Have you ever seen a ghost?

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Duppin

You're badly misinformed about what those Latin words mean in practice, yes.

Good job Googling the quote, though!

In any case, if you want to question the "science" of paranormal research, there's some valid questions there to be sure; but Occam's Razor isn't going to be the way to go about it.

How exactly have I, and all of those Ph.D. authors I have referenced misunderstood the quote?

Let's take a look from one shall we?

"As we've seen hypotheses often explain phenomena by assuming that certain entities exist. The simplicity criterion tells us that, other things being equal, the fewer assumptions a theory makes, the better it is. When searing for an explanation, then, it's wise to cleave to the principle known as Occam's Razor (in honor of the medieval philosopher, William of Occam, who formulated it): Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. In other words, assume no more than is required to explain the phenomenon in question."

So, you're going to tell me that a hitherto unknown entity acting through hitherto unknown means composed of a hitherto unknown substance makes fewer assumptions than "it's a trick of light" or "someone set it up like that".

I'm sorry but I feel pretty comfortable in my vast, vast misunderstandings of simplicity, parsimony, and Occam's Razor given that the entire literature catalogue of modern philosophy agrees with me.

If we were to take your definition of Occam's Razor then "God did it" is a better explanation than evolution.

edit: Entity is a word often used in philosophy to mean "a causal agent" substitute that if you'd like.

edit 2: That quote is actually from another book "How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age" Theodre Schick, Jr and Lewis Vaugn, which was used because I have the section on the criteria of adequacy bookmarked in it.

edit 3: Hempel addresses the difficulty in defining simplicity and how it can be defined on page 40 of Philosophy of Natural Science

[vurt]

I hope Duppin's coming back with another serving of bullshit.

[Gryeyes]

While I agree with the general sentiment, there are a few odd ends here. People spotting giant hairy men in the Himilayas and North America were not indications of gorillas. Sure, people who came back from Africa swearing they'd seen giant hairy men probably were seeing gorillas, but the Yeti and Sasquatch weren't spotted in Africa. Those cryptids never panned out -- they were products of bears, imagination, and hearsay. Also, wtf is with"decades"?

A long time ago before gorillas had been discovered by "western" civilization there was rumors of large hairy men monster. Nobody had ever seen something like that before and nobody had a body or hard evidence so it was a myth...like bigfoot today. After awhile they eventually captured one or found a body (this story is from the hip i dont recall the specifics) and it became an accepted part of the mainstream. Thats what the reference was towards. The things that were just rumor and myth being discovered. Not a direct relation to fucking bigfoot. And i was wrong it wasnt decades. It was 1000 years before gorillas were substantiated.

Sprites are a better example, I guess. Except there were solid scientific theories predicting the phenomenon well before they were documented, and that's something ghosts certainly do not have going for them.

Theories did exist at that time but they were not mainstream nor was the phenomena something "expected" nor understood. People attempted to find them for a very long time. I dont recall off the top of my head but i believe its 50+ years. Regardless there are also many "theory" predicting any number of fucking things. Changes nothing.

And... then you say that technology will never fully encompass human perception. Why? How are you so sure?

No i didnt. I i said its fucking stupid to assume that it CURRENTLY does. In response to the claim "if it existed our technology could perceive it". There was never any vague reference to the potential of technology.

You're confusing the difference between belief and faith. I believe chairs exist because they support my weight when I sit on them (amongst other reasons). Belief in chairs is different than faith in chairs.

Im very aware of the distinction between information,knowledge,belief and faith. I think the confusion is a combination of me typing in a rambling manner stoned and yourself being partially fucking retarded.

Belief that ghosts don't exist is based on empirical evidence (or the lack thereof); belief that ghosts do exist is based on nothing but faith.

Now thats a stupid fucking assumption. Just because something hasn't been empirical substantiated by mainstream science automatically means any belief in the matter is faith? Personal experience and hearsay is considered pretty compelling to most people in the real world. And while you may not have any personal experience that you can use as evidence to base a belief on. Nor swayed by hearsay its stupid to assume EVERYONE else's basis MUST be based on pure blind faith.

See, this is the crux of the problem. You most certainly can claim that something is possible though not probable. Ghosts are possible, though not probable. Akin to the "Russell passage", if some pollster on the street asked me to choose whether I think ghosts do, don't, or might exist, I'd choose "don't". If they asked me to expound my answer, I'd add that I'm not positively confident that they do not exist, but the short answer properly expresses my sentiment.

Ok with ya.

And here we are. This bit is exactly why I quoted the "Russell passage". It elucidates the fact that the "fundamental difference between an atheist, agnostic, and a theist" is not clear. As I pointed out, most atheists are, technically, agnostics. We take that extra step into atheism because it best relates our feelings on the subject. God could exist, but it doesn't look likely.

Strange i got something completely different from the passage. It appeared to me he was an agnostic in the strict deffinition of the term. Because he takes a neutral position on any unknown.From the Christian god to geek pantheon he takes the same stance. But was trying to say a neutral stance doesn't imply that the subject has particular merit. Hes as neutral to that lizardmen live on pluto as he is to the concept of god. And so for convenience sake in casual company its easier to just say athiest than explain the subtle distinction of his agnosticism. But that distinction is fundamental and does in fact exist.

Id also have to disagree that most atheist are agnostics. Most atheists "disbelieve" in god as a reaction to religion. And not because its a better philosophical position. They disdain religion so they disbelieve in god.

How can you even try to scientifically evaluate the undetectable miniature hippos living in my closet when you have no idea how they function?

Yes my dim friend thats the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT

See what I did there? You're treating telekinesis as if it were an actual phenomenon and mocking this guy for attempting to understand it, much like my hippos. You're starting from the notion that this is real and lacks explanation, rather than it not requiring explanation because there's no phenomenon to explain.

No i was mocking him for attempting to apply "science" to something that exists outside of its scope.
You have 0 information to base a scientific justification for why the possiblity is not possible. Its just like attempting to scientifically justify why pink hippos dont exist. The scientific justification is that there is no objective evidence to evaluate. Not that its not possible due to the constraints of the known physics.

Im getting kinda sad i have to explain things that would be readily apparent if you read the fucking thread. Earlier someone decried the paranormal for there was not one viable scientific study. So i produced this link Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

A scientific study in relation to telekinesis (and other stuff). Sadly its not peer reviewed because they REFUSED to review it. But its a far cry above "pseudoscience" so critique of it aside i think its at least a presentable source. While also off topic i dont believe you read back far enough so i just posted it to save me having to explain later.

You learn it.

Oh i think i got it down pretty good.

I'll admit. When I first replied to this post, I didn't read what you wrote before. Now I have context, and now I see you're just retarded.

Your inability to distinguish between belief and faith and loose grasp of the distinction between atheism and agnosticism has been covered.

Its like im taking crazy pills. I have never seen someone so consistently not know what they are talking about as yourself. On almost every single point you have addressed you have not the vaguest idea whats going on. And while i will take responsibility for typing in a horridly confusing fashion. There is no excusing just how fucking stupid you are. You didnt even know the topic till you had posted 3-4 times. jesus fucking christ.

If you didn't want religious connotations, you should have gone with the more generic terms I'd named earlier.

I thought it would be evident that the example of had no bearing on religion and was an example to illustrate the distinction of position. I only said it 4-5 fucking times. Your Russel quotation that yourself barely understands. Is also completely irrelevant to the topic. But since you cant be bothered to read before responding and wanted to quote someone important, and camouflage the fact you barely even knew what was being discussed you thought would fit right in.

Atheism,agnosticism and theism are well known examples of the three positions i was explaining. They are even better examples because both belief in god and belief in ghosts are based on dick for objective evidence so it translates over pretty well. Obviously a little to well since it baffled you and im having to explain it for the 10th time.

I can't tell whether your double negative there is intentional or a product of your poor grasp of grammar.

Haha while it is a double negative linguistically im not sure how else to express a belief in the absence of something other than using a double negative.

So here's the rundown: your problem, and this is the problem that I started with in my first reply, is that there is no clear distinction between belief, agnosticism, and unbelief

Yes there is a clear distinction ive explained it in detail. Agnosticism is a BELIEF that either the knowledge is unknowable, or that is just currently unknown. An Atheist BELIEVES that god(s) does not exist. Belief means the obvious. Keeping up so far?

I can't believe I had to go all this way to come back to the same place. Russell was cleary stating that while technically he's agnostic about the existence of God, just because you can't disprove something is no basis for belief in it. Replace "God" with "ghosts" and we've got her licked.

Oh i understand. But that has no fucking bearing on anything im talking about. I never even hinted a lack of disproof (whatever the fuck that would be) was grounds to believe. I was merely saying there is a distinction between "i dont know" and "no it doesnt".

I am rather impressed on how you could be so absolutely lost and confused. Yet still have the fortitude to "refute" me for 2 pages. Leaping from point to point like a retarded monkey not having the vaguest fucking idea whats going on. My hats off sir.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

wasnt there a law passed in canada declaring bigfoot an endangered species and illegal to hunt? does that mean bigfoot is real?

No. Just no.

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

stuff

I can't help to feel that it is somewhat odd that for someone calling himself agnostic (or if you prefer being neutral to the "unknown"), you do spend a lot of energy claiming disbelievers can't know while you're eating up stories with a spoon / defending them 8).

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by slitz

I can't help to feel that it is somewhat odd that for someone calling himself agnostic (or if you prefer being neutral to the "unknown"), you do spend a lot of energy claiming disbelievers can't know while you're eating up stories with a spoon / defending them 8).

Sorry im not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean to say that im defending the "believers"? And eating up the ghost stories with a spoon? Id be amazed if you could explain that assertion.

[Dumar]

Originally Posted by Zuuljin

stuff

let me try to rephrase it another way. the modern scientific principle has come about over the past 500 years. we had methods before, but the 16th century onward is when the methods started to become discrete directions concerning how to explain and solve problems relating to the world in which we live. this way of thinking has been used with GREAT success to explain OBSERVED (and even inferred) phenomena from copernicus, newton, up to einstein and et al.

i am posing to you that this method of thinking is NOT adequate to explain ALL phenomena in the universe. maybe it can grow to be able to model all (as humans grow), but currently, it is not sufficient. actually, it is woefully inefficient in so many areas it's almost laughable to claim, based on science, that ghosts do not exist.

you have physicists arguing over so many different FUNDAMENTAL aspects of reality that it's even more laughable to claim something that ghosts do or do not exist based on scientific principle.

i was educated in science, and i use it everyday. i use it like my plunger. both work well, but they're both tools and have limits. these limits are forever bound by human perception and cognition. should one day humans sprout wings and hop across the universe, then my plunger will also be able, just like science.

ps, the girl on ghosthunters is hot. =P

[slitz]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Sorry im not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean to say that im defending the "believers"? And eating up the ghost stories with a spoon? Id be amazed if you could explain that assertion.

I'm saying you're spending a lot of energy arguing with disbelievers for someone that claims to be neutral.

[Zuuljin]

Originally Posted by Dumar

i am posing to you that this method of thinking is NOT adequate to explain ALL phenomena in the universe. maybe it can grow to be able to model all (as humans grow), but currently, it is not sufficient. actually, it is woefully inefficient in so many areas it's almost laughable to claim, based on science, that ghosts do not exist.

I agree with this. I took the original statement I responded too as ghosts/god/whatever are out of our scope, so there is no point in trying to figure them out, as we will never learn about them due to us only being stuck with our limited perception and cognition.

[Salshun]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

wasnt there a law passed in canada declaring bigfoot an endangered species and illegal to hunt? does that mean bigfoot is real?

I believe California & Washington State have similar laws. Sadly plugging one is probably the only way we'll ever prove they exist.

I think the problem is that Bigfoot IS blurry and that's extra scary. Theirs a large, out of focus creature roaming the countryside.

[Pankeleonn]

MOAR STORIES WHO GIVES A FLYING BATFUCK IF THEY ARE REAL OR NOT!

[vurt]

Haha Gryeyes. It's getting harder to take you seriously.

I'd go over your entire post but, really, it's just not worth it.

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Strange i got something completely different from the passage. It appeared to me he was an agnostic in the strict deffinition of the term. Because he takes a neutral position on any unknown.From the Christian god to geek pantheon he takes the same stance. But was trying to say a neutral stance doesn't imply that the subject has particular merit. Hes as neutral to that lizardmen live on pluto as he is to the concept of god. And so for convenience sake in casual company its easier to just say athiest than explain the subtle distinction of his agnosticism. But that distinction is fundamental and does in fact exist.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read much of Bertrand Russell. He was an atheist. He did not take a neutral position on the notion of God. He is agnostic in the sense that, technically, you cannot definitively argue the non-existence of God; in the same way that you cannot definitively argue the non-existence of the "geek pantheon" or lizardmen on Pluto. Just because you can't positively discount Zeus or lizardmen does not warrant them any credence. He is not neutral in the sense that he thinks it's equally possible that God, ghosts, or geek pantheons do or don't exist. He is clearly leaning towards the belief that, since there's no reason to believe in such things, you probably shouldn't believe in them.

You know, to me, my explanation and your interpretation before it are really not that drastically different. I think our disagreement lies in your thinking that just because you can't positively disprove something, you should take a "neutral position"; whereas my interpretation is that you can't completely discount any idea (because, really, is there anything at all that you can be 100% certain about?), and while anything's possible, not everything's probable.

Sorry boss, but you've got some reading to do.

[Dumar]

one certainly has the RIGHT to use scientific reasoning to come to the conclusion that certain things such as god or ghosts do not exist. i have the right to patch my roof with my plunger, as well. it might take me awhile, and the roof will still leak something nasty, but at least i'll have the confidence in knowing that i applied the use of the plunger to fixing the roof.

concerning invisible poo monkeys, lizards on pluto, and santa claus vs god and ghosts. this one is easy. existence exists, and that's evidence of SOMETHING, whether you interpret that as god, poo monkeys, or the infinite cosmos rand() is up to you, but existence does exist.

[James]

Originally Posted by Eomer

No. Just no.

And yet you still eat Poutine. That is some rank, disgusting shit Eomer, and you should know better. It's like chowing down on maggot flavored DOG SHIT and telling me you just need to add a little tabasco to make it better. FUCK. THAT. This isn't some bullshit fucking Dr. Seuss shit here either, I won't eat Poutine when threatened with a bomb, I won't eat Poutine out of your mom's gaping fucking pussy. Fuck you, and the Poutine you rode in on.

[Salshun]

On the subject at hand I really can't believe in ghosts based simply on how the choose to manifest and show themselves. If things as omnipresent, powerful, and eternal as undead manifestations exist I refuse to believe they spend their existence haunting the men's bathroom of a Sizzler's. I know for damn sure if I died and God said "Before we let you in, you gotta do a 15 year stint scaring kids at a Chucky-Cheese I'd be a little pissed off.