What percentage of Americans believe in ghosts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ghosts
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the belief in ghosts, with participants sharing personal experiences and skepticism. A comparison is made between the percentage of baseball fans in the U.S. and those who believe in ghosts, UFOs, and other controversial topics, highlighting how data representation can be misleading. Some participants recount eerie personal encounters, such as seeing apparitions, while others attribute these experiences to psychological phenomena like sleep paralysis or the brain's tendency to misinterpret sensory information. The conversation also touches on the nature of ghost stories in film, with a preference for psychological thrillers over modern horror tropes. Skeptics argue that there is no scientific evidence for ghosts, suggesting that many reported experiences can be explained by natural causes or psychological states. The dialogue reflects a mix of belief, curiosity, and skepticism regarding the existence of ghosts and the interpretation of supernatural experiences.
  • #101
EL said:
Then what is so strange?

The cat slept, dreamt, jumped in its sleep, was still sleeping in the air, hit the fan, woke up, got surprised (I guess you would too if you jumped into a fan in your sleep:wink:).

But the cat would have to extend its legs to jump, even it jumped in its sleep.:confused:

rewebster said:
AND THE...





KIT HIT THE FAN

:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
rewebster said:
KIT HIT THE FAN
OY. :biggrin:
 
  • #103
EL said:
What about this one: The cat slept, dreamt, jumped in its sleep, was still sleeping in the air, hit the fan, woke up, got surprised. At the same time there was an invisible brain eating zombie in your closet.
Now that would work. And since we know cats have incredible abilities to detect brain eating zombies, although the zombie had paralyzed the cat through mind control (from eating all of those brains), the cat, summoning all of it's strength, in one last burst of energy managed to propel itself into the fan, alerting my daughter and myself and ruining the zombie's hopes of a late night snack.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! :approve:
 
  • #104
Math Is Hard said:
But the cat would have to extend its legs to jump, even it jumped in its sleep.:confused:
It curled up immediately after it had jumped.
 
  • #105
Evo said:
Now that would work. And since we know cats have incredible abilities to detect brain eating zombies, although the zombie had paralyzed the cat through mind control (from eating all of those brains), the cat, summoning all of it's strength, in one last burst of energy managed to propel itself into the fan, alerting my daughter and myself and ruining the zombie's hopes of a late night snack.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! :approve:

a MWI!



(somebody may enjoy that)
 
  • #106
rewebster said:
a MWI!

That is so BGOIYT!
 
  • #107
Where is MIH when there's a job to do?
 
  • #108
rewebster said:
Where is MIH when there's a job to do?
Mullerian Inhibiting Hormone?
 
  • #109
What's the hawk story? Somehow I missed that completely.
 
  • #110
EL said:
It curled up immediately after it had jumped.

Too complicated. I say poltergeist.
 
  • #111
Math Is Hard said:
Too complicated. I say poltergeist.
:smile:
 
  • #112
Math Is Hard said:
Too complicated. I say poltergeist.

Martians. MARTIANS!
 
  • #113
Chi Meson said:
I will point out that eyewitness accounts of events are actually the least accurate and reliable sources of data and information.

In conjunction with UFO sightings there was a filmed test of this on the History Channel a couple years back. Nature hikers being lead on a walk suddenly encountered a taped off area where military personnel told them there was a "downed craft" up ahead and they weren't allowed to go any further. The group leader and military guys were part of a staged scenario, of course. The encounter was taped and the hikers were later interviewed about what had transpired. None of their stories faithfully matched what was recorded on the tape, and one woman claimed the crashed craft was actually visible in the distance, when in fact, there was no such thing there.
 
  • #114
out of whack said:
Martians. MARTIANS!

For gods sake, they are not invisible! (At least not the ones I've met.)
 
  • #115
EL said:
For gods sake, they are not invisible! (At least not the ones I've met.)

Of course not, that would be absurd. It's when they turn on their mind-controlling rays that they block your ability to see them, so you should always wear a tin-foil helmet.


zoobyshoe said:
None of their stories faithfully matched what was recorded on the tape

No kidding. Witnesses, even reputable and respected members of society, are notoriously unreliable. I understand this is a recognized problem in criminology: criminal trials are strongly based on eyewitness accounts and unfortunately people have a habit of honestly believing seeing things that never happened, forgetting events that did and/or misjudging what they saw. Our mind seems to work to ensure that our perceptions are consistent with each other and it can be impossible to distinguish between images truly received and those that were self-generated. If a cat suddenly jumps sideways because of a static spark on its muzzle or whatever then the legs must be extended. But if the last direct (non-peripheral) image of the cat was in a recoiled position, this image could be the one retained by a witness. A different witness would not see the legs of a cat moving sideways in her general direction but could readily accept the testimony of the first one to the point of remembering seeing it too. And if both witnesses already believe that things move on their own in the house instead of being misplaced at times or nudged by a hyperactive cat at other times, well a spooky perception of events can result.


Evo said:
:frown: You're ruining my cat story.

No, no, we're embellishing it with errant speculations of a different nature. It gives you more topics to discuss the next time you tell the story. But stick to the original version around the campfire.
 
  • #116
out of whack said:
No kidding. Witnesses, even reputable and respected members of society, are notoriously unreliable. I understand this is a recognized problem in criminology: criminal trials are strongly based on eyewitness accounts and unfortunately people have a habit of honestly believing seeing things that never happened, forgetting events that did and/or misjudging what they saw. Our mind seems to work to ensure that our perceptions are consistent with each other and it can be impossible to distinguish between images truly received and those that were self-generated. If a cat suddenly jumps sideways because of a static spark on its muzzle or whatever then the legs must be extended. But if the last direct (non-peripheral) image of the cat was in a recoiled position, this image could be the one retained by a witness. A different witness would not see the legs of a cat moving sideways in her general direction but could readily accept the testimony of the first one to the point of remembering seeing it too. And if both witnesses already believe that things move on their own in the house instead of being misplaced at times or nudged by a hyperactive cat at other times, well a spooky perception of events can result.

Neurologist Oliver Sacks once broke his leg running in terror away from an hallucination. He was hiking up a mountain where there was known to be a wild bull which had attacked people. He put that out of his mind, thinking the danger of an encounter was slim. However...

"I had, indeed, just emerged from the mist, and was walking around a boulder as big as a house, the path curving around it so I could not see ahead, and it was this inability to see ahead which permitted The Meeting. I practically trod on what lay before me-an enormous animal sitting in the path, and indeed totally occupying the path, whose presence had been hidden by the rounded bulk of the rock. It had a huge horned head, a stupendous white body and an enormous mild, milk-white face. It sat unmoved by my appearance, exceedingly calm, except that it turned its vast white face up towards me. And in that moment it changed, before my eyes, becoming transformed from magnificent to utterly monstrous. The huge white face seemed to swell and swell, and the great bulbous eyes became radiant with malignance. The face grew huger and huger all the time, until I thought it would blot out the Universe. The bull became hideous, hideous beyond belief, hideous in strength, malevolence and cunning. It seemed now to be stamped with the infernal in every feature. It became first a monster, and now the Devil."

A Leg To Stand On
-Oliver Sacks
Harper Perennial, 1984, page 20

(The upshot was that he turned and ran so recklessly away that he tripped down an incline and suffered a massive injury to one leg. The rest of the book is about, roughly, what it's like for a doctor to become a patient.)

Startle, not to mention outright fear, can do an amazing number on your perceptions.
 
  • #117
funny thing about ghosts and spirits (and most, if at all of those other 'mystical' things/occurrences)---they only happen when there's only one or two people around, they don't they much evidence, and ya' never have a camera when they do happen--

--I think it's a conspiritcy
 
  • #118
Are you saying my hawk wasn't real? :devil:
 
  • #119
Evo said:
Are you saying my hawk wasn't real? :devil:

Were you wearing your tinfoil helmet at the time?
 
  • #120
Evo said:
Are you saying my hawk wasn't real? :devil:

Link me to the hawk story. I haven't heard that one.
 
  • #121
out of whack said:
Were you wearing your tinfoil helmet at the time?
Never without it.
 
  • #123
Evo said:
did your hawk sound/look like this:

http://www.boredtodeath.co.uk/vid361.php
That's IT!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #125
zoobyshoe said:
That's not a ghost story.
What makes you think it's not a ghost? It fits rewebster's definition. :biggrin:

Speaking of Ghost stories, have I mentioned I love scary ghost stories and movies? Unfortunately none are on tonight.

The Discovery Channel has documentaries on hauntings all night. I'm watching one now and it's horrible.

Ooh, the new lastest hidden Nostradamus predictions are going to be on - you guessed it, The History Channel. Hoo boy.
 
  • #126
rewebster said:
That's IT!
Ooops, I edited your post.
 
  • #127
Evo said:
How many cats do you know of that jump into a box fan that's running?

If it was Ember doing it, it would not surprise me in the least. I seem to catch sight of her in mid-air on the way to lots of strange places pretty often. Right now, she's chasing a fly all over the house (I can't decide between leaving the fly to keep entertaining her, and swatting the fly so she stops driving me nuts chasing it all over the house with no consideration of what...or who...she runs across while focused on nothing but the fly). And she does have a rather uncanny ability to rapidly transition from peaceful rest to sudden airborne-ness at such minor things as the phone or doorbell ringing...or a fly buzzing overhead :rolleyes:
 
  • #128
Evo said:
The Discovery Channel has documentaries on hauntings all night. I'm watching one now and it's horrible.
They're all repeats too. They had the one on earlier that's all based on a little girl with an imaginary friend, and they seem to decide it's more than that because she picked out a photo of some dead guy from a stack of photos...considering they said it was the last photo in the stack, she probably decided she better pick something so the grown-ups would leave her alone. :rolleyes: I've seen some shows where you can think, "maybe." But most of the ones that series on Discovery Channel shows, I just sit here rolling my eyes over.

Ooh, the new lastest hidden Nostradamus predictions are going to be on - you guessed it, The History Channel. Hoo boy.

Y'know, there's so much history to cover, I have to wonder why they've started doing so many shows on what seem more like Sci Fi than history. I might watch that anyway, though. Nostradamus' predictions were so vague, I'm curious to see what they're claiming they mean.
 
  • #129
AAAACK. They show a picture of the bust of a king and the bust of a monk on pedestals and some moron goes "to me this clearly depicts the beheading of King Louie and Marie Antoinette". WHAT? WHAT?

What does a monk have to do with Marie Antoinette or the French Revolution?

And where are the people with some semblance of sanity to put things in perspective? This show is just a bunch of Nostradamus crackpots. There's not even any balance, unless the second half of the show is going to be a reality check.

Anyone else watching this?
 
  • #130
I watched for a little while, and then it was just background noise while I got other things done because they totally lost my interest. I agree, it's just a bunch of Nostradamus crackpots trying to find ways to fit the verses to real events, but they have to twist the verses so much to fit it that it's beyond laughable. And trying to interpret the pictures...yeesh! They even kept saying the drawings probably weren't even done by Nostradamus, yet they seem to want to give them all predictive meaning too. :rolleyes:
 
  • #131
OMG, it's a free for all for crackpots! This is horrible. I think I might actually write to "The Lack of History Channel" and complain. But I can't buy air time, so I'm sure it would be a waste of my time. I can see them reading my letter and doubling over in laughter "oh look, this person thinks we care about truth or quality!". :smile: :smile:
 
  • #132
Evo said:
OMG, it's a free for all for crackpots! This is horrible. I think I might actually write to "The Lack of History Channel" and complain. But I can't buy air time, so I'm sure it would be a waste of my time. I can see them reading my letter and doubling over in laughter "oh look, this person thinks we care about truth or quality!". :smile: :smile:

You're Penguino's mother.
 
  • #133
Do you believe in ghosts?
No.

But my post count is now 6666! Muahahahaaaaaaaa! :devil:
 
  • #134
The Discovery Channel has documentaries on hauntings all night. I'm watching one now and it's horrible.

Ooh, the new lastest hidden Nostradamus predictions are going to be on - you guessed it, The History Channel. Hoo boy.
Ummm - you really need to get out!

I just don't watch TV anymore - and these comments pretty much convince me I'm not missing anything. I thought the History Channel was about history, and TDC about science. This is really discouraging.

Oh, and I'm about to slaughter my home PC. The OS is just about totally hosed, and when I check the Tools tab on the C-drive, I discovered that the defragmentation app has been disabled (actually Windows indicates it's not installed). So the Thunder and ground shaking on the Atlantic Coast will be me going Nuclear on my PC. :mad:

Can we get a :ballistic: smiley?
 
Last edited:
  • #135
Astronuc said:
Oh, and I'm about to slaughter my home PC. The OS is just about totally hosed, and when I check the Tools tab on the C-drive, I discovered that the defragmentation app has been disabled (actually Windows indicates it's not installed). So the Thunder and ground shaking on the Atlantic Coast will be me going Nuclear on my PC.

Don't you think the problem might be ghosts in the machine?

(my least favorite Police album).
 
  • #136
Chi Meson said:
Don't you think the problem might be ghosts in the machine?

(my least favorite Police album).
Same here. What's your favorite?
 
  • #137
Chi Meson said:
Don't you think the problem might be ghosts in the machine?

(my least favorite Police album).
Hmmm. I thought Microsoft was the problem. Hmmmm.
 
  • #138
zoobyshoe said:
Same here. What's your favorite?

Easily Regatta de Blanc. It could be the nostalgia talking; I was 14 when it came out. Target audience!
 
  • #139
Chi Meson said:
Easily Regatta de Blanc. It could be the nostalgia talking; I was 14 when it came out. Target audience!
That's a good one. Released 18 years ago this month: Oct '79.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
Chi Meson said:
I was 14 when it came out. Target audience!

zoobyshoe said:
That's a good one. Released 18 years ago this month: Oct '79.
Gosh, that makes me...ONLY 32! Yaaaaaaaaaay!
 
  • #141
Chi Meson said:
Gosh, that makes me...ONLY 32! Yaaaaaaaaaay!

Hehehe. My wishful thinking error is even more strongly motivated than yours.
 
  • #142
EL said:
This would work:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A ghost is defined as the apparition of a deceased person, frequently similar in appearance to that person, and usually encountered in places she or he frequented, or in association with the person's former belongings. The word "ghost" may also refer to the spirit or soul of a deceased person, or to any spirit or demon.[1][2]

Okay, so you don't believe in spirits, souls, or demons.

Ghosts are often associated with hauntings, which is, according to the Parapsychological Association, "the more or less regular occurrence of paranormal phenomena associated with a particular locality (especially a building) and usually attributed to the activities of a discarnate entity; the phenomena may include apparitions, poltergeist disturbances, cold drafts, sounds of footsteps and voices, and various odours."

Do you believe in sounds, cold drafts, footsteps, voices, or odors? Do you require that any apparition be a spirit, and if so, how do you justify that? Also, do you often refer to the Parapsychological Association and wiki for your information?

EL said:
Seriously?
You could ask that question about anything.
How do you know Santa doesn't exist? (There are millions of people claiming so, and the main part of them also claim they have actually seen him.)

Children are taught to believe in Santa and they often do see him as far as they're concerned. However I am not aware of one adult who believes in Santa. Do you understand the difference?

What one should ask is: what are the scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts?
Answer: None.

What sort of evidence do you want? We have audio and video evidence of strange occurrences. We have people running all over the country with scientific equipment and seemingly getting strange results. Granted, I have no idea how trustworthy any particular evidence may be, but it does exist, and there is plenty of it. So your statement is false; that is, unless you demand evidence for spirits, but that is your personal choice. And even then, it does exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
Ivan Seeking said:
Okay, so you don't believe in spirits, souls, or demons.
Of course I do not believe in those things.

Do you believe in sounds, cold drafts, footsteps, voices, or odors?
Yes. These phenomena are not ghosts. They can just be associated with ghosts (by those who believe in them.)

Do you require that any apparition be a spirit, and if so, how do you justify that?
Why would I require any of those things to be a spirit? (Or do I get you wrong?)

Also, do you often refer to the Parapsychological Association and wiki for your information?
I sometimes refer to wiki (or really parts of texts on wiki) when I have read the text I'm citing through and agree with what it is saying. It is often much faster than writing the text myself. You asked me for a definiton, and I think what I cited from wiki fits the general publics defintion of a ghost pretty well. I am simply not very interested who wrote the text I cited, since I agree with it.

Children are taught to believe in Santa and they often do see him as far as they're concerned. However I am not aware of one adult who believes in Santa. Do you understand the difference?
My point is that many people claiming that something is true, doesn't make it true.

What sort of evidence do you want? We have audio and video evidence of strange occurrences. We have people running all over the country with scientific equipment and seemingly getting strange results. Granted, I have no idea how trustworthy any particular evidence may be, but it does exist, and there is plenty of it. So your statement is false; that is, unless you demand evidence for spirits, but that is your personal choice. And even then, it does exist.
Wait a minute. There is claimed "evidence" for all sorts of things: Chi, Homeopathy, Bigfoot, Creationism, Astrologi, Martians, Healing, etc. The "evidence" in all this cases are of the very peculiar kind that they somehow disappear the closer you look at them.
I'm not saying people haven't "heard footsteps", "smelled odors", etc, I'm just saying those phenomena are not due to ghosts.
Are you serioulsy claiming there are scientific evidence for ghosts?
Simply stated: An "observation" is not an "evidence".
 
Last edited:
  • #144
Ivan, have you seen this video:

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
I want to state for the record that I believe in odors.
 
  • #146
I can't remember-----are ghost particles part of MWI?----and I have heard that strings are involved with many illusions
 
  • #147
Chi Meson said:
I want to state for the record that I believe in odors.
A lot of people in their thirties believe in the existence of odors.
 
  • #148
My point is that many people claiming that something is true, doesn't make it true.
That's a reasonable statement. Many people claiming something is true makes it much more likely that others will believe it also, even if they believed it to be false. Consider how people with varying beliefs might interpret that statement and how effectual your point is.

In the experiment, social psychologist Solomon Asch showed groups of college students a line, and then asked each student to identify which of several other lines matched it in length. (The answer was obvious.) Only one student, however, was the "subject." The others were "confederates," in league with Asch. In many of the trials, all these students insisted that a shorter or longer line was the correct match.
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/1998/19980408kersten.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
Just recently in the news, some famous haunted place got debunked in Albuquerque.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071030/ap_on_fe_st/odd_courthouse_ghost


People resort to common explanation such as "ghosts" and what not to explain a phenomenon that is peculiar with respect to everyday experiences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
waht said:
Just recently in the news, some famous haunted place got debunked in Albuquerque.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071030/ap_on_fe_st/odd_courthouse_ghost


People resort to common explanation such as "ghosts" and what not to explain a phenomenon that is peculiar with respect to everyday experiences.

It took that guy a bit of time and effort to set up his experiments. Most wouldn't bother.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top