Do you believe in ghosts?

[Heisenberg]

I am not being defensive, or disingenuous. I could easily say the same of you. Pad is stating that he believes in “the existence of aliens” (with no proof), based solely on the mathematical probability that the sheer size of the universe must make it so, however, he argues that the existence of ghosts is ridiculous, even though the sheer volume of actual accounts and evidence make the existence of ghosts much more plausible mathematically. I have not seen that Pad is asking questions worthy of a response. Demanding that someone provide a newspaper clipping on a pot forum to prove their claim is ridiculous. Seems for him to say it is OK for him to believe in aliens with no proof, but you cannot believe in ghosts, is hypocritical, no?

It's not hypocritical, it's consistent. Pad is not saying he believes in aliens because so many people have stories and personal experiences. He is not sighting close encounters or UFO videos. If the only support for aliens was the same support we have for ghosts, Pad would be just as doubtful. The idea of aliens enjoys mathematical plausibility, ghosts do not.

The sheer number of ghosts reports do nothing to help us draw a conclusion, just as alien sightings do not help us confirm aliens. Anecdotal information is enough to begin an investigation, that's it. This is because anecdotal information is uncontrolled and very likely to contain mistakes and unknown variables. This is what it means to be careful during investigation. If you think that argument from popularity indicates truth, then you do not understand careful investigation or logic. If all the people who have seen ghosts also said the moon was made of cheese, would the cheese moon then have mathematical likelihood?

I personally would not ask for a newspaper clipping because, in the end, that doesn't prove anything either. In fact most ghost or psychic stories have elements of truth to them, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see an actual clip. Pad however did not demand this clip, he asked for it, and if he were doing a thorough investigation, that would be the first step. If the media had performed this step then Lennay Kekua would have been outed as fake a long time ago. The media went for months without even asking for a death certificate. That is sloppy investigation.

So, you are stating as fact, that I” have anomalies that cannot be explained, labeled them ghosts, and call it research”. You know nothing about me, or my research techniques and findings. But, don’t let that stop you from “purposely placing (me) in a bad light to lend credence to your position.” I would say THAT is “making as many assumptions as needed to support your pet theory”. Hypocritical, no?

I am not putting words in your mouth or twisting them around. I am saying that, with the information you have provided, it tells me nothing except that you have a collection of unexplained happenings. I do not have a pet theory, therefore I can not make assumptions towards it, just as I can not lend you credit for simply saying you have a ghost video.

Ghosts are an observable phenomena, but they are not usually observable on command. That does not make them non-existent. There are many videos and recordings of people getting ghosts (or something) to do things in our realm, be it turning a light on and off, opening a door, knocking, or saying something. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence to support the assertion that there are ghosts, but you will not acknowledge them because they cannot (yet) be proven by scientific method. Just seems so unenlightened. Look at all of the scientific “truths” that have been proven wrong. String theory is very interesting, and may some day be validated. Before Einstein, what were our scientific “truths”that people like you would claim as right and declare anyone who thought outside that box, “misguided, misinformed, and ignorant of the facts”?

You start off by deciding the conclusion. Ghosts are an observable phenomena. Actually we have a very loosely defined collection of phenomena that are connected only by the fact that people label them ghosts. Sometimes ghosts leave cold spots, sometimes warm spots. Sometimes they are orbs, sometimes human figures, sometimes cars and trains. Sometimes they are demons, sometimes trapped spirits, sometimes malicious entities or oblivious children. Sometimes they can be felt by psychics, sometimes they can not. Sometimes they produce EMF readings, sometimes not. The emergent phenomena seems to involve people's perception and logic leading them to think unexplained anomalies are ghosts, and that is a phenomena which we can fully explain and account for.

You think you are so smart, but you are stuck in the basic rut of “prove it” through scientific method. Be a pioneer, man.

At what point have I declared myself smart? Apparently, since I have made no comments as to my intelligence, and have not called anyone else stupid, it is you who thinks I am smart. This 'rut' of the scientific method has given you plenty in your life that you value. Antibiotics, cell phones, cheap and readily available food, ect ect. Being A pioneer means discovering truth. Since pioneers saw ghosts themselves, ghost hunting is hardly a new venture, and in fact has uncovered nothing useful about ghosts.

If every scientist, was like you, we would have no advancement. “You prove it”, “No!, you prove it”, “No!, YOU prove it!” Do your own GD research and quit regurgitating scientific method as “proof” that you are right. What ARE you doing to actually advance your understanding?

Again, you fail to understand science. "Prove it" is exactly what scientists say to each other, in fact it is embedded as part of the process of the scientific method. The reason this works in science and does not hamper progress is, real scientists can stand up and say "ok heres the proof". This is how we make sure our advancement is correct and we don't end up taking snake oil as medicine or convict people of molestation based on implanted memories. The truth requires discourse, as the only other alternative is indiscriminate credibility. Facts should stand on their own merit and not rely on twists of logic and attitude.

I do not believe I have suggested a false dilemma a tall. What I have suggested is that he do some research of his own if he is so curious about it. If he was not curious, I don’t think he would make posts about it, or seek out posts about it, then ridicule people for their personal accounts. I know how science works. I prefer to actually do some research to advance my understanding, than to sit behind a keyboard demanding others to prove things to me. THAT does not seem vey intelligent. You claim there are no ghosts, yet you feel no burden to prove your claim.

There is no way to prove a negative claim. If I say there are no such things as pink elephants, how can I prove it? Have you ever seen a white crow? Can you prove white crows do not exist? This is a strawman as I have never said ghosts do not exist, I say we have no good reason to think they exist.

This further shows your lack of understanding science. In science, the null hypothesis is favored until proven otherwise.

I do not see you telling people who believe you that they should do their own research. If I say "ghosts are real and Clayton knows what's up" are you gonna tell me that I am not intelligent unless I do my own research? This is a way to deflect criticism and it is the opposite of how science works. Science replicates results only after data has passed certain standards of merit and rigorous critical analysis. We do not go looking for gold at the end of the rainbow until it has been demonstrated that the rainbow has an end that is reachable and there is reason to believe gold will be there.

 

[Heisenberg]

You are aware that when one loses a sense, the others become much more acute? Nearly everyone acknowledges a “sixth sense”. Although it cannot be measured in scientific terms, it is widely accepted.

Nearly everyone acknowledges luck and karma, yet we have no rules or methods for manipulating luck or karma, aside from those not proven to work, like throwing salt over your shoulder. At one time, nearly everyone acknowledged that black cats are bad luck, or the evil eye could make you sick. Argument from popularity should not be impressive to those who are interested in honest truth, because an honest person admits that, without real world data to back it up, those people could be wrong.

If your mother was on trial for murder, would you want people to be able to testify against her and sight their sixth sense as evidence? Would you be ok with her going to the chair simply because it was widely accepted that she killed someone? It seems that before you can convince others of ghosts, you must first lower their standards of evidence.

Why can’t some people have a better sixth sense than others? In most of my investigations, it was the woman who complained about the activity. Even in the face of all of the evidence that made them call me, the man usually refused to accept it, until there was video or audio proof. If you believe in Darwinism, and I believe you do, surely you believe that women have evolved their sixth sense for protection much faster than men. Gavin Debecker, a world leader in security, wrote a book called “The Gift of Fear” on the subject. I recommend it for all women.

You are speculating data based on the assumption that a sixth sense exists. Proper investigation involves parsimony, the idea that when we posit a theory, at each point which we introduce a new assumption, we have a possible mistake. Therefore you must have good reason to posit this assumption, and if there exists two theories which equally explain the evidence, the one which makes the fewest new assumptions is correct. Occam's Razor. The majority of ghost reports can be explained by hoax, mistake, or lies, and those that remain are simply unexplained. What has never happened is a ghost report being taken beyond the unexplained stage to actually reveal a ghost. In order to conclude a ghost you must make many assumptions, and unless those assumptions have a factual or logical basis, they come from your preconceived ideology.

Do you truly believe that everyone calling themself a psychic, is a fake? Why do you think police departments hire them? Police departments use them because they help solve crimes. They help solve crimes because they have an ability to get information nobody else can obtain. Are their methods provable scientifically? No. Are they proven to work? Yes.

Not everyone is a fake, some are deluded, and some may be real, I do not know, but I have no good reason to think any are real. No plausibility.

If psychics actually did help solve crimes, every police department would have a psychic division. Private psychic detectives would have a booming business. Osama would have been found years before, and we would have been warned about 911, Sandy Hook, ect. Psychics are good at making it seem as if they have given out useful information, it's what they do. Sylvia Browne, and others, say things like "the child will be found near train tracks, or a church, or a hospital." First, we don't know if the child is alive or dead, so any state they find the child in confirms the prediction. We also do not know what 'near' means, so a few miles could fit. Show me a piece of land in the US that isn't close to one of those three things. It's a high probability prediction.

When psychics talk to the media they have a chance to feed them whatever crap they want. When other parties talk to the media, we hear a different story.

"We discovered that the work of the psychics was not just ludicrous and laughable. it was sinister and evil....None of it ever led anywhere except to despair and disappointment, misery and confusion." --John Tate, father of Genette Tate who disappeared in 1978

"These guys don't solve cases, and the media consistently gets it wrong," -- Michael Corn, an investigative producer for Inside Edition

"Zero. They go on TV and I see how things go and what they claim but no, zero. They may be remarkable in other ways, but the FBI does not use them" -- FBI agent Chris Whitcomb

The most extensive study of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne’s predictions about missing persons and murder cases reveals a strange discrepancy: despite her repeated claim to be more than 85 percent correct, it seems that Browne has not even been mostly correct about a single case. link

The FBI and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children maintain that to their knowledge, psychic detectives have never helped solve a single missing-person case.

Police Psychics: Do They Really Help Solve Crimes?

The Bottom Line Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.
Common sense suggests that if psychics really had the powers they claim then they would long ago have identified the "Unabomber" or have discovered the remains of missing Teamster Jimmy Hoffa. If they cannot accomplish such missions, how much more telling is their collective inability to do so.
Actually, the case against psychics is worse than just their inability to provide information that actually solves crimes. A far more serious problem exists with regard to the wasted resources of police departments who expend precious time and human activity in following up on a psychic's meaningless "clues."

 

[NietzscheKeen]

I think the aliens live in the ocean. Just my irrelevant valueless two cents.

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

For the record, I do not believe in luck or Karma.

We are at an impass. You believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. What I won't do, unlike you and your cohorts, is challenge the beliefs of somebody posting on a pot forum. I think it is petty, and rude......and who knows, they may be right. At my age, I know my beliefs have changed much with experience. Thank you, and have a good night.

 

[Heisenberg]

Alright, so you spoke in the name of science. Now answer me this with your own merit.


Research the case of the rainman, there is many documentaries. It's an extremely outlandish claim (I think it's fucking retarded tbh) but it has multiple unrelated eye witnesses. Research all witnesses, many of whom are high ranking police officials.


"While nothing can prove that it was the spirit of his dead grandfather or some other sort of demonic possession, there were multiple eye witnesses (many of whom are high ranking police officials such as Officers Richard Wolbert and John Baujan who eventually became the chief of the Stroudsburg police department) that saw the same impossibly strange occurrences at different points in time. They also managed to all keep their stories very consistent in interviews that were done almost 20 years apart."




Now don't get it twisted, I'm not saying this is enough proof for me to believe this craziness, but I'm not going to deny this mysterious account of highly credible eye witnesses (who keep a straight story over 20 years) simply because the scientific community hasn't addressed it yet.


Most would assume that all these random ass people from different walks of life (police officers, restaurant owners, prison wardens) all came together and conspired to create a hoax. That's not cutting it..

I will gladly research this as I have never heard of it. Thanks for sharing.

I understand what you mean I think. Sometimes a hoax seems about as unlikely as a ghost. If hoax explanation does not explain the evidence, then it can be ruled out, but you have to be very thorough. For example, it would be very hard to prove Penn and Teller shooting and catching a bullet is a hoax if they didn't tell us outright, it would take a tremendous amount of research, education and training before we had any idea how it is done, in fact many master magicians who have all that training still can't figure it out. However, if perpetrating a hoax would require someone to break the laws of physics or something as equally unlikely as ghosts, then we look for other explanations.

 

[Scroga]

Check the swamp people episode where they describe a large hominid creature , one eye, these guys are crackshot gator hunters! They shot it, it teleported instantly to their right, they shot it again, again it disappeared and reappeared elsewhere..at this point the 2 big , tough as nails guys that keep it real everyday thought theyd better get out of there.,.turned and ran..

 

[Heisenberg]

For the record, I do not believe in luck or Karma.

We are at an impass. You believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. What I won't do, unlike you and your cohorts, is challenge the beliefs of somebody posting on a pot forum. I think it is petty, and rude......and who knows, they may be right. At my age, I know my beliefs have changed much with experience. Thank you, and have a good night.

Luck and Karma were arbitrary examples. I did not mean to accuse you of believing in them.

But now we get to the bottom of your evidence. You believe in ghosts because you want to. This is much different from a few pages ago when you were saying there is plenty of evidence but people refuse to accept it. I want to believe in ghosts, but intellectual honesty and appreciation for the truth require me to first be convinced. I have no problem if you believe in ghosts when you admit it is a belief taken on faith.

How is it rude to challenge someones beliefs? I may be blunt, but I have not belittled or insulted anyone. All I have done is ask hard questions and responded according to my standards of evidence and reason, standards that are shared by every scientific, academic, medical and legal bodies of investigation which give us useful answers. Valid information has no problem standing up to challenge, and all avenues of investigation I stated earlier welcome it, indeed see it necessary in order to weed out the truth. Any ideology that forbids challenge is sloppy and unreliable; it is the definition of dogma. There is no special reason that I should respect someones beliefs when they tell me they have arrived at them irrationally. If so, I would have to believe in gremlins, faeries and mermaids as well as ghosts. Playing the hurt card is a common tactic of indefensible pseudoscience, and I do not see why a pot forum is a less valid place to ask these questions than any other.

Proponents of pseudoscience often reach an impasse when we get to the quality controls of science, because it is those quality controls which filter them out.

"All I’m arguing for really is that we should have a conversation where the best ideas really thrive, where there’s no taboo against criticizing bad ideas, and where everyone who shows up, in order to get their ideas entertained, has to meet some obvious burdens of intellectual rigor and self-criticism and honesty—and when people fail to do that, we are free to stop listening to them." -Sam Harris

 

[Carne Seca]

Check the swamp people episode where they describe a large hominid creature , one eye, these guys are crackshot gator hunters! They shot it, it teleported instantly to their right, they shot it again, again it disappeared and reappeared elsewhere..at this point the 2 big , tough as nails guys that keep it real everyday thought theyd better get out of there.,.turned and ran..

Someone made a bad batch of moonshine.

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

Luck and Karma were arbitrary examples. I did not mean to accuse you of believing in them.

But now we get to the bottom of your evidence. You believe in ghosts because you want to. This is much different from a few pages ago when you were saying there is plenty of evidence but people refuse to accept it.

That is all I had to read (and did) to conclude you are a troll. Again, and with every answer so far, you completely misrepresent what is said. Nothing has changed in my statement that there is plenty of evidence to support what I claim, I simply do not feel the need to argue with someone who cleary accepts nothing if not proven by scientific method. That doesn't make me wrong, just bored with you. Because I said that I will believe what I want to, you want to turn that one sentence into "the bottom of my evidence....(I) believe in ghosts because I want to". Yawn.

If you truly believe that scientific method is the be all end all of truth, you are a sad human being. You live in a world of black and white, misinformed, misguided, and ignorant of the facts. For whatever reason you prefer to hang out in the spiritual section of a pot forum and repeat "scientific method" over and over and over and over, demanding that anyone who has a belief that cannot be proven by it, is wrong. You cleary have some serious inadequacy issues.

Perhaps the most common misunderstanding of science today is the idea that it alone operates only on what can be proven. The scientist, we are told, unlike the historian, sociologist, or (shudder) the theologian, believes nothing except what is proven to be true by the scientific method; therefore he or she alone is the oracle of true knowledge of the physical world.
It is remarkable how prevalent this thought is, even when not articulated, since it is so easily shown to be not the case. Science is a wonderful and noble way of exploring and understanding this world we find ourselves in, but it in no way operates solely on the basis of proof. Some things it must assume.

Enjoy this cut and paste from Daniel Jepsen regarding things scientific method cannot prove, but exist.


1. Reality is rational.

That is, its makeup is such that it exhibits order and consistency, so that we can make predictions and postulate laws and theories. Now this may seem like common sense, but that would be common only to sensibilities formed in and shaped by what could loosely be defined as “western” thought (though of course we mean history more than geography here). To the ancients, and to many of the east today, the idea that the universe is rational and subject completely in its physical workings to consistency and order is not something assumed at all.

Nor can reality be “proven” to be rational. Indeed, ask yourself how this would be proven from the viewpoint of someone within this reality. You cannot prove it by experiment, for you cannot experiment on reality as a whole. You cannot prove it by induction, arguing that since everything we have studied has proven rational that reality itself must be. An inductive argument like this fails for four reasons. First, an inductive argument of this sort will only grant a probable truth, not a certain one, so the best we could say is that, “reality is probably rational” which is a world different from saying “reality is rational.” Second, we have no way of measuring how much of reality we have “figured out” versus how much we have not, so there is no way of knowing if we have high probability or very low probability for our inductive claim. Thirdly, it is simply not the case that we have figured out everything we have been able to study. When Richard Fenyman wrote, ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,’ he was including himself, which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. No one today can give a satisfactory answer to the most basic question of physics (how quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity can both be true since they contradict each other) nor can astronomers and astrophysicists give an agreed upon answer to the quandary that most of the matter of the universe (dark matter and dark energy) cannot even be observed (but must be assumed to make sense of everything else). Fourth, even if everything we can study shows rationality, that is no proof that we do not inhabit a slice or bubble of the universe that has qualities different than the universe as a whole (an idea which some astrophysicists argue as possible).

Now, I do believe reality is rational, for I believe it is the creation of a rational being. And I suspect the legacy of this belief gives a clue to why science developed more successfully in theistic societies than pagan, pantheistic or animistic ones. So I am not arguing that reality is not rational, but that science is logically dependent on a belief that it cannot prove. Unless reality is rational, science is not possible.

2. Reality is knowable.

This is not the same argument as above. The success of the scientific method assumes not only that reality has the quality of rationality, but that it is also knowable. That is, it is conceivable that realist is rational, but I could be irrational, and not able to form valid conclusions about reality. My mind must be “on the same wavelength” to capture its rationality.

Steven Pinker, the famous evolutionary biologist, unwittingly encounters this very issue when he writes on page 561 of “How the Mind Works”:

We are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we are capable of asking.
​

Somehow, one gets the impression that Pinker feels his own mind is an exception to this rule, else why would he write the book (or even ask us to believe the above quote).
But indeed, how could we prove that the human mind is a capable tool for understanding reality and finding truth, especially on the assumptions Pinker makes (that the mind evolved to solve practical problems that affect reproductive success, not to find truth)? But without the belief that the human mind can understand reality, there is no reason to study reality. One is better off not wasting the time.
Again, I am not arguing that reality is not knowable. I believe it is because I believe the same rational being who created reality (thus ensuring its rationality) also created mankind in His own image, thus ensuring the possibility of valid knowledge of, and reasoning about, that reality. No, I cannot prove that scientifically. But neither can the scientist prove that his or her mind is capable of anything more than an utilitarian problem solving that may or may not speak actual truth.

3. The uniformity of nature across time and space

Quick, what is the speed of light? 299,792,458 meters per second, of course. But what was speed of light a second after the big bang? Or 4 billion years ago? Or what will it be 4 billion years from now (or even next week?) Of course we don’t know, in one sense. No one measured the speed of light 4 billion years ago, and any knowledge of the measuring of the speed of light in the future is inaccessible to us. Nor can we measure the speed of light right now except in that small sliver of the universe we can actually observe. And the same is true of other laws of nature: gravity, the interplay of the parts of the atom, etc.
It should be noted here that the speed of light, for example, is derived from observation. Every time we observe it, it is always that speed (or its speed makes possible other equations that correspond to present reality). But nothing in the nature of reality mandates that it must be at that speed; other speeds for light are at least conceivable.

So how do we know that the speed of light or other laws of physics apply across the universe (when we’ve only studied a sliver) and across time (when we only have access to the present?). Technically, we do not know. We assume. Since all the places and times we have been able to observe follow these laws, it seems logical to assume that is also the case for the places and times we cannot observe. But notice, this is an inductive argument, and as such can only give a probable conclusion, not an air-tight certainty. Yet every science, if you dig deep enough, operates on the assumption of continuity and uniformity. This is no mark against science; it can hardly do otherwise. But it is still worth noting that the foundation is an assumed deduction, not a proven fact.

4. Causation

Surely, if there is one thing science can prove, it is that one thing causes another, right? Actually, nothing could be farther from the case. The very idea of causation must be assumed.
David Hume, of course, is the one who most famously has shown this. Imagine, he said, I have one hundred windows in a row, and I take a hammer and hit the first 99. All of them shatter. I approach the last one. Will it shatter also when I hit it? Hume argues that you cannot know that, for there is no way of proving that the impact of the hammer caused the other windows to break. It is conceivable (even if unlikely) that some other forces or forces broke the windows at the exact time the hammer hit them. Causation, he argued, is an attribute of the mind, by which it tries to make sense what happens in the world. But there is no way to prove beyond doubt that causality applies beyond the mind’s interpretation.

Hume’s argument is epistemological, that is, a question of how we know things. But 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century science (in the form of quantum mechanics) itself has undermined the concept of causation (please read up on simultaneous causation and the uncertainty principle to see this).

Also, as I am writing this, the world of science has been shocked by the apparent find of a team at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) that some particles travel faster than the speed of light. One article notes,

The existence of faster-than-light particles would wreak havoc on scientific theories of cause and effect.
“If things travel faster than the speed of light, A can cause B, [but] B can also cause A,” Parke [head of the theoretical physics department at the U.S. government-run Fermilab near Chicago, Illinois] said. ”If that happens, the concept of causality becomes ambiguous, and that would cause a great deal of trouble.”
​

At this point, both philosophically and scientifically, the simple idea of causation (A causes B) is very much a working assumption that makes science possible, not the result of science itself. [Please note I am talking about the concept of causation, not examples of one thing causing another.]

5. The very existence of an external universe consisting of matter

I will spend the least time here, for this is unable to be proven by any worldview or any method of knowledge. Suffice it to say that both solipsism and idealism would deny the existence of an externally existing material universe. Solipsism argues this world does not exist outside my mental projections, or, as my epistemology professor put it, “I’m the only pebble on the beach. And there is no beach”. Idealism argues that only the spiritual is real, and the material world is an illusion (or, as for Berkeley, real only as the thoughts of God). Technically, neither idea is refutable (any arguments against them must come from inside the projection or illusion).
Again, this does not count in any way against science. Of all the five things on this list, this is to me the least substantial (since no-one can consistently live out this idea). I include it here to remind us of the need for intellectual humility, whether we are a scientist or theologian.

Other presuppositions of science include the following:

• The laws of logic (especially the law of non-contradiction)
• The adequacy of language to communicate reality and truth
• The existence of numbers

All these have been argued by philosophers and others, and none of them can be proven by the scientific method. In short, they are metaphysical assumptions, not proven facts.
Also, related to this but somewhat a distinct issue is that science assumes certain values in order to proceed, without being able to scientifically prove the validity of these values. Chief among these values is that of honesty.
All this to say that science is a wonderful tool for granting knowledge about this universe we find ourselves in. It in no way is to be despised or denigrated. But enough of the foolish talk that it alone traffics in certainty and what is beyond doubt. It is an invaluable servant, but makes a terrible idol.

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

PS Science cannot find 95% of what they say makes up the mass of the Universe, namely Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Their calculations tell them it is there; they have evidence it is there, but they haven't actually proved it yet - 95 % of the Universe !!!

Are you beginning to get the real picture now??? There is far more science does not know than what they do know. How do you know that the part they don't know is the part you really need to know?

 

[neosapien]

I take ghosts/aliens/god on a 10/80/10 split. Maybe they're all the same thing.

 

[thump easy]

i think all of you are crazzy even the sane are in sane all of you are fucken crazzy and im the only one that is sane...

 

[Heisenberg]

That is all I had to read (and did) to conclude you are a troll. Again, and with every answer so far, you completely misrepresent what is said. Nothing has changed in my statement that there is plenty of evidence to support what I claim, I simply do not feel the need to argue with someone who cleary accepts nothing if not proven by scientific method. That doesn't make me wrong, just bored with you. Because I said that I will believe what I want to, you want to turn that one sentence into "the bottom of my evidence....(I) believe in ghosts because I want to". Yawn.

Labeling me a troll is a good way to dismiss me. You clearly said you will believe what you want despite proven standards of evidence. Those standards are there for very good reasons, yet your only reason for ignoring them is because you want to. As I said, your standards would also lead to belief in gremlins, mermaids and unicorns.

If you truly believe that scientific method is the be all end all of truth, you are a sad human being. You live in a world of black and white, misinformed, misguided, and ignorant of the facts. For whatever reason you prefer to hang out in the spiritual section of a pot forum and repeat "scientific method" over and over and over and over, demanding that anyone who has a belief that cannot be proven by it, is wrong. You cleary have some serious inadequacy issues.

The scientific method can only lead us to an approximation of the truth. Science is a systematic and careful way to thoroughly observe nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. What is ghost hunting if not investigation? Why would you want to investigate something and not be systematic, thorough, and consistent? You prefer sloppy, superficial and disorganized? What is wrong with questioning the results? Please show me a post where I demand evidence or say that ghosts can't be real. Notice I have not insinuated that you have issues of any kind, other than ignorance which is not insulting unless it is willful. Why do you need to resort to character attacks and question my being here in order to reconcile my questions and points?

Perhaps the most common misunderstanding of science today is the idea that it alone operates only on what can be proven. The scientist, we are told, unlike the historian, sociologist, or (shudder) the theologian, believes nothing except what is proven to be true by the scientific method; therefore he or she alone is the oracle of true knowledge of the physical world.
It is remarkable how prevalent this thought is, even when not articulated, since it is so easily shown to be not the case. Science is a wonderful and noble way of exploring and understanding this world we find ourselves in, but it in no way operates solely on the basis of proof. Some things it must assume.

You have now retreated to a place where you are no longer offering any sort of evidence or plausibility, but simply attacking motives and character, which is what I predicted a few pages back. This is not how real information stands up to challenge. Science is totally capable of studying ghosts, and totally justified when it rejects unfounded assumptions. These are questions anyone who believes in ghosts should have already asked themselves. I do not care if people choose to believe in ghosts despite what science says, but I do get involved when pseudoscience tries to gain scientific legitimacy. It gets in the way of any real investigation taking place, not to mention all the people who get scammed out of money and feelings.

Since you did not take the time to read my entire post that I authored myself, I will not take the time to read words that you cut and pasted.

 

[Heisenberg]

PS Science cannot find 95% of what they say makes up the mass of the Universe, namely Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Their calculations tell them it is there; they have evidence it is there, but they haven't actually proved it yet - 95 % of the Universe !!!

Are you beginning to get the real picture now??? There is far more science does not know than what they do know. How do you know that the part they don't know is the part you really need to know?

This is an argument from ignorance, which is not to say that you are ignorant for making the argument, it means the argument is depending on what we don't know for support. It's just as likely that contained in what we don't know is evidence against ghosts. So what we don't know, our ignorance, can never be used as evidence.

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." -- James Randi

"Doubt is an incentive to truth, and patient inquiry leads the way" --Hosea Ballou

 

[blacksun]

The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just place holders.



The term "dark matter" was created to explain the difference in the weight of the universe from what humans can observe and what the extrapolation from equations (that humans themselves made up) say should be there.

"take a grain of sand, it weighs "x", now multiply "x" by 10^"y" where "y" = a really fucking huge number and that's supposed to = the universe. wait, it doesn't match what we observe, it must be dark matter!"



The term "dark energy" was created to explain why the galaxies in the universe are spreading apart at a faster and faster rate from what humans can observe which contradicts what extrapolation from equations (that, again, humans themselves made up) say should be happening.

"the equations say we should be slowing down, not speeding up, it must be dark energy!"



"Dark energy" is not actual energy and "dark matter" is not actual matter.


They are terms made up by humans to describe a fundamental lack of understanding of the universe; the difference between what their equations say they should be observing, and what they are actually observing.

 

[clayman187]

alrighty then.....beliveve it or not I do exp. everything I stated! I try to keep my life as laid back as possible. I learned along time ago to try and keep what my so called third eye saw to my self. But as I have gotten older I realize that it funny to watch and see what was up atm.

I have to keep my life simple because of this so called gift...everyday, everywhere...I see it all....ugh

laugh...tease...joke..
walk 1 day in my shoes.............an u will shit your pants

 

[TheGanjaWhisperer]

Personally i believe in ghosts. When my grandfather was emited into the hospital, the outlook was not good he was only given a short time to live by the doctor. one morning my brother and i had went to go an see him, he seemed strangly calm, he told us, there was a small winged woman sitting on his windowsil last night and she told him it was almost time to go. later that day after putting it off, thinking it was nothing my Grandfather sadly passed away. Ever since then, I like to take comfort in the fact there very well might be ghosts or something out there and that my grandfather is doing well where ever he might be. :]