If no-one else is going to say it, I sure am: We’re so fucking proud of you, IWLN. Pardon my French.
Not quite what you said, but Heywood Broun once remarked that a particular radio commentator had a mind “so open that the wind whistles through it.”
You say that as if OBEs and NDEs had any sort of scientific veracity. They are simply testimonies of personal experience. They provide us with no empircal or testable information. Even if these expeiences are authentically what they seem to be they have no probative value from a scientific standpoint. Tere is nothing to observe or study. there is no prediction. there is nothing to falsify.
Also, you still haven’t explained what these “astral bodies” are made of. What physical properties do they possess? How can they be detected?
And what the hell is “spiritual research?” I’d like to see some peer reviewed articles in this field.
[suppressing snickers] Cite?
So you’re saying that these “bodies” are made of matter. What kind of matter? How can we detect it?
Could you answer some of my prior questions as well? How do these bodies perceive light and sound? How do they move themselves around. How do they sustain consciousness?
I’d also really appreciate it if you could tell us what a “protoplasmic swirl” is. What is protoplasm made of and why does it swirl? Is it differnt than an “astral body?” If so, how?
>> As always, the skeptics show what poor scientists and
>> logicians they are.
> Looks more to me like the “skeptics” are questioning the
> legitimacy of highly suspect footage and “evidence.”
Right. Skeptics can’t usually prove that something like this is wrong, since the subject is so fleeting to start with.
I mean, earlier in the discussion, it was stated that skepticism acts like a filter to prevent skeptics from seeing ghosts. That doesn’t really give the skeptics much of a chance of disproving anything, does it?
Most skeptics are exceptional logicians. Unfortunately, when you put a logician into an arena where logic is routinely ignored, they won’t do so well.
> Skeptics are at a disadvantage here because they try to deny
> that even the phenomena exist.
Well, that’s not really a skeptic. A true skeptic simply wants to examine the proof and evidence for a claim.
However, you are probably correct in that skeptics,once deception or illogic is discovered, will fervently deny the phenomena.
So, as soon as the believers start using terms and ideas like “protoplasm” and “skepticism filter” to support their position, the skeptics do turn into rabid disbelievers.
DTC, usually I find your posts well thought out, and this one is no exception; however I find a bit of fault with the logic. HAS there ever been any SERIOUS research in any of these areas? I don’t mean peusdo-scientist fringe researchers with gear from the radio shack hunting ghosts. I mean an open minded, well funded, long term data gathering project, associated with well known and respected researchers. A good start would be a physicist, electrical and magnetic specialist, psycologist, psychiatrist, audio visual specialist, etc. If there has been, I’m not aware of it.
If everything that cannot be proved without a bit of creative thought and invention was written off as false, I doubt we’d have advanced as far as we have already.
While I personally believe in the possiblity of ghosts; I wouldn’t mind being proved incorrect by reliable research. If concrete proof HAS been gathered please refer me to it. If not, then it’s not fair to sneer at a hypothesis/belief that has yet to be proved.
Yeah, and on my desk I’ve got proof that ghosts don’t exist, and you haven’t addressed that either. Sheesh. I’m supposed to trawl the entire Internet on the off-chance that you presented evidence somewhere, and if I can’t find it, you’ll accuse me of ignoring you? Try again. Present your links here in this thread. You didn’t even so much as present a link to the other thread where your evidence was cited, did you? You didn’t say what the name of the thread was or what forum it was in. So no, saying you presented it elsewhere ain’t good enough. Am I supposed to find your evidence for you?
If you please. I’m free to think that by you not presenting your evidence to the argument, you’re deliberately hiding from the debate, though.
I did not reject any personal testimony; I said that the veracity of personal testimony of other ghosts doesn’t make the one on tape necessarily real. You appear to agree; you say this might possibly be a hoax. You’re still painting skeptics with a very broad brush, though. Does this make you feel like you’ve won the argument? You haven’t; neither have I. The matter of ghosts is, in my mind, unanswered.
I am willing to accept personal testimony for what it’s worth: a personal, unverified anecdote. If someone told me he got three 29 hands in a row in cribbage, I’d accept it the same way: as a claim. If someone told me he met Danny Kaye and threw up on his head, I’d accept it the same way: as a personal story. In order to accept the story as fact, I’d do two things. One, I’d look for evidence that is rigorous in inverse proportion to the likelihood of the claim. Two, I’d accept the story as fact in inverse proportion to the likelihood of the claim. I accept ghosts (and the stories above) as being possible but unproven.
There’s a difference. Skeptics can tell what the difference is between possible and proven. Can you?
I didn’t check what your opinion was, I admit it. But I made no assumptions about your opinion, either. Reread my post. I don’t care what you believe about ghosts and whether you believe they exist. What you believe about skeptics, however, shows a remarkable talent for grouping diverse people into one viscous lump which you can then attack at will. I see your comments about skeptics as a personal attack on my ability to think critically, and I have not demonstrated the narrow-minded thinking you accuse me (and other skeptics) of.
If you agree that this particular set of footage might be a ghost, but might also be a hoax, then we are utter agreement. It is your attack on my ability to think which I must take issue with.
As long as the scientific principles are applied correctly and to all available data, I don’t think there is any reasonable person on the board who should object. However, scientific principles and large vocabulary words are often thrown around to bolster a weak argument; scientific processes are often short-handed on this board by people who do not properly understand their application; unfavorable evidence is often ignored and replaced with personal passion; and yet the rules of the Great Debates forum permit witnessing and other forms of religious/belief-based declarations whether or not science is used in the argument.
This board (and this forum in particular) attracts many people who are rocket scientists and astrophysicists and doctors and pilots and technical writers and professors. I daresay when they see science enslaved and misapplied in service of a provably false “factual” conclusion they feel they must step in and correct the science. If the poster then attacks the beliefs of the person instead of the person’s facts then you’d better get a moderator.
That’s neither here nor there; what other posters do with their claims or how they judge others isn’t within my power to change.
I did not claim it so. I mentioned it because this was one conclusion we came to as a result of the scant evidence provided. As there was no further evidence here, no further conclusions could be drawn.
I will go so far as to say that the demonstrated evidence for ghosts (ie, pictures of translucent people) is internally consistent. This does not, in my mind, prove that ghosts are real phenomena; it may only prove that humans use similar imaging techniques to create similar images of what they believe, from an ingrained cultural standpoint, ghosts ought to look like.
I often wonder, for instance, what an eyewitness to “Bigfoot” might think if the person had never seen or heard of the other existing Bigfoot reports. Would they match?
However, we all believe we know what ghosts “look like.” We have been replicating them on stage for hundreds of years with glass and mirrors; we have been replicating them since the invention of the photographic plate. We have seen them in movies. It has sharpened our imaginations. Does this prove ghosts don’t exist? No, the internal consistency is curious nonetheless.
If the phenomena you speak of, and which you claim has been demonstrated beyond doubt, is that of the unusual images we have, then yes, I agree we have a bunch of 'em. You may apply the term “ghosts” to such captured photographs; it is as good a term as any other. I could apply the term “double-exposed photograph.” To prove either of those terms is truly applicable, we must study further, and we must study each such photograph for independent veracity without unnecessarily drawing inferences about the photographs as a whole.
You have done your part in this thread to load the word “skeptic” with the connotations of “argues with the existence of anything unusual just for the unadulterated hell of it; stubborn realist who wouldn’t know a ghost if one bit his sister; illogical immature fool who deliberately ignores evidence which I have hid somewhere on this forum.” I don’t appreciate your hijacking of a perfectly serviceable word which means one who instinctively or habitually doubts assertions or generally accepted conclusions; one who is undecided what is true; an inquirer after facts and reasons. The skeptics here that I see fall into all of these categories. They do not accept someone else’s conclusion without facts or reasons; when presented with fait accompli they respond with a priori.
Now you’re adding to your assault by saying we are unsophisticated, weak-willed, unenlightened broken records. By definition, yes, skeptics are open to any and all data. So far, nobody has provided anything other than personal anecdotes, which cannot be measured or repeated (two important scientific tests) and which can only be accepted to a limited degree, as I said before. Diogenes repeatedly asks what ghosts are made of. Nobody has provided him with such data: and yet you as much as accuse him of rejecting data a priori? I don’t see it. I see him seeking data and finding none.
He sought after alternate explanations for ghost sightings, such as mental illness, medication, etc., and the eyewitness allowed herself to become so worked up over one aspect of the question that she hasn’t provided any evidence to the other parts of the question; so hallucination has not been positively ruled out because the witness does not cooperate. What conclusions can one draw from this? Only that hallucination is still on the table.
This isn’t particularly scientific. You’re asking me to take one unproven ghost picture, which may in fact be a hoax, and take it to a website with other ghost pictures that also may or may not be hoaxes, and if they match, bingo! Ghosts exist, right?
Um, no. I agree that since the invention of photography we have captured images on film that all have similar appearances. Let us throw out the word “ghost” for a moment and substitute “cloud.”
So a picture turns up that purports to be a cloud. We examine the photo and agree that it appears to be a cloud. We take the photo to other websites that also purport to be clouds. The pictures match. Now what?
Now we go to where clouds have been located in the past and attempt to identify the clouds through means other than visual. You can’t feel a cloud, and they make no noise, and they appear in chaotic patterns across the sky, so we look for other ways to record their existence. We take samples of temperature and air pressure and we collect specimens in the area. We seek further data and discover there are many kinds of clouds. We find clouds of smoke and clouds of vapor and clouds of smog, all of which can be examined minutely and their properties corroborated with study. We discover that, within a certain range of specimen findings, the properties are consistent with one another. Vapor clouds are mostly water, we find; smoke clouds are mostly particulate solids.
Then we attempt to make predictions about clouds based on our studies. We find our errors in our predictions and correct our findings. We adjust our cloud theories to account for new data until we have a working understanding of what clouds are and what makes them appear (and why they sometimes don’t appear).
But back to ghosts. We’re still at the point where we have a bunch of ghost pictures that match. Where do we go from here?
FISH
Most of the studies whuich have been done on NDE’s simply collect anecdotal evidence from patients. The stories can be wildly contradictory and diverse and there really is no consistent theme or event within the described experiences which is common to all of those who describe such things. They can also be experienced by those who are not near death.
There is some pretty extensive evidence that the experiences have neurological causes and there is no evidence for anything like a “spirit” or an “astral body.”
There isn’t even a way to formally test for them since there is no workable definition or theory of what a “spirit” is. As you can see from this thread believers in this sort of thing tend to speak in abstract terms and use false definitions that don’t really define anything in physical terms.
More importantly, though, it is incumbent on those who would assert that such things exist to prove it and not upon us “close minded skeptics” to disprove it. This is especially true when we are not even told exactly what it is that we are supposed to disprove.
hmmm. Well put. I’d agree that it’s going to be difficult to debate over a non-defined concept.
Hey, FISH, I like you. You play cribbage. I’ve never gotten a 29 hand, but I’ve gotten 28. His heels and all that. OK, let’s chat some more.
If someone told me he met Danny Kaye and threw up on his head, I’d accept it the same way: as a personal story.
The standard of proof for general phenomena is different from that of single cases, as you certainly know. On the other hand, if millions of people report “ghost” phenomena, something is happening. At that point it’s a matter of interpretational framework. The theory of evolution is the best interpretation of the fossil record, but people (i.e., creationists) can stonewall against the evidence and simply refuse to accept the interpretation, if they so choose. It’s frustrating to argue with such people, since they are not prepared, are not open, to the evolutionary interpretation.
In order to accept the story as fact, I’d do two things. One, I’d look for evidence that is rigorous in inverse proportion to the likelihood of the claim.
This is a typical skeptical canard, one that has nothing to do with the scientific method. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” No, only sufficient evidence is required. If I have a video of my puking all over poor Danny, and a signed, notarized letter from him that the event took place, that’s good enough, that’s proof, and whether you consider either the claim or evidence “extraordinary” or not is an irrelevant opinion.
Two, I’d accept the story as fact in inverse proportion to the likelihood of the claim. I accept ghosts (and the stories above) as being possible but unproven.
There are two questions. Do you recognize the phenomena? (It seems you do.) And what interpretive framework do you apply? This is not the “game of proof.” Are there phenomena, and how do we interpret them? That’s what it’s all about. For example, there are UFO phenomena. One interpretation is that there are space aliens visiting us. I recognize that there are phenomena, but I find it very difficult to interpret the data. Nothing seems to make sense to me (I will not argue it here). But just because I am personally conflicted about an interpretation does not lead me to deny that there are phenomena to begin with.
There’s a difference. Skeptics can tell what the difference is between possible and proven. Can you?
My view is that the self-labeled skeptics here are not using “proof” in a genuinely scientific manner. It’s a well-known conundrum of science that relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other to some extent, but that doesn’t mean that either is inadequate as an interpretive framework for readily observable phenomena. I can foam at the mouth about how relativity has been proved or not, but it’s still a damn good theory for this point in time.
What you believe about skeptics, however, shows a remarkable talent for grouping diverse people into one viscous lump which you can then attack at will.
Not really. I keep on saying what my main point is over and over: don’t put up a show of being open to data when your mind is made up.
I see your comments about skeptics as a personal attack on my ability to think critically, and I have not demonstrated the narrow-minded thinking you accuse me (and other skeptics) of.
You’re a pretty sharp guy, but keep reading; there are some reasoning flaws about to be pointed out.
As long as the scientific principles are applied correctly and to all available data, I don’t think there is any reasonable person on the board who should object. However, scientific principles and large vocabulary words are often thrown around to bolster a weak argument; scientific processes are often short-handed on this board by people who do not properly understand their application; unfavorable evidence is often ignored and replaced with personal passion; and yet the rules of the Great Debates forum permit witnessing and other forms of religious/belief-based declarations whether or not science is used in the argument.
Are you talking about the skeptics here or the fundamentalists? I can’t honestly tell.
This board (and this forum in particular) attracts many people who are rocket scientists and astrophysicists and doctors and pilots and technical writers and professors. I daresay when they see science enslaved and misapplied in service of a provably false “factual” conclusion they feel they must step in and correct the science.
Good, and I intend to do the same.
I will go so far as to say that the demonstrated evidence for ghosts (ie, pictures of translucent people) is internally consistent. This does not, in my mind, prove that ghosts are real phenomena; it may only prove that humans use similar imaging techniques to create similar images of what they believe, from an ingrained cultural standpoint, ghosts ought to look like.
Are you hinting that all those millions of photos out there have been faked? You gotta be kidding. In the early 90s there was a kind of ghost picture fad in Japan (shinreishashin), and people would send in photos in which ghosts just happened to appear, and they would anthologize these things. Sure, in there were probably a good number of goofs and perhaps even a few hoaxes, but we’re talking about thousands of pictures all showing the same kind of things. Needless to say, this was well before the age of digital photography. I suppose the null hypothesis is that all those ordinary people were setting up photo labs to fake protoplasmic swirls and various materializations? My eye. As you say yourself, “internally consistent.”
I often wonder, for instance, what an eyewitness to “Bigfoot” might think if the person had never seen or heard of the other existing Bigfoot reports. Would they match?
Rhetorical trickery, lumping reports of ghosts (millions throughout the centuries and in all cultures, backed up with modern technical data) and Bigfoot reports, comparatively modern and far shakier in terms of evidence.
However, we all believe we know what ghosts “look like.” We have been replicating them on stage for hundreds of years with glass and mirrors; we have been replicating them since the invention of the photographic plate. We have seen them in movies. It has sharpened our imaginations. Does this prove ghosts don’t exist? No, the internal consistency is curious nonetheless.
“Curious” as in “suspect”? Yeah, we know what ghosts “look like” because people have been seeing them and otherwise experiencing them since the dawn of history.
If the phenomena you speak of, and which you claim has been demonstrated beyond doubt, is that of the unusual images we have, then yes, I agree we have a bunch of 'em.
Of course, there are also sound recordings and various other measurements.
You may apply the term “ghosts” to such captured photographs; it is as good a term as any other. I could apply the term "double-exposed photograph."
Disingenuous rhetoric, since you know that thousands of photographs have been investigated, whose images remained unexplained. Further, the images captured by the camera often match what people actually see.
To prove either of those terms is truly applicable, we must study further, and we must study each such photograph for independent veracity without unnecessarily drawing inferences about the photographs as a whole.
Yeah, well lots of studying has already been done, which I’m sure you also know.
You have done your part in this thread to load the word “skeptic” with the connotations of “argues with the existence of anything unusual just for the unadulterated hell of it; stubborn realist who wouldn’t know a ghost if one bit his sister; illogical immature fool who deliberately ignores evidence which I have hid somewhere on this forum.” I don’t appreciate your hijacking of a perfectly serviceable word which means one who instinctively or habitually doubts assertions or generally accepted conclusions; one who is undecided what is true; an inquirer after facts and reasons.
This is almost so funny that it makes me want to cry. I purposely and methodically said that, YES, skeptics DO define themselves in this way, but in PRACTICE they do not act this way. Do you see the irony here?
By definition, yes, skeptics are open to any and all data.
Great! So I’m free to define myself as having a quality, and that act of definition automatically imbues me with that quality? In reality, skeptics really shouldn’t label themselves as such, but should let others determine whether they are in fact open to data or not. Usually a label, such as Christian or atheist, indicates a philosophical, religious, or political position—not a methodology.
People are free to label themselves on what they believe, but it is considered gauche to label oneself good, noble, or open-minded.
So far, nobody has provided anything other than personal anecdotes, which cannot be measured or repeated (two important scientific tests) and which can only be accepted to a limited degree, as I said before.
My own personal view—and others may disagree—is that we come to this forum being at least slightly informed about the topic at hand and in agreement as to what the base data or phenomena are. We may in fact disagree with the other side that these base data are good, and we are free to argue that point, but we should at least be able to anticipate the other side’s best arguments. For example, it’s foolish for a creationist to enter this forum and say, “No missing links have ever been discovered!”—a classic canard. Why? Because the creationist should at least recognize that evolutionists have long ago dealt with this silly statement, and many species sets have been identified that fit the definition of “missing link.”
Now skeptics know that there are ghost photos and whatnot out there, so it is a child’s game to come here and say, “Link to the photos! What photos?” Now in your case, you’re playing fair and recognizing that the photographic evidence should at least be taken seriously. Bravo. Others are not so conscientious.
Diogenes repeatedly asks what ghosts are made of. Nobody has provided him with such data: and yet you as much as accuse him of rejecting data a priori? I don’t see it. I see him seeking data and finding none.
I have not dialoged with Dio for a while now, seeing it as not worth the electrons. At any rate, this is again junior high-level logic. Just because I can’t explain one aspect of a ghost’s physical system doesn’t mean that other things are not explicable.
He sought after alternate explanations for ghost sightings, such as mental illness, medication, etc., and the eyewitness allowed herself to become so worked up over one aspect of the question that she hasn’t provided any evidence to the other parts of the question.
Yeah, she reacted negatively to extreme rudeness and crude rhetoric. Big surprise. And creationists have plenty of “alternative explanations” for the fossil record, which tend to be arbitrary and just happen to match their own agenda.
So hallucination has not been positively ruled out because the witness does not cooperate. What conclusions can one draw from this? Only that hallucination is still on the table.
Again, disingenuous rhetoric. You assume that any explanation is preferable to one that you would consider “paranormal.” So if 10 people in a room say they saw a ghost, then our working hypothesis must be “mass hallucination.” People don’t have large-scale visual hallucinations unless they’re either psychotic or drugged.
This isn’t particularly scientific. You’re asking me to take one unproven ghost picture, which may in fact be a hoax, and take it to a website with other ghost pictures that also may or may not be hoaxes, and if they match, bingo! Ghosts exist, right?
If such mass-scale hoaxing is actually taking place, that in itself is a phenomena that will probably greatly change our understanding of human psychology. As I always say to skeptics: counter-argue as you please, but at least have the nerve to follow the path of those arguments’ implications.
I personally have concluded that ghosts exist (i.e., that interpretation best fits the data) based on a wide reading and study of the phenomena
Um, no. I agree that since the invention of photography we have captured images on film that all have similar appearances. Let us throw out the word “ghost” for a moment and substitute "cloud."
Or call it “Phenomenon X” if you really want to approach it in an unbiased fashion.
So a picture turns up that purports to be a cloud. We examine the photo and agree that it appears to be a cloud. We take the photo to other websites that also purport to be clouds. The pictures match. Now what?
We recognize the existence of Phenomena X.
Now we go to where clouds have been located in the past and attempt to identify the clouds through means other than visual. You can’t feel a cloud, and they make no noise, and they appear in chaotic patterns across the sky, so we look for other ways to record their existence.
Your argument is faltering, as you now seem to be equivocating between Phenomenon X and actual clouds in the sky.
We take samples of temperature and air pressure and we collect specimens in the area. We seek further data and discover there are many kinds of clouds. We find clouds of smoke and clouds of vapor and clouds of smog, all of which can be examined minutely and their properties corroborated with study. We discover that, within a certain range of specimen findings, the properties are consistent with one another. Vapor clouds are mostly water, we find; smoke clouds are mostly particulate solids.
We are now no longer talking about Phenomenon X.
Then we attempt to make predictions about clouds based on our studies. We find our errors in our predictions and correct our findings. We adjust our cloud theories to account for new data until we have a working understanding of what clouds are and what makes them appear (and why they sometimes don’t appear).
Oh, I see, this is a kind of mini-tutorial about the scientific method. Of course, irrationalists like me never actually study this kind of thing.
But back to ghosts. We’re still at the point where we have a bunch of ghost pictures that match. Where do we go from here?
Where many researchers have already gone, I guess. Study up.
And studies are finding very little in favor of ghosts after I took a look:
So far, you are just an artful dodger, even though you are denying it, you did come with accusations and then no links to what you see as research. So, I have to see what other skeptics and believers have done before:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9607/ghost.html
The influence of TV (as the OP case shows) has to be taken into account:
http://purduenews.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/1995/9506.Education/9506.Sparks.html
Notice that no amateur researchers were on the last link. However, even the “believers a priory” are noticing it is getting worse for the anomaly chasers:.
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/articles/digital.html
Even the photos that are declared genuine, by ghost researchers do not look impressive at all. Even I found a reason for the skeletal image in the next link: besides no skull, the ribs are spaced exactly as the blinds in the room, and the mirror effect is actually a reflection in the wall and poster. Most likely explanation: The camera is located high in the room, and the reflection is pointing to other blinds in the room that are open:
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/
After finding how research makes ghosts fade away, I still say it is you that needs to point us to the good evidence that you are implying exists out there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1249366.stm
Ghosts are the mind’s way of interpreting how the body reacts to certain surroundings, say UK psychologists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3044607.stm
Frederick Nietzche said “Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.” As you can see in that last study, both the skeptic and ghost believers are hit hard. However, in the end, it is the skeptic that has another explanation/weapon for dealing with people thinking that they encountered a ghost. The supernatural, as an explanation for ghots, is dismissed once again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/tech/main581003.shtml
Aeschines, we’re still waiting for you to provide one or more of those numerous scientific studies that you claim prove ghosts exist. How about it? Let’s examine a few together. Until you provide such data as a minimum, you are so much hot air with a white sheet wrapped around it.
And no, telling us to “Study up” is not going to get us anywhere. Some of us have been studying up for a long time, and can’t find any strong evidence; quite the contrary.
So give us the best link to the best evidence from your studies, and lessee whatcha got. Put up or shut up, dude, and I mean that in the nicest way. :dubious:
No. If you tell me your pencil fell off the table, you’d only need show me the broken tip for me to believe you. But, if you told me that your pencil leapt into the air, flew around the room twice, and then drove itself three inches into your wall, I’d insist on a little more proof than a broken pencil tip. I’m afraid that seeing the pencil embedded in the wall wouldn’t even be sufficient proof. Video of the event would certainly help, but even that probably wouldn’t be good enough.
Except that puking all over someone is not a particularly extraordinary event. Now, if you told me that you puked off a tenth story balcony and it filled up an empty 2-liter bottle that Danny was holding under an umbrella, I’d think that was an extraordinary claim and want a little more evidence (I’ve seen enough SFX movies to suspect that what I see on tape might not be real).
True. But that particulr interpretation is fantastic enough that it needs a lot of iron-clad evidence (bodies, the ship, etc.).
Another interpretation would be that UFOs are simply other earthly aircraft. That interpretation is quite reasonable (since everyone’s seen earthy aircraft before), so it would only need a minimal amount of proof (airline schedule, flight logs, etc.).
Can you postulate a specific extraordinary event that you think requires only “sufficient” evidence to prove it?
In fact, I just finished watching a show on Biblical codes, where scholars found secret messages in the Bible by reading every other letter or every tenth letter or every thirtieth letter. Whenever they’d find a key word like “Hitler” or “terror”, they’d take all the letters in between, order them in a grid, and attack it like a word-search puzzle, looking for words that somewhat relate to the first word.
They showed dozens of cases where they were able to find seemingly related words. To a casual observer, it would seem amazing.
After about 45 minutes of this, they finally tried using the text of Moby Dick instead of the Bible. They still found secret codes, but not as many as in the Bible. They inferred that this was evidence that the Bible contained these codes on purpose.
If they told you they exist they are made of balony.
Gigo:
Actually it is neither. I learned the source of the ghostly phenomenon when the first young couple visited my office and, at my request, brought their camera and film for me to keep for a few days. Examination of the negatives revealed nothing remarkable, but by the next day I had the answer: the strand- or looplike form was caused by the new subcompact camera’s hand strap getting in front of the lens. Since this type of camera’s viewfinder does not see what the camera sees (as it does in a single-lens reflex type camera), the obtruded view goes unnoticed. Although such camera straps are typically black and photograph black (or dark) in normal light, their sheen enables them to brightly reflect the flash from the camera’s self-contained flash unit.
Yeah, some weird photos have mudane explanations–no shit. Some ghost photo sites say explicitly to avoid getting your damn strap in the frame.
Even the photos that are declared genuine, by ghost researchers do not look impressive at all. Even I found a reason for the skeletal image in the next link: besides no skull, the ribs are spaced exactly as the blinds in the room, and the mirror effect is actually a reflection in the wall and poster. Most likely explanation: The camera is located high in the room, and the reflection is pointing to other blinds in the room that are open:
Sure, maybe this photo is a good one, maybe not. There are only a few million left to debunk, many of which have already been poured over by researchers.
After finding how research makes ghosts fade away, I still say it is you that needs to point us to the good evidence that you are implying exists out there.
Tons and tons. Remember what I said about the Japanese ghost picture books? You could also study up on EVP phenomena.
Ghosts are the mind’s way of interpreting how the body reacts to certain surroundings, say UK psychologists:
Sure, I remember reading about that. But it had more to do with feeling that a “presence” was in one’s area, than actually seeing an apparition. If I remember correctly.
Frederick Nietzche said “Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.” As you can see in that last study, both the skeptic and ghost believers are hit hard. However, in the end, it is the skeptic that has another explanation/weapon for dealing with people thinking that they encountered a ghost. The supernatural, as an explanation for ghots, is dismissed once again.
I didn’t see how the “skeptic” is hit hard.
**Nickell, 58, joined CSICOP in 1995 after a career that also included stints as a professional magician and professor of English at the University of Kentucky. CSICOP, based in Amherst, N.Y., encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and “fringe-science” claims from a scientific viewpoint.{/b]
CSICOP has zero credibility at this point, for two solid reasons: one, their agenda is more than clear; two, they have fudged data in the past, as in the famous case of the astrology/athletic champion study.
I’ve been to sites that display purported “ghost pictures”. The “ghosts” all look to be either lens flare or spots on the negative or the print. Your “protoplasmic swirl” was probably lens flare.
And when I say “probably”, I don’t mean that the only other option besides lens flare is “ghost”; I mean that if your “swirl” is not lens flare, it’s some other photographic anomaly.
Can I make a lighthearted comment in GD? If so, I’d like to say that Protoplasmic Swirl would be a great Ben and Jerry’s flavor. If not, apologies in advance to the mods.
{sigh} I’ll try this once more. Some of us don’t feel like poring over that million again, since we haven’t found anything of merit and no strengthening quality seems forthcoming. So bring us your best cases and we can examine them together. Until you do, we have nothing to talk about but philosphy, and philosophy cannot prove ghosts exist. Solid, repeatable evidence – now that’s something we can sink our teeth into.
MMmm…protoplasmic swirl…with nuts and cherries…
I’m on vacation, staying with relatives.
This limits my internet access. I’m currently spending most of my time with my family, rather than doing research or surfing the web. Additionally, my folks’ computers have all kinds of quirks.
Rilchiam,
**I’ve been to sites that display purported “ghost pictures”. The “ghosts” all look to be either lens flare or spots on the negative or the print. Your “protoplasmic swirl” was probably lens flare.
And when I say “probably”, I don’t mean that the only other option besides lens flare is “ghost”; I mean that if your “swirl” is not lens flare, it’s some other photographic anomaly.**
Whoa, thanks for helping me out! You just provided an excellent example of argument a priori that ghosts photos are impossible because, well, they’re impossible!
A disingenous and convenient line of reasoning, however. Ghost hunters themselves are experienced with the issues of camera straps, lens flare, etc., and even point out examples of same on their sites, with caveats to avoid that kind of thing and advice on how to do so.
Then, of course, there are biggie photos of full materializations, which hardly look like lens flare, and which experts have looked at carefully and said that the negatives have not been altered, etc.
Musicat,
Some of us don’t feel like poring over that million again, since we haven’t found anything of merit and no strengthening quality seems forthcoming.
Yeah, I bet you’ve really taken a look with an open mind, too, examining the negatives with experts and revealing hoax after hoax.
The reason I believe is pretty simple: data such as photos, personal experience, the testimony of people I know and trust, and the historical record. To me it all adds up; to you it doesn’t. Fine. You know as well as I that there’s not a site I can link to that will show you anything that haven’t dismissed before. So let’s just cut the crapola and admit that our minds are made up, both of us.
So bring us your best cases and we can examine them together.
I don’t have cases except what I can link to on the Net, and we know how far that will get me.
Until you do, we have nothing to talk about but philosphy, and philosophy cannot prove ghosts exist. Solid, repeatable evidence – now that’s something we can sink our teeth into.
“Solid, repeatable evidence.” Mantras, skeptic mantras, materialist mandalas. Let’s wish the baddies away!