If there is no proof something exists it's simplest to believe it doesn't exist.
Kind of disappointments me though that the semi-authentic/plausible bits, like the EM anomalies, don't have any authentic investigations largely because of this.
Well, they don't have any now. They had had extensive research, several major universities had studies for ghosts, and other woo. And after about a hundred years, all that grant money, all those man hours, all those calories burned away thinking and trying to test this problem they have come up with nothing.
There is only, only one scientific field that is stagnate from its inception to contemporary times, and that is parapsychology.
And EM fields cant do most of what ghost have been purported to due. I did research into the subject, after reading about every sciency ghost hunter, and papers from goggle scholar and doing research in the capability of the EM field.
I have been watching quite a bit of "Ghost Adventures" lately and, unless they are doctoring their film, it seems pretty hard to explain away some of the stuff they witness at the locations. Go watch several of those episodes and then tell me that there isn't at least a part of you that believes in it. Some very freaky stuff.
If they had anything concert, then they wouldn't have a show on the travel channel, (totally noted academic television channel, don't cha know?
), but gaining notary with their nobel prize in one of possibly dozen fields. It would be a world changing discovering, academically, and civically. Ghost can testify at their own trials, possibly no more will issues. To many changes to really list.
Beyond this, though your argument is that because you can't explain it, it is therefore a ghost?
Or in its basic term, because you can't explain it, you can explain it. <- This is contradictory.
In these term, you can interject anything as the explantion for the unexplained thing. You can say mutated lab hamsters, or vampriric goats, or small Jewish golems. They all have equal explanatory weight.
A lot of ghost stuff ancetotal tales are impossible to explain way, as we don't have all the details. We don't know what been omitted, we don't know whats been changed. We don't know the numerous other minute details that may help with an explanations. And if we couple this with how our brain readily tricks us in what it thinks its perceiving, on how malleable out memory is then anecdotal evidence becomes even weaker.
This isn't to say those that spout out experiences with ghosties, are lying. They probably aren't. They aren't telling willful untruths, and as odd as this may sound can probably pass a polygraph test. All it means, that they believe it happen to them. That however, doesn't mean that it did.
And some one inability to explain what happen to you, isn't proof that it indeed happen. There isn't enough information to make a creditable determination into the validity of the claimant.
We can however, still say that it probably wasn't a ghost, since ghost arent proven to exist. As none existent things, cannot cause events.
As shocking as this sounds, I think ghost are bunk.
http://mrwigggles.livejournal.com/ Bottom entry.
Author
Topic: Ghosts (and the paranormal) (Read 4898 times)