NationStates

Since it seems like some had an interest in discussing ghosts in the "Does God exist?" thread, I thought I might create one so that that debate has a place, too.

Personally, I'm somewhat agnostic about ghosts. I believe that most experiences with ghosts can be explained by natural phenomena. I remember hearing that infrasound can cause humans to have hallucinations about ghosts, with other properties of the environment being able to have the same effect. But I'm not fully opposed to the idea that there might be some real ghosts in the world after all, maybe some that can't be detected with scientific measurements. I think there were some unexplained phenomena in the world left that were attributed to ghosts, too, weren't there?

I stopped believing in ghosts after reading a science book. That never stopped me from believing in a god though.

Terra Sector Union wrote:I stopped believing in ghosts after reading a science book. That never stopped me from believing in a god though.

Interestingly enough, I know of atheists who believe in ghosts.

I believe in the Afterlife, and therefore I believe in the souls of living beings crossing between the physical and spiritual worlds

Jute wrote:

Terra Sector Union wrote:I stopped believing in ghosts after reading a science book. That never stopped me from believing in a god though.

Interestingly enough, I know of atheists who believe in ghosts.

Because atheism is disbelief in divine, not in ghosts.
although I guess there can be overlap between ghost and deity.

Tbh I don't see why there can't be ghosts. Maybe they're different than what we perceive but I don't deny the possibility of their existence.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Tbh I don't see why there can't be ghosts.

Basically, Russell's Teapot all over again. No one who claimed that ghosts exists has ever come up with solid scientific evidence for their existance, or even with a solid scientific hypothesis for them.

tagging

New Roma Republic wrote:tagging

Please don't. Tagging is very close to spamming.

Risottia wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Tbh I don't see why there can't be ghosts.

Basically, Russell's Teapot all over again. No one who claimed that ghosts exists has ever come up with solid scientific evidence for their existance, or even with a solid scientific hypothesis for them.

I'd argue that's because they're outside the realm of natural sciences at the moment, assuming they do exist. Usually research about ghosts is called non-scientific and pseudoscience anyway, isn't it?

Im a good bit religious, but i think until theres more evidence im considering them pretty fake.

Jute wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Basically, Russell's Teapot all over again. No one who claimed that ghosts exists has ever come up with solid scientific evidence for their existance, or even with a solid scientific hypothesis for them.

I'd argue that's because they're outside the realm of natural sciences at the moment, assuming they do exist. Usually research about ghosts is called non-scientific and pseudoscience anyway, isn't it?

That's not because it's about ghosts. It's because it always fails to meet the critera for a scientific hypothesis, which are internal coherence, non-contradiction of validated theories, and possibility to set up a replicable experiment which yields cogent data.

In short, all "research" about ghosts has been called pseudoscience because that's what it is. Of course, should someone come up with a sound scientific hypothesis about ghosts, we may set up a replicable experiment and verify the data. That would be science.

Ghosts are fake most of the report are due to a carbon monoxide leak

Eternian Union wrote:Ghosts are fake most of the report are due to a carbon monoxide leak

As I mentioned in the opening post, there are other scientific and not scientifc explanations for those, too.

Interesting, I personally don't believe in "physical" ghosts and life after death,
But "ghosts in the machine" where an AI or someone's consciousness gets stuck in a machine sounds almost plausable

Hm - this is an interesting thread.

Even though there have been numerous counts of "ghosts sightings" and "feelings" can be explained as a natural phenomena. But in some instances people cannot explain how they may have experienced a supernatural experience. Which leads to the question.. How can we say something does(n't) exists when there is no proof validating either claim?

2spooky4me

Ragnarokee wrote: How can we say something does(n't) exists when there is no proof validating either claim?

Russell's Teapot. Do wiki it.

Jute wrote:

Eternian Union wrote:Ghosts are fake most of the report are due to a carbon monoxide leak

As I mentioned in the opening post, there are other scientific and not scientifc explanations for those, too.

Non-scientific explanations aren't exactly meaningful explanations. They're myths at best. Outright bullshit at worst.

Risottia wrote:

Ragnarokee wrote: How can we say something does(n't) exists when there is no proof validating either claim?

Russell's Teapot. Do wiki it.

Well, but how do you know that there is not a teapot somewhere traveling around through space? Maybe some spaceship accidentally left it behind

Jute wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Russell's Teapot. Do wiki it.

Well, but how do you know that there is not a teapot somewhere traveling around through space? Maybe some spaceship accidentally left it behind

Can you PROVE there isnt a floating teapot?

Hakio wrote:

Jute wrote:Well, but how do you know that there is not a teapot somewhere traveling around through space? Maybe some spaceship accidentally left it behind

Can you PROVE there isnt a floating teapot?

Don't need to. In short, entia non sunt multiplicanda prae necessitatem.

wiki: occam's razor
In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.

The teapot hypothesis is an example of such an ad hoc hypothesis.

I've never seen nor heard of anything that would lead me to believe that there are ghosts.

Though believe in ghost and most things supernatural, it's hard to prove whether or not they exist. Even if they do, I remember a parapsychologist who was "debunking the debunkers" said some along the lines of "you what? Not going to fight this last one because sometimes it is just the wind."

However, I of course have optimism about this sort of thing.

Jute wrote:

Terra Sector Union wrote:I stopped believing in ghosts after reading a science book. That never stopped me from believing in a god though.

Interestingly enough, I know of atheists who believe in ghosts.

yeah but I wonder what they think ghosts are.

i suppose not believing in god(s) is not believing in god(s) and doesn't have to mean that you don't believe in the supernatural at all but....