|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 19:29:25 GMT -5
How many ghost hunting TV shows have there been? Half a dozen? Ya know the funny thing about these shows is...they've never found anything. It's always just someone thinking something touched them or heard a noise etc.
I remain skeptical about whether ghosts exist or not, but these shows are nothing but a gimmick.
And don't even get me started on the Bigfoot hunting shows...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 20:03:12 GMT -5
How many ghost hunting TV shows have there been? Half a dozen? Ya know the funny thing about these shows is... they've never found anything. It's always just someone thinking something touched them or heard a noise etc. I remain skeptical about whether ghosts exist or not, but these shows are nothing but a gimmick. And don't even get me started on the Bigfoot hunting shows... Considerably more than that, I'm sure. Another great benefit (out of a near-infinite number) of not having cable is never having the chance to stumble across one even by happenstance. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 12, 2014 21:04:08 GMT -5
Fascinating debate. I haven't kept up with every post, but I hope someone's brought up those spectral cameras that were developed in the 1990s which could photograph an amputee, even years after the amputation had been performed, and the missing appendage would still show in the image. Last I heard, there was no explanation that could be offered for WHY this happened, but it did. Proof that there are more things in Heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. The Scientific Method, the assumption that anything that cannot be seen or demonstrated is likely not there, is itself a faith that, by its very nature, lacks empirical evidence to substantiate itself. When you get right down to it, these types of discussions ultimately touch upon questions of worldview and foundational assumptions about reality -- in other words, belief systems. And I think if we're being honest, belief system are often formed through non-rational means -- trusted authority (parents, teachers, clergy), emotional reactions to our circumstances, etc. This is not to say that every aspect of our belief systems is non-rational, and I'm sure that many people reach certain positions based, at least in part, on careful examination of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation. But, if I may humbly submit, I think it's naive to ignore the huge role that non-rational factors play in us forming our beliefs. Humans are complex creatures, not deterministic machines, and we believe things for all sorts of reasons, both rational and non-rational. I would add that this applies equally to people who believe in ghosts just because they've seen one as well as scientific naturalists who demand that all claims be subjected to rigorous scientific inquiry. I've given a lot of thought to this "meta-issue" because, while our immediate context is the topic of ghosts (which doesn't concern me so much), many of the same issues come up in discussions of religion -- the existence of God, belief in miracles, etc. -- something which I have discussed at great length and have keen interest in. I've come to the position that at some point or another, disagreements between two parties regarding these types of claims usually have more to do with differences in worldview and foundational assumptions than it does with the facts or evidence itself, since how we interpret the facts or evidence is determined by our belief systems. As an example of this, I once witnessed a debate between a theist and an atheist. The atheist asked, if there really was a god, why wouldn't he/she/it simply do something incredibly miraculous right now and give us good reason to believe that a god existed -- for example, cause the chair he was sitting on to levitate? The theist made the point that, even if something like that were to happen, which was more likely -- that the atheist would admit to the existence of a god, or that the atheist would claim that there must be some rational, scientific explanation to the very strange thing that they just observed? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 12, 2014 21:20:32 GMT -5
Fascinating debate. I haven't kept up with every post, but I hope someone's brought up those spectral cameras that were developed in the 1990s which could photograph an amputee, even years after the amputation had been performed, and the missing appendage would still show in the image. Last I heard, there was no explanation that could be offered for WHY this happened, but it did. Proof that there are more things in Heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. The Scientific Method, the assumption that anything that cannot be seen or demonstrated is likely not there, is itself a faith that, by its very nature, lacks empirical evidence to substantiate itself. When you get right down to it, these types of discussions ultimately touch upon questions of worldview and foundational assumptions about reality -- in other words, belief systems. And I think if we're being honest, belief system are often formed through non-rational means -- trusted authority (parents, teachers, clergy), emotional reactions to our circumstances, etc. This is not to say that every aspect of our belief systems is non-rational, and I'm sure that many people reach certain positions based, at least in part, on careful examination of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation. But, if I may humbly submit, I think it's naive to ignore the huge role that non-rational factors play in us forming our beliefs. Humans are complex creatures, not deterministic machines, and we believe things for all sorts of reasons, both rational and non-rational. I would add that this applies equally to people who believe in ghosts just because they've seen one as well as scientific naturalists who demand that all claims be subjected to rigorous scientific inquiry. I've given a lot of thought to this "meta-issue" because, while our immediate context is the topic of ghosts (which doesn't concern me so much), many of the same issues come up in discussions of religion -- the existence of God, belief in miracles, etc. -- something which I have discussed at great length and have keen interest in. I've come to the position that at some point or another, disagreements between two parties regarding these types of claims usually have more to do with differences in worldview and foundational assumptions than it does with the facts or evidence itself, since how we interpret the facts or evidence is determined by our belief systems. As an example of this, I once witnessed a debate between a theist and an atheist. The atheist asked, if there really was a god, why wouldn't he/she/it simply do something incredibly miraculous right now and give us good reason to believe that a god existed -- for example, cause the chair he was sitting on to levitate? The theist made the point that, even if something like that were to happen, which was more likely -- that the atheist would admit to the existence of a god, or that the atheist would claim that there must be some rational, scientific explanation to the very strange thing that they just observed? Maybe, instead of asking "is it real?" we should be asking "is it worth believing in?" That certainly would be my answer to the athiest in your example. For the thiest, the act of believing is what made believing worthwhile. So, is there a benefit to believing in ghosts and the supernatural? And is there a benefit to NOT believing in ghosts and the supernatural? Maybe those are the questions worth asking. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 12, 2014 21:47:13 GMT -5
Belief systems and their influence on individual worldviews are quite interesting as far as psychology goes, and can give us much insight into what makes people people. But when it comes to objective reality, it's a different thing: antibiotics work whether you believe in germ theory or not, the ratio between a circle's diameter and its radius is a constant whether you believe in maths or not, and believers and non-believers alike are bound to Earth by gravity.
People are probably never 100% objective, and personally I'm convinced that a little irrationality makes us more interesting creatures. However, there is such a thing as objective reality. Our own irrationality may make it harder for us to grasp it, sometimes, but it is there nevertheless.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 12, 2014 23:32:20 GMT -5
Belief systems and their influence on individual worldviews are quite interesting as far as psychology goes, and can give us much insight into what makes people people. But when it comes to objective reality, it's a different thing: antibiotics work whether you believe in germ theory or not, the ratio between a circle's diameter and its radius is a constant whether you believe in maths or not, and believers and non-believers alike are bound to Earth by gravity. People are probably never 100% objective, and personally I'm convinced that a little irrationality makes us more interesting creatures. However, there is such a thing as objective reality. Our own irrationality may make it harder for us to grasp it, sometimes, but it is there nevertheless. Antibiotics work. You can prove that. And there's a damn good reason to believe in them. But disproving a negative? No, it's not a fact that ghosts don't exist, and no amount of science can ever make that a fact, so it really is an issue of whether there's anything wrong with choosing to believe in them. Again, I'm so far on the fence that I'd just as soon move to the next yard, but I hardly see this as an open and shut case. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 13, 2014 0:44:52 GMT -5
Belief systems and their influence on individual worldviews are quite interesting as far as psychology goes, and can give us much insight into what makes people people. But when it comes to objective reality, it's a different thing: antibiotics work whether you believe in germ theory or not, the ratio between a circle's diameter and its radius is a constant whether you believe in maths or not, and believers and non-believers alike are bound to Earth by gravity. People are probably never 100% objective, and personally I'm convinced that a little irrationality makes us more interesting creatures. However, there is such a thing as objective reality. Our own irrationality may make it harder for us to grasp it, sometimes, but it is there nevertheless. To cite your statement "antibiotics work", even that statement is tied to certain foundational beliefs -- namely, that we live in an orderly universe in which natural phenomena function in a predictable fashion such that we can make reasonable inferences about their future behavior. The same for gravity. The circle example is slightly different, in that we're talking about an abstract entity rather than observable natural phenomenon, but still the same principle holds -- we accept the statement "all circles have a ratio of pi between the diameter and circumference" as true because we assume that logical conclusions follow from established premises (in this case, the definition of a circle being all points equidistant from a center point). My point with all of this is that people on both sides of the argument are appealing to certain unargued assumptions. In that sense, certain folks who demand rigorous scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena are not necessarily being any more "objective" than folks who readily believe without such evidence. I think when engaging in these types of discussions, we need to be more honest about acknowledging this. There tends to be this unspoken condescension (not saying that you are engaging in this, just that I've seen it happen often) towards those who believe in the supernatural from those who are more skeptical based on the belief that the skeptics are being more objective or rational than those who believe. That may be true in certain instances, but it's just as likely that skeptics are being irrational or biased based on their beliefs as well. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 1:07:14 GMT -5
Belief systems and their influence on individual worldviews are quite interesting as far as psychology goes, and can give us much insight into what makes people people. But when it comes to objective reality, it's a different thing: antibiotics work whether you believe in germ theory or not, the ratio between a circle's diameter and its radius is a constant whether you believe in maths or not, and believers and non-believers alike are bound to Earth by gravity. People are probably never 100% objective, and personally I'm convinced that a little irrationality makes us more interesting creatures. However, there is such a thing as objective reality. Our own irrationality may make it harder for us to grasp it, sometimes, but it is there nevertheless. To cite your statement "antibiotics work", even that statement is tied to certain foundational beliefs -- namely, that we live in an orderly universe in which natural phenomena function in a predictable fashion such that we can make reasonable inferences about their future behavior. The same for gravity. The circle example is slightly different, in that we're talking about an abstract entity rather than observable natural phenomenon, but still the same principle holds -- we accept the statement "all circles have a ratio of pi between the diameter and circumference" as true because we assume that logical conclusions follow from established premises (in this case, the definition of a circle being all points equidistant from a center point). My point with all of this is that people on both sides of the argument are appealing to certain unargued assumptions. In that sense, certain folks who demand rigorous scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena are not necessarily being any more "objective" than folks who readily believe without such evidence. I think when engaging in these types of discussions, we need to be more honest about acknowledging this. There tends to be this unspoken condescension (not saying that you are engaging in this, just that I've seen it happen often) towards those who believe in the supernatural from those who are more skeptical based on the belief that the skeptics are being more objective or rational than those who believe. That may be true in certain instances, but it's just as likely that skeptics are being irrational or biased based on their beliefs as well. While believing in the gravitational constant is not the same leap of faith that believing in ghosts is, I otherwise find your comments right on the money. A lot of very foolish people believe in ghosts, but that doesn't make believing in ghosts foolish. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 2:45:29 GMT -5
To cite your statement "antibiotics work", even that statement is tied to certain foundational beliefs -- namely, that we live in an orderly universe in which natural phenomena function in a predictable fashion such that we can make reasonable inferences about their future behavior. The same for gravity. The circle example is slightly different, in that we're talking about an abstract entity rather than observable natural phenomenon, but still the same principle holds -- we accept the statement "all circles have a ratio of pi between the diameter and circumference" as true because we assume that logical conclusions follow from established premises (in this case, the definition of a circle being all points equidistant from a center point). My point with all of this is that people on both sides of the argument are appealing to certain unargued assumptions. In that sense, certain folks who demand rigorous scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena are not necessarily being any more "objective" than folks who readily believe without such evidence. I think when engaging in these types of discussions, we need to be more honest about acknowledging this. There tends to be this unspoken condescension (not saying that you are engaging in this, just that I've seen it happen often) towards those who believe in the supernatural from those who are more skeptical based on the belief that the skeptics are being more objective or rational than those who believe. That may be true in certain instances, but it's just as likely that skeptics are being irrational or biased based on their beliefs as well. But.... the skeptics are being more objective and rational, by definition! The whole point of the skeptic / scientific / evidence-based world view is that we have a certain understanding of the world, we know a lot of rules about the way things work and that if evidence is discovered which can't be explained by the existing understanding and rules then we change our understanding and rules until the new evidence can be accomodated reliably and predictably. This is the exact opposite of what the supernaturalists do - their position is "I saw a ghost" or "I felt a presence" and therefore the supernatural exists and your puny science can't understand. The skeptic says hang on, where's the objective proof - your personal belief or interpretation of ghosts / reiki / clairvoyance / homeopathy / miscellaneous woo is not proof. But nothing the skeptic says or does will shift that belief in the supernaturalist. To take your example - if the chair levitates, the skeptic asks "how the hell did that happen", and then doesn't rest until they find out, they don't just accept that the foundations of their worldview has shifted, they examine the case to find out how the chair levitated. And amazingly, in 100% of the cases where there's enough evidence to investigate*, it turns out to be stage magic or an explainable phenomenen within the known laws of physics. (* hard to investigate something along the lines of "there was a mysterious bump" or "I felt a presence, last night") |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 3:14:45 GMT -5
This is the exact opposite of what the supernaturalists do - their position is "I saw a ghost" or "I felt a presence" and therefore the supernatural exists and your puny science can't understand. The skeptic says hang on, where's the objective proof - your personal belief or interpretation of ghosts / reiki / clairvoyance / homeopathy / miscellaneous woo is not proof. But nothing the skeptic says or does will shift that belief in the supernaturalist. That's quite a strawman. I don't see anyone in this thread espousing those attitudes. Again, foolish people believe in ghosts, but that doesn't make believing in ghosts foolish. There are intelligent, rational people who believe too, and you're not respecting that viewpoint in your summary of the argument above. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 13, 2014 3:33:23 GMT -5
If it's not foolish to believe in ghosts, because science can't 100% verify their non-existence, then it's equally not foolish to believe in Poseidon, elves, fairies, etc. Intelligence isn't a bulwark for delusion and many otherwise intelligent people still believe in gods and other such supernatural beings. When an intelligent person like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle can believe in fairies (which he did before a hoax was exposed to him) this can only be chalked up to self-delusion and perhaps even ego. I think ego plays a huge part in the belief that some deity has granted the soul cosmic significance.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 3:43:50 GMT -5
I think everyone in this thread is espousing the idea that it's intelligent to be skeptical. The problem is that we all have different ideas of what being skeptical is.
Is it intelligently skeptical to doubt that someone who claims they saw a ghost truly saw a ghost? Yes.
Is it intelligently skeptical to doubt that science can perceive and explain all natural phenomenon in all of existence and on all planes of reality? Yes.
In my mind, any rational person should be sitting up on that fence with an open mind, not convinced ghosts are an absolute truth (and certainly not believing 90% of the ghost anecdotes out there), and also not absolutely convinced that ghosts can't be possible because that's faith, not science. Again, you can't prove a negative.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2014 3:55:39 GMT -5
And lets be clear that having an open mind about ghosts is very different from believing in Poseidon or Santa Claus. Those are very specific beliefs. Ghosts are a much broader spectrum of concepts. A ghost could be your great aunt Tilly, a poltergeist, psychic residue, a merging of timelines or realities, a manifestation of a collective unconscious, etc. There are a LOT of possible explanations for what goes bump in the night, even beyond the scientifically accepted ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 13, 2014 6:54:24 GMT -5
I think everyone in this thread is espousing the idea that it's intelligent to be skeptical. The problem is that we all have different ideas of what being skeptical is. For the sake of clarity, let me say what I think being a skeptic is: requiring some form of confirmation for any kind of information before trusting it. The more unlikely-seeming the information, the more convincing the confirmation must be. Hence, "some of our posters read a comic this morning" is something I would readily accept as very likely to be true, even without direct evidence, because the many conversations we have here give plenty of circumstancial evidence that most of us read comics on a frequent basis. "One of our posters is actually Stan Lee under a pseudonym" is something I would not accept as readily, because even if it is possible that Stan would join such a distinguished group, his presence would very probably have generated all sorts of effects that we did not observe. Finally, " one of our posters is a space alien" is also something that is conceivable, but since there is no evidence that space aliens exist at all, the statement is so unlikely that, even to the extent that it can not be proven to be false, it might as well be. I agree 100%. But while some some people (intellligent and not particularly gullible) who saw a ghost are convinced that they really saw one, no scientist ever thought that science can perceive and explain all natural phenomena in all of existence and all planes of reality. Heck, we still don't even know how consciousness works, and why animals like humans and orang-utans are self-conscious while others don't seem to be. Richard Dawkins (famous biologist and nowadays atheistic polemicist) once explained that when he says "God does not exist", it is just a simpler way of saying (more accurately) "God very likely does not exist". His statement is made on the basis of available evidence, and it certainly applies to woo. I can not prove that Santa Claus does not exist, even if there is some evidence as to his being a real being; certainly enough evidence to convince most young westerners. There clearly is a North Pole, where he is supposed to live. Reindeers do exist and can be observed. Presents do appear under the tree on Christmas night. And finally, more importantly, children are told about Santa Claus and are drilled into believing in him. Believing in Santa does not make one unintelligent, given the evidence and our cultural background. But do we, as adults, keep believing? No, because we are all aware of much simpler explanations for the appearance of presents under the tree, because we accept the physical limitations of flying over the whole world in one night, and because we know reindeers can't fly anymore than plump jolly men can scarmble down a chimney. Of course, we could always say "we don't have to explain it, it's magic", but as comics fans we all know how well that works. You are correct: it's hard to prove a negative. But some ideas are so unlikely, given our experience, that even with an open mind we can safely dismiss them as being extremely, extremely, extremely close to being proven wrong. There is, for example, absolutely nothing logical in expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, to quote from a famous philosopher. Experience does say that we can trust it to happen, however, and physics tell us we can expect it to happen for a few billion years more. Is that faith? No quite: it is trust; trust based on repeated observation and on a good understanding of the process of Earthly orbit. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 13, 2014 7:06:15 GMT -5
I think everyone in this thread is espousing the idea that it's intelligent to be skeptical. The problem is that we all have different ideas of what being skeptical is. Is it intelligently skeptical to doubt that someone who claims they saw a ghost truly saw a ghost? Yes. Is it intelligently skeptical to doubt that science can perceive and explain all natural phenomenon in all of existence and on all planes of reality? Yes. In my mind, any rational person should be sitting up on that fence with an open mind, not convinced ghosts are an absolute truth (and certainly not believing 90% of the ghost anecdotes out there), and also not absolutely convinced that ghosts can't be possible because that's faith, not science. Again, you can't prove a negative. I agree that it's not rational to believe that ghosts can't be be possible, but it is rational not to believe in their supernatural nature since, looking at history and sociology as it pertains to religion and mysticism, it's a virtual certainty that the concept of the supernatural is a product of human imagination and ignorance of the laws of physics. As far as science explaining all natural phenomena, if we give that all phenomena is natural, whether or not we ever get around to actually discovering it is besides the point since there would be, by the very definition of it being natural, a measurable explanation. Yeah, that does us no good, but if we could ever concretely rule out the supernatural, we could at least at that point rest assured that everything can be explained. I think we're very close to ruling out the supernatural, and based on all the accumulative evidence I've read about in terms of science, history, etc., all arrows are pointing to the non-existence of magic. |
|
