Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[Ryujin]

The second can't be known because it basically doesn't exist. Just take a look around here. Even in something as unimportant as gaming, people will vehemently push their beliefs on others. Imagine something actually important and meaningful as "deeply-held beliefs." Again, we can't talk about the elephant in the room as it violates the site's rules.

Right. So she scams people out of their money and spreads her nonsense as far and wide as she possibly can. This isn't the cute or cuddly counterexample you seem to think it is. You're proving my point.

Not going to shrinks causes harm to linger rather than be healed. That itself is further harm caused. So while it's not responsible for the initial trauma, it is responsible for keeping trauma around and compounding trauma.

People can blind themselves to the harm those they know or care about cause. It happens all the time.

I'm really sorry that you feel that way. Clearly we aren't going to have a meeting of the minds here as our experiences and viewpoints are just too far apart.

 

[ART!]

Why not ghosts?

Because they aren't even coherently definable. Like, a Sasquatch claim we can do something with. There's zero evidence, but at least there's a testable claim: a hitherto undiscovered family (in the biological sense) of large primates are dwelling in the forests near where I live. Presumably we could find one. I've yet to see a quantifiable definition of ghosts, so where would we even begin to look (graveyards?), and what would we be looking for (spooky stuff?)?

Let's look at the definition provided by the OP, as it looks pretty standard: "ghost (n)., a disembodied soul; especially the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness."

Okay, so a ghost is a "disembodied soul." Which is a...what, exactly? The definition is already completely circular, and thus an absurd claim on its face (literally reductio ad absurdum). And that's without even bothering with mumbo jumbo like "the unseen world" and various weasel words like "appear to be" and "believed to be.

The uncertainty is exactly why I leave room for it.

 

[Professor Murder]

Yes. I realize last night that a good companion question would be “How important is your answer to you?” For me, it’s not very important at all. The world is full of things that I personally have no explanation for, and even that the experts have no explanation for, yet. I have confidence that many of them will turn out to make sense within our existing models of reality, and that some will make sense as part of a sensible extension of those models. Some will remain mysterious. But I worry very little about it, far less than I worry about, say, misdiagnosis of chronic illness and racism and sexism affecting diagnosis and treatment.

Basically, I am always more concerned with what people do because of what they believe than what they believe.
Believe in ghost, in existence beyond death? Cool. How does it inform on how you live, how you treat others?
Ghosts aren't real? Sure thing. Same question as above.

 

[Clint_L]

You're asking me what kind of evidence I think a cameraphone might be able to provide?

I am saying that there is no definition of what a ghost is, so there is nothing that could count as evidence towards their existence or non-existence. I'm not sure what evidence you think a cameraphone would provide.

I suppose I'm not making my point clearly enough: without a quantifiable definition of "ghost," there is no point hypothesizing about their existence, and there is no possible evidence that can be used one way or the other. That's what I mean when I say that claims about ghosts are "not even wrong."

Not even wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In other words, I'm dismissing the entire topic as empty of rational content. Discussions of evidence are irrelevant, since the underlying concept remains undefined. The hypothetical cameraphone could capture an image of a translucent person passing through a wall and it would not be evidence of a ghost. The word "ghost" cannot be linked to any measurable phenomenon. It is an imaginary concept that relies a bunch of circular and supernatural assumptions.

That's what makes it different from something like "sasquatch" or "Loch Ness Monster." Those are pseudoscience because a few folks cling to them and make excuses for the lack of credible evidence. Ghosts are pseudoscience because they are not testable in principle, by cameraphones, e-meters, or any other device.

Believing in ghosts is a magical belief, and there is no point trying to have a rational argument about their existence. It's essentially a question of personal faith, and never of science. That's why it's not even wrong. It just is.

 

[Clint_L]

Let’s change tack here. Science doesn’t attempt to prove hypotheses, it attempts to disprove them.

So how do we test the “ghost” hypothesis? What specific predictions does it make that we can measure and check?

 

[Rabulias]

Yes, she charges for readings, and it's on the "for entertainment" basis. She's not pulling the, "Put all your money in a box and I'll bury it for you, to free you from its evil" garbage. One rather minimal charge and she does a reading. She also does them for her podcast, for nothing, in hopes that she'll see a little passive income from listeners.

When you say "for entertainment" basis, does she tell her customers and listeners "Hey folks, this is all in good fun and not real. I have no supernatural power and I am just making this stuff up. Thanks for listening."? If not, she is contributing to the idea that this stuff is real. While she may not be a full-fledged evil scammer, she is indirectly setting people up to fall victim to someone who is a bad actor.

 

[dragoner]

whoa nevermind.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think it's pretty harmless for folks to believe in ghosts, even if I have absolutely no faith in the supernatural.

Thinking you will be able to change someone's beliefs through posting on a D&D forum is pretty out there, though.

 

[Clint_L]

I think it's pretty harmless for folks to believe in ghosts, even if I have absolutely no faith in the supernatural.

Except when grifters use those beliefs to rip people off, as they do all the time everywhere in the world.

Thinking you will be able to change someone's beliefs through posting on a D&D forum is pretty out there, though.

I didn't know the only reason for a discussion was to change someone's beliefs. As I already posted, ghosts are a magical belief, so I am well aware that it is not susceptible to evidence or logic and that arguing about the existence of ghosts is generally fruitless. Discussing why evidence is irrelevant to the belief in ghosts is interesting to me, as it illustrates the difference between science and superstition.

In that context I enjoyed discussing the category difference between ghosts and other weird beliefs like sasquatches.

Ghosts are basically an emotional belief. My little sister had a scary experience with a ouji board when she was twelve that to this day she cites as the reason she believes in ghosts.

 

[soviet]

I think it's pretty harmless for folks to believe in ghosts, even if I have absolutely no faith in the supernatural.

Thinking you will be able to change someone's beliefs through posting on a D&D forum is pretty out there, though.

Why post then?