Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
40 year study finds ghosts don't exist
#11
For the sceptic, no evidence no matter how scientific will ever be proof enough. ~John Zaffis

John Zaffis obviously doesn't have a clue what the word sceptic means Frown

DB
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Reply
#12
I find this study interesting in that it completely rules out ghosts on the basis of their experiences through their study. On one hand, I'm glad there are people out there who take time to thoroughly examine the supernatural and evaluate it with known science and basic logic and reasoning skills. On the other hand, it's disparaging for me to see they've ruled out ghosts because of the lack of personal experience that coincides with their data gathering. If anything, I'd say their study proves the number of unexplained instances of paranormal are infinitely smaller than previously understood. Saying ghosts don't exist at all is, in fact, the other extreme.

Ultimately, it's circular logic based on conclusions which ignore outcomes that diverge from the study's purpose-- A lack of evidence doesn't only suggest something doesn't exist, but it also implies that they have yet to find any evidence that it does exist.

Also, I'm with DB on the word "skeptic". I've always thought the word to mean one who looks for evidence in information they're provided to either confirm truth or eliminate fiction.
All Posted Photos Shared Under Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported
Attribute by linking to a thread originally posted by me, Jadewik. Thanks.
Reply
#13
Well put Jadwik,

I agree with you completely Icontexto-emoticons-03-032x032

DB
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Reply
#14
So why are people out hunting them???? Seems like a big expence and waste of time to go on ghost hunts......Icontexto-emoticons-08-032x032

With all of my experiences, i have to disagree. I guess most people just have to be stared in the face by a ghost to really believe in them.

So, does this mean that the many that see ghosts, talk to ghosts, and deal with them on a daily basis are mentally challenged???

I wish i had seen this study as a child, my life would have been so much easier, not having to deal with the other side....
Pride and Fear always distort the truth into either a false sense of security or a lack of confidence and diminished self-worth.

Angel WIngs



Reply
#15
So why are people out hunting them???? Seems like a big expence and waste of time to go on ghost hunts......

Because they like to get scared, they enjoy the excitement, it's a hobby, because it's fun or because they want to be scientists at the forefront of paranormal investigation.
Why do folks go to scary movies knowing that Jason or Freddy is going to make them jump? - movies aren't cheap if you add up the costs over a year based on an average of 2 visits per month - it could also be described as a waste of time. Then again what you describe as a waste of time is someone else's hobby or vocation.
I think hunting deer is a waste of time. I think Golf is a pointless hobby - they're purely my subjective opinions.
The vast majority of recreational ghost hunters are doing it for the excitement and the buzz - from what I've seen they're not doing it to advance the cause of parapsychology or to find definitive proof of the afterlife - not if they're using programmes like TAPS as scientific templates. They're also going out 'hunting' with the belief already in place that ghosts exist and as such what ever they find is tainted by a big dose of expectation and confirmation bias.

I guess most people just have to be stared in the face by a ghost to really believe in them.

If I was stared in the face by a ghost that would not mean I would automatically believe in them - there could be numerous reasons why I may not actually be looking at the spirit of a dead person.
If you were stared in the face by Bigfoot whilst out walking in the woods, in for example Oregon, would you then believe in Bigfoot?. Do you believe that seeing (first hand) is all that is necessary in order to confirm the definitive truth of something?.

I wish i had seen this study as a child, my life would have been so much easier, not having to deal with the other side....

What does dealing with the other side involve for you if you don't mind me asking?. Don't answer if you don't want to.

DB
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Reply
#16
It is my personal opinion science thus far lacks the tools and ability to quantify and/or qualify the existence of spirits, ghosts, negative or positive energy forms, or whatever other term one chooses to toss out. That does not mean they do not exist. I am also quite unsure anything will become an acceptable confirmation for some. If one doesn't embrace the possibility then acceptance looms distantly, if at all. That is not to say that every "documented" apparition, evp, photo or voice box encounter should be accepted as fact....they shouldn't because the hoaxes are rampant to say the least.

I will say, when plausible explanations have been literally exhausted, it's time to find a way to prove it...but maybe that falls into the category of faith, not religious faith, but faith in the fact one knows what one experienced after all plausible explanations are eliminated. Like some here, "I know what I know" even though I can't prove it on paper, with a meter or other tool of measurement with output or input or throughput that falls within acceptable parameters.
The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind.

- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
#17
It is my personal opinion science thus far lacks the tools and ability to quantify and/or qualify the existence of spirits, ghosts, negative or positive energy forms, or whatever other term one chooses to toss out.
Science has used every tool at it's disposal for the past 200 years to try to confirm the existence of ghosts and life after death and found not one piece of valid evidence to confirm such things are a reality. The Scientific method is the best tool we have to prove or disprove a given hypothesis and we have to use what we know not what we don't know or could know in the future.

That does not mean they do not exist.
It means there's no real proof at this present time to suggest or confirm that they do. You're making a logical fallacy - Ad ignoratum: appeal to ignorance, the idea that whatever is not known to be false must be true, or vice versa.
For example: 'ESP is possible because there's so much we don't know about the human brain' or 'In the woods last night I saw something huge and hairy - it must be Bigfoot!'.

That is not to say that every "documented" apparition, evp, photo or voice box encounter should be accepted as fact....they shouldn't because the hoaxes are rampant to say the least.
Hoaxes are just one of many reasons why we should not automatically accept that a persons given account of a paranormal experience is truely paranormal.

Like some here, "I know what I know"
Unfortunately when it comes to the paranormal that's not entirely correct for a variety of reasons from imperfect vision to cultural biases.

DB
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Reply
#18
40 years or 100 years is a drop in the bucket in man's quest for knowledge. Just because something has not been scientifically proved or disproved doesn't make it less interesting.
There must be at least some small kernal of truth somewhere in the thousands of stories of encounters with the afterlife.
Not all strange personal experiences can be chaulked up to plumbing/heating anomalies.
I assure you that I know quite a lot about each & living in very old houses.
The only wrong questions - are those that go unasked
Reply
#19
The major problem I have with this study and so many others like it is the totally biased slant of the study based on the opinion of the observer. I don't fall into the hard believer or the solid skeptic classification. For me, the paranormal doesn't have fine lines. I have interests in all studies of the paranormal equally and consider myself to fall somewhere in the middle...a skeptical believer.

I will review studies such as this with interest, as well as include findings from the 'otherside' of the argument (pardon my pun) knowing that somewhere in the middle the truth exists.

Unfortunately until such time as there is a global database for paranormal stastics, research and case studies to be kept open to any and all findings, we are unlikely to know that truth. Getting people to share honest facts and figures would be difficult if not impossible and we may never really know what the big picture could show us.

People are entirely all too wrapped up in our own opinions being 'right'.
Reply
#20
What's funny in the instance of this article is the fact that the only claim, the person that conducted the studies, made is "And I've never found a paranormal explanation."

This in itself is just his own interpretation of the data. Notice how he did not say the words, "In a study of paranormal activity its found other explanations always are found." Sorry for making an example of your statement UnR.

The reason being, he really did not find any evidence to support the existence of ghosts and the paranormal, but he hasn't tested EVERY case that there was, or will be. Yes, he took a sample audience, he took random places, he even could have taken age-old legends, but the fact still remains that not every instance has had other explanations found.

That being said, the lack of evidence to prove the existence of ghosts is not positive evidence to support the opposite. The lack of evidence collected only really tends to question the nature of belief toward the topic.

Furthermore, I stand by the logic that people in science believe that if it hasn't any proof, or it hasn't been discovered, then it is not a possibility. On the contrary, in the vastness of the unknown everything is possible. That is why scientists have avoided the over-arching universal claims that are used to put topics to rest. They simply cannot prove (perhaps yet) the non-existence of ghosts. Once they do, then the topic can be put to rest. Otherwise, let everyone have their own beliefs.
[Image: Banner1.png]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Do ghosts exist? If not, why do we see them? UglyNRude 16 3,391 01-12-2018, 11:29 AM
Last Post: KaelisRa
  Question: Is science open to proving ghosts exist? magicdavidpa 6 8,639 09-01-2013, 08:45 AM
Last Post: jonathan livingstone seagull



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...