Do we know ghosts don't exist

[British Sceptic]

Can we be emphatically sure ghosts do not exist and if so how?

Regards,

Den ::)

[SimonC]

Can we be emphatically sure ghosts do not exist and if so how?

Regards,

Den ::)

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

[darkwinter]

No, we cannot - for a given value of "emphatically sure", anyway. We can, however, make hypotheses justified on the strength of evidence already gathered. One of those hypotheses is that it is at this stage quite unlikely that ghosts - as popularly conceived - exist. This has far more probability behind it than the opposing hypothesis which would require the existence of a non-corporeal element to life which has yet to be even suggested by the evidence.

Occam's Razor don'tya know.

[darkwinter]

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

By detonating the Sun? It's my hypothesis that this would remove the possibility of there being a china teapot in orbit around it.

Next stage: testing.

[SimonC]

By detonating the Sun? It's my hypothesis that this would remove the possibility of there being a china teapot in orbit around it.

Next stage: testing.

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

;D;D;D

[darkwinter]

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

;D;D;D

;D Win.

[SimonC]

;D Win.

Kudos for your t-shirt. It's very, very good. O0:smiley:

[Jack of Kent]

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

All the china teapots on Earth are orbitting the sun...

[darkwinter]

All the china teapots on Earth are orbitting the sun...

Woohoo! Semantics! O0

I still say detonating the Sun will make sure there are none there.

[John Jackson]

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

Ah! Russell's teapot.

You know, I don't really like this one as an argument. The reason being that it is actually a scientific argument because it is potentially falsifiable.

It's really an illustration of the impracticality of testing some claims rather than its intended purpose of illustrating that you can't disprove a universal negative.

If we could build a powerful 'teapot detector' we could actually prove that one isn't there.

Regarding the OP: if something doesn't exist it's impossible to prove that it doesn't as, by definition, there could never be any evidence to test.

[SimonC]

Ah! Russell's teapot.

You know, I don't really like this one as an argument. The reason being that it is actually a scientific argument because it is potentially falsifiable.

It's really an illustration of the impracticality of testing some claims rather than its intended purpose of illustrating that you can't disprove a universal negative.

If we could build a powerful 'teapot detector' we could actually prove that one isn't there.

Regarding the OP: if something doesn't exist it's impossible to prove that it doesn't as, by definition, there could never be any evidence to test.

Well yeah, fair enough, Russell's proposition is somewhat anachronisitic, and perhaps logically flawed in absolute terms. I simply take it as an illustration of the principal of proving something empirically, rather than demanding that something should be disproven.

Perhaps I should sustitute 'invisible, intangible, undetectable unicorns living on the dark side of the moon', or something similar, for 'teapot'. I do, however, think that Russell's statement illustrates the point rather more elegantly.

eta - I also thought that, in the context of the O/P, Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) was a reasonably succinct way of getting to the point.

[SimonC]

All the china teapots on Earth are orbitting the sun...

Pedant.

And so is Alister McGrath for trying to one-up Richard Dawkins with the same point!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

What is a ghost?

[Pebble]

What is a ghost?


Precisely, having not defined the problem how can one propose a solution?

[Mulder]

If you define a 'ghost' as someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for (ie. that person should not be present because they are physically elsewhere, dead or don't actually exist) then I think we can emphatically say that ghosts DO exist! There are many such experiences recorded with many different causes (misperception and hallucination being prominent ones).

[darkwinter]

If you define a 'ghost' as someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for (ie. that person should not be present because they are physically elsewhere, dead or don't actually exist) then I think we can emphatically say that ghosts DO exist! There are many such experiences recorded with many different causes (misperception and hallucination being prominent ones).

It's a possibility, but I don't think that's the definition that immediately springs to mind when people hear "ghost"; normally it seems to refer to an entity of some kind, rather than an experience. The word "haunting" seems to fit the above definition more, and under that definition it would be hard to deny that there have been hauntings recorded in the past.

[Mulder]

I am drawing my definition from practical experience rather than popular mythology and fiction. :smiley:

[Mongrel]

The common definition disagrees (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ghost), haunting (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/haunting)seems to fit your explanation better. O0

[Mulder]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

[darkwinter]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

Perhaps what the semantic debate can do for us is simply motivate a reframing of the question. The original "Do we know ghosts don't exist?" is misleading in a way (as we have seen), and if we simply try instead to answer the question "How do we explain 'haunting' experiences?" we can get to the interesting part of the discussion without the detour into defining a metaphysical phenomenon.

I've not done nearly enough research on the matter to be able to weigh in on this question myself, though - and I know there are a few on this forum who have, so I think I'll just sit back and read with interest. ::)

[Mike Hall]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

Is that definition really practical or useful when discussing ghosts? I would have thought that the majority of people would have the understanding that by 'ghost' one means 'spirit of the dead'. To redefine 'ghost' in the way you have will only lead to equivocation problems further down the line. I could easily imagine a newspaper editor running astory - "Skeptics claim evidence shows ghosts DO exist!" - but where we would be talking about evidence for ghosts as you define them, the majority of readers would have the understanding that we were discussing "spirits of the dead".

Surely better to come up with a new term, say "ghostoid", to refer to "the experience of a human or animal presence which cannot be immediately physically accounted for". Possible causes of ghostoid experiences could include an encounter with the spirit of a dead person (for which we would require extraordinary evidence), or simply hallucination, waking dream, mistake, deliberate hoax, etc.

[darkwinter]

Surely better to come up with a new term, say "ghostoid", to refer to "the experience of a human or animal presence which cannot be immediately physically accounted for". Possible causes of ghostoid experiences could include an encounter with the spirit of a dead person (for which we would require extraordinary evidence), or simply hallucination, waking dream, mistake, deliberate hoax, etc.

Not sure we need a new word where we already have one. "Haunting". Reframe the question as per my previous post and the semantic debate dissolves.

[Mike Hall]

Not sure we need a new word where we already have one. "Haunting". Reframe the question as per my previous post and the semantic debate dissolves.

Well, the word itself is unimportant. What is important is that we have a term to refer to ghost-like experiences that won't be mistaken by other people as implying that the spirits of dead people can come back from the afterlife.

Do you not think that "haunting" suffers from the same problem as "ghost"? In that it is generally used to refer to a returned spirit which is tied to a particular location, item or person?

"Skeptics claim evidence shows house is haunted"

[Mulder]

"Skeptics claim evidence shows ghosts DO exist!"

I have no problem with that! Ghosts, as a reported experience, certainly exist. The problem of the definition of the word ghost is actually central to the whole skewed public perception of ghosts. The common definition is fine for fiction and tabloid journalists but it simply doesn't agree with reality.

If I see the figure of a human standing motionless and expressionless outside my window and it suddenly vanishes, I would be entitled to call it a ghost. However, I have no right to say it is a spirit as I have no evidence that it is.

The ghost of the movies interacts freely with their environment and human observers. It behaves as if it were a spirit - something still 'alive' in some sense. Fictional ghosts exhibit character, personality and motivations. Real ghosts generally (except in a few cases which are probably entirely hallucinatory) do not exhibit any of these. They are simply there and then they are gone (not always vanishing - sometimes just walking away). They generally do not interact with observers or show any awareness of them. They recall much more a hallucination or misperception than a spirit.

[darkwinter]

Well, the word itself is unimportant. What is important is that we have a term to refer to ghost-like experiences that won't be mistaken by other people as implying that the spirits of dead people can come back from the afterlife.

Do you not think that "haunting" suffers from the same problem as "ghost"? In that it is generally used to refer to a returned spirit which is tied to a particular location, item or person?

"Skeptics claim evidence shows house is haunted"

Do you not think they might do the same with "ghostoid"? The problem is in the public perception of the phenomenon. Whatever word is used it seems likely that the media would report it in the same fashion.

[Mike Hall]

I have no problem with that! Ghosts, as a reported experience, certainly exist. The problem of the definition of the word ghost is actually central to the whole skewed public perception of ghosts. The common definition is fine for fiction and tabloid journalists but it simply doesn't agree with reality.

I won't disagree that ghosts, as a reported experience, exist. What I'm trying to say is that a "ghost" is an explanation, not a problem. Someone encounters something they can't explain and claims it was a ghost. "Ghost", surely, is their explanation for the experience, not their description of it?

[darkwinter]

So much for avoiding the semantic debate.

We can agree that these experiences, whatever name you want to attach to them, do happen. Surely the more worthwhile question is to ask what causes them, not which name should be used to refer to them.

[Mike Hall]

Do you not think they might do the same with "ghostoid"? The problem is in the public perception of the phenomenon. Whatever word is used it seems likely that the media would report it in the same fashion.

Perhaps. I think there is an understanding that the -oid postfix means something which bears a resemblance but is not actually the same as. Popularised through science fiction, of course, where humanoid doesn't mean human. Dawkins attempted for a while to popularise the term 'designoid' to refer to objects which appear to be designed but which are in fact products of nature.

Whatever -- as I say the word itself is not be important. What I think is important is that we have a term to describe the phenomena of ghost-like experiences which cannot be misunderstood as an implicit endorsement of the existence of spirits of the dead.

Actually, even "ghost-like experiences" would do! :)

[Mike Hall]

So much for avoiding the semantic debate.

We can agree that these experiences, whatever name you want to attach to them, do happen. Surely the more worthwhile question is to ask what causes them, not which name should be used to refer to them.

Yes, I think we can agree on that - but the question wasn't about the experiences, was it?

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"

That could be answered as "do we know that spirits of the dead don't exist" (answer: there is insufficient evidence to support that) or "do we know that people do not experience ghost-like events" (answer: We agree that ghost-like events do happen).

We need to be sure we answer the right question so that a) our answer is not misconstrued and used to misrepresent our position and b) we aren't misrepresenting the person asking the question by answering something they didn't ask us. :)

[Dr B]

Is now a good time to point out that science is probabilisitc and not deterministic and that the question itself is loaded and flawed - because it begs a specific perverse answer in the first instance. :undecided:

[darkwinter]

Is now a good time to point out that science is probabilisitc and not deterministic and that the question itself is loaded and flawed - because it begs a specific perverse answer in the first instance. :undecided:

Hence my attempts to reframe the question. There must be a way of asking it that avoids this kind of problem.

[Tim the Mage]

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"


To know ghosts exist we have to change the usual definition? If there is no 'spirit' of the living, how can there be a 'spirit' of the dead?

I find most of Mulder's arguments still make sense if I substitute the word, 'fairy', for the word 'ghost'. Does this mean that fairies exist?

[Dr B]

Hence my attempts to reframe the question.

but then....you already have your answer :cheesy:

[Mulder]

I find most of Mulder's arguments still make sense if I substitute the word, 'fairy', for the word 'ghost'. Does this mean that fairies exist?

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades. Also, many such reports are not first hand and so may fall more into the folklore category. So, I don't think you can equate fairies and ghosts. People are reporting ghosts right now whereas very few are reporting fairies. Maybe the fairies took to piloting UFOs ....

[Mike Hall]

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades. Also, many such reports are not first hand and so may fall more into the folklore category. So, I don't think you can equate fairies and ghosts.

Then substitute bigfoot, the loch ness monster or chupacabra for fairies ;)

[Tim the Mage]

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades.


It's not really so very odd - if I say to somebody; "I saw some fairies on the road thorugh the woods", they think I'm mad. If however I say; "I saw a ghost on the road through the woods"; their ears prick up and they get all interested.

If we thought that seeing ghosts was as daft as seeing fairies we'd have to think of another word for ghosts...

I do however take your point about UFOs - when ever a sighting of spaceships is reported to me I always suggest that it was in fact Will 'O the Wisp or Lack 'O Lantern!

[Mulder]

At one time, a century or two ago perhaps, reporting a fairy would not have seemed any stranger than reporting a ghost, especially in country areas.

[Tim the Mage]

At one time, a century or two ago perhaps, reporting a fairy would not have seemed any stranger than reporting a ghost, especially in country areas.

...as those of us who love the story of the Cottingley Fairies know well. When you look at the photos you wonder why anyone was taken in.


http://lesalon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/fairies.jpg

[lazerustheduck]

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?" If you can answer the statement "do we know we exist" with a 100% certainty, then that could lead to the start of your question.

[Pebble]

If you can answer the statement "do we know we exist" with a 100% certainty, then that could lead to the start of your question.


If we knew ghosts existed the question posed would be redundant. The real question is are we 100% certain of their non existence, and if not what degree of certainty can we attribute to this proposition.

[lazerustheduck]

If we knew ghosts existed the question posed would be redundant. The real question is are we 100% certain of their non existence, and if not what degree of certainty can we attribute to this proposition.If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

[SimonC]

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

If you were to doubt your own existence, lazerustheduck, then you would also have to doubt the existence of me, and anyone else you communicate with.

If you maintain that you do not exist you would, therefore, be communicating with nonexistent people. To do this could not be the action of a rational being.

So, you have to dismiss the possibility that you do not exist in order to justify the rationality of your own statements about anything. Including existence.

The subjective-idealist argument is as self-refuting as the nihilist, philosophical stance.

[Mongrel]

The subjective-idealist argument is as self-refuting as the nihilist, philosophical stance.

I always preferred the 'Teaching Stick' method.

Take one large, pointy stick, aka Teaching Stick
Prod philosopher repeatedly
Taunt prodee by mentioning that if they create or shape their own reality why does this hurt? *prod*
Conclusion: Either they really hate themselves or they're talking nonsense

[Tim the Mage]

I always preferred the 'Teaching Stick' method.

Take one large, pointy stick, aka Teaching Stick
Prod philosopher repeatedly
Taunt prodee by mentioning that if they create or shape their own reality why does this hurt? *prod*
Conclusion: Either they really hate themselves or they're talking nonsense

This is true but trite - I think that Book V of Plato's Republic does this one best ('the stone that wasn't a stone' and all that guff).

[Pebble]

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.


Sorry, Mis-read your question. But then as Simon C and Mongrel have pointed out the question posed is futile other than as a philosophical enquiry into the nature of knowledge. By definition once one asks for empirical evidence we have taken the existence of knowledge for granted.

[Croydon Bob]

Can we, at least, get back to arguing about the definition of "ghost" rather than "reality"?

Mulder's idea of a "ghost" seems to equate it with "UFO". Obviously UFOs exist because some people see flying objects that they can't identify.

I would have thought it was closer in comparison to "flying saucer". They don't exist except perhaps when someone paints a saucer silver, chucks it into the air, takes a photo and gets world-wide media attention for a couple of days. A mysterious noise in the dark, or optical illusion is not a "ghost".

Many years ago I appeared on a "Ghosts" episode of Kilroy. Every person that Kilroy questioned had a story that involved waking up or getting into bed. When I commented on this the next woman said "well I certainly wasn't asleep when I saw my ghost..." and then went into a long rambling story that concluded "...and I was so frightened that I jumped out of bed at 2 o'clock in the morning!"

[Mulder]

When people report ghosts they can often recall them in some detail. Some of this is confabulation but if the ghost is hallucinatory or a misperception, it is perfectly possible to see real detail. In all such cases the detail is created by the percipients mind. I would call this experience a ghost.

If you see a distant tree and misperceive it as a human figure then, yes, it is a tree. But from the percipent's point of view it is a ghost. The percipient will actively perceive a ghost and react accordingly. I've little doubt that the bits of the brain used for perception would light up in a scan just as if they were seeing a real figure (as in Schatzman's 'Story of Ruth').

A ghost may be caused by a misperceived tree or a hypnogogic episode but it is still exists as a particular experience. I see ghosts as a specific combination of an experience (as outlined above) and a belief based on popular culture. That is how they differ from other misperceptions or hallucinations. It is a common enough experience to warrant its own name and it definitely exists!

[Mulder]

In the case of casual witnesses, who tend to be more credible than active ghost hunters with strong beliefs, I find the phenomenon of ghosts fascinating. People are literally perceiving something (other what is literally present) because of a cultural belief they may not even be consciously aware of. I think the idea of dismissing the phenomenon as 'just imagination' is a grave injustive.

[brodski]

I would call this experience a ghost.
But most people wouldn't. If you wish to be clear in your communication on this issue, why use such a loaded term? Why use one which runs the risk of misrepresentation or equivocation? When speaking to almost any audience, use of the word “ghost” will imply a paranormal spiritual entity, rather than a quirk of human perception.

This line of reasoning was summed by quiet well by a poster on the JREF forum who said (I paraphrase) “I believe in god, if by “god” you mean chocolate and if by “believe” you mean “eat”.”

[Mulder]

But most people wouldn't.

But most people have never seriously studied ghosts.

I justify my use of the word ghost because it describes an experience that witnesses would use the same word to describe.

I could give it some fancy name like 'sensory cultural perception' but who is going to give a stuff about something with a name like that? If you want people to listen, you use words like ghost!

If you just go round saying things like 'ghosts don't exist', it unjustifiably devalues people's experiences and they stop listening to you. If you want people to understand their experience you must first engage with, rather than alienate, them. It is popular culture that invented ghosts so, if the public perception of them is to be changed, we need to engage popular culture.

Maybe one day someone will say: 'You're as white as a sheet!' 'Yes, I think I've just seen a sensory cultural perception!'

[brodski]

But most people have never seriously studied ghosts.

I justify my use of the word ghost because it describes an experience that witnesses would use the same word to describe.

I could give it some fancy name like 'sensory cultural perception' but who is going to give a stuff about something with a name like that? If you want people to listen, you use words like ghost!

If you just go round saying things like 'ghosts don't exist', it unjustifiably devalues people's experiences and they stop listening to you. If you want people to understand their experience you must first engage with, rather than alienate, them. It is popular culture that invented ghosts so, if the public perception of them is to be changed, we need to engage popular culture.

Maybe one day someone will say: 'You're as white as a sheet!' 'Yes, I think I've just seen a sensory cultural perception!'
You celery are not using the term “ghosts” in a manner which is meaningful to the people which you are trying to communicate with (those who have had experiences of ghosts), you are initially implying (strongly) that you are validating their notion that they have seen or been in contact with a paranormal, spiritual entity only to tell them that in fact when you used the word “ghost” you were talking about a misperception aided by cultural influences, rather than an external, “real” object with the properties which they claimed it had.

It is one thing to say that “experiences of ghosts exist” it is quite another to say that “ghosts exist”. Even if you can sufficiently twist the understanding of the langue to fit your ends it is misleading and should (I think) be avoided for much the same reason that one would normally avoid saying that “hallucinations are real”. Yes people do really hallucinate, but by definition what they hallucinate is not an accurate representation of reality.

[Mulder]

OK then: 'ghosts are spirits and there is no evidence that they exist'! The world is now so much better and I'm bored ...

[Croydon Bob]

I think that this point is quite important. It is bad enough that most people take "UFO" to mean "alien space ship", but if skeptics are going to try to use the word "ghost" to mean anything that someone might perceive to be a ghost then I think we are in another semantic mess.

I have an in-law who uses the word "ghost" to describe every light spot ("orb") on all the hundreds of photos that she has taken with a flash in dark rooms. She is specifically thinking that they are all the spirits of dead human beings. When I argue with her, I tell her that they are not ghosts, they are specks of dust. I'm not seeing the benefit of agreeing with her that they are ghosts but that they are also specks of dust and not dead people.

[Mulder]

I think that this point is quite important. It is bad enough that most people take "UFO" to mean "alien space ship", but if skeptics are going to try to use the word "ghost" to mean anything that someone might perceive to be a ghost then I think we are in another semantic mess.

D'oh! I just looked it up and you are absolutely right. A ghost is "the spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats" according to TheFreeDictionary.com. I can't imagine how I made such a silly mistake. Next time I'll just look it up.

[wrongun]

I actually think that Croydon Bob's orb-in-law story validates what Mulder is saying. That the reality of ghosts is part popular cultural expectation. To that in-law they are seeing a ghost, all be it a round dot that does not look at all like a dead human.

To explain the reason why that dot is a dot and not a ghost means knowing the workings of cameras and tackling the in laws own, already accepted, belief that it is a ghost (this seems to be the difficult bit!).

I would say that is similar to engaging with misperceived ghost experiences. This entails knowing the workings of the mind (why they are seeing a ghost) and why people have an accepted belief in ghosts

I guess most people on here do not think ghosts exist objectivly. But, like Mulder, I find why they exist subjectivly fascinating.

Perhaps ghosts only exist until they are explained away on skeptic forums and then they vanish back into the night.

[Trinoc]

Slightly off on a tangent, but I was listening to one of the SGU 5x5 podcasts (Podcast #2 at the bottom of this page (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/5x5/index.asp)) and it told about a method by which ghostly images can appear on some digital cameras, of which I wasn't aware.

Apparently some cameras have a special mode for taking night pictures. The shutter opens and the flash goes off, producing a sharp picture of the intended subject but with the background completely dark except for any bright lights. Then the shutter stays open a bit longer - in the podcast they discovered from the image metadata that this had been 2 seconds - in order to fill in some of the background. Fine if the camera is on a tripod, but if it was hand-held and they hadn't realised they were using this setting, any lights in the background would translate into streaks and swirls.

So, next time you see a "ghost" picture that has streaks of light superimposed onto an otherwise sharp flash image, this could well be the explanation.

[Mulder]

I didn't know people were using 'night mode' on purpose! I see lots of these photos where the main picture is fozen by the flash and any light sources are then streaked across by the long exposure bit. Sometimes it looks odd but it's always easy to explain.

I've always assumed people weren't aware of this problem. I suppose people discover these 'methods' by trial and error and then use them deliberately to produce their own 'not a ghost' ghostly photo. I know orb enthusiasts typically take photos outside at night with no sibject nearby. This increases the flash time to its maximum, so increasing the chances of orbs.

[Trinoc]

I've always assumed people weren't aware of this problem. I suppose people discover these 'methods' by trial and error and then use them deliberately to produce their own 'not a ghost' ghostly photo. I know orb enthusiasts typically take photos outside at night with no sibject nearby. This increases the flash time to its maximum, so increasing the chances of orbs.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "flash time". As far as I know, a flash is always the complete discharge of a capacitor through the tube which always takes the same, very short, time (a few milliseconds at most). I don't know of flash guns that can produce flashes of different intensity, but I imagine there may be professional ones that do. I'm pretty sure flash guns in ordinary cameras always put out the same amount of light over the same time scale.

[Mulder]

Though flash intensity cannot be varied in everyday cameras, flash duration can. Specifically, the flash can be quenched before full capacitor discharge, depending on how much light is required to illuminate the scene.

For a full explanation see http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/. Start at the section headed "Flash metering systems used by Canon EOS.".

[Trinoc]

Though flash intensity cannot be varied in everyday cameras, flash duration can. Specifically, the flash can be quenched before full capacitor discharge, depending on how much light is required to illuminate the scene.

For a full explanation see http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/. Start at the section headed "Flash metering systems used by Canon EOS.".
Thanks ... I hadn't realised that was possible now.

[Paul]

I have never seen a ghost, and I have not experienced a paranormal event. So what is a ghost, what does it look like, the process of stating a precise meaning seems to differ depending on where the information comes from.

And that is the problem, If we can't agree on what it is then how can we discuss it.

The definition of a ghost is said to be the apparition of a deceased person, frequently similar in appearance to that person, and usually encountered in places he or she frequented, or in association with the person's former belongings.

The definition is lacking an accurate description, at best it only relates to something existing in perception, a ghostly appearing figure. A definition must show and have an exclusive meaning, so there is no confusion.
Example: I lived with a bitch for eight years she was malicious, I gave her love, she neglected me, snapped at me for no reason and finally one day she ran away.

You thought I was talking about an X wife or girlfriend, I simply described a term for the female of a canine species in general. This is the Importance of knowing the correct definition.

Definitions that are too narrow will exclude some things that must not be omitted from the object of the definition you are trying to describe. To say a ghost does (or does not) exist you have to know what ghost means when writing, describing or talking about a ghost.

So any meaning of a ghost, must have a definition long before you can say if one of them ghost things exist or not This is where the belief in ghosts falls flat on its face.

Without a definition of a ghost, then there is NO WAY to discuss, or describe a ghost. How can you expect to prove something to exist if you cannot give a definition of what to look for? — To go looking for something but have NO idea what to look for is not logical , you would not know it if you found it because you have no idea what you are looking for.
Im poking fun at the definition of a ghost because their is the probability that someone has given a definition to something that does not exist.
The probability ghost's exist does not even make it to the first stage of a theory.:cheesy:

[Paul]

Ghost hunter groups claim to be scientific, and most give that appearance because they use high-tech scientific equipment. They employ equipment for a purpose for which it was not made and has not been shown to be effective.

TheEquipment used by paranormal investigators is based on theory.
These theories are called basic beliefs which draw an inference of self-justifying or self-evident. Theories provided by ghost investigators sound very scientific, but using scientific language does make it science. A theory qualifies as a good guess, a belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adopt the scientific method. Preconceived beliefs can lead to self deception and false conclusions.

There is a big difference between good sound theories and theories that simply just sound good. Propositions accepted as true without proof or demonstration would be more reasonable interpreted as wishful thinking instead of ,IOU an explanation.

“How sure do we need to be that our beliefs correspond to the actual world?

A ghost hunter is in a haunted location experiences a change in temperature His EMF meter is spiking high readings. His theory leads him to believe this may be evidence of a spirit trying to communicate. His theory justifies his belief a spirit is in the room.

Do ghosts really emit electromagnetic fields? Are EMF meters even capable of demonstrating that ghosts emit EM fields?
To justify a belief with out evidence is no more then a theory of the belief. Our ghost hunter believes he is in the presence of a spirit, based on beliefs, of other beliefs. So the ghost hunter’s belief isn’t based on evidence.

In theory thek2 meter can communicate with spirits. The theory is ghosts emit an electromagnetic field as they move about. The meter can detect the field if the ghost is interactive, its movements can act as a response to a question being asked. The theory is based on the led lights move in response to questions and this can only be accomplished by communicating with a spirit.

So the justifying belief is the K2 can communicate with a spirit. And the justified belief is spirits are real. Because the K2 blinks in response to yes and no questions.

But what if the belief is itself unjustified. It would in no way be one’s intellectual right to suppose that only a spirit is responsible for the K2 responding to yes and no questions.

Does the K2 really provide an inference of reality based on a theory of belief to suggest a spirit can hear and understand us and manipulate an EMF meter? The theory amounts to nonsense because it is not saying the

K2 could be used to communicate with spirits; it is saying ghosts do communicate with a K2 meter. It suggests we rule out the fact it lights up for nearby electrical lines and all other possibilities.O0

[Mulder]

Are EMF meters even capable of demonstrating that ghosts emit EM fields?

Almost certainly (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Ghosts%20EMF%20meters%20and%20baselines.html)not.

[John Jackson]

Modus ponens

If it is raining the ground will be wet.
It is raining,
Therefore the ground is wet.

If it is 2AM it will be dark outside.
It is 2AM,
Therefore it is dark outside.

Ghosts emit EMFs*. If a ghost is present I will get a reading on my EMF meter.
A ghost is present,
Therefore I have a reading on my EMF meter.

These are logically valid arguments. However, when you start using the logic in reverse it can lead to fallacious conclusions.

Affirming the consequent fallacy.

If it is raining the ground will be wet.
The ground is wet,
Therefore it is raining.

If it is 2AM it will be dark outside.
It is dark outside,
Therefore it is 2AM.

Ghosts emit EMFs*. If a ghost is present I will get a reading on my EMF meter.
I have a reading on my EMF meter,
Therefore a ghost is present.


The fallacy is made because alternative explanations are omitted when working the logic in reverse. Yes if it’s 2AM it will be dark outside but if it’s dark outside it’s not necessarily 2AM!

If ghosts do give out EMFs and a one is present then you will get a reading on your EMF meter; but if you have a reading on your EMF meter, it doesn’t necessarily mean a ghost is present (a fridge may have switched on, for example).

I wonder how many ghost hunters understand this error of reasoning?





* An assumption, of course!

[Mulder]

There is no problem, in theory, with using environmental monitoring (including EMF meters) to differentiate between (a) haunted and non-haunted locations and (b) the presence or absence of a ghost. However, there are many things to take into account before you do such research.

For instance, is the 'presence of a ghost' an actual apparition sighting or just a medium sensing something. How narrowly do you define a haunted location - a room, a part of a building, the entire building? And how do you choose a comparable non-haunted location? Then there are all the natural causes of 'interesting' readings to consider.

There is a particular problem with the K2 meter (http://www.p-s-i.org.uk/smallarticles/k2meter.html) that makes it especially unsuited to this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, most ghost hunters (as opposed to serious paranormal researchers) seem unaware of these matters.

[Trinoc]

For instance, is the 'presence of a ghost' an actual apparition sighting or just a medium sensing something.
It's obvious ... a ghost is present whenever whatever means you are using to detect a ghost (an EMF meter reading, a drop in temperature, a weird feeling from a medium) is giving a positive response ...

[lost thought]

I think I understand if a spirit is present then I'm in a pub and its your round.....;D
And after I have been in contact with several spirits I can see ghosts. :cheesy:
Not to mention, erm am I only one who can see the large pink eleph.....>:D

Lost Thought O0

[Dr B]

The issues as to whether or not haunt-reports should be studied scientificaly and whether or not they currently are (on the whole) being studied scientifically are not the same.

Most amatuer groups are wasting their time and money. However, some people and groups have their heads in the right place and are trying to work towards a more scientific understanding - whatever that may be.