Spirits

[Touring Mars]

Optics can often produce strange effects - so strange infact that it can be hard to tell the difference between a speck of dust and the discorporated soul of an elderly relative.

 

[dxm8975]

Do you believe in spirits? Like ghosts and stuff. I sorta do but sorta don't at the same time and the reason is bcause of my pets. I have read that animals can actually sense spirits and that really freaks me out because sometimes when I'm on my pc and my dog is laying down on my bed to the left of me and I pat her head she will do either 2 things, 1. Lay her head back down or 2. Look at me then behind me out into the hallway like she sees someting. Her ears even go up like she's alert. My cat and my other dog do the same thing. Just stare at empty spaces around the house like there's something there. I know it can't possibly be rats because pest control comes every other week. I thought I would post this because its october and I want to know what you guys think or if you are wondering the same thing. Also I'm posting this because its my first thread on gtp.

I haven't virtually seen any of the spirit of the dead yet, but I'm sure they actually exist in spooky locations or haunt some particular objects they had once been profoundly associated with.

I often hear that a small child and other animals are more perceptive at the presence of something invisible - staring at or pointing toward one direction as if somebody calls them from somewhere beyond a certain object, as we round out to be older the sense of feeling(or actually catching a glimpse) their entity naturally fades away so that those with no frightening experience involving ghosts may start creating tales that ghosts are merely the hallucinations created by our extended/arbitrary imaginations.

If their presence can be denied, are suicidal places said to be a hang-out for apparitions safe to abide at? And where does the intention of visiting such hazardous spots come from, their strenuous attempts end up in vain nonetheless?

I don't mean I think ghosts are ubiquitous seen even at familiar places around us, but they do exist at some extremely dangerous spots said to be a suicidal act to approach...

 

[Crumpet]

It's a mixed conclusion for me..

Last week, I heard whispers and heavy breathing in our home. And every time I called my Dad in, it stopped, then started again after he left. I know there was something there, but I can't really say for sure what it was. After a recent chat, it was revealed that the elderly woman who used to live here died..

I had never been through such an experience in my life.. I said Hi and gave a friendly impression, and it went away.

 

[TankAss95]

It's a mixed conclusion for me..

Last week, I heard whispers and heavy breathing in our home. And every time I called my Dad in, it stopped, then started again after he left. I know there was something there, but I can't really say for sure what it was. After a recent chat, it was revealed that the elderly woman who used to live here died..

I had never been through such an experience in my life.. I said Hi and gave a friendly impression, and it went away.

...how about getting some help?

 

[Danoff]

I've seen a few strange things during my life, but nothing that even remotely leads me to believe in a supernatural explanation.

 

[axletramp]

Did the heavy breathing stop every time your dad came in to find out what you were on about?

Hmmm..... 💡

 

[Crumpet]

Did the heavy breathing stop every time your dad came in to find out what you were on about?

Hmmm..... 💡

Yes, the breathing stopped, and began in a more aggressive manner once he left.

 

[lbsf1]

I don't believe in sprit's but saw derren brown performing the "undertaker" effect.

This isn't derren buts its basicly the same thing.



Very interesting and kinda spooky.

 

[Exorcet]

I've never seen anything indicating that they exist.

 

[Prosthetic]

I don't believe in sprit's but saw derren brown performing the "undertaker" effect.

This isn't derren buts its basicly the same thing.



Very interesting and kinda spooky.

Hmmm.. I would like someone to try that on me.

 

[Sharkyzero]

It's not a question of whether or not they exist because they do. It's just a matter of the naysayers *wanting* to believe in something real or not and poo-pooing each and every single bit of evidence presented as "not good enough." When in reality, for some, nothing is good enough. Not even a full blown intelligent-response EVP or a video of something moving all by its lonesome will do and it's best not to get riled up about these people. You cannot argue with a rock, so why do so with the debate-equivalent?

All it takes is going to the right location (at considerable expense most times, unfortunately) and just existing for awhile. At the funeral home I worked at, we had a whistling ghost that just enjoyed pestering people by whistling at varying intervals sometimes doing so right in your ear just to be an ass. My Vietnam vet boss who used to run night raids against the Viet Cong said he had never really been afraid in Vietnam because he was in control (as much as I man could have been, I suppose), he could see the enemy before him and he was in command of his combination south Vietnamese/American ambush unit. When the whistling ghost started in on him at the end of the day, however, whistling at various points in the office before giving him one in the ear quite loudly, he said he got up, left the office and when he realized he was securely outside, he realized his dress shirt was covered in sweat and he was shaking. At the other funeral home I worked for, we had a 'person' walk into the chapel from outside (the opposite direction of the visitation rooms) completely unresponsive to the funeral assistant asking if he needed any assistance. Upon further inspection into our fairly large chapel, it was dark, and there was nobody there. Of course, right?

Barring those personal experiences/tales, I've come to realize that people are going to believe and mock whatever they want whether facts are presented or not. The ghosts/demons/spirits are there if you want to see them. Gettysburg (not that you're allowed on the fields anymore at nighttime from what I understand), any number of former asylums, hotels, etc.

Oh, and keep in mind that not all of them are spirits, some are less easily labeled (demonic, etc.). So I wouldn't recommend going to your Ouija board to just start randomly talking to them just because you think that they're not real and it's all some big joke. They're not all benign, and some will enjoy proving you wrong a little too much.

 

[Dennisch]

Blah.

So, you are right.

Well, I say they don't excist.

I think I'm right.

Something is wrong now.

Unless you talk about the other spirits.

 

[Sharkyzero]

So, you are right.

Well, I say they don't excist.

I think I'm right.

Something is wrong now.

Unless you talk about the other spirits.

Say and believe whatever you like, it's fine. Nobody's going to try and change your mind here, much less me. I've learned my lesson years ago.

 

[Dennisch]

Say and believe whatever you like, it's fine. Nobody's going to try and change your mind here, much less me. I've learned my lesson years ago.

It's not a question of whether or not they exist because they do.

 

[dylansan]

Say and believe whatever you like, it's fine. Nobody's going to try and change your mind here, much less me. I've learned my lesson years ago.

What a horrible way to live. Never challenging other people's ideas or allowing your own to be challenged. Just assuming that you're right and not listening to anyone who wants to convince you otherwise. With this attitude you will learn nothing, you will be ignorant, and no one with any interest in reality will want to listen to you.

Science can explain things far better than superstition. Just because some things don't have a current explanation doesn't mean the supernatural must be the cause; it only means we don't know the cause. Know any published scientific studies that show evidence for the supernatural? Because I would honestly really love to read it.

 

[Joey D]

I do think that there are instances of unexplained phenomena that could be of supernatural origin. I wouldn't mind a scientific study to be conducted that invested these instances in greater detail though, along with an in-depth psychological look to see if it's all in the person's mind.

 

[Sharkyzero]

What a horrible way to live. Never challenging other people's ideas or allowing your own to be challenged. Just assuming that you're right and not listening to anyone who wants to convince you otherwise. With this attitude you will learn nothing, you will be ignorant, and no one with any interest in reality will want to listen to you.

Science can explain things far better than superstition. Just because some things don't have a current explanation doesn't mean the supernatural must be the cause; it only means we don't know the cause. Know any published scientific studies that show evidence for the supernatural? Because I would honestly really love to read it.

I'm not superstitious and I don't live that way. Thank you for arguing against a stance nobody has. >_>

I only do that with people like you who cannot know what I know because I'm the only person to have lived it. That's fine. It would be pure foolishness for me to argue against you when you rely on other sources that have not really delved into such things and will accept no other intellectual offerings otherwise. Wouldn't that be true? I can tell you about a dozen stories of troops still walking through Gettysburg at night, but would you listen? Stories about people getting their shirts tugged or their items being misplaced

Herein lies the problem. I would love to challenge your ideas with what I *know*...but I'd have to hold your hand and TAKE you to these places. Which I obviously won't do because I don't care about what you believe or not. Whatever, do what you will. The weight of proof lies solely with you and the devices we have repurposed to try and detect the means by which spirits, demons, and the like present themselves (taking heat energy away from the room, or wherever they are, leaving cold spots for example, if those are even signs that something is around, circumstancial evidence suggests an affirmative) which is quite terrible.

Want to know the problem with your desire for a scientific journal contribution on the topic? Not a whole helluva lot of people really believes they exist in the community because there aren't "Ghost-o-Meters" with which to calculate, quantify, and categorize supernatural contact with enough 'oomph' to satisfy people such as yourself. They may as well be cryptozoological in nature, lumped in with Bigfoot and all the rest. Our science most definitely does NOT have the capability to capture what is absolutely irrefutable because how in the hell are we supposed to detect what can't even be seen (barring true psychics and mediums, of course) by regular people like me and you? Tell me how somebody is supposed to "scientifically prove" that somebody walked in through the door of a funeral home, opened up the chapel door and disappeared. You can't. That sucks. And even if you brought the idea before the foremost thinkers of our scientific age and prompted responses to such a problematic field of study, I can think of few circumstances that would cause you to be taken seriously.

In short, we have no scientifically proven idea why they do what they do and we have no real idea of how to capture them properly with 100% efficacy. As long as that is the case, I will see people like you sitting your chairs, arms crossed, shaking your head and rolling your eyes at the poor 'superstitious' people such as myself who no doubt stain the intellectual fabric of humanity with fantastical stories where no proof can be had. And that's fine. It really and truly is. How can I blame you for not believing in something when there's no treasure of proof to be browsed? I can't, I love the scientific process. Yet I know these things because I've lived them. Ghosts, Ouija board moving on 'its own,' etc. You'll find thousands of people who have experienced things, some are no doubt lunatics, but not all. It would behoove you to open your mind up to beyond the science of the now to perhaps allow your eyes to see things that cannot be proven just yet. Let it be confusingly apparent that there's something out there that can't be explained, it's actually very cool.

 

[Exorcet]

Not a whole helluva lot of people really believes they exist in the community because there aren't "Ghost-o-Meters" with which to calculate, quantify, and categorize supernatural contact with enough 'oomph' to satisfy people such as yourself.

This was a good part of your post, but you got off track. No one cares about the existence or lack of "Ghost-o-meters". They care about the lack of evidence. There is just no reason to believe in ghosts.

If there was a reason, people would explore the possibility of ghosts, and possibly invent ghost-o-meters.


EDIT

BTW, a heck of a lot people believe ghost-o-meters exist. They call them different things, and these devices usually rely on electricity or magnets to function. Yet there really is no consensus or science behind them, hence the study of ghosts is a pseudoscience.

 

[Famine]

The weight of proof lies solely with

... the person making the claim to have discovered a phenomenon to explain an observed effect. If you claim "x causes y" you must demonstrate evidence of x and show that you have eliminated all other possible explanations for y - by proving them wrong - that do not include x.

We - which includes the scientific community - do not allow people to make a claim for the cause of y and then tell us that we have to disprove it. That's not how it works - otherwise I could claim that all of your evidence for ghosts is caused by an invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head at eight times the speed of light and have it accepted as fact because you haven't disproven it yet...

Want to know the problem with your desire for a scientific journal contribution on the topic? Not a whole helluva lot of people really believes they exist in the community because there aren't "Ghost-o-Meters" with which to calculate, quantify, and categorize supernatural contact with enough 'oomph' to satisfy people such as yourself. They may as well be cryptozoological in nature, lumped in with Bigfoot and all the rest. Our science most definitely does NOT have the capability to capture what is absolutely irrefutable because how in the hell are we supposed to detect what can't even be seen (barring true psychics and mediums, of course) by regular people like me and you? Tell me how somebody is supposed to "scientifically prove" that somebody walked in through the door of a funeral home, opened up the chapel door and disappeared. You can't. That sucks. And even if you brought the idea before the foremost thinkers of our scientific age and prompted responses to such a problematic field of study, I can think of few circumstances that would cause you to be taken seriously.

Then you endeavour to.

If you are touting the wholly unprovable as fact, what differentiates you from the religious? And more to the point, if it's wholly unprovable, why does it satisfy your own burden of proof to generate such unshakeable belief in it? If it can be so proven to you, it can be proven full stop.

One of the keys of science is that we don't know everything. There's gaps here, there and everywhere. That's not an excuse to fill those gaps with whatever belief so suits, but a reason to continue filling in the edges of the gaps with the scientific method until there's no longer a gap. A gap filled with belief is still, factually, a gap.

 

[Sharkyzero]

... the person making the claim to have discovered a phenomenon to explain an observed effect. If you claim "x causes y" you must demonstrate evidence of x and show that you have eliminated all other possible explanations for y - by proving them wrong - that do not include x.

We - which includes the scientific community - do not allow people to make a claim for the cause of y and then tell us that we have to disprove it. That's not how it works - otherwise I could claim that all of your evidence for ghosts is caused by an invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head at eight times the speed of light and have it accepted as fact because you haven't disproven it yet...



Then you endeavour to.

If you are touting the wholly unprovable as fact, what differentiates you from the religious? And more to the point, if it's wholly unprovable, why does it satisfy your own burden of proof to generate such unshakeable belief in it? If it can be so proven to you, it can be proven full stop.

One of the keys of science is that we don't know everything. There's gaps here, there and everywhere. That's not an excuse to fill those gaps with whatever belief so suits, but a reason to continue filling in the edges of the gaps with the scientific method until there's no longer a gap. A gap filled with belief is still, factually, a gap.

The problem with your assumption is that you think people do indeed fill those gaps with 'beliefs.' The entities of which I speak are most certainly not my beliefs. I didn't believe the Ouija board into 'speaking' to me or to do any other such thing. Everything you argue is based on the fact that you believe it *is* a belief, which it is not. It's just argued as such. Religion is an entirely different can of worms and I shan't be fishing this day.

Wholly unproveable? To you perhaps. I didn't need any more convincing than to actually be around them, proof enough to me, eh?

I pride myself on my logic and scientific approach to damned near everything I can think of, these things included. Science fails miserably in this aspect.

Also, I re-read your post and I disagree with you on one point, not because of anything else other than the miserable state of the investigative sciences associated with discovering these things where they lay/travel/etc. It IS your burden of proof because nobody can come to any sort of consensus. *I* know (read: not believe) these things exist. You *believe* they don't exist based on an absence of proof. Which means in this backwards scenario, the science needs the naysayers and skeptics to see these things. No amount of second-hand reporting will beat a personal experience. I already told those who don't believe that they can be found, with effort they would probably rather spend elsewhere. Combine that with an apathy towards a subject they already deem fanciful and you'll be hard pressed to get them to do anything but attack claims based on scientific process, a scientific process that doesn't exist for this field. Good luck with that. I shudder to think how I would have responded to these posts before I stopped caring to change people's minds. I used to react in a defensive manner, "They're calling me a liar!" But that's not the case I realized as I matured and grew up. They're simply not believing just because people are telling them to believe. I've been down with that ever since. My only recourse is to say, I can't prove it with a satisfactory wide swath of scientific data, but I can show you where they are, and then you can see these things that can't be proven too, or at least, listen to people who work in these areas and have experiences that can't be explained. That's all that can be said really.

You're most definitely not wrong for demanding evidence, I would be doing the same in your shoes. I just don't think anybody can really come to the rescue with it just yet (or for the foreseeable future).

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Yes I do believe. Why? Because we believe what politicians say too, don't we?

We vote for politicians because there's no one else to vote for.

 

[Exorcet]

I didn't need any more convincing than to actually be around them, proof enough to me, eh?

So basically, something happens, and you assume it's a ghost? Having a low standard of proof is not a good thing.

I pride myself on my logic and scientific approach to damned near everything I can think of, these things included. Science fails miserably in this aspect.

This sounds like a contradiction.

It IS your burden of proof because nobody can come to any sort of consensus.

What? It's your burden of proof because you claim ghosts are real.

*I* know (read: not believe)

read: believe

First off, you really can't know anything. Your senses could just be hooked up to a machine, and all of reality could be fiction for all you know, but that's a different topic.

The point is, seeing something is not proof, because your eyes are bad at seeing things. Just like your ears are bad at hearing things, and you mind is bad at interpreting things.

Ghosts blowing into people's ears? Why not wind causing something to vibrate that sometimes reaches a frequency that makes it sound as if it's very close by (I'm not a doctor, so this isn't an attempt at a definite explanation)? Did you or anyone even attempt to prove that it wasn't a ghost before jumping to a conclusion?

You *believe* they don't exist based on an absence of proof.

No, belief is simply withheld due to lack of proof. This is only reasonable.

Which means in this backwards scenario, the science needs the naysayers and skeptics to see these things.

Air, germs, and gamma rays are all well known invisible things. I've never seen any of them, but the evidence for their existence is overwhelming. Not being able to see ghosts has nothing to do with the "science" of ghosts being dismissed.

a scientific process that doesn't exist for this field.

There is only one scientific process, and it works for everything. Ghosts aren't accepted because the process has not shown proof that they exist, which indicates that they probably don't exist.

listen to people who work in these areas and have experiences that can't be explained.

Which are unexplained, and not ghosts.

 

[CodeRedR51]

We used to wake up at my grandparents house to cabinets being open, kitchen drawers open, etc. I've never experienced much more than that, but it certainly intrigues me.

 

[dylansan]

The only difference between believing, thinking, and knowing something is whether it's true. And in all three cases the person's opinion on the subject is the same. One cannot say "I know I am right, you only think you're right" because the other person could say exactly the same thing. The only way to decide which is correct is evidence, and although all of reality could be a lie and evidence is useless, we humans really have no other choice than to assume reason and logic work and evidence is meaningful.

Sharky, you act like science is trying to dismiss the idea of ghosts because they don't like it. Scientists are always trying to challenge their understanding of the world. That's the only way to learn more about it. Scientists often do studies into these paranormal things, perhaps with the thought that they;re probably not true, but at least hoping to be proven wrong. Read up on the James Randi $1M Challenge. He's offering a million bucks to anyone who participates in a test of supernatural or paranormal ability and succeeds in proving that they have it. Very few people have stepped up (which is odd if it is possible) and no one has even made it past preliminary testing, which isn't even as rigorous as a normal scientific test. Most of the attempts were by amateurs who thought they could trick them, without realizing the scientists had thought of that (Find the video for Uri Geller).

Scientists want someone to prove them wrong, but to this date no one has been able to do so. Whatever your experiences are, it's awfully arrogant for you to claim, rather than not knowing how they happened, that you know they happened in a way that all of science suggest is impossible. It really bugs a lot of scientists that people think their intuition is better than rigorous testing and mountains of evidence. As a lover of everything science, I can say I'm a bit ticked off at people like that too.

 

[Famine]

Wholly unproveable? To you perhaps.

Tell me how somebody is supposed to "scientifically prove" that somebody walked in through the door of a funeral home, opened up the chapel door and disappeared. You can't. That sucks.

Yet clearly it met your personal burden of proof.

The point of the scientific process is to assume you're wrong and eliminate every other option - including "chance" - not to assume you're right because you saw it and reject any other analysis.

There is no shame it not knowing an answer. All knowledge is based on the first principle - "I do not know" - and the scientific method. We're happy not having answers, because it means we can try to find out. Making one up to suit... not so good.

I pride myself on my logic and scientific approach to damned near everything I can think of, these things included. Science fails miserably in this aspect.

Only because you want it to. If you reject the scientific method as unsuitable for any one thing, you must reject its suitability for all other things too. It either works or it doesn't and all current knowledge is either wrong or right by chance.

It IS your burden of proof because nobody can come to any sort of consensus.

No, it's always the responsibility of the claimant. You're claiming knowledge of something that is currently unproven and it's your job to provide the proof that underpins that knowledge. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Did you disprove that invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head at eight times the speed of light yet?

*I* know (read: not believe) these things exist. You *believe* they don't exist based on an absence of proof.

Nope. I *don't believe* they exist. It's very important distinction.

Religious people know that their god exists. I don't believe that their god exists. That's not the same thing as believing that their god doesn't exist. Their god, like your ghosts, are non-falsifiable. They have evidence of their god, like your ghosts, that is personal to them, that they wish they could share with us non-believers but, in the absence of that, they just know that their god exists and pity us fools with our mere science that guides everything but cannot explain their corner of belief and so must be rejected - but just this once (sent from my Blackberry)...

I don't see any difference between believing in a deity due to personal experience without any supporting evidence or the possibility of supporting evidence and believing in ghosts due to personal experience without any supporting evidence or the possibility of supporting evidence. Perhaps you can explain what the difference is?


On the other hand, I know that teapot exists, due to a personal experience and, although I have no evidence for it and evidence cannot possibly be gathered, it's your job to prove it doesn't exist if you believe that.

 

[Sharkyzero]

You guys make me smile, I love talking about this stuff. I'll try and respond to everything, you are making my day here at work very engaging. And I genuinely appreciate that you guys are of my ilk and I have somehow become one of those I generally argue against.

There's a lot to respond to. Let me see, there may be multiple posts because I don't know this forum system that well.

 

[arora]

We vote for politicians because there's no one else to vote for.

I advocate the 'none of the above' attempts from states such as Co. 👍

 

[Pupik]

They're not all benign, and some will enjoy proving you wrong a little too much.

Please send one to my house via UPS, then. Oh wait, they transcend matter. And postage. And description. So it must exist, purely to annoy the living. Wishful thinking.

Let me tell you that IF I come back as a paranormal somethingorother...let's just say "ghost" (forget all this Orb crap which is what happens when you shine a bright light or flash at a tiny object as small as a speck of dust), I'm not going to hang around my own decrepit home or make creaking noises for the next 200 years while people make up anecdotal nonsense about my past life. I'm going to seriously mess things up for the two or three people who are on my personal crap-you list, and get over it and go to my personal Valhalla (likely just fodder for underground creatures and microorganisms).



























Here, I left you some space to poke holes in my argument.

 

[Sharkyzero]

I hope you'll forgive the odd format, I transferred the responses to a text document and tried to respond point-by-point. It'll be messy, but I think I did alright here. Quotes are for the person in caps, unless I messed that up somewhere. My responses after the lines.

EXORCET

Sharkyzero
I didn't need any more convincing than to actually be around them, proof enough to me, eh?

"So basically, something happens, and you assume it's a ghost? Having a low standard of proof is not a good thing."

I pride myself on my logic and scientific approach to damned near everything I can think of, these things included. Science fails miserably in this aspect.

"This sounds like a contradiction."

It IS your burden of proof because nobody can come to any sort of consensus.

"What? It's your burden of proof because you claim ghosts are real."

*I* know (read: not believe)

"read: believe

First off, you really can't know anything. Your senses could just be hooked up to a machine, and all of reality could be fiction for all you know, but that's a different topic.

The point is, seeing something is not proof, because your eyes are bad at seeing things. Just like your ears are bad at hearing things, and you mind is bad at interpreting things.

Ghosts blowing into people's ears? Why not wind causing something to vibrate that sometimes reaches a frequency that makes it sound as if it's very close by (I'm not a doctor, so this isn't an attempt at a definite explanation)? Did you or anyone even attempt to prove that it wasn't a ghost before jumping to a conclusion?"


You *believe* they don't exist based on an absence of proof.

"No, belief is simply withheld due to lack of proof. This is only reasonable."

Which means in this backwards scenario, the science needs the naysayers and skeptics to see these things.

"Air, germs, and gamma rays are all well known invisible things. I've never seen any of them, but the evidence for their existence is overwhelming. Not being able to see ghosts has nothing to do with the "science" of ghosts being dismissed."

a scientific process that doesn't exist for this field.

"There is only one scientific process, and it works for everything. Ghosts aren't accepted because the process has not shown proof that they exist, which indicates that they probably don't exist."

listen to people who work in these areas and have experiences that can't be explained.

"Which are unexplained, and not ghosts."
___________________________
Ok, here goes;

You used a slippery slope fallacy to argue against me and that part is invalid. I don't go straight to ghost because something happens. Something has to lead me there.

Also, I know I'm living and typing to you. So I am capable of knowing something. I know that you made an argument. I know that I'm responding to you now. To say that one cannot know anything is untrue, really.

There is no contradiction because science hasn't given us the tools with which to analyze these entities yet.

I understand the concept of burden of proof and you are not wrong, however in this scenario there is no quicker way to gain understanding that to see it for yourself as nobody can bear that burden of proof adequately enough to sway the harshest critics (which is indeed what is necessary in the end). AKA: don't wait up for science, you'll likely be waiting a while.

Belief witheld because of absence of proof. Amen. Please continue to do so, if only everybody engaged this part of their mind all the time.

At one time, people didn't even know about germs or gamma rays and if anybody would have told them otherwise they would have been pushed aside. I hesitate to put these items in the same category but I can't help myself. I would say the spirit world/alternate universes whatever you want to call it, are quite separate from this existence and far beyond any comprehension we have developed thus far. It's quite frustrating. I would definitely like to have those knowledge gaps filled. /nod

I agree that there is one scientific process and it's fantastic. Let me clarify to better put forth my meaning; our tools of the trade for such research are either woefully inadequate or nonexistent due to general lack of caring and/or belief. Who can blame anybody for feeling that way?


DYLANSAN

"The only difference between believing, thinking, and knowing something is whether it's true. And in all three cases the person's opinion on the subject is the same. One cannot say "I know I am right, you only think you're right" because the other person could say exactly the same thing. The only way to decide which is correct is evidence, and although all of reality could be a lie and evidence is useless, we humans really have no other choice than to assume reason and logic work and evidence is meaningful.

Sharky, you act like science is trying to dismiss the idea of ghosts because they don't like it. Scientists are always trying to challenge their understanding of the world. That's the only way to learn more about it. Scientists often do studies into these paranormal things, perhaps with the thought that they;re probably not true, but at least hoping to be proven wrong. Read up on the James Randi $1M Challenge. He's offering a million bucks to anyone who participates in a test of supernatural or paranormal ability and succeeds in proving that they have it. Very few people have stepped up (which is odd if it is possible) and no one has even made it past preliminary testing, which isn't even as rigorous as a normal scientific test. Most of the attempts were by amateurs who thought they could trick them, without realizing the scientists had thought of that (Find the video for Uri Geller).

Scientists want someone to prove them wrong, but to this date no one has been able to do so. Whatever your experiences are, it's awfully arrogant for you to claim, rather than not knowing how they happened, that you know they happened in a way that all of science suggest is impossible. It really bugs a lot of scientists that people think their intuition is better than rigorous testing and mountains of evidence. As a lover of everything science, I can say I'm a bit ticked off at people like that too."

_________________________________________

I completely agree with your "difference between..." statement. I truly enjoy that style of thought. I just wish that what I have experienced could fit into it. >_< I'm left with heresay (as far as the people I'm conversing with are concerned) to display as a feeble attempt at explaining what I'm been through. It's not enjoyable! Yet at the same time, I relish the chance to explain because maybe I can use you folks to stop poor debate habits and close some logic/evidence gaps in my tales. /nod

I can see where that might seem like the case, but I actually believe the opposite of science trying to dismiss the idea of ghosts. I think it's clawing and scratching at trying to figure it out. Perhaps my perception is biased, but it truly seems as though we are trying to understand SO hard, but our tools don't fit the bill. I LOVED that challenge by the way. I cannot tell you how much I enjoy it when charlatans are laid bare. I enjoy shows such as "Fact or Faked" for much the same reasons. The lies being spread do nothing but hinder our ascent towards understanding and those that do so are shameful.

'Arrogance' aside, my "knowing" is all I have. I wasn't have a Greek Oracle's moment where gases were causing me to hallucinate, I am a healthy 28 year old (much younger then, perhaps 18 or so), so for people to say that it was caused due to my eyes being bad, or something else (perhaps friends screwing with me), asking me to go farther than is reasonable to believe *them* isn't proper. At some point, you have to look at the mountains of tales, stories, and tidbits of information and realize that not everybody is making it up. Constant denial doesn't suit the scientific mind. There is something there, though whether it's actually possible to prove it is a different story altogether. I am reminded of the giant squid that resides in the deeps of the ocean, where people told tales of such things and we dismissed summarily because it's just so damned hard to believe. Yet there one was, at the bottom of a Japanese fishing boat's deep sea lure if I'm not mistaken. Can't the afterlife be the same? Just as difficult to sort through, if not moreso because we can't perceive it with scientific devices and methodology. Just as an aside, related to your scientists hate it when people's intuitions are held above mountains of evidence, when people try to say that the Earth is 10,000 years old, fighting tooth and nail against geology, that's a pet peeve of mine. I'm sure if I sat here long enough I could think of more.

I can tell you this, as long as we fight as a scientific community over things that ARE measurable and calculable, never even coming to a consensus, on things like global warming where different sets of data are interpreted in myriad ways, it'll be a cold day in Hades before things like THIS are solved. As such, I can only hold to my hypothesis (it just came to me that this might be a better word than belief) and point towards evidence contrary and supportive as best I can.

FAMINE

Sharkyzero
Wholly unproveable? To you perhaps.

Sharkyzero
Tell me how somebody is supposed to "scientifically prove" that somebody walked in through the door of a funeral home, opened up the chapel door and disappeared. You can't. That sucks.

"Yet clearly it met your personal burden of proof.

The point of the scientific process is to assume you're wrong and eliminate every other option - including "chance" - not to assume you're right because you saw it and reject any other analysis.

There is no shame it not knowing an answer. All knowledge is based on the first principle - "I do not know" - and the scientific method. We're happy not having answers, because it means we can try to find out. Making one up to suit... not so good."


Sharkyzero
I pride myself on my logic and scientific approach to damned near everything I can think of, these things included. Science fails miserably in this aspect.

"Only because you want it to. If you reject the scientific method as unsuitable for any one thing, you must reject its suitability for all other things too. It either works or it doesn't and all current knowledge is either wrong or right by chance."


Sharkyzero
It IS your burden of proof because nobody can come to any sort of consensus.

"No, it's always the responsibility of the claimant. You're claiming knowledge of something that is currently unproven and it's your job to provide the proof that underpins that knowledge. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Did you disprove that invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head at eight times the speed of light yet?"


Sharkyzero
*I* know (read: not believe) these things exist. You *believe* they don't exist based on an absence of proof.

"Nope. I *don't believe* they exist. It's very important distinction.

Religious people know that their god exists. I don't believe that their god exists. That's not the same thing as believing that their god doesn't exist. Their god, like your ghosts, are non-falsifiable. They have evidence of their god, like your ghosts, that is personal to them, that they wish they could share with us non-believers but, in the absence of that, they just know that their god exists and pity us fools with our mere science that guides everything but cannot explain their corner of belief and so must be rejected - but just this once (sent from my Blackberry)...

I don't see any difference between believing in a deity due to personal experience without any supporting evidence or the possibility of supporting evidence and believing in ghosts due to personal experience without any supporting evidence or the possibility of supporting evidence. Perhaps you can explain what the difference is?


On the other hand, I know that teapot exists, due to a personal experience and, although I have no evidence for it and evidence cannot possibly be gathered, it's your job to prove it doesn't exist if you believe that."

_________________________________________

Well, yeah, things moving by themselves in perfect geometric patterns on a hand-drawn Ouija board with 2 friends having their single fingers on the planchette is proof to me. The fact that it started making figure 8's out of nowhere faster and faster where my finger was having a hard time staying on (as was everybody else's) is proof to me, it would suddenly stop it's geometric pattern and sharply move to answer our questions. Scientific proof? Holy hell, no way. I would be thinking that people were screwing with each other for the sake of the data gatherer were this in a controlled environment. But I was there. This...thing...wasn't in my mind. I absolutely cannot duplicate that, I absolutely cannot prove that it happened. Hell, I almost certainly wouldn't get the same spirit. But I'm not ever touching one of those things ever again. It talked to us intelligently for a half an hour, quite a long time to keep up a perfect ruse with my Thai friend who didn't really know English that well (enough to put on the facade of faking the other two of us out, at least) and my buddy who just thought there was nothing wrong with contacting these things because it was literally funny to him that he could talk to them and hear responses to his questions. There was no effort put forth on my part other than to try my hardest to keep my finger on that planchette as it shot itself across the board to answer questions, filling in the gaps of time where we weren't speaking with figure 8's. That will never suffice for you, and why should it? It happened to me, not you. No amount of cajoling or convincing will change your mind. Great, proof is the ultimate cleanser of lies and deceit, yet I cannot prove it...and it happened as I describe it with not a shred of doubt in my mind.

I love the scientific process to come back to a previous statement. But chance doesn't apply at a certain moment with things like this. I never assumed. I kept waiting for something to give up the joke that was certainly being played on us...but nothing ever came. It was eerily absent of things that made me feel comfortable, as though my friends would just say, "Hah, idiot!" and then we'd go drink a beer and play some more PS2. Nothing. It was not pulled any which way by any 3 of us, it just sort of had the tug built into the planchette itself is how I can best describe the motion. It lost it's lighthearted feeling after it started to get faster and perform tricks that would have required all 3 of us to cooperate to perform properly. Then it got just a tad too scary for me.

I think I've seen this in other areas of argument, but I'll answer it again...I am not making one up "to suit" as you put it. I'm not about that and neither are the majority of people who experience these things. But what else would you call these events/entities that can't be proven? Ghosts/spirits/demons? What else has these characteristics? And make no mistake, people have been witnessing these things since time immaterial, even presidents of the United States way back when (as if that means anything, now that I think about it). The White House is a well known haunted facility, there are multiple accounts of things happening there. Is everybody making it up? No. And speaking in general, you can't have similar stories from all over the world, in a variety of circumstances, from people all across the board financially holding all different types of offices/duties/positions and continue to state that everybody is making it up.

As I've said before and people continue to neglect it in their responses; They are there if you want to go see them. Feel free. Browse around. But YOU have to go to see it. No proof will be shown to you that suits you. I don't need the scientific process explained to me again, I understand fully. I wish I could show you more, but I can't. I can just show you the way, that's it, unfortunately. I actually wish you would because to hear it from a skeptic is one of the sweetest things because you know they aren't lying about it! Kind of like Simon Cowell's word when he judges your singing means more because you know he never (or almost never) sugar coats how he feels about you, that's the way I feel about a skeptic's experiences. There's nothing that says "extraordinary" to me quite like a skeptic seeing something and not knowing what in the world to call it.

I understand that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, but on this, the proof cannot be shown in most cases because experiences are the main source of evidence. Hence why you must go and become the proof you need. It's convoluted, illogical even, to say that the backwards nature of burden of proof is one of the main forms of proper convincing, yet here I stand, feeling goofy whilst doing so. Bleh, there's no way to 'win' this point, so I don't try, I just hope people can understand what I'm saying. Perhaps you do, and you're sticking to your guns, as I probably would be.

Your teapot argument is an argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy and therefore invalid. It's curious that you used a teapot though, see "Bertrand Russell's Teapot." I think you'll like the article (if you haven't seen it already, based on your argument).

I do not want science to fail in this, as you state. I want it to succeed. The next part of your rebuttle is based on something that I wanted to clarify, that the science is not there yet, not the process. I believe in the process to be sure.

Once again, I'm leaving religion alone, I prefer to stick to things that I've actually had contact with, I've never contacted a god. Not that I know of. Also, an argument that substantial will probably never be solved, wherease I think this actually might be. They're different beasts entirely. Though they may appear similar, as I try to see your point of view.

Hrm...as far as believing in a deity due to personal experience and believing in ghosts, the difference for me would have to lie in that I can go see a ghost pretty much whenever I wanted to at dozens, perhaps hundreds of locations, because I know where they are. I don't know of a place that I can go to to see a god (churches included). Though I have had things happen to me that dictate that something else is beyond, I have yet to hear the word of god gracing my ears. It's truly the most difficult thing in the world to try and unravel the knots and threads of thought and logic on this. I would have to say that it's a mess and that every person's personal experiences will be all they're left with in the end. I just don't think any man's argument will cut it. If it did, why would everybody still be fighting over religious intangibles? I humbly state that I am inadequate to stage such an argument. I can only speak on what I know and I'll try to keep it that way.

Phew. Wall o' text! Hopefully it's not too boring to read it (if you did).

 

[Sharkyzero]

Please send one to my house via UPS, then. Oh wait, they transcend matter. And postage. And description. So it must exist, purely to annoy the living. Wishful thinking.

Let me tell you that IF I come back as a paranormal somethingorother...let's just say "ghost" (forget all this Orb crap which is what happens when you shine a bright light or flash at a tiny object as small as a speck of dust), I'm not going to hang around my own decrepit home or make creaking noises for the next 200 years while people make up anecdotal nonsense about my past life. I'm going to seriously mess things up for the two or three people who are on my personal crap-you list, and get over it and go to my personal Valhalla (likely just fodder for underground creatures and microorganisms).




























Here, I left you some space to poke holes in my argument.

lulz, too late, I can't write anymore, my fingers are borked. And you posed a flawless post, who could poke holes in this? Annoy some a-holes then hoof it to Valhalla? /signs up