Can ghosts be proven to exist or not?

[ibcnunabit]

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? My wife and I had some unsual experiences, but that doesn't mean that I know what it was or how to explain it. There is a difference between reporting an observation and claiming to have an explanation for it. Likewise, a claim of an observation or experience only counts as anecdotal evidence for whatever is claimed.

No, you could report a description of what you saw, but labeling the phenomenon a ghost is drawing a conclusion about it, which goes to interpretation, not reporting.

 

[ibcnunabit]

as the role of a "soul" is ruled out,how can there be an escaped soul roaming out??
so "ghosts" do not exist!

This is my own idea! may be or may not be right! but I believe in this theory(of mine)!

Well, as stated it might not meet the criteria for being a formal theory, but I do think the general gist of what your saying is absolutely correct! Probably any non-religious scientist would consider it absolutely non-controversial, except for the particular way you described the evolution happening. But in this context that's just details.

 

[ibcnunabit]

P.S. What you say doesn't RULE OUT a soul, but it does provide a more realistic description of life/death as opposed to the soul leaving the body. What it does do, however, is point to the concept of soul and ask for that to be demonstrated. Until it can be determined that a "soul" exists, the question of ghosts being escaped souls is moot. The onus is on those who claim that it exists to provide evidence, not for those who don't to provide evidence that it doesn't.

 

[ibcnunabit]

First of all, you are assuming that alleged ghosts are the souls of dead people. Who says that they are?

Secondly, simply explaining a biological process does not rule out that souls could still exist.

True, but nothing rules out the existence of fairies, unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. But most of us accept these as fantasy until evidence is provided that they do exist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True, but nothing rules out the existence of fairies, unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. But most of us accept these as fantasy until evidence is provided that they do exist.

I am not aware of many fairy, unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster reports. In order to understand a phenomenon, or even a class of claims, first one has to make a little effort to keep things in perspective. There are at least millions of people alive today who claim to have experienced unusual and seemingly inexplicable phenomena. One cannot take examples for which there is little to no anecdotal evidence, and put that on the same level as something claimed to be true - through personal experience - by millions of people.

Also, not only is it true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is also true that transient phenomena are often difficult to document.

Again I ask, what specific evidence for ghosts would you find acceptable? Aside from Casper appearing in a lab and sticking around, I'm not sure what could constitute proof of these sorts of claims - those associated with ghostly encounters.

 

[ibcnunabit]

I am not aware of many fairy, unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster reports. In order to understand a phenomenon, or even a class of claims, first one has to make a little effort to keep things in perspective.

If only it weren't so; here are some websites dedicated to the belief that fairies really exist:

http://www.suite101.com/blog/nepenthette/fairy_sightings

http://www.fairygardens.com/sightings/

http://www.ilovefairies.com/fairy_sightings.html

And there used to be one called: http://www.faeriebelievers.com, but it seems to be down.

 

[sganesh88]

^^
No references for Unicorns and FSM?
Jokes apart; you just can't substantiate your claim simply by quoting a few websites. Hosting sites and loading them with **** isn't that difficult. Even wikipedia is not a completely trustworthy source.

 

[sganesh88]

Oh! PF automatically asterisks the so-called foul words? :O

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh! PF automatically asterisks the so-called foul words? :O

Yes, for those who are unable to censor themselves...

 

[sganesh88]

i first thought it was the work of ghosts residing in the PF server. Lol.

 

[mikelepore]

Would people here think that I'm saying this right? You cannot prove the nonexistence of undetectable things. If things are detectable, and the region for searching is finite, you may be able to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, are there any elephants in my living room? Certainly not. But if something is undetectable, its nonexistence cannot be proven. Are there are any invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable elephants in the room? As a matter of principle I cannot prove that the answer is no, and not only for all space, but also for the ordinarily-easier problem of a finite space in which to search.

(I think the popular phrase "you can't prove a negative" is incorrect, so I tried to fix it.)

This is the problem with the ghost question. They're not _always_ visible fluffy white blobs, therefore I think it's necessary to apply my above generalization about all undetectable things.

 

[CEL]

^^
No references for Unicorns and FSM?
Jokes apart; you just can't substantiate your claim simply by quoting a few websites. Hosting sites and loading them with **** isn't that difficult. Even wikipedia is not a completely trustworthy source.

If you want a trustworthy source, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed that the Cotingley Fairies were real.

 

[sganesh88]

This is the problem with the ghost question. They're not _always_ visible fluffy white blobs, therefore I think it's necessary to apply my above generalization about all undetectable things.

How could you say for sure some x is undetectable? Truth always reveals itself to the intent seeker.

 

[CEL]

Would people here think that I'm saying this right? You cannot prove the nonexistence of undetectable things. If things are detectable, and the region for searching is finite, you may be able to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, are there any elephants in my living room? Certainly not. But if something is undetectable, its nonexistence cannot be proven. Are there are any invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable elephants in the room? As a matter of principle I cannot prove that the answer is no, and not only for all space, but also for the ordinarily-easier problem of a finite space in which to search.

(I think the popular phrase "you can't prove a negative" is incorrect, so I tried to fix it.)

In reality, the phrase is "You cannot prove a universal negative."
You can prove that there are no elephants in your living room, but you cannot prove that elephants don't exist.

This is the problem with the ghost question. They're not _always_ visible fluffy white blobs, therefore I think it's necessary to apply my above generalization about all undetectable things.

That is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Science tries to explain detectable phenomena. Pseudo-science tries to detect unexplainable phenomena.

 

[DaveC426913]

How could you say for sure some x is undetectable?

If it's fictional...

 

[StandardsGuy]

If someone reports seeing "something", that's fine. If someone reports seeing "a ghost", then they are responsible for proving that claim.

In this hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical report of seeing a ghost, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not believe it. Why then would anybody make such a report knowing they would be severely criticized and told they would have to prove it?

 

[AUMathTutor]

Very few things can actually be proved in this world. I don't think the existence of non-existence of ghosts is one of those things.

 

[DaveC426913]

In this hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical report of seeing a ghost, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not believe it. Why then would anybody make such a report knowing they would be severely criticized and told they would have to prove it?

Which is just fine since that same 'anybody' wouldn't want someone to burst their bubble by making a dispassionate judgement on their pet ghost story anyway. "If you don't want it shot at, don't stick it out there." the key element there being 'don't want it shot at'.

Only those hoping for some truth are going to make reports.

 

[sganesh88]

In this hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical report of seeing a ghost, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not believe it. Why then would anybody make such a report knowing they would be severely criticized and told they would have to prove it?

Just because i would be criticized and asked to prove what i claim, i can't and wouldn't refrain from claiming something which i believe wholeheartedly, level-headedly to be true. Think about SR and the non-absolute nature of length and time that it proposed. Ghosts if proved would have a milder effect, i suppose.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Science tries to explain detectable phenomena. Pseudo-science tries to detect unexplainable phenomena.

That is absolutely false.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is in the method, not the subject. One can make a scientific study of something like earthquakes, but one can study the same by using pseudoscience, meaning that the methods for collecting or evaluating evidence are fallacious or unfounded. What's more, one cannot say what is or is not explainable unless one already has proof of existence.

The problem is that many seemingly inexplicable claims are investigated using pseudoscience, so the subjects tend to become asssociated with the methods of evaluating those claims. The claims are also associated with interpretations of personal experiences, rather than the essential [alleged] facts related to a claim.

"Ghosts" are not pseudoscience, however, claimed events that are interpreted to be encounters with ghosts are often investigated by using pseudoscientific methodology. In the most extreme cases where people literally claim a direct encounter with the soul or the "life force" of a dead person - as in "my dead brother Bob sat and talked with me" - we have a claim, not science or pseudoscience; with the caveat that it is really a claim of an encounter with something. Even if the claim were essentially true, we don't know it was Bob.

 

[CEL]

That is absolutely false.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is in the method, not the subject. One can make a scientific study of something like earthquakes, but one can study the same by using pseudoscience, meaning that the methods for collecting or evaluating evidence are fallacious or unfounded. What's more, one cannot say what is or is not explainable unless one already has proof of existence.

The problem is that many seemingly inexplicable claims are investigated using pseudoscience, so the subjects tend to become asssociated with the methods of evaluating those claims. The claims are also associated with interpretations of personal experiences, rather than the essential [alleged] facts related to a claim.

"Ghosts" are not pseudoscience, however, claimed events that are interpreted to be encounters with ghosts are often investigated by using pseudoscientific methodology. In the most extreme cases where people literally claim a direct encounter with the soul or the "life force" of a dead person - as in "my dead brother Bob sat and talked with me" - we have a claim, not science or pseudoscience; with the caveat that it is really a claim of an encounter with something. Even if the claim were essentially true, we don't know it was Bob.

The subject is neither science nor pseudoscience. In this we agree.
Neither ghosts, nor fairies or the flying spaghetti monster are pseudoscience. They are entities that have scant or null evidence of existence.
I have never heard of a reputable scientist investigating those entities. So their study, if existent fall in the domain of pseudoscience.

 

[Anticitizen]

The subject is neither science nor pseudoscience. In this we agree.
Neither ghosts, nor fairies or the flying spaghetti monster are pseudoscience. They are entities that have scant or null evidence of existence.
I have never heard of a reputable scientist investigating those entities. So their study, if existent fall in the domain of pseudoscience.

What do you mean by 'investigating those entities'? If you're talking about investigating their existence, there's the James Randi foundation, which does apply legitimate scientific study to claims of paranormal phenomena.

 

[CEL]

What do you mean by 'investigating those entities'? If you're talking about investigating their existence, there's the James Randi foundation, which does apply legitimate scientific study to claims of paranormal phenomena.

No, the James Randi foundation does not study those phenomena. They offer a million dollar prize to anyone that can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, the existence of such phenomena.

 

[Anticitizen]

Sure, but they put effort into evaluating and debunking the claims, which is a key part of the 'rigors of science'.

 

[LawrenceM]

Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that ghosts do not exist without providing evidence that demonstrates how their existence is not possible. Lacking that evidence, we can only prove that phenomenon used as evidence of the existence of specific paranormal activity can be reattributed to something natural. In other words, the lack of evidence that proves Ghosts can exist, in general, makes it impossible to prove the contrary.

 

[mabs239]

Why all "of" are in red. Hope it isn't the mischief of a ghost ;)

 

[DaveC426913]

Why all "of" are in red. Hope it isn't the mischief of a ghost ;)

You alone are seeing that. It is caused by the fact that you have arrived at this page by a search in which one of your keywords was "of".

 

[wittgenstein]

In reality, the phrase is "You cannot prove a universal negative."
You can prove that there are no elephants in your living room, but you cannot prove that elephants don't exist.

I agree. But what about this universal negative? All ravens are not white?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

 

[DaveC426913]

In reality, the phrase is "You cannot prove a universal negative."
You can prove that there are no elephants in your living room, but you cannot prove that elephants don't exist.

I agree. But what about this universal negative? All ravens are not white?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

Can you clarify how this applies? You cannot prove that there are no white ravens.

 

[fillindablank]

Seems to me the Ghost Hunters TV show is all the proof you need that they don't exist.