Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[Rabulias]

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.

An interesting concept, but as I said, it's a big leap when the entirety of our experience of the universe thus far has shown external objects and beings to be detectable. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. If it were true, the scientific method would have a hard time validating it. Let me turn this around: what led you to the hypothesis that there are beings or phenomena that can be selectively observable?

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?

Those are not external beings. They are not even external concepts -- for the most part they are internal emotions or sensations. But they are broadly experienced by most people (excepting those with certain mental and/or emotional issues) in some way. As they are in our minds, these feelings cannot be quantified exactly. Though I have heard about experiments measuring brain activity when people are in certain emotional states, and certain areas of the brain are more or less active during certain states. Perhaps one day they will be fully quantifiable.

But to appear to one person and not another would go against everything we know about light and how our eyes and vision work.

 

[The Firebird]

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

Then we are in trouble, scientifically speaking

Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. If it were true, the scientific method would have a hard time validating it.

Yes, that is the point I'm trying to make. To state it directly: there are conceptions of ghosts which are compatible with self-reported experiences which are not amenable to scientific investigation.

Let me turn this around: what led you to the hypothesis that there are beings or phenomena that can be selectively observable?

Self reported supernatural experiences are widespread across pretty much all cultures, including (ime) from self proclaimed skeptics. These either have an external cause or an internal cause. I think we know what the internal cause explanation looks like; but what would it look like if there was an external cause?

They are not even external concepts -- for the most part they are internal emotions or sensations. But they are broadly experienced by most people (excepting those with certain mental and/or emotional issues) in some way. As they are in our minds, these feelings cannot be quantified exactly. Though I have heard about experiments measuring brain activity when people are in certain emotional states, and certain areas of the brain are more or less active during certain states. Perhaps one day they will be fully quantifiable.

There is a complicated tangent about metaphysics here. Not to go too far down that road. But, a lot of philosopher believes they are external concepts. And, measuring brain activity associated with a feeling does not mean the mental activity is identical to the feeling.

I think if you are the kind of person who says "love is just a chemical reaction" etc. you will not find supernatural phenomena in general plausible.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's nonsensical.

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

Nope, generally when you discover something, you get to give it a name. So someone could observe any new phenomena whatsoever, and decide to name it “ghost”. Or “fairy”, or whatever. And from then on, it’s true, because those things were previously undefined.

You do know that you don't generally try to prove negatives, right

Science advances by failing to prove something is false. It can never prove something is true.

 

[Umbran]

Then we are in trouble, scientifically speaking

No, that's not a problem. We've been dealing with that in quantum mechanics for decades, and do experiments just fine.

Yes, that is the point I'm trying to make. To state it directly: there are conceptions of ghosts which are compatible with self-reported experiences which are not amenable to scientific investigation.

Which is why you don't start with the conception. You start with the observable phenomenon.

Self reported supernatural experiences are widespread across pretty much all cultures, including (ime) from self proclaimed skeptics. These either have an external cause or an internal cause. I think we know what the internal cause explanation looks like; but what would it look like if there was an external cause?

It would first look like dropping the assumption that all self-reported experiences have the same cause. We haven't established that yet.

There is a complicated tangent about metaphysics here. Not to go too far down that road. But, a lot of philosopher believes they are external concepts.

As soon as you introduce non-falsifiable elements, science will not help you.

 

[The Firebird]

No, that's not a problem. We've been dealing with that in quantum mechanics for decades, and do experiments just fine.

I took the observer idea in this context to mean something different than it does in QM.

It would first look like dropping the assumption that all self-reported experiences have the same cause. We haven't established that yet.

Yes, I mentioned this.

As soon as you introduce non-falsifiable elements, science will not help you.

Right. In the context of metaphysics--does "science not helping you" mean "it's not real"? That's a very strong claim, it turns out.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Nope, generally when you discover something, you get to give it a name. So someone could observe any new phenomena whatsoever, and decide to name it “ghost”. Or “fairy”, or whatever. And from then on, it’s true, because those things were previously undefined.

They can, actually, but to get the name to stick it has to have some utility. If you can come up with some methodology that demonstrates a phenomenon that walks like a ghost and quacks like a ghost, and any would be ghost studier can use it reliably then we can agree that it is probably ghost without any consensus in its exact nature.

Science advances by failing to prove something is false. It can never prove something is true.

One can falsify an hypothesis one cannot prove a negative, that is why conspiracy theories are bottomless.

 

[Cadence]

Thanks for the approval, but I have a PhD.

If that was about doing science:
It feels like one of those is supposed to be a signifier of being able to do research in some area, but not necessarily "science" research? *

If it was about approval:
I mean, who doesn't want more approval (whether it's a Nobel Prize, faculty award, or good word)?


<* insert rant about one program at the school I'm at that feels like its questionable if it does meaningful research and that it should likely be a professional doctorate and not PhD>

 

[The Firebird]

If that was about doing science:
It feels like one of those is supposed to be a signifier of being able to do research in some area, but not necessarily "science" research? *

If it was about approval:
I mean, who doesn't want more approval (whether it's a Nobel Prize, faculty award, or good word)?


<* insert rant about one program at the school I'm at that feels like its questionable if it does meaningful research and that it should likely be a professional doctorate and not PhD>

I'm not sure I follow. Someone else brought up the idea that it was "my first hypothesis", with the undertone that I didn't know much about science. I thought it was relevant that I had done more science than that person.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure I follow. Someone else brought up the idea that it was "my first hypothesis", with the undertone that I didn't know much about science.

Oh, good god. Do I have to explain the difference between implication and inference again? This "undertone" is all you, not me. Believe me, if I wanted to say somebody didn't know much about science, I'd say they didn't know much about science.

I have no idea, and zero interest in how much science you may or may not have done. I simply pointed out that you had your first hypothesis in your ghost experiment.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not sure I follow. Someone else brought up the idea that it was "my first hypothesis", with the undertone that I didn't know much about science. I thought it was relevant that I had done more science than that person.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail.

I was just getting at that a PhD doesn't have to be in the sciences, and a non-PhD chemist has likely done more science than most PhDs in the humanities. And I'm leery of jumping to PhD > non-PhD in general. I've worked with some MS+lots who I didn't know weren't PhD holders until I was putting their vitas into the grant proposal. As another example, Jack Kilby only had an MS in Engineering from an extension campus, but he was pretty lauded.