Has anyone seen or heard a ghost?

Tosh wrote:You are using the same fallacious arguments used by theists to defend your position on ghosts

I was really hoping you wouldn't go there ... only because it's a cop-out argument. The only thing fallacious here is your hasty generalization.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Your generalizing that ghosts and God are essentially the same belief is in error. Here are a few examples of the variables you fail to consider. For one thing, the "evidence" for God is always indirect and therefore can never be proven to be the result of God. This is why the old "just look at the trees!" argument doesn't work. Nor does perceived miracles like surviving a bad car accident or cancer going into remission; the hand of God is not evident in these events.

Ghosts, on the other hand, are often directly seen, felt, or heard. Some evidence of ghosts, such as things moving on their own, is also indirect. The difference here, however, is that the ghost is clearly interacting with the physical world in ways that leave very little in the way of "rational" explanations. Now, I suppose if you want to get stupidly picky, one could argue that God knocked the salt shaker from the middle of the table onto the floor ... and thereby compare ghosts with God, but like I said, doing so would be just plain stupid and would also make your argument sound rather desperate.

Another example is that religious experiences are completely personal and individual. Even when it appears that a whole group of people are having the same experience - in a church, let's say - their experiences are still individual. Two people next to each other having religious experiences doesn't mean they're having the same experience. However, there are multitudes of ghost incidents where entire groups of people have experienced the same exact thing - saw the same things, heard the same things, etc. That doesn't happen with religious experiences. Nor do ghost incidents all occur inside a person's head. The entire reason why ghosts are even considered at all is because they were making themselves manifest in the real world - not within someone's brain. Ghost incidents are not just some beauteous "feeling" or "sensation" the way people describe religious experiences, and to think this is so means you haven't really looked into the ghost phenomenon.

And that's one of the BIGGEST frustrations of dealing with a lot of debunkers and adamant skeptics:  Most of them know nothing about the subject aside from what snippets they managed to catch on the mainstream media. A very good example of this is a quote from the great Stephen Hawking who said, "I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?"

Now here's a man, despite his brilliance, who obviously never bothered to learn anything about the UFO phenomenon and simply fell back on a very old stereotype. Unfortunately, because of Hawking's stature, a lot of people will now believe without question that UFOs appear only to "cranks and weirdos." In fact, they have appeared to presidents, admirals, nobles, hundreds of WWII bomber pilots, astronauts and cosmonauts, police officers - both civilian and military, medical doctors, on and on. It just goes to show you that even scientists can spew a lot of ignorance if they don't do their homework, and many of them haven't. Even being caught with a book on ghosts could jeopardize their careers. Academia is more political than the government.

So I find it excrutiatingly difficult to engage in a meaningful debate with people who simply haven't bothered to actually research the subject before slapping down an uninformed opinion on the matter. All too often, the debunkers and skeptics (especially atheists) arbitrarily lump ghosts and UFOs into the same category as God merely out of intellectual laziness. That way, they don't have to formulate new arguments; they can just trot out the old anti-theism arguments.

Tosh wrote:Question: Why do you not accept the opinion of the scientific community?

Answer: Because you saw a ghost.( god)

Question: Why do you not accept it was an illusion?

Answer: Because you want to believe in ghosts?( god)

Uhm ... no.

First, I don't WANT to believe in ghosts. Whether they exist or not has no influence on my life. Once again, that is one of the quintessential differences between ghosts and God. I don't get anything out of believing in ghosts (and I only believe in the possibility of ghosts). I don't get a big fat reward for believing. I don't go to an eternal paradise nor do I get an invisible buddy that I can talk to whenever I need an invisible friend. There is simply no reason to believe in ghosts except as an academic exercise in weighing the evidence. Secondly, what exactly IS the opinion of the scientific community? Remember the example I gave with Stephen Hawking. The scientific community hasn't done anything at all to prove or disprove ghosts. Not one thing. All of their claims on this matter are bare assertions. I don't take the word of the scientific community just because they're scientists. They have to back up what they say in ALL matters, not just science. If they're going to say that ghosts don't exist, then show me the studies, the experimentation, the research grants, etc. that shows they even bothered to seriously look into the phenomena before dismissing it.

Tosh wrote:I disbelieve because there is NO evidence

There just isn't any evidence that you'll accept. There is the photographic and video evidence. There are the anomalous instrumentation readings - from spikes in the electromagnetic field to huge fluctuations in temperature. There is the electronic voice phenomenon which not even the debunkers have been able to explain with any degree of logic. There is the testimony of eyewitnesses, and regardless of whether you think there is a massive worldwide pandemic of hallucinations and delusions, that is still evidence - especially when there is more than one witness.

Tosh wrote:and your response is to attack science and invent evidence, is that you polyglide?

I'm not "attacking" science, Tosh, but scientists aren't always right, as I've demonstrated with Stephen Hawking. I don't follow science any more blindly than I would follow a religion, and I'm well aware that science doesn't always get it right; that's especially true when they make pronouncements without actually doing the same amount of research on ghosts as they would on the Higgs-Boson. As for "inventing evidence," that is a flat-out lie. As I said, it is difficult to engage in a debate like this with someone who hasn't done their homework. At least read the first chapter, so to speak.

Tosh wrote:We have technology that observes,measures and records the bleeding sub atomic but we cannot find a freakin ghost

The fact that you claim there is NO evidence for ghosts already shows that you wouldn't believe the technology anyway if it produced evidence for the existence of ghosts.

Tosh wrote:Can you imagine any scientist giving up the chance to win a Nobel prize and eternal fame for discovering ghosts?

Heh, another old argument ...

Apparently you're unware of just how political the academic world happens to be.

Being a scientist is probably the most unforgiving profession in existence. All it takes is for you to be proven wrong just once and your career will crash and burn. Moreover, in order for scientists to do research in the field, they must get approval for research grants and permission to use any university or privately owned equipment. Good luck getting that ... because the scientific community has already declared without any real investigation that the ghost phenomenon is a bunch of hooey. Scientists would rather work on something safe, not something that has the potential to utterly destroy their careers. They have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed just like everyone else. Nor will universities waste money on research grants for projects the department chairs and deans feel will never bear any fruit. Is that a scientific decision? Usually not ... it is based on their opinion that ghosts don't exist. The scientists who work in the field aren't going to risk their careers by "fighting city hall" as it were.

Shirina wrote:Being a scientist is probably the most unforgiving profession in existence. All it takes is for you to be proven wrong just once and your career will crash and burn.

I thought scientists were always wrong, it's just as time goes by (experiment after experiment) they are less and less wrong. I would accept the point that if you become more wrong wrong and cannot explain clearly why then your career may well be shot (at least as a leading light).

Heretic

Oh boy. Science doesn't investigate ghosts because they are not real. They are figments of imagination, tricks of the mind. Psychiatry and psychology has shown this to be true. There has never been solid evidence for the existence of ghosts. Never. It is always anecdotal and completely untestable or recordable.

If ghosts were real then they could be detected. The same with UFO's. If they were real, they could be detected. Why, after millennia, and with all our current technology has not one single ghost or UFO ever been proven to exist? The rational answer is because they don't exist.

Shirina wrote:Nor will universities waste money on research grants for projects the department chairs and deans feel will never bear any fruit. Is that a scientific decision? Usually not ... it is based on their opinion that ghosts don't exist. The scientists who work in the field aren't going to risk their careers by "fighting city hall" as it were.

Universities won't waste their money on unproductive science but there are thousands of organisations out there who do. How many self-professed ghost hunters, psychics, clairvoyants, mediums are there who make astounding claims of paranormal activity? Millions around the world? There is millions being spent on ghost chasing and using the best, most sensitive recording equipment around and still they can't find anything. And if those dedicated to finding something can't find something, then why should a university waste their time and smarts on it?

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Have you got a specific example in mind, i.e. a photograph that you think is genuine despite in being 'debunked'?

No, nothing in particular. Generally, if the debunker comes up with a decent explanation, I'll believe the debunker. Most paranormal stuff IS fake, hoaxed, misidentified, etc.

However, debunkers must be held to the same precise logic that paranormal believers are held. Making hasty generalizations about an event simply because they reproduced it does not debunk that event. Yet many photos, videos, etc. have been labeled as "fake" for this very reason. The photos/videos were not subject to any testing or scrutiny by independent and unbiased agencies. Debunkers are purposefully out to debunk, NOT to actually find the truth. There's a show that airs here in the US called "Fact or Faked?" Generally, they do a decent job of debunking, but they will also acknowledge when something is just completely unexplainable. However, as good as they are, the whole show is about reproducing the encounter, and if they can do it successfully, they announce on the show, "Officially debunked!"

Except it isn't. Simply reproducing a UFO, for instance, does not mean what was actually seen wasn't a UFO.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm not really sure what you're getting at re: photoshop as most of the famous ones predate digital photography and were in the public domain, so to speak, before it was widespread.

The older ones are somewhat easier to debunk given that photographers back then didn't have the computer wizardry available to us. They mostly relied on double exposures or very obviously fake "special effects." The most notorious of these are old pictures of seances with supposed "ectoplasm" coming out of people's noses and mouths. Even a quick glance can tell anyone they're fake. At the time, though, when photography was a big mystery to most people -- if it was in the photo, it was real.

I haven't really delved into finding which of the famous old photos have been faked, but usually an thorough examination of the photo will determine that. All I'm saying is that debunking through decree isn't enough

My point about PhotoShop is that any and all videos and photos are now suspect to having been edited or tampered with via digital software. Bottom line is that we simply cannot trust ANY photo or video evidence now. One must assume they are fake, and that makes it easy on the debunkers.

Hi Shirina, I'm not sure how it's happened, but neither of those quotes you've used were written by me.

snowyflake wrote:

Shirina wrote:Nor will universities waste money on research grants for projects the department chairs and deans feel will never bear any fruit. Is that a scientific decision? Usually not ... it is based on their opinion that ghosts don't exist. The scientists who work in the field aren't going to risk their careers by "fighting city hall" as it were.

Universities won't waste their money on unproductive science but there are thousands of organisations out there who do. How many self-professed ghost hunters, psychics, clairvoyants, mediums are there who make astounding claims of paranormal activity? Millions around the world? There is millions being spent on ghost chasing and using the best, most sensitive recording equipment around and still they can't find anything. And if those dedicated to finding something can't find something, then why should a university waste their time and smarts on it?

Well quite. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but how is this different than asking universities to search for mermaids or unicorns when people claim experiential evidence for them?

I would of thought that the groups with the most to gain and with the resources required to fund an extended research project such as this would be the world religions. They keep on telling us of the support they have from the scientific community. They even have an entire branch of scientific effort dedicated to supporting their views already, I am told it's called 'Creationism'. Creationism is said to reflect to a greater or lesser extent the creation accounts of all the major world religions, in fact if there's a creation story in it then you can find a Creationist scientist that will back it.

I can see no earthly reason that the worlds religions, cults and sects could not fund as a joint effort research into life after death in general and the existence of ghosts in particular. They obviously believe in it as they persuade a high proportion of the worlds population to place their physical life on hold with the promise that their eternal spiritual life will be well worth the wait.

I'm sure that I am not the first to put this suggestion forward, in fact I know I'm not the first, and I suspect that there is a very good reason that they haven't put their money into such a project. Let me look into a crystal ball into the past/present/future or whenever these organisations decided not to fund this research and I will tell you what I will see. I will see each and every religious leader receive a revelation that such research is doomed to failure as the only evidence that God will permit for life after death is the evidence that only faith can see.

I would not dare suggest that they will not put money into it as they know it will be doomed to fail. That they only scientists that will even look at it will be crackpots sorry devout religionists that believe in its entirety the dogma of those supplying the funds for their research.

Part of modern peer reviewed science is that experimental results should be replicable and this is the part that I suspect any research that was carried out would fail.

Let those that claim to believe in life after death put the money forward (religions have control of billions dollars/pounds/dinars) together with a detailed hypotheses (they claim to be the worlds experts) and a suggested form of method for determining the validity of their hypotheses. If they cannot think of a method for proving it then they could ask the scientific community for suggestions.

I could quite easily see a debate proceed from such a request and I suspect after a great deal of argument a consensus form as to how it should take place.

We all know or perhaps I should say that the cynics would all know that the religious would have framed the reasons for failure before they parted with a single cent/penny.

Heretic

Shirina wrote:My point about PhotoShop is that any and all videos and photos are now suspect to having been edited or tampered with via digital software. Bottom line is that we simply cannot trust ANY photo or video evidence now. One must assume they are fake, and that makes it easy on the debunkers.

I am pretty sure there is software available that can detect if an image has been altered, I think it uses information in the digital image to throw up mismatches in colour palette, luminescence, shadow light sources and the relative apparent sizes of objects. It did not definitively say if an picture had been faked but highlighted areas that should be looked at by an expert in how images are stored digitally.

I came across it accidentally when I was working for a company that sold a machine that took photographs of petri dishes and determined how much of the gel was covered in virus or bacteria. It was horrendous to code the software but interesting, there was so much that could interfere with an image that it is just not funny.

Heretic

Well, folks, I'm really not going to discuss the existence of ghosts or UFOs any longer. The reason is because I've been over this again and again, not just here, but with others. Some here will remember the big debates I used to get into with "Prince of Darkness" (a.k.a. POD) about UFOs and it was utterly fruitless. I can audibly hear all of the minds closing, snapping shut like a bear trap, the moment these subjects come up, so there really isn't any point in going further.

What really pisses me off, to be completely honest, is that people don't effing LISTEN. This is precisely the reason why I keep having to counter the same arguments with the same logic again and again. No matter what I say, no matter what evidence I produce, no matter how much I explain differences between ghosts and God, the same stuff comes up as if I said nothing at all.

Science is very slow to change and they botch things constantly. If I had a dollar for every time a scientist said, "That's impossible!" only to be proven wrong a few years later, well ...

How many times do we have to repeat this lesson before we learn from it? How many scientific principles do we now accept as fact that 10, 50, or 100 years ago was laughed at as readily as ghosts are today? Galaxies, the Big Bang, the existence of black holes, M-Theory ... there was a time when the scientific community said that no one could survive riding on a train doing 30 mph because all of the oxygen would be sucked out of the passenger compartments.

Hey, I love science. I stand by science. I root for science. But I'm not a blind follower. I don't just let my eyes glaze over and zombie-walk behind science and let it lead me ignorantly wherever it chooses. Science is not always right. Do I sound like a religious nut? Yep ... but religious nuts aren't always wrong.

Yeah, I could sit here and refute everyone line-by-line, and those who know me know I'm not kidding around when I say that. But I know it'll go in one ear and out the other - or in this case in one eye and out the other. Half the time, I can't even get people to realize I'm not some fanatical believer -- that I'm only asking people to entertain the possibility of such things as ghosts and UFOs. Do some homework and don't just listen to skeptics then claim your homework is complete.

The irony is that binary thinking is precisely the reason why these phenomenon never get investigated. Nope, they don't exist. End of story. So while the skeptics cry for evidence, they are the ones who make it nigh impossible to obtain any evidence. Sure, ghost hunters all around the world do investigations with commercial-grade equipment. Do they find anything? You better believe they do - but they aren't working out of Harvard or Princeton or MIT, so who cares what they say. They're just kids, many of them, using equipment from Radio Shack and Wal-Mart. Binary thinking prevents the exploration of possibilities. If you automatically claim they don't exist, then there's no reason to investigate. If you automatically claim they DO exist, well, then there's no reason to investigate. You've already made a determination that is absolute, and no one explores an absolute. I mean, Tosh likes to compare what I say to some ridiculous belief in God ... but binary thinking does the same thing to a person that religious faith does; it claims to KNOW the answer in absolutist terms and thus eliminates any reason to get up off the chair and explore the mystery. All I can say is that I'm glad my mind does not exist in such a sterile, spartan place as that.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done discussing it. Feel free to keep discussing it amongst yourselves if you wish.

Computer systems rely on binary logic (TRUE/FALSE) most of the time and it seemed adequate for most problems and that was the problem it worked most of the time but there were occasions where instead of TRUE and FALSE a value was required that represented "How close to true and how close to false". Fuzzy Logic

Heretic

Shirina,

I see I still have not lost my talent for pressing your buttons, just wanted to make sure you were still alive lol !!

Science may get it horribly wrong on a very rare occasion but not me, I am never ever wrong.

I have done my homework, the technology exists to test all your claims, it is not the old red herring of an insufficient tool set.

I am deeply offended nay wounded by your accusations of binary thinking, I am right and you are wrong plain and simple.  

Tosh wrote:I am deeply offended nay wounded by your accusations of binary thinking, I am right and you are wrong plain and simple.  

Said with your normal charm, brilliance and modesty I see.

Heretic

stu wrote:Hi Dan, I believe what polyglide is trying to imply, is that if you had been on the ouija board then you will be inundated with evil spirits. not the ones that come in a bottle either.  

I know what they were getting at Stu, it's just I haven't said I was 'sure' about anything. I was merely putting forward the view that most of the celebrated ghost photographs (many of which used to scare the living daylights out of me when I saw them as a bairn) were probably faked.
Incidentally, can anyone remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unexplained_%28magazine%29? I used to get this as a young kid and then have nightmares about it I also watched the Arthur C Clarke programme mentioned in that link with similar consequences.

Said with your normal charm, brilliance and modesty I see.

Correct.

Shirina has a binary way of thinking about me, it is called love/hate.

She will calm down and come out swinging, trust me.

Morning Dan,

There is some merit in adopting an agnostic position if it is supported by logic and evidence. In my opinion, anything is possible is not a sufficient reason to withhold an opinion.

I believe our sub conscious has an aversion to predictability and inevitability, we have a fear of cause and effect nihilism, it is why we invent concepts like free will, deities and immortality. I think it is most prevalent in males, we have a stronger urge for higher status, there is a cult movie called " Bladerunner " which strikes a chord with men in particular, it is about living life under a finite clock. We fill our lives with meaning, purpose and significance to ease anxiety, and still it is not enough, we have to fill our lives with status building distractions like materialism and power.

People want to live forever but not me, my philosophy is built around an acceptance of finiteness, in effect a death culture.

Tosh wrote:Morning Dan,

There is some merit in adopting an agnostic position if it is supported by logic and evidence. In my opinion, anything is possible is not a sufficient reason to withhold an opinion.

I believe our sub conscious has an aversion to predictability and inevitability, we have a fear of cause and effect nihilism, it is why we invent concepts like free will, deities and immortality. I think it is most prevalent in males, we have a stronger urge for higher status, there is a cult movie called " Bladerunner " which strikes a chord with men in particular, it is about living life under a finite clock. We fill our lives with meaning, purpose and significance to ease anxiety, and still it is not enough, we have to fill our lives with status building distractions like materialism and power.

People want to live forever but not me, my philosophy is built around an acceptance of finiteness, in effect a death culture.

That's an interesting post. Incidentally, I love that film. I'm also a fan of Philip K. Dick more generally.

snowyflake wrote:

Shirina wrote:Nor will universities waste money on research grants for projects the department chairs and deans feel will never bear any fruit. Is that a scientific decision? Usually not ... it is based on their opinion that ghosts don't exist. The scientists who work in the field aren't going to risk their careers by "fighting city hall" as it were.

Universities won't waste their money on unproductive science but there are thousands of organisations out there who do. How many self-professed ghost hunters, psychics, clairvoyants, mediums are there who make astounding claims of paranormal activity? Millions around the world? There is millions being spent on ghost chasing and using the best, most sensitive recording equipment around and still they can't find anything. And if those dedicated to finding something can't find something, then why should a university waste their time and smarts on it?

Actually yes they do surprisingly enough. There are a number of empty labs funded on cold fusion speculation and I would suggest that you look at The ig-Nobel prizes if you want to see pointless research.

Birkbeck COllege in London had a paranormal research lab in the basement for a long time. Don't know if it is still there but it was when I was doing a Masters there.

Modern neuroscience has played a big part in dismissing a lot of the old supernatural beliefs, it is becoming clearer and clearer our conscious mind is but a mere observer, it decides little if anything, most of the decision making is done " in house ".

I remember reading the scientific explanation of deja vu, it is a kind of optical/cognition/memory misfire, the image travels to our memory bypassing cognition, the next image hits cognition and the image seems familiar from memory, a past one has no cognition of.

I think something similar happens with our thinking process, we think sub consciously in part from our memory, and then we observe or become cognisant of our thoughts,there is a time lag.

[quote="Bellatori"][quote="snowyflake"][quote="Shirina"]Nor will universities waste money on research grants for projects the department chairs and deans feel will never bear any fruit. Is that a scientific decision? Usually not ... it is based on their opinion that ghosts don't exist. The scientists who work in the field aren't going to risk their careers by "fighting city hall" as it were. [/quote]Universities won't waste their money on unproductive science but there are thousands of organisations out there who do. How many self-professed ghost hunters, psychics, clairvoyants, mediums are there who make astounding claims of paranormal activity? Millions around the world? There is millions being spent on ghost chasing and using the best, most sensitive recording equipment around and still they can't find anything. And if those dedicated to finding something can't find something, then why should a university waste their time and smarts on it? [/quote]Actually yes they do surprisingly enough. There are a number of empty labs funded on cold fusion speculation and I would suggest that you look at [url=http://www.improbable.com/ig/]The ig-Nobel prizes [/url]if you want to see pointless research.

Birkbeck COllege in London had a paranormal research lab in the basement for a long time. Don't know if it is still there but it was when I was doing a Masters there.[/quote]
One can forgive the existence of paranormal labs from the 1800's Bellatori :)

snowyflake wrote:... One can forgive the existence of paranormal labs from the 1800's Bellatori

That is really unkind   but I have to admit it did make me smile

Hi snowy and the rest of you posters I am asking you all to help me from today onwards just the first week is hardest for me once I get past the first week i'm usually ok as i'm stopping smoking today!!!! I STOPPED DRINKING ALCOHOL 23years ago stopped gambling 7years ago all on my own but this may be tougher ok thanks in advance friends.  

Question: What is a ghost.

Answer: Don't know.

Question: If you do not know, why not an illusion?

Answer: They seem so real.

Question: Why do you think we call them illusions?

The point is this, if believers do not know what a ghost is supposed to be, how can they rationally dismiss the obvious explanation?

I've wondered before if stuff like ergot was responsible for old ghost stories (as well as religious experiences).

Hi Dan just gave all my fags away, so from now on as my last post said i'm packing it up. so help as much as poss in the first week please.

stu, let me have a cigarette first before I decide.

mmmm........lovely, nope sorry I cannot in all honesty help you deprive yourself of the joys of nicotine clogging up your arteries and reducing your life expectancy, it is part of my death culture, and I must insist you respect my customs in the name of multi-culturism.

Regards

Number 6.

I've wondered before if stuff like ergot was responsible for old ghost stories (as well as religious experiences).

What kind of bush was Moses burning?

stu wrote:Hi Dan just gave all my fags away, so from now on as my last post said i'm packing it up. so help as much as poss in the first week please.

Well Stu, all I can say from people I know who've successfully given them up is that it gets easier. Good luck with it all. It's a daft habit but I guess you don't need me to tell you that

No Dan, and with all the posting that I have been doing to Peter as he is dying of cancer gave me lots to think about, like wanting to see my daughter grow up,if you know what I mean.

stu,

What age is your daughter?

I am 56 with two sons of 3 and 7, and I must confess stopping smoking is coming soon.

stu wrote:No Dan, and with all the posting that I have been doing to Peter as he is dying of cancer gave me lots to think about, like wanting to see my daughter grow up,if you know what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean, Stu. Anyway, apparently the first week is the hardest since the physical cravings ease after that.

Hi Tosh my daughter is 7 mate, as you can see on my parrot feature i'm 53.

Keeps you young.

Well just looked for my first one Dan 55mins ahah. so did some ironing instead, when next feeling comes on, it's shave time keep fingers and mind busyahah.

Too true Tosh, even though I only see her on access visits but there you go and mum left me too,ah well.

Sorry to hear about your wife leaving you, glad you still see your daughter.

Thanks Tosh just partners mate, would not marry me in 14years, then left me and is married in 4 to this dominating so and so. Obviously Ididn't dominate her enough.  

Tosh wrote:I see I still have not lost my talent for pressing your buttons, just wanted to make sure you were still alive lol !!

Pshaw!

The only buttons you pressed were the keys on your keyboard.  

I do think the atheist community here has earned a big "tsk tsk" from me, however, because everyone can put forth such strong arguments against theists but rather weak arguments against ghosts. I think it's because people know far more about Christianity than they do about ghosts. Someone knowledgeable on a subject can tell when they are talking to someone who isn't - especially if they pretend that they are. I'm no expert on ghosts, but I know a few things.

And circular logic? Wow, I know people can do better than that!

Universities don't investigate ghosts because they aren't real.
Ghosts aren't real, which is why universities don't investigate them.

  

Tosh wrote:Question: What is a ghost.

Answer: Don't know.

Question: If you do not know, why not an illusion?

Answer: They seem so real.

(Jungle islander pointing up to a 747)

Question: What is that?

Answer: Don't know.

Question: If you do not know, why not a bird?

Tosh wrote:The point is this, if believers do not know what a ghost is supposed to be, how can they rationally dismiss the obvious explanation?

The point is, sometimes the "obvious" answer isn't always the right one.

I have no doubt that some ghost sightings - in fact perhaps a vast majority of them - are illusions, mistaken identity, people on drugs, who knows?

But ... like with UFOs, it only takes one white crow to prove all crows aren't black. Ergo it only takes a single sighting out of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of reports worldwide to be real.

Besides, it's almost Halloween. Get in the spirit! Get it? *nudge* The spirit? Har har har!

Boo!

Question: If you do not know, why not a bird?

A rather rushed analogy if I may say so my dear, science can create illusions identical to ghosts, the explanation can only be dismissed with some contrasting evidence, and there is nowt.....despite your claims.

If it looks like an illusion, it probably is an illusion.

UFOs..........ohmm..........ohmmmm...........ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, you have lost your ajna chakras.

I see they solved the YETI mystery, very exciting discovery.

Tosh wrote:A rather rushed analogy if I may say so my dear, science can create illusions identical to ghosts, the explanation can only be dismissed with some contrasting evidence, and there is nowt.....despite your claims

This evidence of yours is inconclusive, as I've said before. I've read the same studies you have, and I know that scientists have stimulated the brain to elicit a wide range of illusory experiences: smelling flowers that weren't there, feeling a presence that wasn't there, tasting foods they haven't eaten, etc. If your evidence conclusively disproves ghosts, as you claim, then it must also disprove the existence of flowers, food, and other people. You can stimulate the brain to experience an almost infinite number of things, and that does not, by any stretch, prove that people never experience those things outside of the laboratory.

Plus, as far as I know, people who have experienced ghosts were not wearing electrodes and having a scientist follow them around sending electrical currents into their brains. To simply prove that the brain can be tricked is not proof that the brain is tricked every single time someone experiences a ghost. You're making a leap there that isn't logical. You would have to actually study the brain of someone in real time as they had a genuine ghostly encounter - and, since reproduceability is part of the scientific method, you would have to do this to multiple people multiple times. That would be damn hard to do. So hard, in fact, that no one is going to waste the time doing it, Nobel Prize or not.

Tosh wrote:If it looks like an illusion, it probably is an illusion.

Except they don't look like illusions.

Tosh wrote:I see they solved the YETI mystery, very exciting discovery.

Haven't heard about that yet. I live in an information vacuum ... nothing gets in that's newer than 1970.