The Paranormal

[Diageo]

Sure, no one needs evidence.

[The fish]

"I love it" and "I am loving it" hold different meanings, though. While a lot can be attributed by colloquial/cultural use (Cheers, McD) the two terms are still distinct.

 

If my friend cooked me a rabbit stew after I told her I normally hate rabbit, and I said "I love it" then she may infer several things; that her meal has changed my mind, even. Whereas if I had said "I am loving it" it retains the original notion of there being a normative state for my opinion on rabbit, to which her meal has not altered, even though I am expressing my enjoyment of the meal.

 

My opinion of rabbit, therefore, alters, depending on which phrase I have used. While my example is not thorough nor completely correct, I hope it serves as purpose to show why the phrase is totally fine.

 

I don't think I ever really grasped the structure of language during my studies. I certainly didn't remember any of the correct labels or anything, but I still think I know how to phrase myself and make myself understood. Well, except for my grammar/spelling/vocab issues.

 

Anyway, going to thread-rip our sideshow.

 

Ironically, the one post you didn't rip was your own...

 

Back on topic, based on the current evidence we can scientifically that conclude ghosts probably don't exist, of if you prefer, aren't existing. :wink:

[Ville]

I have a very open mind toward things that matter. Not stupid theories that have no benefit for me or human kind whatsoever.

 

Wow...you do realise how arrogant your post sounds, right? In my opinion, open-mindedness = being able to accept and understand all kinds of viewpoints, not just the ones you like yourself...Also, I do disagree on the topic of usefulness; I think the scientific community would be rather happy to see someone actually prove / debunk the existence of ghosts...hence not trivial at all.

 

Why not spend your time doing some volunteer work instead of worrying about how ghosts exist...

 

...or trying to convince everyone in this thread how theories acknowledging the possibility of ghosts existing are just plain "stupid" ;D

[Diageo]

Wow...you do realise how arrogant your post sounds, right? In my opinion, open-mindedness = being able to accept and understand all kinds of viewpoints, not just the ones you like yourself...Also, I do disagree on the topic of usefulness; I think the scientific community would be rather happy to see someone actually prove / debunk the existence of ghosts...hence not trivial at all.

If you are open to absolutely everything, then you are just gullible. And it's not the viewpoint I like, it's the one that objectively makes most sense. Lack of evidence is never proof.

 

...or trying to convince everyone in this thread how theories acknowledging the possibility of ghosts existing are just plain "stupid" ;D

 

Getting them to stop being delusional is helping them , and I already do volunteer work.

[Ville]

If you are open to absolutely everything, then you are just gullible.

 

Actually, not quite:

 

gullible = believing everything at face value

open-minded = being open to all the different possibilities and acknowledging them, regardless of your own opinion. "Might be X, might be Y...and yes, if I'm completely honest, might even be Z, though it seems very unlikely."

 

And it's not the viewpoint I like, it's the one that objectively makes most sense. Lack of evidence is never proof.

 

Heh, makes the most sense to YOU, that is.

 

Getting them to stop being delusional is helping them ,

 

Likewise with getting people to be a bit more open-minded ;D

[ReZourceman]

gullible [ˈgʌləbəl]

adj

easily taken in or tricked

[Happenstance]

gullible

 

Not listed

[ReZourceman]

gullible

 

Not listed

 

Brilliant. If I had thanks....

[Guy]

 

Brilliant. If I had thanks....

 

I thanked him for you. It's cool.

[Diageo]

Might as well say it too.

gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/

Adjective: Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

 

I understand the fact that ghosts might exist. But it is ridiculous to actually believe they exist at all. There is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe they exist. Everything might exist, so everything is possible. But there is no point in believing in ghosts at this point in time. When evidence is given, is when you can begin to think something could exist. Not just believing it might exist because you can't explain what happened.

 

Are you so open minded that you believe that unicorns exist.

Or if I made up a monster right now, on the spot, called Vaginasaurus, is it open minded to believe that might exist?

 

[Happenstance]

The difference with those is that people only claim ghosts to exist because they think they have seen them, that to them is evidence in itself.

 

Using unicorns or a monster you just made up on the spot just doesnt work.

[Diageo]

Many people have claimed to see unicorns. But they know it doesn't exist. Seeing something is not solid enough evidence for the existence of ghosts.

 

And if I told enough people about Vaginasaurus, and then created an event where they might think a Vaginasaurus was involved, then they could see something and instantly attribute it to being a vaginasaurus.

[ReZourceman]

Many people have claimed to see unicorns.

 

Not the people I hang out with.

[Diageo]

Do they claim to have seen ghosts?

[heroicjanitor]

The difference with those is that people only claim ghosts to exist because they think they have seen them, that to them is evidence in itself.

 

People who believe in ghosts have no defined idea of what it is they do. When something frightening happens in the dark they just say "Oh it must have been a ghost". Hear a bang in the kitchen, it's a ghost. See a white light in a photo, it's a ghost. Dozily see a figure after waking up at 4am, it's a ghost.

[Diageo]

ghost

   /goʊst/ Show Spelled[gohst] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

 

If you say you believe in ghosts, then you have to believe in a soul, and an anfterlife. All of which have no evidence either.

 

For us to see a ghost they have to emit or reflect light at a certain frequency. We know the frequency of light our eyes can capture exactly. And so, we have cameras that can capture in the same frequency as well as many others our eyes can't see. To say that we would be able to see a ghost and a camera wouldn't is prepostrous. The same idea with sounds, we know the exact frrequency of that too. And have microphones that can capture sounds way better than our ears ever could. But we do not have any solid evidence of ghosts ever captured on video or audio. How can you explain that?

 

If there were such a thing as spirits, that could live seperate from our bodies, why would we need a body in the first place. And why would these spirits haunt people, how would they be able to affect anything in our world, how would they be able to make noises. There is just no sense in ghosts.

[jayseven]

If you say gullible out loud slow enough, it looks like you're saying 'elephant.'

 

P.S. This thread is where I go when I'm feeling sad and need a laugh.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

ghost

   /goʊst/ Show Spelled[gohst] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

 

If you say you believe in ghosts, then you have to believe in a soul, and an anfterlife. All of which have no evidence either.

 

For us to see a ghost they have to emit or reflect light at a certain frequency. We know the frequency of light our eyes can capture exactly. And so, we have cameras that can capture in the same frequency as well as many others our eyes can't see. To say that we would be able to see a ghost and a camera wouldn't is prepostrous. The same idea with sounds, we know the exact frrequency of that too. And have microphones that can capture sounds way better than our ears ever could. But we do not have any solid evidence of ghosts ever captured on video or audio. How can you explain that?

 

If there were such a thing as spirits, that could live seperate from our bodies, why would we need a body in the first place. And why would these spirits haunt people, how would they be able to affect anything in our world, how would they be able to make noises. There is just no sense in ghosts.

 

To be fair, this is not really the right approach to debunking ghosts and other paranormal phenomena. You're giving a subjective opinion on the nature of the phenomenon as proof of existence/nonexistence. That's not scientific at all. Besides, you're sticking to a very naïve definition of ghost, the one found in legends and stories. The scientific approach to the phenomenon would be observation and then induction, not deduction from myths and legends.

[Guy]

P.S. This thread is where I go when I'm feeling sad and need a laugh.

 

We are alike in this way.

[Serebii]

Ok. This is coming from a scientist. You need to take a step back. We don't understand everything...or even much of anything at all. Yes they're no evidence of ghosts, there's no evidence against them either. For all we know, the figures that people call ghosts are actually interdimensional creatures trying to phase through to our reality.

 

You can't outright say that there are no aliens, no ghosts, no paranormal anything. That is also bein gullable, just on the flipside of the argument. You're taking the view that there is no possibility at face value.

 

Be open for any possibility. Leave your mind open.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Ok. This is coming from a scientist. You need to take a step back. We don't understand everything...or even much of anything at all. Yes they're no evidence of ghosts, there's no evidence against them either. For all we know, the figures that people call ghosts are actually interdimensional creatures trying to phase through to our reality.

 

You can't outright say that there are no aliens, no ghosts, no paranormal anything. That is also bein gullable, just on the flipside of the argument. You're taking the view that there is no possibility at face value.

 

Be open for any possibility. Leave your mind open.

 

I agree completely. The thing is, though, if we take into account the brain's tendency and ability to turn unknown experiences into something recognisable, most paranormal experiences are logically most likely to just be plain phenomena interpreted wrongly. Ghost stories, aliens encounters etc. are so ingrained into the collective conscious that it's often way too easy to be fooled into thinking those are the most logical conclusions when they are in fact not. We have to keep our minds open, yes, but we also have to be very careful not to jump to wrong conclusions because it's the easiest thing to do.

[ReZourceman]

Ok. This is coming from a scientist.

 

I fucking knew it!

 

[heroicjanitor]

Ok. This is coming from a scientist.

 

Batman's a scientist. Are you batman?

[Diageo]

To be fair, this is not really the right approach to debunking ghosts and other paranormal phenomena. You're giving a subjective opinion on the nature of the phenomenon as proof of existence/nonexistence. That's not scientific at all. Besides, you're sticking to a very naïve definition of ghost, the one found in legends and stories. The scientific approach to the phenomenon would be observation and then induction, not deduction from myths and legends.

That was only the second part, because no one seems to have a clear definition of ghost, so decides to call anything a ghost. An interdimensional image or whatever, is therefore not a ghost, but an interdimensional image. It is not naive because the word ghost came from myth and legend, and so you have to define it by the means set. Anything else is not a ghost.

 

And sure, completely ignore the middle part.

 

Ok. This is coming from a scientist. You need to take a step back. We don't understand everything...or even much of anything at all. Yes they're no evidence of ghosts, there's no evidence against them either. For all we know, the figures that people call ghosts are actually interdimensional creatures trying to phase through to our reality.

 

You can't outright say that there are no aliens, no ghosts, no paranormal anything. That is also bein gullable, just on the flipside of the argument. You're taking the view that there is no possibility at face value.

 

Be open for any possibility. Leave your mind open.

I admitted that anything is possible. But we don't go after things there are no evidence against, we go after things there is evidence for, and then further pursue it. Lack of evidence for, and against is no basis for research. You as a scientist should know, that lack of evidence means nothing to a scientist.

 

There is mathematical evidence for aliens. As it is highly likely that life has evolved on other worlds. Aliens are not paranormal, as they can be explained by science.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Diageo
Automerged Doublepost

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

That was only the second part, because no one seems to have a clear definition of ghost, so decides to call anything a ghost. An interdimensional image or whatever, is therefore not a ghost, but an interdimensional image.

 

And sure, completely ignore the middle part.

 

I didn't ignore it, I simply saw no need to comment on it. However, I think it's safe to say we are here talking about paranormal experiences, therefore it's more accurate to focus on the phenomenon "ghost" rather than the textbook definition of "ghost".