a candidate for ‘ghost activity’?”. This is the point at which Aeschines and Snakespirit seem to be saying “there might be”.
And so we come to these phenomena which might be scientifically inexplicable. The Journal of Parapsychology is often essentially engaged in enormous statistical studies: if there is any “effect”, then it so incredibly weak that it struggles to show itself above statistical noise. As for dramatic movements, voices or luminous (clothed??!) figures, well, these are only ever reported in situations which are unverifiable.
Now, none of this proves that ghosts don’t exist. There has simply not yet been any evidence of a scientifically inexplicable physical phenomenon (SIPP), ie. one that cannot reasonably be put down to hoax, sloppy statistics, dreams or misremembered events. Again, that nobody has ever demonstrated a SIPP even when there is a considerable financial incentive to do so proves nothing - it is merely another curiousity to take into consideration.
Finally, I would add that even if Ghostbusters and Poltergeist happened before my very eyes, I would consider that someone was having a laugh with technology, or our 3-dimensional region of the universe had been happened upon by curious 4-D beings like a kid playing with ants on a piece of paper. The idea that this “mind” thing that my brain does lives on without my brain simply seems absurd to me. **But I cannot prove it so.
Sentient
Thanks for contributing!
I respectfully disagree that any of these things are inexplicable–why should they be? Like anything else, we learn about them a few pieces and tidbits at time.
And as to whether they are spirits or simulations or forumlae in the universal mind or manifestations of the physical–it’s all fine with me.
Aeschines, Aeschines, Aeschines. You were calling skeptics names and making vile associations with skepticism. I have not forgotten it. Despite the fact that you apologized for your behavior, it still did happen. This was almost a year ago, I imagine; I remember that it contained a number of not-so-sly jabs and insults by you against a broad category of “skeptics”, then later some fearful desperate panic and please-mods-help-little-old-me behavior by you when someone (ahem, me) began using the tactic on you. You have long had a habit of behaving as if what is good for the goose is not, in fact, good for the gander.
Considering the fact that you apologized for your behavior in a Pit thread (snarkily, I admit: you said you had “converted” to skepticism) I will not quote that particular behavior word for word. But I will not let you say
because you have.
I don’t particularly want to pick apart your language post by post (although I have saved some gems if you absolutely wish to see them), because I don’t think it’s productive to get into a debate about the debate. On many other topics I find you knowledgeable and concise; however, if ever you would care to hear some minor quibbles about the way you are prone to use language, I would be happy to share my observations. And if you have any particular suggestions for me that would smooth future conversation, I’d like to hear them.
Let’s move on to this:
Er… can you take a look at these? I picked, at random, some works of fiction from four different eras in attempt to capture what authors at that time thought a ghost looked like. While it is true that these are not genuine ghost sightings (genuine, in the sense that they attempted to describe a real sighting), they are authentic in that they were written by a person of that time period, describing what they thought a “ghost” looked like.
An interesting consistency, yes? Ghosts cannot be told apart from humans, except you can see straight through them; they gibber and squeal like bats, except they talk; they are besmeared with blood if they died in battle, exactly as they died, except sometimes they don’t; and they look as they did in life, except sometimes they have a cloth to hold their body parts on (an injury not sustained in life).
Some of the Odyssey’s ghosts do talk; and some of Shakespeare’s ghosts do “squeak and gibber,” language he may well have borrowed from Homer directly. However, some of Shakespeare’s ghosts are also “sheeted.” Did that mean then what it means now, that the ghost was wrapped in his funeral shroud? If so, the other tales here do not mention sheets or shrouds.
All right, it’s fiction. These aren’t real accounts. This means that either authors were writing contrary to the “consistent” views of ghosts throughout history, not unimaginable, or that authors shaped the public’s imagining of ghosts at their point in history, not unthinkable, or that “ghosts” have always looked like “people” which might, in fact, account for how frequently they’ve been seen throughout history.
And I’ll grant you that Shakespeare was presenting a version of a ghost that could be presented on stage… but it never stopped him before from describing the bare blank spaces of the stage in elaborate poetry, either.
Some elements are consistent: that the living are frightened in their presence. They’re pale, which is consistent with that of a dead body. I think it takes no great leap of imagination to link “paleness” and “ghost” across time and culture, nor is it improbable to think that people from different cultures might have independently invented the idea that a person’s ghost looks like his dead body. Only the most general and universal traits (found in this limited selection) seem to be consistent.
Other elements are not universally consistent. Dickens may well have added the chains and the “infermal atmosphere” himself, for all I know; I am not much of a scholar of Dante’s Inferno.
I would be curious to see if any real “ghost sighting” claims can be found, written by the witness himself, from various eras to see if they, perhaps, display more objective consistency than what I read above. Even more fictional accounts would help to chart “ghostness” through the ages. I’m not sure that I will accept the blanket statement that “millions of reports of (what I’m calling) ghost phenomena throughout history…show remarkable consistency across eras and cultures” because from this small random sample of contemporary fiction, it doesn’t appear to be true except in the most gross of generalities.
I imagine that the “consistency” of ghost sightings will become compelling… oh, right around the time that photographs and moving pictures were invented. Just a hunch.
Snakespirit, I didn’t mean to imply that billion-dollar industries are actively researching the existence of ghosts; but the basis for their poli-social entrenchment would be in jeopardy if ever the opposing viewpoint were proved. I can’t imagine the chaos that would be caused in the Generic Church of Whoever if it were ever categorically proven that there is no afterlife, or the ashes-and-sackcloth despair of the atheists if ghosts were ever scientifically demonstrated. I don’t suppose they would take such claims lying down, either. It’s more likely that both camps are motivated for their own survival to see that the other view is not accepted. Victory may not be possible for either but stalemate is good for both. But that’s just my armchair analysis of the way people operate.
And SentientMeat, I have often wondered if people have sufficiently different brain chemistry that they process visual things with greater speed (and coarser clarity), or if others can process with high color accuracy but poor shapes, or whether others have lightning-fast return on attempting to identify an object but less than 100% success. I have only once seen something which I thought might have been a ghost, and for one or two seconds I believed it—until I saw what it was. I have not ever seen any other ghost phenomena, nor can I see the pattern in those headache-inducing 3D-Eye thingies. Perhaps my brain chemistry is most adept at seeing what is there, or at least what it expects to be there?
I expect this is the dowsing case you were referring to:
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html
I’m sorry if I missed your comments on this in a previous thread, but I’m fascinated by your allegation that the ‘test was too stringent by far, statistically speaking’.
As the link shows, the dowser scored 100% in practice (when he could see which of 10 cups the gold was under). This test was repeated 20 times.
When the gold was concealed under 1 of 10 cups, the dowser scored 10%, which is what you would expect from chance. This test was repeated 10 times.
What is ‘too stringent’ about this test?
Given that Randi and the claimant agree on all the details of the test beforehand, including what is required to win the million, what problem do you have with the test?
Interestingly you refer to the dowser as ‘pretty pathetic’ and a ‘loser’. On what evidence do you reach that conclusion?
Are you saying a scientific test is valuable?
Are you saying that people who can’t back up paranormal claims with scientific tests of the evidence are pathetic losers?
Have we just got to take the Journal of Parapsychology’s word that believers in ghosts aren’t pathetic losers and that the Journal of Parapsychology is treating them fairly?
What ‘things’? My point was that, whenever science uncovers a whole new field or undergoes some amendment (or even, rarely, revolution), that is because a reapeatable measurement (a physical phenomenon) is found that is simply not accomodated by prior theory. I am suggesting that no such measurement or phenomenon has yet peeked above statistical noise or occurred anywhere but in suspiciously unverifiable conditions. This does not prove ‘non-existence’ of supernatural entities. We can only say that if they exist, then their physical manifestations are so undetectable that there is some conscious evasion going on, or that they’re simply not there at all. We mut ask ourselves what the most reasonable conclusion to date is (whilst accepting that our conclusion might change upon future development).
Maybe so, but it’s seem to be just too ‘high a level’ to usefully explore such questions just yet. One might just as well ask why some people believe in astrology from a neuropsychological perspective.
Or that existence is not a physical claim.
You are projecting upon a metaphysical state an epistemic claim. If nothing exists that you have not observed, then you are building existence as you go. And if you are claiming that existence hinges on observation, then you are claiming that existence may be different for different observers. You do try to cover this by insisting that the observations be “repeatable”, but some people cannot repeat them. Maybe they don’t have the equipment, or the expertise, or the inclination, or the time, or the mobility. Maybe they are comatose, or stupid, or inept. Maybe they are actually smarter than any of us, and have observed already the “repeatable” observation that your progeny will observe days or years from now that falsifies the hypothesis you presently hold. You are relegating existence to subjective whim.
It is not the case, for example, that quantum states did not exist until Schroedinger scribbled some equations. Existence is not based upon what you know and what you can observe. Existence is a metaphysical claim.
A. What you say is true.
B. It was after I had first joined the board, which was just about a year ago.
C. I absorbed the board’s vibe and style and now get along with everyone. For what it’s worth, I never really put any hate into what I said, although my rhetoric was far from compelling or interesting.
I think I debate fairly and civilly on the board these days.
No, it is I who have had to make the adjustment. There isn’t anyone in this thread whose intellect and powers of reason I do not respect.
The study of how fiction portrays ghosts is interesting, and it’s also an interesting question how fiction affected observation and observation affected fiction.
Except that the basic concepts have sunk in so deeply that we take them for granted. For example, ghosts don’t appear like sparklers or Roman candles in vivid blues and greens. They don’t change form so as to mimic other people. Their behavior tends to fall within in the realm of “confused but purposeful normal.” Etc. etc. You can’t fault fiction for providing no extraordinary details if the reality of ghosts is as unglamourous as it portrays it.
Technically, Dickens’ ghosts are not of the same kind as Banquo, etc., as they are fully in control of their actions yet at the same time commanded by another (they have a mission).
I don’t share the same interpretation, especially since in these works of fiction the ghosts were made to serve a literary purpose. I.e., they had to be made interesting. The vast majority of “real” ghost sitings are about haunted places where the confused spirit (the ghost) makes noises, appears in one form or another (full materializations being quite rare), and otherwise affects the environment.
It’s a topic worthy of research, and probably has been researched.
Implication: people who see ghosts are crackers.
FWIW, I’ve had those two experiences and that’s it.
I understand you. And I’m saying that I hold the opposite opinion.
Very well Lib, yes, I should be more careful with my syntax. The universe is so. It is how it is, not some other way. Physical phenomena are all we have on which to output working conclusions. A claim of how the universe is can only be falsified.
The claims here is that “ghosts are how the universe is”, just as I might claim “black holes are how the universe is”. This is the translation of “existence” into physical-ese. I am suggesting that a reasonable working conclusion output by our offal computer is that ghosts are “how the universe is not”, based on the physical phenomena to date as detected by parties to which my computer takes on a configuration called “accrediting trust”.
(Note, of course, that I consider that all “metaphysical claims” are actually physical entities, some of them merely requiring rather more work to translate them into physical-ese.)
I ultimately relegate everything to subjective whim, since that is how a biological computer would necessarily function. (Or so it seems to this one.:))
The agreement was that he would score 100% on the “real” test, when the gold was hidden. That’s what was stringent. I’ve seen dowsers on TV, and I’ve never gotten the impression that any of them thinks s/he can perfrom perfectly. In fact, I don’t think most psychics say or think that they are right all the time.
I need to see more cases. What I suppose, based on this one case, is this:
The talent of the applicant must be judgeable objectively and statistically. Randi will reject any test of a psi talent that requires interpretation. I believe the rules say as much. I can understand the reasoning here, but it does leave out a huge chunk of commonly claimed psi talent, espcially mediumship.
The rate is then set extremely high, if not at 100%, as it was in the case above.
This again is fine, but just because “all agree” does not mean that psi is not proved when the person fails to get 100%. Had the dowser gotten 90%, Randi would be a liar to say “psi was disproved” in that case. Maybe the chap shouldn’t get the prize, as that was the agreement, but the talent nevertheless should be recognized.
I mean a loser as a psychic, because he really seemed like someone who didn’t know what was up. I mean, why practice with the gold visible? Just seemed clueless.
And that’s the other issue. Randi doesn’t accept everyone for the test. I’ve seen a note of his sent to someone he rejected, and it was very unfriendly and downright nasty. If Randi can cherry-pick the psychics of low potential and reject the better ones, then what meaning does the test have? I’m surprised that the skeptics here don’t ask to see records of the applicants, who rejected and for what reason, who tested and under what conditions and with what results. See that stuff beforing according this test such respect. That would seem to be the minimum amount of healthy doubt required.
There are plenty of people out there who think they’ve got something going who don’t whether it be acting, psi, whatever. I hate to condemn people as losers, and I probably should have used a different word. Highly unsuccessful?
I don’t read that journal and really myself don’t know much about the big names in psi research these days. If you will look at that post again, you will see I was using it as an example of both another poster’s and my own ignorance.
I understand that, most of the time, the test never gets to happen because the applicant does not agree to a reasonable test condition. If I claim that I can guess %51 of coin tosses correctly, I would basically have to agree to a year of continuous testing. If I claimed I could guess 99% correctly, that could be falsified in less than an hour.
That guy agreed to the 100% condition. If he’d have said “I can find the gold better than chance” then they would have to agree how much better. The less dramatic you claim your powers are, the longer you will have to submit to testing in order to acheive statistically significant results.
Or, er, Randi. We need to see the records to know!
Right, but the records!
Yeah, but, can’t we agree that we want to see the records before we praise Randi to the sky for his great test?!
(I think I’ve got this one, I think I got the point, the point, the point…)
The problem there is that the records can themselves be statistically misleading. Like I said, to really test whether a person could do better than chance (at anything) would require a very long period of intensive testing (which is what the Journal of Paraphychology often tries). If we stop after, say, a couple of hours then we haven’t really done a “proper” test: he could have had a lucky afternoon which would have been smoothed out over a longer period, just as one can win in a casino but overall you will lose if you frequent casinos.
The only option which is realistically open to Randi (unless, of course, the applicant is prepared to pay for a necessarily expensive and drawn-out procedure) is to agree with the applicant what constitutes failure.