Do ghosts exist?

[positrones]

Do you think that ghost really exists? Many people and cultures around the globe have their own story about ghost. There has a theory that ghost only a wavelength. I never see ghost before. But one night I can feel the existence of this creature. I can feel a strong magnetic field around my house.

But many of scientist and other people deny of this creature. That is not very easy to explain about this creature. Maybe one day there have an explanation about this mystery.

[Klaynos]

There is no evidence for the existance of ghosts.

 

If you use the search function on the site you will see this has been discussed several times before.

[lucaspa]

There is no evidence for the existance of ghosts.

 

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Your statement isn't true. The OP lists the evidence: personal experience for which "ghost" is the hypothesis. What happens is that the evidence is not part of science because it is not intersubjective.

3. Do you have evidence falsifying ghosts?

 

The appropriate answer is "I don't know. The suppoprting evidence is not sufficient to accept the hypothesis of ghosts as (provisionally) true but neither is the idea falsified."

[YT2095]

I have to agree, the only Real answer is that we simply just Don`t Know.

 

and we also Don`t even have an agreed upon definition of what even Constitutes such a phenomenon.

[Klaynos]

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Your statement isn't true. The OP lists the evidence: personal experience for which "ghost" is the hypothesis. What happens is that the evidence is not part of science because it is not intersubjective.

3. Do you have evidence falsifying ghosts?

 

The appropriate answer is "I don't know. The suppoprting evidence is not sufficient to accept the hypothesis of ghosts as (provisionally) true but neither is the idea falsified."

 

Read my thread did I say "no" I just said there was no evidence, this is a science forum, so I meant scientific evidence by implication.

[bascule]

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I really hate that statement. Here's my corollary:

 

If there's no reason to believe in something, then it's unreasonable to believe it's true.

 

2. Your statement isn't true. The OP lists the evidence: personal experience for which "ghost" is the hypothesis.

 

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

 

What happens is that the evidence is not part of science because it is not intersubjective.

 

Using anecdotes as the basis of an argument is not only unscientific, but typically a logical fallacy (often a hasty generalization)

 

3. Do you have evidence falsifying ghosts?

 

No, I don't have evidence falsifying teapots orbiting the sun either. Or unicorns. Or vampires. Or Zeus.

 

The appropriate answer is "I don't know. The suppoprting evidence is not sufficient to accept the hypothesis of ghosts as (provisionally) true but neither is the idea falsified."

 

The appropriate answer is no. If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to demonstrate a supporting line of reasoning for your claim.

 

It's not unreasonable to assume that baseless arguments are false until proven otherwise.

 

All that said: No, ghosts are not real. Unicorns aren't real. Vampires aren't real. Leprechauns aren't real. Zeus isn't real.

[swansont]

I really hate that statement. Here's my corollary:

 

If there's no reason to believe in something, then it's unreasonable to believe it's true.

 

It has its place, but in this case it's used to shift the burden of proof. The null hypothesis is that ghosts don't exist. There is no reasonable scientific evidence that they do, so proponents of ghosts have not met that burden.

[JohnB]

Isn't this the classic "Catch 22"?

 

Because of the lack of good evidence, no "reputable" scientist will research the topic so the amateurs have to give it a go. No matter what they do or do not find, since they are not qualified, their evidence is not acceptable.

 

Also, does anyone really believe that any reputable journal would actually print a paper on the topic, regardless of how good the evidence?

 

It's not about evidence, it's about belief systems. Evidence not conforming to the belief system of a person is "not real" to them. It is easier for a person to conclude that the evidence is faulty than to accept it and change their worldview. Note that on this particular topic the person is faced with a complete revision of their view of the world.

 

I should add that those who study the topic separate "apparitions" into two distinct categories, "Ghosts" and "Spirits". Spirits are supposedly a conscious entity capable of acting of it's own volition whereas ghosts are analogous to a video recording and do not interact with the time and place of the observer.

 

As I understand the state of affairs, the current prevailing hypothesis is that for reasons unknown an image is fixed to an area using energies unknown and "played back" at random? intervals after the occurrence of an unknown trigger event.

 

Given the unknowns, (and the fact that virtually all of the evidence is anecdotal) the topic is inherently difficult to study.

 

It is perhaps worth noting that where the appropriate research can be made it has been shown that ghosts do not walk through walls. If their appearance allows a good estimate of the time period and a check of building plans made, their movements always match the physical characteristics of the time the "recording" was made.

 

Since most witnesses don't know the structural history of the building, it would be stretching probability that their "hallucination" would accurately conform to the history of the building involved.

 

A topic I watch with cocked eyebrow and some interest. I file it under "Hmmmmmm".

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

 

 

No, I don't have evidence falsifying teapots orbiting the sun either. Or unicorns. Or vampires. Or Zeus.

 

 

 

l.

 

Mine is. As a matter of fact I've never seen one that wasn't.

[swansont]

Isn't this the classic "Catch 22"?

 

Because of the lack of good evidence, no "reputable" scientist will research the topic so the amateurs have to give it a go. No matter what they do or do not find, since they are not qualified, their evidence is not acceptable.

 

No, I don't think that's it. Amateurs can follow proper protocol and do rigorous investigations. When that happens, though, there never seems to be any evidence to gather.

[YT2095]

and when the evidence that IS found, is more than frequently found to be of explainable origin.

[lucaspa]

Read my thread did I say "no" I just said there was no evidence, this is a science forum, so I meant scientific evidence by implication.

 

What do you consider "scientific evidence"? Do you know what that phrase means?

 

I really hate that statement. Here's my corollary:

 

If there's no reason to believe in something, then it's unreasonable to believe it's true.

 

You've got 2 different things intertwined here:

1. How to evaluate a hypothesis/theory.

2. How you personally decide whether to believe something.

 

The first is science, the second isn't. Absence of evidence cannot be used to evaluate a hypothesis/theory because it is not evidence of absence. Unless under the very special circumstances where you have searched the entire search space.

 

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

 

Yes, they are. Look up "case reports" in the medical literature. They are anecdotes: what those particular doctors saw.

 

In a sense, ALL scientific papers are anecdotes: they are reporting what that particular scientist saw and experienced. For instance, this paper:

Lucas, P.A. Chemotactic response of osteoblast-like cells to TGF-beta. Bone, 10: 459-463, 1990. is my experience. Since I am sole author, isn't that an "anecdote".

 

But, even if there are multiple authors, it's still anecdotal, isn't it?

Warejcka, D.J., Young, H.E., Bok Y. Lee, and Lucas, P.A. Formation of abdominal adhesions is inhibited by antibodies to transforming growth factor-ß. J. Surg. Res., 65: 135-138, 1996.

 

Is this esentially different than several people testifying to having seen a ghost?

 

Using anecdotes as the basis of an argument is not only unscientific, but typically a logical fallacy (often a hasty generalization)

 

What you are saying is that anecdotes are often not reliable. That doesn't make them a logical fallacy. The fallacy is inductivism.

 

No, I don't have evidence falsifying teapots orbiting the sun either. Or unicorns. Or vampires. Or Zeus.

 

Actually, you do have evidence falsifying unicorns and Zeus. You simply haven't thought the matter thru.

 

The appropriate answer is no. If you claim something exists, the onus is on you to demonstrate a supporting line of reasoning for your claim.

 

Not in science. The onus is on everyone (you included) to falsify the existence. If you can't, then that entity stays on the table as a possibility. Think about tachyons.

 

It's not unreasonable to assume that baseless arguments are false until proven otherwise.

 

It is in science. What you are using is a falsified philosophy of science called Positivism. In Positivism, entities don't "exist" until you can "verify" them. Positivism fails due to 2 reasons: 1) the heart of your argument -- the idea of verification -- can't be "verified" and 2) the problem of induction means you can't "prove otherwise".

 

All that said: No, ghosts are not real. Unicorns aren't real. Vampires aren't real. Leprechauns aren't real. Zeus isn't real.

 

I agree that the second and last are true. They have been falsified. The scientific answer to the others is "I don't know." You are attempting to falsely tell us that your personal beliefs are scientific conclusions.

 

It has its place, but in this case it's used to shift the burden of proof. The null hypothesis is that ghosts don't exist. There is no reasonable scientific evidence that they do, so proponents of ghosts have not met that burden.

 

1. The null hypothesis and the research hypothesis are different things. In considering research hypotheses, there is no "null" hypothesis. The null hypothesis is used only in statistics and is "the results are due to chance sampling error".

 

2. "there is no reasonable scientific evidence that they do" is Positivism. Again, that is a falsified philosophy of science and a falsified way to evaluate hypotheses. Once again I'll post how science works on the question of the existence of entities:

 

"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.

 

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't suddenly be discovered.

 

3. Time travel: just a fanstasy?

 

The investigation of exotic spacetimes that seem to permit travel into the past will remain an active field of research. So far, the loophole in the known laws of physics that permits time travel is very small indeed. Realistic time-travel scenarios are not known at the time of writing. But as with tachyons, in the absence of a no-go proof, the possibility has to stay on the agenda. So long as it does, paradoxes will haunt us.'' Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

 

I'll ask you: do you believe in tachyons? What's your evidence that tachyons exist? Has a tachyon ever been observed? CAN a tachyon ever be observed?

 

Wouldn't you agree that since "there is no reasonable scientific evidence that they [tachyons] do, proponents of [tachyons] have not met the burden." So why don't physicists absolutely say tachyons don't exist the way you are saying ghosts don't exist?

 

Could it be because physicists are doing science while you are misusing science?

[swansont]

It is in science. What you are using is a falsified philosophy of science called Positivism. In Positivism, entities don't "exist" until you can "verify" them. Positivism fails due to 2 reasons: 1) the heart of your argument -- the idea of verification -- can't be "verified" and 2) the problem of induction means you can't "prove otherwise".

 

Then why are people bothering to look for the Higgs boson? (and in the past, why did they bother to look for neutrinos, quarks, etc)?

[YT2095]

Could it be because physicists are doing science while you are misusing science?

 

I hardly think THAT is fair! do you?

[swansont]

1. The null hypothesis and the research hypothesis are different things. In considering research hypotheses, there is no "null" hypothesis. The null hypothesis is used only in statistics and is "the results are due to chance sampling error".

 

Generally scientists don't construct experiements so that no measurable result confirms their hypothesis; "measuring zero" and doing it properly is really hard to do. Generally you try and find a way to make sure that you have something to measure, and then you measure it, but you don't accept the effect exists until you confirm it. So I would disagree that there is no null research hypothesis.

 

2. "there is no reasonable scientific evidence that they do" is Positivism. Again, that is a falsified philosophy of science and a falsified way to evaluate hypotheses. Once again I'll post how science works on the question of the existence of entities:

 

"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.

 

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't suddenly be discovered.

 

3. Time travel: just a fanstasy?

 

The investigation of exotic spacetimes that seem to permit travel into the past will remain an active field of research. So far, the loophole in the known laws of physics that permits time travel is very small indeed. Realistic time-travel scenarios are not known at the time of writing. But as with tachyons, in the absence of a no-go proof, the possibility has to stay on the agenda. So long as it does, paradoxes will haunt us.'' Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

 

I'll ask you: do you believe in tachyons? What's your evidence that tachyons exist? Has a tachyon ever been observed? CAN a tachyon ever be observed?

 

Wouldn't you agree that since "there is no reasonable scientific evidence that they [tachyons] do, proponents of [tachyons] have not met the burden." So why don't physicists absolutely say tachyons don't exist the way you are saying ghosts don't exist?

 

Could it be because physicists are doing science while you are misusing science?

 

For someone adept as you at science you've brought several logical fallacies into the argument. I don't see where I said ghosts don't exist in this thread, and tachyons are not ghosts (though undoubtedly somebody, somewhere on the intertubes is saying ghosts are made of tachyons. If not then I lay claim to it). Tachyons have a very different theoretical basis than do ghosts, so your whole exercise with tachyons is a strawman. Not ruling something out is not the same thing as demonstrating they exist; that's the argument from ignorance/burden of proof fallacy. "Because Paul Davies said so" might be appeal to authority, but I don't disagree with his assessment.

 

But I would say that people who claim that tachyons exist have failed to meet their burden of proof. There is no reasonable scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that they do.

 

(And since I'm a physicist, the last rhetorical query is logically inconsistent)

[bascule]

You've got 2 different things intertwined here:

1. How to evaluate a hypothesis/theory.

2. How you personally decide whether to believe something.

 

The first is science, the second isn't. Absence of evidence cannot be used to evaluate a hypothesis/theory because it is not evidence of absence. Unless under the very special circumstances where you have searched the entire search space.

 

You're confusing science and logic. In logic, yes, unprovability and falsity are distinct.

 

However, a hypothesis which is neither falsifiable nor predictive is not scientific. It does not exist within the realm on science. It is for all intents and purposes off the table until it can be rendered falsifiable and/or predictive.

 

What you are saying is that anecdotes are often not reliable. That doesn't make them a logical fallacy. The fallacy is inductivism.

 

I didn't say anecdotes are fallacious. I said they are often used as a basis of a fallacy, such as a hasty generalization.

 

Actually, you do have evidence falsifying unicorns and Zeus. You simply haven't thought the matter thru.

 

Oh really? Can you falsify unicorns and Zeus for us in a way that doesn't apply to ghosts?

 

Not in science. The onus is on everyone (you included) to falsify the existence. If you can't, then that entity stays on the table as a possibility. Think about tachyons.

 

Yes, the onus is on everyone to falsify a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

Can you tell me how to falsify the existence of ghosts? Can you tell me how the existence of ghosts is predictive? If so, I'll happily try. However, until you do, ghosts cannot be scrutinized scientifically.

 

If you cannot demonstrate how an idea is falsifiable or predictive, then sorry, it is off the table from a scientific perspective.

 

It is in science. What you are using is a falsified philosophy of science called Positivism. In Positivism, entities don't "exist" until you can "verify" them. Positivism fails due to 2 reasons: 1) the heart of your argument -- the idea of verification -- can't be "verified" and 2) the problem of induction means you can't "prove otherwise".

 

Do you realize how utterly contradictory and self-defeating that argument is? Let me break it down for you:

 

In the philosophy of science, the synonymity of falsity and unprovability is untenable because it relies on a philosophy which is wrong because it's unprovable.

 

You're using the very idea you're trying to disprove to attempt to prove the falsity of that idea.

[Royston]

and we also Don`t even have an agreed upon definition of what even Constitutes such a phenomenon.

 

And therein lies the problem, if we can't even agree on what constitues said phenomenom, how can we possibly test for their existence, or even deduce their existence from some logical standpoint.

 

Lucaspa, I think Gerald Feinberg (excuse the pun) would turn in his grave if tachyons were brought up in the same discussion as ghosts. As swansont stated, that's a blatant strawman, and you're attempting to lead the discussion astray...which I can only see as 'for the sake of argument', the topic is ghosts, which are not a product of some allowance from an already heavily tested scientific theory.

 

Infact, as already stated, ghosts are open to definition, tachyons have a fairly robust definition.

[w=f[z]]

I think we first have to ask "what is a ghost?" and the characteristics of such beings, e.g., they seem intelligent (as opposed to a plant), they pass through walls, etc.

 

Once we have a starting point, ask what it would take to satisfy the basic assumptions, and these criteria must not break the laws of physics.

 

I would bet that we cannot have a system that satisfies our assumptions about ghosts which is logically consistent with the laws of physics.

 

 

If anyone wants to start a list of basic assumptions on what a ghost is and its characteristics, it might be fun to see how that fits with the laws of physics and go from there.

 

Cheers,

w=f[z]

[bascule]

And therein lies the problem, if we can't even agree on what constitues said phenomenom, how can we possibly test for their existence, or even deduce their existence from some logical standpoint.

 

;352502'']I think we first have to ask "what is a ghost?" and the characteristics of such beings, e.g., they seem intelligent (as opposed to a plant), they pass through walls, etc.

 

Thank you two for hitting the nail on the head. In order to be subject to scientific scrutiny, ghosts must be defined in such a way that they are predictive and/or falsifiable.

[someguy]

Personally i don't believe in ghosts because a ghost, by definition is the remnants of a human soul. or it is a human soul that has continued to survive after the body has deceased. This means that consciousness and memory and senses would need to be able to function without existing in physical form. and i can't see how this can be possible. if it was then why would we have evolved to have bodies in the first place? our bodies are so limiting compared to infinite existence in ghost form. plus it's easy to imagine that death is just lack of existence because every night i go to sleep and i'm not aware for a few hours. that means that part of my brain that needs to be activated for me to be aware is deactivated. if that can happen, then how could i continue to be aware without having a brain at all?

[bascule]

Dawkins had something awesome to say on this matter:

 

"We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise, we favor those who would obscure the truth"