Do you believe in ghosts?

[chrisjor]

gee...aren't we a couple of smart ass Bearcat fans!!!

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i concede your point, as far as it goes. however, the actual model of evidence and proof does not work that way. many scientists do not accept anecdote unless there is physical coroboration. and it can be argued that there is no such thing as proof, as we can never be 100% sure that anything exists. regardless, i don't want to get into an epistemological argument with you, lirion, so i will concede your point. however, it does not necessarily fit with working definitions.

Sure it does, look up "proof" and evidence" in any dictionary and you'll find that I didn't just make it up. We sometimes use the two words interchangeably, but they realy mean different things.

But anyway there is other "evidence" besides testimony as well. In places that are reported to be haunted there are sometimes measurable temperature and EMF abnormalities. Of course these things occur all the time and there are a multitude of reasons for them, but it is still quantifiable, empiracle evidence. But because there are several different conclusions this evidence could lead one to, none of these things is proof. There is also considerable photographic and recorded audio "evidence" as well, but again, none of this constitutes "proof", or the validation of the conclusion that ghosts exist.

I understand where you're coming from, I don't believe myself, but for me to say that there is no evidence would border on foolish. If there were no evidence at all, there would be nothing to lead anyone to the conclusion that ghosts exist, and no one would have ever believed in them.

 

[chrisjor]

That actually leads me to another question....how many Christians...who are actually taught that there are demons and the "Holy Ghost" and such, would argue that ghosts do not exist?

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: lirion
Sure it does, look up "proof" and evidence" in any dictionary and you'll find that I didn't just make it up. We sometimes use the two words interchangeably, but they realy mean different things.

But anyway there is other "evidence" besides testimony as well. In places that are reported to be haunted there are sometimes measurable temperature and EMF abnormalities. Of course these things occur all the time and there are a multitude of reasons for them, but it is still quantifiable, empiracle evidence. But because there are several different conclusions this evidence could lead one to, none of these things is proof. There is also considerable photographic and recorded audio "evidence" as well, but again, none of this constitutes "proof", or the validation of the conclusion that ghosts exist.

I understand where you're coming from, I don't believe myself, but for me to say that there is no evidence would border on foolish. If there were no evidence at all, there would be nothing to lead anyone to the conclusion that ghosts exist, and no one would have ever believed in them.

dictionaries do not provide reliable scientific definitions. they give normal parlance definitions. the scientific views of proof and evidence are different from the commonly held ones, just as the commonly held notion of what a theory is and the scientific view of a theory are totally different. there is no evidence of ghosts, as temperature and emf abnormalities have always been explained as natural phenomena when they have been examined, and this is also the case with non-hoax photographs and audio recordings. none of these things are evidence for ghosts. they are observations. i think that is the problem here. you are mistaking observation for evidence. observations are only evidence if they are analyzed and that analysis shows them to be consistant with known scientific principles. to get back to ghosts, most "evidence" (using your defintion, not the scientific) is never allowed to be evaluated scientifically. scientific evidence is anecdote. there is also, once again, no such thing as proof, scientifically. you and i work from different defintions. my are scientific, and yours are polular.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: chrisjor
gee...aren't we a couple of smart ass Bearcat fans!!!

i loathe the Bearcats.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: lirion

If I talked to thirty people as they walk out of a room, and one third of them (roughly the portion of the pupulation who believe in ghosts) swear to me that they saw someone else in the room, this evidence leads me to believe that maybe there is someone in the room. For me, proof that someone else is on the room would be seeing the person and interacting with them.

that is faulty deduction, btw. all the testimony does is show that some people believe it to be true. the belief of people does not necessairly make something true. talking to someone and seeing them does not necessarily make something true. in this regard, it isn't actually evidence at all. is it evidence if i say that there is a pink dragon in my back yard? it is an anecdote, but it is not evidence. it is belief. your definition of evidence, btw, was faulty from a scientific standpoint, as one does not come to conclusions in science. once evaluates physical evidence and then comes to a decision based on that physical evidence. anecdote is usually ignored as soon as physical evidence contravenes it. as they say on CSI when the anecdotal testimony contradicts what is physically there (yes, i know that this is an appeal to an authority, but it is a cute quote), "'what never lies?' 'the evidence"'. at least in the case of forensic science, which works by standard scientific methods, anecdote is not evidence. anecdote can point you at evidence, but it isn't evidence. as i said, your definitions are correct as far as they go, but not from a working scientific view. scientific evidence is only that which can be physically evaluated. and there is no such thing as proof. to paraphrase stephen gould, something is only proven when it is silly to disbelieve it based on the evidence. new evidence, however, can change that somethings status of being "proven". i hate epistemology.

You're bandying words now. I would suggest that you go get a dictionary and look up "evidence", "proof", and "conclusion". You're still trying to equate evidence with proof. When you're testing a hypothesis, you're data is evidence. Proof is whatever deciding factor leads you to judge a hypothesis as true or false. The judgement is your conclusion.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: lirion
Sure it does, look up "proof" and evidence" in any dictionary and you'll find that I didn't just make it up. We sometimes use the two words interchangeably, but they realy mean different things.

But anyway there is other "evidence" besides testimony as well. In places that are reported to be haunted there are sometimes measurable temperature and EMF abnormalities. Of course these things occur all the time and there are a multitude of reasons for them, but it is still quantifiable, empiracle evidence. But because there are several different conclusions this evidence could lead one to, none of these things is proof. There is also considerable photographic and recorded audio "evidence" as well, but again, none of this constitutes "proof", or the validation of the conclusion that ghosts exist.

I understand where you're coming from, I don't believe myself, but for me to say that there is no evidence would border on foolish. If there were no evidence at all, there would be nothing to lead anyone to the conclusion that ghosts exist, and no one would have ever believed in them.

dictionaries do not provide reliable scientific definitions. they give normal parlance definitions. the scientific views of proof and evidence are different from the commonly held ones, just as the commonly held notion of what a theory is and the scientific view of a theory are totally different. there is no evidence of ghosts, as temperature and emf abnormalities have always been explained as natural phenomena when they have been examined, and this is also the case with non-hoax photographs and audio recordings. none of these things are evidence for ghosts. they are observations. i think that is the problem here. you are mistaking observation for evidence. observations are only evidence if they are analyzed and that analysis shows them to be consistant with known scientific principles. to get back to ghosts, most "evidence" (using your defintion, not the scientific) is never allowed to be evaluated scientifically. scientific evidence is anecdote. there is also, once again, no such thing as proof, scientifically. you and i work from different defintions. my are scientific, and yours are polular.

I think you still don't know the difference between proof and evidence yet.

 

[EdipisReks]

i am not bandying words. you are, based on the fact that the scientific defintions of evidence is different than the popular defintion of evidence. only the popular definition of evidence is stated in the dictionary. when you are testing a hypothesis, your data IS NOT EVIDENCE. the data is simply your set of OBSERVATIONS. it doesn't become evidence until you have analyzed it and the observations are consistant with your hypothesis and with known scientific principles. you don't understand the scientific method at all.

Scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

no where in there is there any proof or any "conclusions".

how am i trying to equate evidene with proof when i have stated multiple times that there is no such thing as proof in science? you need to reevaluate your ideas of how science works.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: lirion

I think you still don't know the difference between proof and evidence yet.

you don't know the difference between evidence and observation, in science. observation does not become evidence until it has been analyzed and has been found to be consistant with a hypothesis and with known scientific principles. the difference between evidence and proof is that evidence is real and proof isn't. how many times do i have to say that?

 

[Wallydraigle]

you are mistaking observation for evidence. observations are only evidence if they are analyzed and that analysis shows them to be consistant with known scientific principles.

Oh, I see. There can be no evidence to support the conclusion that ghosts exist, because it is known to science that they can't exist, so any evidence that would seem to support that conclusion "dosen't count" unless, how did you put it? Oh yeah, unless it is "consistant with known scientific principles." That's not how real science works. The scientific method starts with an observation, or had you forgotten?

The sentiment you showed above is arrogant and implies that we know a whole, whole lot more about the universe than we do. We don't know anything! To say that an observation cannot be accepted as evidence "scientifically" (since you tried to convince me that that makes it different somehow) is a blasphemy against the scientific method, which depends on observation as its first step. Come back when you know how science really works.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: lirion

I think you still don't know the difference between proof and evidence yet.

you don't know the difference between evidence and observation, in science. observation does not become evidence until it has been analyzed and has been found to be consistant with a hypothesis and with known scientific principles. the difference between evidence and proof is that evidence is real and proof isn't. how many times do i have to say that?

Say it as many times as you like. That's not how science works. Hypotheses and principals are drawn from observation, not the other way around. You're being silly now.

 

[EdipisReks]

you're are a silly person, lirion. trying to argue with you is like trying to convince people who follow john edwards that he is just doing cold readings. besides, a ghost, if it is emitting heat and EMF fields, is probably following the laws of thermodynamics and would thus most likely be consistant with known scientific principles. at the risk of this seeming to be ad hominim, i'm going to quit addressing your posts since they are so silly and you have shown yourself to disdain that which you don't understand.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
you're are a silly person, lirion. trying to argue with you is like trying to convince people who follow john edwards that he is just doing cold readings. besides, a ghost, if it is emitting heat and EMF fields, is probably following the laws of thermodynamics and would thus most likely be consistant with known scientific principles. at the risk of this seeming to be ad hominim, i'm going to quit addressing your posts since they are so silly and you have shown yourself to disdain that which you don't understand.

I think that's a good idea. You've already shown that you don't grasp how the scientific method really works. None so blind as those who will not see, or so they say. When you find out a little bit more about the world, and learn how science really works, I'll be here. Until then the position you hold is tantmount to that of those fundies who say that God must be real, because the Bible says so, and God wrote the Bible, and God never lies. I hope you can see that. I enjoyed talking with you

 

[chrisjor]

Space Ghost.

 

[ETan]

I do... I don't like to think much about it though.

It's like saying do you believe in aliens? It's hard to say something is "impossible".