I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Internet ghost video. So, I’m pretty sure I didn’t say I had.
That one really has me stumped. Maybe you were right to question my intelligence, because the only thing I can figure is that you assumed that’s what I was referring to, maybe it was my use of the word “footage”, but I could’nt think of a more general term. But, you have to assume don’t you? Because you would never dream of going to a paranormal site and looking at all the different types of, whatever you want to call it. Which is exactly what I said skeptics were unlikely to do, in one of my earlier posts. So, instead of getting your panties all twisty, you could have just proven my point way back then. No apology needed, this is much better.
I retract my comment about diehard skeptics not being willing to discuss. Some are a little too willing. And I’m using the term “discussion” very loosely.
Infact! I’ll retract myself from this thread. I know I said that before…
But Jeeze, I explain myself to one, then here comes another one, out of nowhere.
Whatever “paranormal footage” you saw has a boring explanation. I assumed it was ghosts because that’s what this thread is about but it really makes no difference because it’s all the same claptrap. There is no need to see them all to know that the impossible is impossible, nor would it actually be feasible. If you think you have evidence than link it. The burden of proof is entirely upon those who wish to assert the existence of magic. The default rational presumption is that there is no such thing. Do you think you have to see every purported photograph of faeries to feel comfortable saying they don’t exist?
Unfortunately, if those are the “best” ghost photographs the evidence is pretty damn poor, since most of them have been debunked to, ahem, death. For eample, take a close look at the lady in the backseat of the car: her scarf clearly overlaps the window pillar, which strongly suggests that the image was added later. The guy in the chair is just risible: long exposure time - like several minutes - guy wanders in, sits down, realises there’s a camera, and wanders off. The result is a blurred human figure, but if you’ve looked at any non-studio photos from the period, those blurred images are everywhere.
Occam’s Razor again. We know that photos are eminently tamperable, and that the camera most certainly does lie, either intentionally or by accident. When we see an old and murky black and white photo purporting to be of a ghost, then, do we instantly throw everything we have learned about physics out the window and declare it to be a bona fide spook? We don’t know the spook exists, it would violate a great deal of hard-learned natural laws if it did, and the proof for such an extraordinary claim has to be extraordinary indeed. Alternatively, do we consider a simpler explanation, that it’s an artifact of the photo itself, phenomena which we know exist? Occams’s Razor.
Which is not to say that all photographs of “ghosts” must be discounted out of hand, tempting as that might be: refusing to consider any evidence would be unscientific. Just that the evidence must be able to stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny, that there must be no possible doubt of it being the product of accident or manufacture - and given what we know about both people - and photography, that seems highly unlikely.
If however it does stand up to the most rigorous analysis - and as far as I’m aware no such photo ever has - it still doesn’t constitute proof. It’s still only eveidence. Duplicate the phenomenon. Try it again with another researcher. Try it under different conditions, at different locations. Try it with other ghosts. Consider the physics behind a supposedly incorporeal body producing enough light to cause a chemical reaction on photographic film - how does this ghost work? Do the physics and chemistry - which have themselves been the product of rigorous theorising, experimentation, scrutiny and revision over hundreds of years - need to be reconsidered? If so, how?
Even if we could formulate a useful definition of what a ghost is, that’s what it would mean to even begin to try and prove its existence. Sound tough? It is. But it’s no tougher than the standards science demands of iself.
To Scissorjack’s post I’ll add this: that site regularly says something along the lines that “photographic experts cannot detect tampering” as if that is evidence the photo was not tampered with. Many types of photographic tampering are undetectable, so that doesn’t mean that the photo is genuine.
Secondly, many of the photos have ghostly images that are so vague that they are probably just happenstance flares of light, defects, odd patterns of shadow and light etc. Photos have such defects all the time. If one in a million photos produces something that looks vaguely human, then hundreds of “ghost” photos are probably produced every day.
Furthermore, the very “characteristics” of ghosts (insofar as any believers are prepared to say what those characteristics are and see above for what happens should you deign to ask for clear definition) couldn’t be better designed to mean that anything vaguely human looking (no matter how insubstantial) is a “ghost”. Image in the photo is blurry? No problem, ghosts are blurry. Image in the photo doesn’t have any head? No problem, ghosts often don’t have heads. Image in the photo is too vague to see a face? No problem, ghosts often don’t have faces, and it allows believers free reign to fill in the blanks as to who the ghost must be of. And so on.
Skeptics and athiests are a dime a dozen around here, don’t worry, we bark louder than we bite. I don’t think anyone is questioning your intelligence per se, just your level of knowledge with regard to things like photography and video editing.
Having worked in digital photo restoration a bit I could easily create a ghost in a picture. Hell if I could have got a picture of someones dead grandmother and ghosted it into a scene I could have probably claim that my scanner “detected details in the photo otherwise invisible to the naked eye” revealing the ghost.
Intelligence is not the issue, ignorance is. Ignorance is not an insult, I personally am ignorant of many aspects of US law, tax code, molecular biology, metallurgy, fencing, knitting, and thousands of other topics. I do know there are people who do study these things honestly and can comment accurately and reproduce their findings or document the exact steps they took to determine any explanation for the phenomenon they had observed.
How does “keep an open mind” equate to “lack of critical thinking skills”?
I’ve forgotten who said it, but I don’t see those two as synonymous.
I don’t know from ghosts. Are they likely? No. Do they exist? 99.9% sure they don’t. Guess my .01% is a lack of critical thinking skills.
Then again, there was a time when the earth was considered flat, and the sun revolved around it. And disease was caused by bad air…who knows? We dont’ know what we don’t know.
If the question is do you believe in ghosts as commonly manifested in pop culture, literature, legend and social memory? Then, no.
The popular conception of ghosts cannot possibly coexist with the established laws of physics, ergo ghosts cannot possibly exist. Affording the notion any credibility at all (even .01%) shows a lack of critical thinking because critical thinking rules out ANY possibility.
Are you 100% sure that water sprites don’t exist or only 99.99% sure? Are you 100% sure that David Copperfield can’t really do magic or only 99.99% sure? Is it closed minded to afford no possibility at all to those things. If not, then what is the difference between dismissing those possibilities and dismissing any other supernatural/“paranormal” claim?
Expressing skepticism vs. acceptance as a percentage is misleading, since it seems to equate the existence of an undocumented {or at least unreliably documented} phenomenon with mere probability, which is in itself a lack of critical thinking. It’s not a matter of there being a slight chance of ghosts existing, any more than there’s a slight chance of dragons existing. They either exist or they don’t: the question is, how reliable is the evidence for their existence?
Jeez. Bet you all are great fun at parties. It’s just speculation, not hypothesis testing. IMS, the OP didn’t ask that anyone enter a lab and prove the existence of specters.
Can we say we don’t know what we don’t know? Or how about we just don’t know? Or maybe some things are unknowable? Is that so wrong? People used to not believe in germs and the atom. (I am not equating ghosts to either for the literal minded here). I’m not willing to rule out time travel, either, but I still have an imagination and hope to keep it until old, old age. Is that now worthy of contempt that is thinly veiled throughout this thread?
Someone upthread said something about parts of the brain being stimulated or exposed to electomagnetics and feeling like they had seen a ghost or similiar.
So, could that be what people who say they have seen ghosts are experiencing? And how is that to be discredited or dismissed? with an “it’s all in your head” remark? Perhaps perception is reality here.
Or is the standard to be replicable and quantifiable? And if so, why? The schizophrenic’s auditory/visual hallucinations are no less real to him just because he is the only one to hear/see them. They effect him heard or not heard, seen or unseen by us. No one in “science” dismisses auditory/visual hallucinations, even though we have no way of recording them, investigating them, replicating them (well, maybe be stimulating certain parts of the brain, but that’s not a sure thing).
I’m also not equating ghosts to AHs, but it’s closer than any other analogy I can think of at present. My point is that “science” accepts a number of things that are not quantifiable or replicable by an objective third party/outsider.
I’ve had my say. I still don’t agree that openminded=unable to critically think. YMMV.
Ordinary people in ordinary conversations express all manner of things in terms of percentage. It’s really OK to do so. Really. In no way did I mean to imply the existence of “an undocumented or at least unreliably documented phenomenon with mere probability.”
She did post the thread in GD and all I did was ask her to clarify what she was asking.
What are you, Donald Rumsfeld?
We can say that we know what physical laws will and will not permit. We can also determine whether a given observed phenomenon can be explained without magic. Hypothesizing magic without justification may be fun but it’s empirically meaningless.
Atomic theory and germ theory were not hypothesized out of the air but were the results of investigation. The hypothesis of “ghosts” starts with an idea (of sorts) and then works backwards to find something to explain. It should also be pointed out that germs and atoms do not violate physical laws. When you’re hypothesizing the phyisically impossible to explain things which can be just as easily explained naturally, you’re not doing science and compraisons to real scientific discoveries are silly.
You should be. It’s impossible. Not just technically but theoretically as well.
If it’s a hallucination, it isn’t real. That was easy.
Who cares what they “are” to him? What does that have to do with reality?
So? That doesn’t mean his hallucinations have any physical relaity. Are you really trying to argue that if someone hallucinates unicorns then unicorns exist?
I’m not sure what this supposed to mean. There is no doubt that people hallucinate, and to some extent it’s possible to document the content of those hallucinations, but what does that have to do with the price of tea? if you only want to argue that some paranormal experiences can be explained by hallucinations then I agree with you, but so what?
Ok-I ran across this in IMHO, not GD.
I see nothing wrong with a conversation about ghosts. I run across this kind of thing upon occasion here and it baffles me. The OP was just talking. People do that. If it’s a topic that you disaprove of, since it is not provable and defies the laws of the physical universe-why participate? If I come here and post a thread about what my youngest wants from Santa-are you going to prove to me that Santa doesn’t exist? I just don’t get the insistence on the concrete and literal. Live a little-imagine. Say what if to yourself. See what happens…
I suppose you can liken AHs to ghosts as similiar experiences, why not? So, we agree on something. OK.
The OP asked about whether we believed in ghosts. DtC then asked for a clarification of what she meant, gave his reasons for not believing, and answered no.
Why do you conclude from this that he disapproves the topic? Do you think that people should not participate in any thread about a question, unless their answer is yes?
About the Santa thread, no I wouldn’t tell you that he doesn’t exist. But that is because I presume you think it’s obvious that he doesn’t. Why you would think that, but still say it’s possible that ghosts exist, I don’t understand.
I would also like to know why you think that people with critical thinking abilities live more boring lives, and are less fun at parties.
No. No no no no. See my earlier, somewhat sloppy, post deconstructing the ways in which the word “believe” can be used. My five year old son believes in Santa. I believe the Earth revolves around the sun. However, “belief” is, in each case, not synonymous: we “believe” in different ways. So in which way are ghosts believed in, as in a heliocentric solar system or a fat guy who brings kids presents? Are we discussing this sensibly, or just swapping childish stories? None of us, you will note, are five years old.
Come on. I said it barely sneakily on Page 2 and now “IMHO” be damned, because it definitely should have dawned on everyone by now.
This whole thing was a ridiculous troll. I couldn’t believe I fired up the dope this morning and this thread had risen again.
If you believe in ghosts, you’re an idiot and there only room for discussion is not about “ghosts” but whether you understand the scientific method. It’s amazing this topic ever arises in print, because it should only be argued by people who can’t read or write.
