It seems I am the only person on this thread that has had contact with a ghost. I did not see her, but she touched me. On the butt. And she threw my mother’s photo in the garbage. I am not making this up.
Because that’s how logic works. For a given Claim A, it is assumed to be false until proven otherwise. Therefore, the responsibility of proving it’s true falls on the shoulders of those who say it is.
:rolleyes:
That was precisely my point. If someone is going to make the claim that ghosts don’t exist, then the responsibility of proving that their statement is true falls on their shoulders. Yet the people who claim ghosts don’t exist insist that the burden of proof is on those that disagree with them, rather than on themselves.
What? What?!? Too dramatic? Dost thee wither in the face of my unassailable argument???..or something…
** This is usually expressed as “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” It’s a great example of a catchy saying that is a complete crock.
Absence of evidence bloody well is evidence of absence. Think about what this catchy nugget of wisdom is actually saying.
There is a complete absence of evidence of an infestation of howler monkeys in the attic but that isn’t evidence that there are, in fact, no howler monkeys in the attic. Right.
Negative results are evidence. The fact that no one has ever encountered a ghost does not conclusively prove that ghosts are impossible. It is extremely strong evidence that ghosts do not exist. Therefore, absent very compelling evidence that ghosts do exist, the only rational conclusion to reach is that they don’t. (There is an entire branch of statistics devoted to answering questions like how strong evidence for the existence of ghosts would have to be to overcome all the negative evidence accumulated.)
Take the example of Pluto. Before the invention of the telescope, there was no evidence that Pluto existed. The absence of evidence was evidence that there was no such planet. It simply wasn’t conclusive evidence. As a working hypothesis, there was no such planet.
That’s the way it works. Outside of mathematics, you can never “conclusively” prove anything. You can merely accumulate evidence – both positive and negative – that will tend to support or disprove a hypothesis. No evidence that a hypothesis is true is evidence that it is false. Occam’s razor lops off yet another hunk of groundless speculation.
There are a couple of problems with this.
First, it’s pretty much impossible to prove a universal type negative, which this is. In order to prove there are no ghosts, all known times, places, and situations where ghosts might exist would have to be tested and proven wrong. This is clearly impossible. On the other hand, all it takes to prove ghosts do exist is one proven instance of a ghost, anytime, anywhere. If ghosts do exist, this should be much simpler (almost infinitely simpler) to do.
Second, to the extent that science can prove there are no ghosts, it has. In every case studied using rigorous methodology, there has never been any solid evidence of a ghost. There are some (some people would say many) unexplained things, but that doesn’t mean those things couldn’t be explained with more complete evidence. In addition, no current theories of how things work can explain how a ghost could exist. In fact, if ghosts do exist, that would seem to violate some pretty well validated laws of physics.
Because of this, saying that ghosts don’t exist is not an extraordinary claim, and as such doesn’t require any extraordinary evidence. The “proof” (although it isn’t a proof, just a theory with some real tall odds backing it up) is in the complete lack of any hard evidence, and that the current theories of how the universe works that seem to rule out such things.
Claiming that ghosts do exist, however, is an extraordinary claim, precisely because there is no hard evidence and because it goes against many well tested theories. If you want to buck that trend, you’re going to have to come up with some fairly compelling evidence.
Ugly
The “evidence” expression is indeed a complete crock. The “proof” one is not. Absence of evidence does equal evidence of absence. Absence of proof does NOT equal proof of absence. “Evidence” and “proof” are not interchangeable concepts.
Exactly what I was saying.
Fair enough; no disagreement here.
Actually, I think the only rational conclusion to come to is that we don’t know whether they exist or not, because that, in fact, is the accurate assessment of the information at our disposal.
Leaning in one direction or the other on the question based on what’s demonstrated by the evidence is one thing. Emphatically stating that they do or indeed do not exist without proof is something else again. Regardless of which is more likely to be true based on the evidence we have, neither the pro or con position has been proven.
Yep, and yep. But eventually we found out it WAS there, despite all those centuries of no evidence to support the conclusion. To emphatically state there are no ghosts because we have no evidence of them rules out that possibility prematurely, IMO. Sure, the evidence so far says they aren’t there, but that’s what the evidence said about Pluto, as well, until we found out otherwise. IOW, if someone had come out before the invention of the telescope and emphatically stated that there was no ninth planet, all the evidence would have supported them; but they still would have had no proof and they still would have been wrong.
Granted. This is why, however, I think statements such as “Ghosts can’t hurt anyone because they don’t exist” are unjustified: precisely because they can’t be proven.
(Underlining mine to emphasize limitations in our current perspective which may skew our understanding on the subject) I’m assuming anything currently unexplained could be eventually explained with sufficiently complete evidence, knowledge, and understanding. That doesn’t enable us to rule out ghosts up front as the eventual explanation for those things, though. If we currently have no explanation for these things, and ghosts cannot be conclusively ruled out (even if we cannot demonstrate their exsistence at our current state of knowledge), then they must at least be retained as a theoretical possibility.
Here you hit on my point: that is, the proof of the non-existence of ghosts isn’t proof at all. If saying “Ghosts exist” requires proof, then saying “Ghosts don’t exist” should require proof as well. But there isn’t any; just as there isn’t any proof that they do.
I understand your point as to the difference between the exraordinary claim vs. the one all the evidence supports; but if people can’t get away with saying “Ghosts exist, but I can’t prove it,” then they shouldn’t get away with saying “Ghosts don’t exist, but I can’t prove it.” So it seems there IS a bit of a double standard: believing against the evidence requires proof, but believing in agreement with it does not. The fact is, however, until we know, we simply don’t know.
My apologies for the massive hijack (not intentional, just kinda went). FTR, my own position on ghosts: can’t rule them out, but I don’t assume them, either. Until I find out one way or the other, I haven’t found out one way or the other. So I don’t think it’s ignorant to take a position other than the “official” NO SUCH THING! approach; I think it’s accurate. YMMV.
safetygirl, let’s get back to your claim. You’ve come in here claiming something quite extraordinary. Can you tell us what it was that leads you to believe it was a ghost? I hope it was more than a feeling of something touching your butt, and then throwing a photo in the trash?
How do you know it was a ghost, and not an invisible pink unicorn?
The point is, there used to be a “Don’t Be Jerk” rule on this board, and either it’s been repealed or there’s been some clear violations of it in this thread. The precise wording of the jerkage is not the issue.
And those of you who argue “Well, Cecil does it in his columns!”, I got news for you. I may not have met Cecil, I may not know Cecil, but buddy, you’re no Cecil.
hmm… that raises an interesting question… can invisible unicorns be pink ? and, ofcourse, do you have evidence ?
and btw, is ralph124c hiding under the bed for fear of ghosts ? would be nice to hear the OP’s take after all this commotion…
I once had a ghost that hit my butt and knocked a picture in the garbage too…oh wait…it was the cat…Never Mind.
No more than Jesus has helped anyone in the intervening years since he died.
While in college I kept a coffee can full of matchbooks to help upkeep my nicotine habit. My roommate felt it was his sworn duty to grab a book, light a match, light the book, put it out, and repeat. This obviously drove me crazy, since those matches were my connection to my fix.
After my roommate’s funeral we were hanging around at his parents house, and a pack of matches in my pocket started on fire. My hands weren’t in my pocket, and I hadn’t thrown and glowing embers into my pocket.
It’s comforting to think that my roommate was pulling one last prank, and part of me hangs on to that thought. But there are too many other possibilities. Was a beam of sunlight focusing through my khakis onto the matchhead? Had the match’s chemical composition become unstable due to a strange combination of sweat and lint? Did a quantum singularity blink into existence just outside of my boxers? My analytical side just won’t allow this one to slide by.
But how do we scientifically prove the existence of ghosts? At least with Pluto, all we had to do was build a better telescope. Where do we even begin to scientifically examine the phenomena? I think I am with the majority here when I say, nope, no proof, no existence. But I find myself much more willing to allow the fringe to toil away at finding some sort of scientific method before dismissing them out of hand. Yes, the majority of ghosties out there are scamming kooks looking for a buck, but I suspect that some are actually seeking out ways to find the proof that is asked of the field. Let’s not write them off without the benefit of hearing.
Most “ghost” phenomenon, aside from charlatans, is usually a simple aspect of people personifying unknown phenomena. Your example is an ideal one – it’s an after-the-fact explanation, that actually seems pretty rational, and is quite difficult to prove or disprove – or even accurately recreate the conditions.
Advances in science have provided more rational, simple explanations for what were once considered examples of ghostly phenomena, ranging from ergot mold contamination to simple disease and coincidence. A strikingly common theme in most ghostly phenomena is the willingness of the witnesses to accept it as the primary explanation; our own brains betray us and provide ghostly explanations where none should exist.
Coincidence is common, but resolved by our grey matter into cause-effect relationships that simply don’t exist. People itch and have random pains all the time, breezes blow, chills run down our spines. Humans simply want to believe that there are reasons, and, consciously or subconsciously, ascribe external causes.
that is an amazing first post. welcome to the boards!
carry on…
Team A (ghosts do not exist so shut up team) vs Team B(help! a ghost threw my matches in the garbage and the neighbours house caught fire but mine didn’t team) 
I remember seeing that episode, and apparently it impressed a lot of woowoos. A medium walked aroudn the house with an over calibrated digital thermometer and found “cold spots” indicating ghosts. The criteria was a change of a bout .1 degrees or so. The owner complained of the ghosts scratching him and his kids.
As “proof” he at pone point said “they’re doing it now” and started to fumble with his shirt, during which he had umpteen times to scratch himself with fingernails or a palmed intrument. The cameraman took his damn time focusing the camera on the guy’s body (you never see the “Cops” cameraman have this much trouble). Lo and behold we see fresh red scratches which “seem to get bigger”. Of course what it is doing is the wound is reacting to the inital scratch.
This is simple: It’s not up to the skeptics, because logically it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist. Unless you’re God. But you’d have to prove that. I mean, take anything. I say, “I have a million dollars.” Is the burden on the bank to prove that I don’t? For every place they check, there will be an infinite number they haven’t. The burden is not on the skeptic. The burden is on me to prove that I’ve got the million somewhere.
Josh
Dijon
Please give us your definition of "proof.’
The problem here, is, that there’s a Team C (I don’t care if ghosts really exist or not; from a folklore standpoint, I’d like to hear the answers to the OP). Team C can’t get on the field.
Am I the only member of Team C?
Not much of a double standard, however.
To simply say it can’t be proved either way makes it sound as if the two views are on equal footing because neither one has been definitively proven true or false. This is obviously silly. The available data points 99.99% to one conclusion, that there are no ghosts. This degree of certainty is enough (at least in the US) to get you sentenced to death for certain crimes.
So to say in ordinary conversation (or even in the slightly rarified air of the GQ forum) that there are no ghosts isn’t very much of an error at all. And if you say “based on the available evidence, there are no ghosts” I think you’re clearly on the safe side of the line.
So I don’t think it’s much of a double standard. No more than wagging your finger at a jaywalker and sending a murderer to prison. Both are crimes, but orders of magnitude apart in terms of degree. The two views about ghosts are that far apart when it comes to being supported by the available evidence.
Ugly