Ghost !

[John Phoenix]

I'm posting this here because it seems there is not a place for a scientific discussion of ghost above.

 

I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years and there is some speculation if changes on the physical world that accompany the sightings of ghost can be measured.

 

I would like to open a discussion on this, and where ghost may be/come from. If science allows for the existence of other dimensions or even parallel dimensions, could not ghost come from one of these?

 

Even though ghost cannot be proven at this time with our present scientific understanding, what do you guys think could be a scientific reason behind ghost?

[ydoaPs]

I'm posting this here because it seems there is not a place for a scientific discussion of ghost above.

 

I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years and there is some speculation if changes on the physical world that accompany the sightings of ghost can be measured.

 

I would like to open a discussion on this, and where ghost may be/come from. If science allows for the existence of other dimensions or even parallel dimensions, could not ghost come from one of these?

 

Even though ghost cannot be proven at this time with our present scientific understanding, what do you guys think could be a scientific reason behind ghost?

 

What is a ghost? A hypothesis can't be tested if there isn't a coherent hypothesis to test.

[John Phoenix]

I dunno. I didn't claim to give a hypothesis. just throwing this out there. i want to see what other think. perhaps someone can come up with a hypothesis. <grin>

[padren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Ghosts

 

[JillSwift]

Hypothesis: "Ghost" is a term commonly given to situations where a person or persons felt detached anxiety upon entering large and poorly lit enclosed spaces, or where observing visual illusory phenomena combined with an anxious instinctive reaction. This occurs in individuals, but tends to be more intense in small groups as each other's reactions seem to confirm each other's fear.

 

Evidence: As ghosts are reported, common features of the experiences include setting, emotional state of the reporter(s) before these events, and "priming" of experience (i.e. "This place is haunted.")

 

Conclusion: "Ghosts" exist as a psychological phenomenon.

 

Falsifiability: Evidence in contradiction to current evidence. Ghost phenomenon outside psychological realm or without immediate observation not attributable to mundane sources.

 

Hows that?

[bascule]

If you can prove the existence of ghosts under controlled conditions, James Randi will give you one million dollars.

[John Cuthber]

I can't remember the propper name for this particular logical fallacy; "I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years".

At college we used to refer to it as the "a hundred million lemmings can't be wrong" argument.

Just because a lot of people think they have experieneced "something" it doesn't mean that that "something" exists- ask an atheist.

[bascule]

I can't remember the propper name for this particular logical fallacy; "I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years".

 

Sounds like the bandwagon fallacy to me. I'm reminded of the "Fifty Million Smokers Can't Be Wrong" poster from the Simpsons.

[mooeypoo]

I can't remember the propper name for this particular logical fallacy; "I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years".

At college we used to refer to it as the "a hundred million lemmings can't be wrong" argument.

Just because a lot of people think they have experieneced "something" it doesn't mean that that "something" exists- ask an atheist.

I believe that is the "Bandwagon Fallacy" (or "Appeal to Popularity" or "Argumentum ad Populum", etc). Can be said about a bazillion different things and shown throughout history.. as bascule pointed out, smoking is only one of them.

[John Phoenix]

Hypothesis: "Ghost" is a term commonly given to situations where a person or persons felt detached anxiety upon entering large and poorly lit enclosed spaces, or where observing visual illusory phenomena combined with an anxious instinctive reaction. This occurs in individuals, but tends to be more intense in small groups as each other's reactions seem to confirm each other's fear.

 

Evidence: As ghosts are reported, common features of the experiences include setting, emotional state of the reporter(s) before these events, and "priming" of experience (i.e. "This place is haunted.")

 

Conclusion: "Ghosts" exist as a psychological phenomenon.

 

Falsifiability: Evidence in contradiction to current evidence. Ghost phenomenon outside psychological realm or without immediate observation not attributable to mundane sources.

 

Hows that?

 

Jill, you haven't shown any evidence that supports your conclusion.

 

I find your hypothesis very funny. A lot of people who have reported seeing ghost did not feel detached or anxiety, does not always happen in poorly lit conditions or in inclosed spaces.

 

I have no idea where you get " or where observing visual illusory phenomena combined with an anxious instinctive reaction. This occurs in individuals, but tends to be more intense in small groups as each other's reactions seem to confirm each other's fear." from.

 

What visual illusory phenomena combined with an anxious instinctive reaction are you referring to? Also many people who report seeing ghost have no fear at all about the experience.

 

It seems to me your hypothesis is only based on personal belief as you clearly have not studied very many reported ghost sightings. Please give me references and resources that support your hypothesis.

 

Hey, i'm just trying to look at this more scientifically as you folks would have me do.

 

BTW, What ever happened to a hypothesis is supposed to be an IF THEN statement?

 

Also I don't know how valid this is scientifically but here is an interesting article that talks about the science behind ghost hunting and it says there is scientific evidence for ghost and even valid scientific theories about ghost. : http://www.zerotime.com/ghosts/science.htm

Edited September 6, 2009 by John Phoenix

[Klaynos]

John, you don't know herme3 do you?

[iNow]

Really? The psychological explanation is the MOST likely. It's inappropriate of you to challenge Jill's suggestion until you provide some evidence of ghosts. Without that, the explanation that this is all in people's heads is the most compelling.

[John Phoenix]

Really? The psychological explanation is the MOST likely. It's inappropriate of you to challenge Jill's suggestion until you provide some evidence of ghosts. Without that, the explanation that this is all in people's heads is the most compelling.

 

 

The psychological explanation may be the most likely but that does not have anything to do with me finding holes in her hypothesis. Or the fact that she didn't give resources. I do not believe your statement " It's inappropriate of you to challenge Jill's suggestion until you provide some evidence of ghosts. " is valid. After all, if I had evidence of ghost I would not be having this discussion about ghost.

 

Besides her hypothesis is bias and it reads this way. We already know Jill does not believe there is any way ghost could exist.. does this not in itself make her hypothesis invalid? I thought valid scientific hypothesis's needed to be completely objective until you have proven evidence for or against?

 

 

Lastly, Jill asked for her post to be commented on. I quote Jill: " How's That? "

 

I do not know any herme3.

Edited September 6, 2009 by John Phoenix

[JillSwift]

The psychological explanation may be the most likely but that does not have anything to do with me finding holes in her hypothesis. Or the fact that she didn't give resources. I do not believe your statement " It's inappropriate of you to challenge Jill's suggestion until you provide some evidence of ghosts. " is valid. After all, if I had evidence of ghost I would not be having this discussion about ghost.

 

Besides her hypothesis is bias and it reads this way. We already know Jill does not believe there is any way ghost could exist.. does this not in itself make her hypothesis invalid? I thought valid scientific hypothesis's needed to be completely objective until you have proven evidence for or against?

 

 

Lastly, Jill asked for her post to be commented on. I quote Jill: " How's That? "

 

I do not know any herme3.

Wait... I just posted a (admittedly weak) hypothesis in favor of ghosts. I believe in ghosts, as a psychological phenomenon.

 

As you avoided giving a definition for "ghost" when asked for it earlier in the thread, my definition stands.

 

Personal bias does not invalidate a hypothesis. Only contrary evidence, or fallacious reasoning invalidates anything. Personal bias can be (but is not necessarily) the source of fallacious reasoning.

 

My hypothesis did exclude claims that did not involve anxiety. I'll expand my hypothesis to include "reports by people interested in perpetuating the idea of ghosts as an external phenomenon."

 

Studies and similar hypotheses supporting my hypothesis:

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1991-23832-001

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b39Udl6qY30C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=related:SJ7qrpjLzB8J:scholar.google.com/&ots=BTHQk7onjQ&sig=2vW3FcxrAMZMs7uPD3jj3iD_BJs#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=info:RYYiX0qw2RAJ:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1&hl=en

http://www.geocities.com/skepdigest/15VisionsHallucinationsChapter.pdf [PDF]

http://www.laurentienne.ca/NR/rdonlyres/30DE8955-053D-49F8-B725-0CDC33F4B5DC/0/1990_125.pdf [PDF]

 

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Edited September 7, 2009 by JillSwift

[bascule]

The psychological explanation may be the most likely but that does not have anything to do with me finding holes in her hypothesis. Or the fact that she didn't give resources. I do not believe your statement " It's inappropriate of you to challenge Jill's suggestion until you provide some evidence of ghosts. " is valid. After all, if I had evidence of ghost I would not be having this discussion about ghost.

 

You're making the statement. You have the burden of proof. You have no evidence! You have no way of defending your statements.

[John Phoenix]

Wait... I just posted a (admittedly weak) hypothesis in favor of ghosts. I believe in ghosts, as a psychological phenomenon.

 

As you avoided giving a definition for "ghost" when asked for it earlier in the thread, my definition stands.

 

Personal bias does not invalidate a hypothesis. Only contrary evidence, or fallacious reasoning invalidates anything. Personal bias can be (but is not necessarily) the source of fallacious reasoning.

 

My hypothesis did exclude claims that did not involve anxiety. I'll expand my hypothesis to include "reports by people interested in perpetuating the idea of ghosts as an external phenomenon."

 

Studies and similar hypotheses supporting my hypothesis:

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1991-23832-001

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b39Udl6qY30C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=related:SJ7qrpjLzB8J:scholar.google.com/&ots=BTHQk7onjQ&sig=2vW3FcxrAMZMs7uPD3jj3iD_BJs#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=info:RYYiX0qw2RAJ:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport&pg=1&hl=en

http://www.geocities.com/skepdigest/15VisionsHallucinationsChapter.pdf [PDF]

http://www.laurentienne.ca/NR/rdonlyres/30DE8955-053D-49F8-B725-0CDC33F4B5DC/0/1990_125.pdf [PDF]

 

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

I refused to give a definition of ghost because I left that up for discussion.. Thank You for the extra info on your hypothesis.

 

Could someone come up with a different hypothesis.. How about someone do one for the argument of ghost ( as if they were real entities not just mental as Jill has provided us one of those already) and one against ghost. Could you try to make them in the form of IF THEN statements please.

[JillSwift]

I refused to give a definition of ghost because I left that up for discussion.. Thank You for the extra info on your hypothesis.

 

Could someone come up with a different hypothesis.. How about someone do one for the argument of ghost ( as if they were real entities not just mental as Jill has provided us one of those already) and one against ghost. Could you try to make them in the form of IF THEN statements please.

You're the one who wants to talk about ghosts, how is anyone to know what it is you really want to talk about if you can't define it yourself?

[JohnB]

John Phoenix, if you wish to prove or discuss whether a particular "thing" exists or not, then a definition is mandatory. However, if you are claiming that there is an effect that people call "ghosts", it is less so. The caveat being that you now have provide some evidence that the "effect" is real and not imagined.

 

JillSwift, (welcome BTW) how does your psychological hypothesis account for photographs? While there are certainly mundane explanations for the indistinct blobs that are often put forward as "evidence", these tend to fail when faced with humanoid apparitions.

 

bascule, I'm not sure the Randi Challenge applies. I have my own thoughts about the things and frankly I think that they are no more "supernatural" than radio was 200 years ago.

 

In this thread I described experiments that would at least allow us to decide whether or not an effect was present and real. You didn't participate in that thread, however I'd like your opinion as to whether the two camera setup would be a suitable first instance.

 

You and iNow would the hardest sceptics I know of in this area, so would a positive result make you go "Hmmmmm"?

[John Phoenix]

John Phoenix, if you wish to prove or discuss whether a particular "thing" exists or not, then a definition is mandatory. However, if you are claiming that there is an effect that people call "ghosts", it is less so. The caveat being that you now have provide some evidence that the "effect" is real and not imagined.

 

JillSwift, (welcome BTW) how does your psychological hypothesis account for photographs? While there are certainly mundane explanations for the indistinct blobs that are often put forward as "evidence", these tend to fail when faced with humanoid apparitions.

 

bascule, I'm not sure the Randi Challenge applies. I have my own thoughts about the things and frankly I think that they are no more "supernatural" than radio was 200 years ago.

 

In this thread I described experiments that would at least allow us to decide whether or not an effect was present and real. You didn't participate in that thread, however I'd like your opinion as to whether the two camera setup would be a suitable first instance.

 

You and iNow would the hardest sceptics I know of in this area, so would a positive result make you go "Hmmmmm"?

 

About the definition of ghost. I honestly do not know, All I can do is guess. There are many different opinions of what ghost may be made of. I may find a few and others may find totally different ones. This is why I left this up for discussion.

 

But if you guys must know, ( and I admit I don't know how valid this is ) but, I feel if they are real in any non imaginary way, they may be made up of some form of electromagnetic energy we cannot detect at this present time. Isn't it true over the years science has expanded its understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum- they keep adding to it? If so, then this could be plausible to me.

[iNow]

You and iNow would the hardest sceptics I know of in this area, so would a positive result make you go "Hmmmmm"?

 

Yes, it sure would. It would make me go, "Hmmmm.... What other explanation fits this data better?"

 

 

Kidding aside, it's going to take more than one positive hit with no corroborating evidence to get me to really change my mind on this issue, mostly since ghosts are so incredibly unlikely. Incredibly unlikely things require incredible evidence.

[JillSwift]

JillSwift, (welcome BTW)

Thankies! ==

 

how does your psychological hypothesis account for photographs? While there are certainly mundane explanations for the indistinct blobs that are often put forward as "evidence", these tend to fail when faced with humanoid apparitions.

As it stands, my hypothesis does not address "apparition" photographs at all.

 

However, I'm going to go ahead and expand it again, adding "all photographic 'evidence' thus far produced can be explained by mundane means, including lens reflections, film or digital storage artifacts, depth-of-field artifacts, peridolia, or trickery."

[John Phoenix]

Thank yo JohnB for giving us this link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39420

 

I just read the thread and found it very interesting. I did not know such a thread existed but this is the type of discussion I hope this thread turns out to be.

 

I would like Jill to notice, that thread is an interesting scientific discussion about ghost.. something Jill has told me is not possible and not worth talking about. (I would quote you but it seems that the post from Pseudoscience for the Responsible got deleted.) <grin>

 

Also I would like INow to notice that the poster nor anyone else in that thread was slammed for failing to give a claim that then got picked apart or " (borrowed from Remote Viewing) " hosting a thread about something which has zero credible evidence among a group of scientifically-minded people, and expecting them to bring momentum to your thread and get the conversation rolling is not really your best approach." Yet that is exactly what happened in this thread. <Double Grin>

[JillSwift]

Thank yo JohnB for giving us this link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39420

 

I just read the thread and found it very interesting. I did not know such a thread existed but this is the type of discussion I hope this thread turns out to be.

 

I would like Jill to notice, that thread is an interesting scientific discussion about ghost.. something Jill has told me is not possible and not worth talking about. (I would quote you but it seems that the post from Pseudoscience for the Responsible got deleted.) <grin>

I would like you to notice that the thread linked has a grounded question:

If it is fake then why does everyone believe that the researchers actually found something? They could have recored their voice and said it was a ghost

Also, a clear definition of what was meant by the term "ghost" was provided in the link on that thread's OP.

 

See the vast and important difference? <grin>

[padren]

Personally, I find all theories on ghosts that I've encountered to require too much "faith" for my taste. Whether they attempt to explain ghosts as the remnants of the deceased or group hallucinations they all seem strained and require too many assumptions.

 

It may be most logical that Jill's explanation is the most likely, and that photographic or audio recordings are either faked or are the result of misinterpreted mundane causes... but I can't say such a conclusion is conclusive. It's something of a defense mechanism but anytime a theory requires an assumption about the nature of an unknown factor it immediately becomes purely an exercise in intellectual entertainment.

[JohnB]

Yes' date=' it sure would. It would make me go, "Hmmmm.... What other explanation fits this data better?"

 

 

Kidding aside, it's going to take more than one positive hit with no corroborating evidence to get me to really change my mind on this issue, mostly since ghosts are so incredibly unlikely. Incredibly unlikely things require incredible evidence. [/quote']

 

Fair enough. The experiment does not however attempt attribution or explanation. A strong positive result merely shows that something unusual is going on at that time. Analagous to, but slightly less informative than, say, finding your X-ray plates have fogged when stored in certain drawers.

 

In this experiment I would define "positive" as "An easily recognisable humanoid (or animal I suppose) figure that appears in only one of the two footages." I would define "strong positive" as "An easily recognisable humanoid (or animal) that appears only in the IR footage."

 

Note the use of "easily recognisable". This does not mean "If you squint a bit and tilt your to the left.":D

 

To have footage of a human walking around without an IR signature would be certainly unusual, however to have an IR signature walking around without an accompanying visible object would be remarkable.

 

Note that even a strong positive would not prove the existence of "ghosts". The best it could be said to prove is that in that particular case the effect is real and not psychological.

 

Again, the experiment says nothing about the cause of an effect, it can only at best confirm the existence of an effect.

 

However, I'm going to go ahead and expand it again, adding "all photographic 'evidence' thus far produced can be explained by mundane means, including lens reflections, film or digital storage artifacts, depth-of-field artifacts, peridolia, or trickery."

Very exact, nice. However, it is biased to a viewpoint as it can be rephrased as "If I can't find a mundane explanation for it, it must be a hoax." As a definition, it can only confirm preconceived viewpoints as it precludes the possibility of being wrong.

 

I'm always cautious when a definition doesn't include the possibility that the definer is mistaken. (At least, in this type of discussion anyway.)

 

I do note your use of the caveat "thus far", however just because something can be explained by trickery, does not mean that it was done by trickery.

 

This photo from a bubble chamber can also be explained by trickery.

Does that mean it was produced by trickery? Of course not. (And fear of being dunked into a bubble chamber by a posse of irate physicists led by swansont has nothing to do with my opinion.)