Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[UngainlyTitan]

The way to answer "are ghosts real?" Is not to pick thing, call it a ghost, and determine if it is real.

The proper process would be to pick a phenomenon, determine if it is real, determine what caused it, and if what caused it is a ghost, then ghosts are real.

If you find it was real, and a fairy did it, then fairies are real.

This is a better answer than one I could have come up with.

 

[Morrus]

Thanks for the approval, but I have a PhD.

Well done! I’m proud of you.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The way to answer "are ghosts real?" Is not to pick thing, call it a ghost, and determine if it is real.

The proper process would be to pick a phenomenon, determine if it is real, determine what caused it, and if what caused it is a ghost, then ghosts are real.

If you find it was real, and a fairy did it, then fairies are real.

But unless you already know what a ghost is and what a fairy is, then there is no way to tell which was the cause.

What you need to do is describe a thing, call it a ghost, and then try and fail to prove that thing is not real.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One of the assumptions buried in the idea that we would just perform the right scientific tests is the thought that we would all observe ghosts in the same way. But what if they appear only to certain people, for whatever reason? You could start trying to determine which people and why, but you're quickly moving past what experimental science can do well.

There is an hypothesis buried in here, It could be something in the external environment or something internal in the mind, but the thing that stops science is the irreproducible nature of the thing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

But unless you already know what a ghost is and what a fairy is, then there is no way to tell which was the cause.

A priori one does not need to assume to know the nature of the thing to study it. We studied fire a lot before discerning its true nature.

What you need to do is describe a thing, call it a ghost, and then try and fail to prove that thing is not real.

This is one hell of a sentence to parse, let me take it backward and see if I get it right.
There is as far as I know no way to prove that a thing is not real thus failing to prove that a thing is not real is actually proving that a thing is real.
Proving that it is real, would be making the phenomenon observable to anyone with the correct methodology and apparatus. The precise nature of the thing could be ascertained later. Does not matter if it is a fairy, a UFO, a ghost or George.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A priori one does not need to assume to know the nature of the thing to study it. We studied fire a lot before discerning its true nature.

So how do you know a fire isn’t a ghost? Since you cannot say what it is, there is nothing to say that a ghost isn’t fire.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So how do you know a fire isn’t a ghost? Since you cannot say what it is, there is nothing to say that a ghost isn’t fire.

I think you have, perhaps stepped past pedantry here.

 

[The Firebird]

There is an hypothesis buried in here, It could be something in the external environment or something internal in the mind, but the thing that stops science is the irreproducible nature of the thing.

Or, the downstream observations. Science can interrogate things that are irreproducible, like "did the Late Heavy Bombardment occur" by looking at the ages of impact melts or simulating solar system evolution. In that case the experiments at least are reproducible. But with ghosts you are a few steps removed; the ghost may be an agent, it interacts with a person who is also an agent, and then all you get is the person's self-reported experience.

There do seem to be consistencies in the self-reported experiences; in that regard there is substantially more evidence for ghosts than Russell's teapot or Sagan's garage dragon. But we find it cleaner to attribute these consistencies to a feature of human psychology rather than the world.

 

[Ryujin]

Yes. Another interesting example is taste, like with cilantro. But for the external world, we can typically make it conform enough to do repeatable experiments. You can feed a bunch of people cilantro, for example.

It is pretty easy to just decide that if we can't all observe it then it must be internal. But, what if it wasn't? How would you prove it? You're dealing with a potential agent, a being that perhaps can choose whether or not to reveal itself, and won't submit to investigation. Would you look for consistency in the parameters of self reported encounters? How would you deal with false reporting? Would you hope a generous ghost decides to show up and let you test it?

I think it is an interesting thought experiment because it demonstrates the bounds of science. Think also of other, possibly (?) external concepts, like courage or love or wisdom. Are those real, is a big question in itself--and how to test scientifically?


Thanks for the approval, but I have a PhD.

And what if they're a manifestation of "The Observer Phenomenon" and the mere act of looking for them alters the results?

 

[Umbran]

But unless you already know what a ghost is and what a fairy is, then there is no way to tell which was the cause.

That's nonsensical.

By that logic, we could not discover new things without knowing what they were beforehand.

What you need to do is describe a thing, call it a ghost, and then try and fail to prove that thing is not real.

You do know that you don't generally try to prove negatives, right? There's problems with scope, and non-falsifiablity there.