People believe! And in surveys about 60 percent believe in ghost's! So what would it take to positively
prove a ghost is a real thing. Personally it cannot be done and I don't care what personal experences have done for you in your belief. Real proof is what is needed and nothing less. Photos and video will not do without proper controls, and knowing without a doubt that the electronics didn't cause the ghost.
Orb's, don't get me started! Claiming dust and moisture is a ghost, give it up! So what do we think, can it be done? And what would it take for you the skeptic to believe in the ghost. And for the believers what
can you do to sway us skeptics, to believe. What evidence does a believer think can sway a skeptic to their
side?
Like everything else, high quality replicable, measuarable, observable evidence that helps us to generate testable predictions.
However there is one thing to be clear on. Ghosts are real...... :D......as an experience. In that, there is little doubt. However, this of course does not make them a physical reality out there in the world. But in order to ever understand these experiences properly one needs to make that distinction.
What evidence that you could look at and say, I beilieve. Personally I don't think it can't ever be done!Originally Posted by Dr B
Like everything else, high quality replicable, measuarable, observable evidence that helps us to generate testable predictions.
However there is one thing to be clear on. Ghosts are real...... :D......as an experience. In that, there is little doubt. However, this of course does not make them a physical reality out there in the world. But in order to ever understand these experiences properly one needs to make that distinction.
I think you will find I have answered the question
Okay well I think you answered it the best way you could...I guess.I think you will find I have answered the question
Your question is answered, whether you recognise it or not has nothing to do with the answer.
Do you disagree with it - if so in what way and why? It seemed a nice straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
Of course, I could have elaborated greatly, but there did not really seem to be a reason to do so.
I was hinting in a subtle way that the same applies (more or less) to this area as many others. In other words, just apply the principles of science and you will be fine
Well exactly what do you mean by predictions?Your question is answered, whether you recognise it or not has nothing to do with the answer.
Do you disagree with it - if so in what way and why? It seemed a nice straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
Of course, I could have elaborated greatly, but there did not really seem to be a reason to do so.
I was hinting in a subtle way that the same applies (more or less) to this area as many others. In other words, just apply the principles of science and you will be fine
Scientific predictions - i.e., generating hypotheses and then setting about and testing them.
A fundamental aspect of science is that claims / theories / hypotheses can be tested. We must be able to conceive of evidence that, if it existed, could falsify a claim or theory.
Sure but hypotheses throws me less than predictions! I just have a problem with that word being used with sceince.
They are not the same thing. A hypothesis is "X is an explanation for effect Y", whereas a prediction is "If X is the correct explanation, than experiment E should display result R".
Tough. It is a valid term with a specific meaning in scientific contexts, it has nothing to do with the woolly "predictions" made by psychics.I just have a problem with that word being used with sceince.
Its perfectly legitimate common terminology in the field of science. Models and theories make testable predictions....we zoom in on these with more formalised hypotheses. I am not sure what the mystery is here :-\
In order to test something scientifically (the only way to get meaningful results) investigators have developed a ‘cycle of enquiry’ system. So, if a phenomenon has been reported, be it ghosts or anything else, then the cycle of enquiry is used.
This goes along the lines of:
<blockquote>1) develop meaningful questions (hypotheses) to answer;
2) collect data to be used in evidence which addresses the questions;
3) evaluate the data/evidence;
4) formulate a theory from the evidence.</blockquote>But it’s not a one-shot process. At any stage you can always go back to an earlier one and repeat the process (hence the term 'cycle').
This is how the ‘hypothesis’ (stage 1) fits in – it’s just an idea that needs testing in order to formulate a theory.
A good theory not only explains things as they are but should also be capable of making predictions (like the theory of gravity predicting that we weigh less on the Moon than on Earth). If the predictions hold true then they support the theory.
That’s where predictions fit into the system.
So it’s not being vague to use such terms in a scientific sense even though they may be taken that way in a non-scientific sense.
.
Jon Donnis came up with the best that I have heard to date. Video tape a alleged apparition with 2 or 3 video camera's all at different angles. Then you may have something or not, I would still have to have the video looked at
by experts and know that it was looked at by them. But In reality alot of these ghost hunting groups reuse video
tapes for their cameras, alot. So I believe that after talking to someone into video commercially, she said alot of the alleged ghosts are nothing more than previous video coming thru a tape used again and again.
Are you sure that it wasn't a poster on the BadPsychics forum called The Inquisitor who explained about using at least 2, but preferably 3, synchonised cameras to capture orbs?
If the 'something' can be caught by 3 cameras, which is in the same place at the same time, then it is good evidence that 'something' was actually there. It doesn't mean it was of paranormal origin, but it's good quality evidence that could support a hypothesis if other, independent evidence was also obtained.
The Inquisitor was me BTW.
.
I seem to remember that could be! And maybe Jon just repeated it ot brought up the point that it's never been done.Are you sure that it wasn't a poster on the BadPsychics forum called The Inquisitor who explained about using at least 2, but preferably 3, synchonised cameras to capture orbs?
If the 'something' can be caught by 3 cameras, which is in the same place at the same time, then it is good evidence that 'something' was actually there. It doesn't mean it was of paranormal origin, but it's good quality evidence that could support a hypothesis if other, independent evidence was also obtained.
The Inquisitor was me BTW.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks