Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[gban007]

Yup. They're two very different questions: "Does alien life exist?" and, "Have we been visited by aliens?" If we assume that intelligent life is a fairly rare thing then we live in a detection bubble that is roughly 249 light years across (first radio signal sent in Dec. 1901). The odds of anyone hearing us are vanishingly small. The odds of that signal being interesting enough to follow up on even smaller, I would say.

My assumption is that intelligent life isn't a viable survival strategy, anyway, if it tends to result in a species like us.

Have you read the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts? An interesting read which raises questions with a different spin on the above.

 

[Ryujin]

Have you read the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts? An interesting read which raises questions with a different spin on the above.

I haven't read it, but I have heard of it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sorry, but step 4 isn't possible until your friend clearly defines what "ghost" means in quantifiable terms. Otherwise, you can't even know what the variables are. So they've already failed to pass step 3.

You can't build a hypothesis off of a supernatural entity. This is why "God did it" can never be science. Same thing goes for ghosts.

I teach a Theory of Knowledge unit on the scientific method, BTW, though I appreciate your explanation.

I think you are focusing on the wrong step. I am not convinced that a rigorous definition of "ghost" is needed to do science on them or that lack of such a definition is the problem in studying the phenomenon. The real issue is step 1 (observation). We cannot reliably observe ghosts. This is the biggest impediment to observing ghosts and similar phenomenon.
If we could observe them, we could at least gather some statistics and perhaps delimit some boundaries to the phenomenon.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think you are focusing on the wrong step. I am not convinced that a rigorous definition of "ghost" is needed to do science on them or that lack of such a definition is the problem in studying the phenomenon. The real issue is step 1 (observation). We cannot reliably observe ghosts. This is the biggest impediment to observing ghosts and similar phenomenon.
If we could observe them, we could at least gather some statistics and perhaps delimit some boundaries to the phenomenon.

If you don't know what it is, how would you know if you had observed it?

 

[Morrus]

The thing is, we don't even know if the universe is infinite. We are trapped inside a relatively small (but actually immense) bubble outside of which we cannot know anything. And as time passes, that bubble will turn smaller and more stuff will be outside.

Actually, the bubble will get larger-but yes, more stuff will move outside it. It will gradually become a larger, emptier bubble.

I think you are focusing on the wrong step. I am not convinced that a rigorous definition of "ghost" is needed to do science on them or that lack of such a definition is the problem in studying the phenomenon. The real issue is step 1 (observation). We cannot reliably observe ghosts.

If they existed, we could.

This is the biggest impediment to observing ghosts and similar phenomenon.

Their lack of existence? It’s quite the impediment to observation!

Yeah, I know, I’m being facetious.

 

[Umbran]

The main point of your argument assumes a steady state of the universe. The original stars (and the first ones after them) didn't have planets and were made of only hydrogen and helium.

Sure, but that first generation was short.

Current estimates are that, in our own galaxy, in the galaxy's habitable zone, there are tens of billions of G-type stars like our sun, with rocky worlds in the star's habitable zone.

And, on average, those other stars and their planets are a billion years older than our own. They have a billion years head start.

And, we arguably have only been an "intelligent" species for 300k years.

With tens of billions of candidates. And a billion extra years of time, and no known specific mechanism to delay development on a galactic scale, yeah, the odds are their technological civilization is older than ours. Sorry.

Even if they are older, nothing guaranties they have discovered what is functionally magic.

"Guarantee" is your word. Nobody here has claimed it is guaranteed. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If you don't know what it is, how would you know if you had observed it?

If the ghost can be reliably made to appear for any given witness, then we can begin to scientifically study ghosts. We used fire for a lot longer before we had any scientific understanding of what fire is and could define what fire is.

The common understanding of ghosts is sufficient to start if the phenomenon was something that reliably happened.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the ghost can be reliably made to appear for any given witness, then we can begin to scientifically study ghosts.

You still haven't said what a ghost is. If we don't know what it is, we cannot say if it's reliably appearing. How do you tell the difference between a ghost, a fairy and a UFO?

We used fire for a lot longer before we had any scientific understanding of what fire is and could define what fire is.

Sure, people use things without understanding them all the time. But we aren't talking about using ghosts.

The common understanding of ghosts is sufficient to start if the phenomenon was something that reliably happened.

I'm pretty sure that's only true in fantasy RPGs.

 

[Rabulias]

As proof, we are dumber than our ancestors from before agriculture, and the advent of AI and other pocketable high technology is making us dumber.

I think you may be conflating intelligence with knowledge. They are different things.

If you took one of our pre-agriculture ancestors and me and dropped us both into the wilderness, the ancestor would have more relevant knowledge to help them to survive. Physically our brains would be the same, and have the same capacity for learning and understanding.

People in modern societies don't need to know how to avoid predators in the savanna, or memorize what berries are safe to eat, or when to migrate south, etc. We are able to then learn and think about other things. We have schools that children, freed from working for day-to-day survival, can attend and learn massive amounts of knowledge in a relatively short amount of time (compared to the amount of time it took to develop that knowledge). It's why we have cars and rockets and the Internet today. But a child of that pre-agriculture ancestor has the same capacity to learn as a child today.

People today may sometimes appear to squander all their "learning capacity" on less than practical or useful knowledge, but that does not make them less intelligent.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Actually, the bubble will get larger-but yes, more stuff will move outside it. It will gradually become a larger, emptier bubble.

If they existed, we could.

Their lack of existence? It’s quite the impediment to observation!

Yeah, I know, I’m being facetious.

You are being facetious but you are also assuming the negative. An essentially unprovable position. Not an unreasonable one, mind you.
The thing is, I have met people that have claimed to have seen a ghost, also met someone that was with someone else that claimed to see a ghost while they were present but saw nothing themselves.
I believe them, believe they were sincere. Did they see spirits of the dead? I personally doubt it. Was the thing they saw really there or in their mind? I have no idea.