Okay…been reading the thread for the past couple days, following all the different discussions, arguments, semantic disagreements, etc.
My two cents:
Can we agree that the camera shows something that is SUPPOSED to be a person? Whether or not it is a person in a gown, a “legitimate” ghost, or the result of some form of image doctoring…there is a humanoid figure on the film, correct? There isn’t anyway out there saying “I see nothing in particular, just a blur that could be anything.”
Do I believe in ghosts? Yes. Why? I don’t know. I personally like to think that there are some things in the universe that cannot be explained. Maybe that’s it. But do I know they exist? Hell no. And that footage doesn’t get me any closer to knowing. If it was perhaps scientifically monitored, from multiple angles, etc, rather than just a happenstance “capture,” I’d be more willing to accept it.
Theory building tells us that you can never “prove” anything…you can just falsify alternative (null) hypotheses. Due to the nature of, well, existence, we can never falsify the statement “Ghosts exist.” You’ll never know when you’ve reached your goal. The burden, therefore, falls on falsifying the statement “Ghosts don’t exist.” To this end, photos, eyewitness accounts, and other evidence has been offered…and if just one of these can pass rigorous scientific standards, PRESTO, we have as close to proof as we can get. In other words, those who are saying that ghosts exist, must falsify the null: “Ghosts don’t exist.” And that falsification sure hasn’t taken place…has it?
I think this is wrong. This is whay Occam’s Razor is so important. You could substitute ‘shape-shifting unicorn wearing period clothes’ for a ‘real ghost’ in the post above and it would be just as true. Again, we KNOW guys in robes exist (and we know there is peiod clothing on site, for chrissakes!). We do NOT KNOW ghosts or shape-shifting unicorns exist.
Since guy in a robe easily explains everything about this video, we must go with that hypothesis unless something comes along to contradict it.
I have been through page 7 several times, all the while chanting my submission mantra, just to prepare myself in case I had to swallow bitter defeat. ALL FOR NOTHING!!. I’d like to present into evidence what I believe is your first post on this thread, in it’s entirity. While Aeschines was AFAIK the first to coin the dreaded term draw, you used it on your first post. I have highlighted the offending word, but in no other way have I tampered with the evidence. Your post with the “word” precedes mine by approximately 28 minutes. That fickle wrongness meter has swung back your way. Now, although my feet are not soiled, my toenails are painted a nice shade of pink. It’s your bow, Dob!! This one’s for you.
Oh. This was a lot of work. Could you please admit I am the Queen of Correct, too.
Yes, but in this case, I take into account Edgar Allan Poe’s views on evidence (from the Mystery of Marie Roget):
To me, the thing that adds to this not being a ghost, is that the white area that looked originally like the face of a specter, (this was IMO the big factor in declaring it a ghost sighting) turns to have a more mundane explanation: A white head piece. You may point that speaking of probabilities it may still be a ghost, but it is undeniable that the guides in period dress, the customs department of the Court, and a “ghost” that acts like is thinking: “hey! is cold in here!”. All that, points to a strengthening of the skeptic’s position.
Those who still insist in a draw have to realize it is even more silly when one takes into account other possibilities. Since talking about a draw is arbitrary, I have the opportunity to say that there is a 50% chance that this is just a woman in period dress that closed a door. 35% chance that it was a deliberate hoax: never underestimate the greed factor, haunted places get more crowds in. 10% that it was a prankster in disguise. 1% chance that it was ghost. 1% that it was an alien. 1% that it was a time traveler and she needed to close the doors of the Tardis . And, 1% miscellaneous things: going from a new mimic life form, to the pooper-scooper of the Lock Ness monster.
I keep coming back to this statement, because I don’t quite get it. Am admitting ignorance before I ask my questions. I’m not concerned about some abstract soul thing. When you die, the energy that is produced from breaking down food stops that process, okay. Isn’t there still energy due to the immediate process, darn I was trying not to say decay, can I use entropy or something less grusome for granny. Anyway I would think that like a composte heap, there would be heat/energy remaining in granny, actually for quite a while after? Yes, no? Thanks.
Oh, I’ve never believed that this tape shows a ghost. I’m just here to keep the hard-core skeptics from overstaing their case. You might say I’m skeptical of skeptics.
I think the problem here is that many people are thinking that the word “draw” is equivalent to “a 50-50 tie”. In this case, it’s not. It’s closer to a hung jury, where it’s obvious to everyone that 100% agreement will not happen.
If, after all this discussion, and using your own number, there is still a 1% chance that this is an actual ghost, then neither side has completely proven its case. It is, indeed, a draw. Not a 50-50 draw, of course, but a 99-1 draw.
It’s like when a pack of wild dogs chases a rabbit into a hole. The dogs aren’t gonna get the rabbit and the rabbit can’t go anywhere. It’s a draw, despite the dogs being in a far more dominating position.
I still didn’t think it was up to us to prove the non-existence of something? Only the other way around. So when I’m in a debate asserting that G-d exists and I fail to prove it, but they fail to prove he doesn’t, it’s a draw? How do you prove even 1% the non-existence of something? I think a draw would have to contain some level of possibility that either side might be right. That didn’t happen here, because the point was for ghost believers to provide fact that this video or the pictures could only be a ghost or at the very least, create a suspicion that everything we know about science is wrong. It didn’t happen.
OK, so this quote annoyed me as it misrepresented my position. The original quote by Doc Nickel was:
"The photos and the sites displaying them are making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof.
They don’t need to be “debunked”, rather, they first need to be “bunked”. "
That being said, this is a long thread, and to expect you to have read the minutiae of it was unrealistic of me. Your mistake in this case was understandable, and I apologize for my response.
Your other post regarding “energy” I felt also misrepresented my position. However, upon reviewing the posts in question I see that this was not the case at all. You were making a point wholly unrelated to anything I had to say, merely pointing out that other people’s beliefs in this case were mistaken. My response to you was childish, churlish, and completely unwarranted. For this also I apologize.
Urban Ranger, I am sorry.
Yes. Urban Ranger merely meant that there’s no need for a mystic explanation of where the energy “goes”, it goes the same place it’s been going all of the person’s life. As Granny cools down, the atmosphere heats up ever so slightly, entropy increases and Newton’s First Law is followed.
I stand, or kneel, corrected!!! You are indeed the Queen of Correct. But keep looking over your shoulder, I will still make you rue the day! Just not in this thread…
This was the quote I was talking to you about coven. The only way this statement could be considered confusing is if you did not know what intrinsic meant.
If that isn’t the case, perhaps you should go back to quoting and posting class. Or go to comprehension class.
The best thing about that HPS test is even if you fail, it says you could still be HPS! Even if only a few questions are true, as long as they are EXTREMELY true, you still pass HPS!
Ya know, I already apologized to Urban Ranger for being petty in my response to him, but if you must know Epimetheus, the statement “A person does not has…” followed by anything would be confusing because it’s grammatically incorrect. I’ve already stated that this was petty, so there will be no need to point that out. However, if in your advanced grammar class you have learned that this statement is somehow grammatically correct, please feel free to share that knowledge with me.
As to posting class, point me in the right direction. Is it available on weekends?
This discussion is outside the confines of the law and more close to science, so talking about hung juries is just begging for a change of venue.
Using your analogy the result is still grim; I see only a foot of the rabbit made it in (1%) . Yeah, the dogs will circle around never reaching the foot, but it matters little in the end. Other critters then will use the foot as a lucky charm. Those critters get the pretense this is a tie, so one side can rejoice in what meager remains they have, they are free to pretend is a lucky draw like many other superstitions. Me? I’m having rabbit stew.
Well, there were certainly a lot of posts in this thread trying to do exactly that.
Yup. That’s about the size of it. Certainly you’ve debated this kind of thing before. Have you EVER finished such a discussion where one side has become thoroughly convinced that the other side is correct? I’d venture to say, “no you haven’t.” In other words, this kind of discussion is always doomed to end in a draw or a stalemate.
Any student of logic will tell you that you can’t.
Didn’t it? As far as I can tell from this discussion and news reports, the figure in the image is still unexplained. Sure, lots of people have postulated that this is just some guard sneaking out for a smoke. And I agree that this is the most probable explanation. Yet, we don’t have confirmation of that from any relaible source. When the guard finally comes forward and says, “yeah, that’s me,” then the matter will be put to rest.
At least with crop circles, we have leagues of people who say, “Yes, I created that hoax. Here’s a picture of me doing it. Want to watch me do it again?”
