NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9720541" data-attributes="member: 7035894">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."[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong[/URL]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.</blockquote>

Verification