Reality and Fantasy, a discussion.

[Ethric]

Explaining and explaining away is not the same thing. If a scientist maintains an adamant stance that ghosts in any form does not exist, then his input on the subject is useless. Just as a hardcore creationist is useless in a discussion on evolution.

[Corribus]

His input on the subject of ghosts may be useless, but his input on observations which are interpreted as being due to ghosts is not.

[Ethric]

No, his input on what was seen, whatever it might actually have been, is useless as he has already ruled out options before even looking at it. He will always interpret it as being anything but a ghost. And no, making up crazy examples of other stuff he has already ruled (like spaghetti monsters and sentient teacups) out doesn't change this.

[Corribus]

So because I don't believe in ghosts, my rational explanation for something which someone else observes and interprets as a ghost is useless? That makes no sense to me.

[Ethric]

Well put it another way: is there any chance you might be convinced of the existence of ghosts, purely hypothetical? If no, then your opinion is tainted, you will bend and twist the information any which way to come up with a "rational" explanation. I don't believe in ghosts either, but given enough evidence I'd have to reconsider.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I still don't get it. If they saw ghost/faeries/elemental that is observable evidence

No, that’s not observable evidence. That’s an observation. There’s a big difference. Evidence implies a logical connection. Merely observing something does not ensure a logical connection between the observation and your interpretation/explanation.

Observable: capable of being or liable to be observed; noticeable; visible; discernible: an observable change in attitude.

Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

I disagree that images, sounds, voices, objects moving, ect are not observable evidence. One piece alone is not enough to to make a logical proposal. But all the evidence considered together, especially when you consider multiple "hauntings" is.

GOW

[Corribus]

Well put it another way: is there any chance you might be convinced of the existence of ghosts, purely hypothetical? If no, then your opinion is tainted, you will bend and twist the information any which way to come up with a "rational" explanation. I don't believe in ghosts either, but given enough evidence I'd have to reconsider.

Careful - you are misinterpreting what I have been saying.

1. If someone observes something and says, "that's due to a ghost", forgive me if I am immediately skeptical of the claim. I am within my right as a thinking person to immediately look for a better explanation. No observed phenomenon has ever been logically connected to a ghost other than through simple speculation, no experiment has ever been devised to demonstrate that they exist, or even to explain anything about their nature. On the other hand, many claims have been shown to be wrong or have more plausible, rational explanations. So, you've got statistics working against you. That's not a proof of anything in itself, but it does at least shape one's mindset.

2. Being a logical, thinking human, it is my nature, when encountering something I do not understand, to determine ways to come to an understanding. Claiming "ghost!" as an explanation is a dead end (excuse the pun). Where else can you go? It is an unsatisfying explanation because it doesn't really explain anything. You might as well say, "Fish!" or "Elephant!" for all the good it does. You cannot test for ghosts one way or the other - you'll at least grant me that you can't, at least not now - so why would you ever settle on ghosts as an explanation, except as a last resort? If you've exhausted every other possibility based on current technology and were forced, by process of elimination, to end up on "ghosts", then so be it, but even so I would personally rather leave open the matter, hoping that some day, a better explanation would come along. So why would you settle on that dead-end explanation immediately, unless you are pre-conditioned to think that is the correct explanation and really don't care about entertaining other possibilities, in which case YOUR opinion is "tainted" by bias. People who think they see ghosts are rarely disposed to listening to rational explanations. They are convinced they saw Uncle Bob and that's the end of the story. So - who is bending and twisting information to come up with the explanation they like, now?

No, for me, I like to come up with explanations that I can test, and that I can logically connect to a body of knowledge. This gives me confidence in my interpretation of the events, if nothing else. "Ghost" doesn't give me any confidence at all. Scientific explanations that can be connected to hundreds of years worth of scientific knowledge DO. I would take any scientific explanation, no matter how ridiculously far-fetched, as a starting point explanation over the dead end "ghosts". Because even aspects of a ridiculously far-fetched explanation can, in principle, be tested. And if you test it and it turns out to not be a good explanation, well then you move on an find something else to try. It's not a dead-end. If someday ghosts became testable (although see point 3), then sure I'd be happy to entertain that possibility, because it would no longer be a dead end. I don't really see it happening, but, well, there you go.

3. I don't discount the possibility of something being outside the realm of empiricism. I am an empiricist, which means I believe everything CAN be explained empirically, scientifically, but that does not mean I do not acknowledge the possibility that that belief may be wrong. (Of course THAT doesn't mean I won't fight to defend that belief!) But my major point is this: if it *is* true that something exists outside the realm of empirical law, how is it possible to observe it empirically? If you could observe it empirically, then you could explain it using science. So you see, there's an inherent problem in trying to use terms like "prove" and "evidence" and "theory" and "observe", empirical words, when discussing non-empirical (call it spiritual, whatever) entities like ghosts, faeries, magic, or GOD. I can never observe ghosts - not in the traditional sense of the word - because if I could, they would be empirical, and science could, in principle, explain them. Until then, any observation I make empirically must be explainable by things of this world that obey this world's laws, and so there's no need, philosophically, for me to fall back on such an explanation.

@GOW

Then, could you, if you are so inclined, interpret balls rolling down hills as evidence for spirits?

[Ethric]

But my major point is this: if it *is* true that something exists outside the realm of empirical law, how is it possible to observe it empirically? If you could observe it empirically, then you could explain it using science.

Ah but nothing would be outside what is empirically observable, you simply lack the tools and/or techniques. So if ghosts are, say, some sort of beings that exist outside our dimensions or whatnot, then we can as of now not really see or test much. But maybe at some point, techniques are discovered, a new science is born, complete with empirical observations and tests.

[Corribus]

Ah but nothing would be outside what is empirically observable, you simply lack the tools and/or techniques. So if ghosts are, say, some sort of beings that exist outside our dimensions or whatnot, then we can as of now not really see or test much. But maybe at some point, techniques are discovered, a new science is born, complete with empirical observations and tests.

Maybe, but why wait until that happens (if it happens at all) before you start looking for other, more realistic answers?

[The Mad Dragon]

because when you look for realistic answers to a fantasy possibility, people will end up in failure.

[Caradoc]

Corribus, for the third and last time, I will repeat: the phenomenon that requires an explanation are the reports of ghosts (or fairies). I agree that the "Ghosts Exist" theory is highly unlikely. But so is "Everyone is lying".
We are left with a set of low probability theories, none of which is proven. Your alternative "Seeing something else" is probably the least verifiable in that it is simply a denial of another alternative. Now if we had a theory as to what they are seeing (such as tryptaphine hallucinations), we can add that to the list. And we reach the scientifically interesting question of how these hallucinations are manifest in such a consistent manner. Maybe as interesting as how the act of observation collapses the wave function. Perhaps ghosts are also created by the observers.

[Mytical]

Ah ghosts, one of my personal favorite topics. As somebody who has had a chance to run into (litterally) one, and see a few others, it is a good topic for me.

I fully expect a lot of you to think one of the following after I post a story I would like to share. 1) I was hallucinating. 2) I am just crazy period. 3) It was a dream. 4) I made the whole thing up. While 1 and 2 are deffinate possibilities, I assure you 3 and 4 are not.

When I was younger I used to go to a church (I was even called "Little Miss Preacher" but that is a different story) that sat next to a bridge. Now the creek it was over barely qualified to be called a creek, but I digress. The church was doing a revival during holloween, as an alternative to going trick or treating. Games, food (mmm one of the ladies there made a hotdog sauce that was magnificent), and sports. It was a great time.

Of course one or two of us took the chance to wade in the creek (only up to our ankles and we are talking oldest was 13). We were all called in, and the rest raced to see who could get to the hotdogs first. As I was already a bit full, I took my time leaving. I love water.

Anyhow as I climbed up on the bridge, I noticed a girl looking over the railing at the water. I hadn't seen her at the revival, but there were a lot of children, didn't think much about it. I notice her lean over, and I tried to stop her, but she fell into the creek. I rushed over to look over the railing, and she was not there. Figured somebody was pranking on me somehow, and turned around to go into the church to look for a grownup to help in case I was wrong. Well the girl was directly in front of me when I turned around. As I was yelling at her for scaring me, she walked right up to me, and through me. Felt as if I had passed through semi-solid fog. I should mention that her hair, clothes, ect were wet.

Being a bit freaked out I backed up and looked around. The girl was on the bridge, now dry as a bone, and looking over the rail again..you guessed it she fell in again. The last time the water was deep enough to make somebody that wet had been 10 years ago (at the time this happened). Nor did anybody know of anybody falling, jumping, or otherwise being hurt at that bridge. (Besides maybe small things like skinned knees).

Can I explain it? Nope. Could it have been some sort of prank? If so, it was a doozy. As for if I was crazy or hallucinating, I may never know.

[Jolly Joker]

My first idea to try and research into that kind of phenomena are this to try and sort things a bit out.
The basic thing to start with is: a person has "observed" something; "observed" doesn't necessarily mean "seen"; it may include any impression possible. I'd think there are 3 fundamental possibilities.
a) "Something" was there and the impressions are a correct "image" of what was there (i.e. the impressions were, what I'd call authentical)
b) Nothing was there and the mind made something up (we know this is absolutely possible)
c) Something was there, but since the brain has no experience and maybe not the capabilities to deliver a correct impression, it "filled in the blanks" so-to-speak, which the brain does on a regular basis (filling the blanks that is)

b) would somehow immediately raise the question why or how the mind was fabricating something: if there were had been other strange things occuring you could make a guess like there was some hallucinogenic stuff involved one way or another, but if that was the only strange thing happening then that would be decidedly improbable in which case we would be near option c): the mind fabricated something, but there would have to be a reason for this. In any case, if the whole thing would have reminded the observer of something that happened it MIGHT be sort of a very strong flashback.

a) while this can't be dismissed completely, if it was so, then "something" very "physical" would have had to be there: some kind of fog building images, appears out of the blue and disappears again. You'd have not only to explain the nature of the phenomenon, you'd have to explain the appearing and disappearing as well, the "teleportation" and so on. In short, I don't think that a) is taking us anywhere.

This basically leaves c) as the most promising path. There was "something", but impressions may be a construct of the brain to "explain" what is actually there. Of course there are lots of fictions that deal with that - rifts in the texture of the universe allowing some sort of momentary overlapping with a parallel universe or a discontinuity of time, a look into past or future times. This is basically the same because it postulates alternative realities that may overlay - which at this point leads into a dead end ecientifically, if I'm not wrong. Still, some sort of "mirroring" (an advanced "fata morgana") would be a possible angle to start looking into.
Another angle is the brain. Can thoughts be transformed into "pictures"? Outside of the brain, I mean. A question of neuro sciences. They are busily at it trying, I think, and if so this would be another angle. Still it would not be that different from the "mirroring".
It could be a mix of b and c, of course.
Other ideas?

Okay, that got my brain fit for the day, I suppose.

[theLuckyDragon]

If you had the possibility of completely disproving the existence of everything people refer to as 'fantasy', of giving thorough scientific explanations to each and every 'paranormal' phenomenon, would you do it?

I'm a scientist. Explaining the previously unexplainable is what I do for a living. If there was a magical box that had all the answers, I'd be out of a job. smile But more seriously, even if I could "prove" what you suggest, it would still be a proof based on empiricism. The people who believe in ghosts (or fairies, or God) obviously don't believe that reality is necessarily based on empirical law, and so even if such a proof existed, it would change nothing. People still believe in Creationism, despite all the empirical evidence that "proves" otherwise.

You didn't quite get my question. Let me rephrase:

If you could do all that and convince people beyond all doubt of the validity of what you say, would you do it? Yes or no.

[Jolly Joker]

What a question. Can *I* answer it (for me, of course) or do you want to hear Corribus' answer first?

[theLuckyDragon]

I'd like to hear his yes or no first, if you don't mind

[Jolly Joker]

I don't and I thought it was *just* possible you'd give that answer . That's why I asked first.

[Elvin]

I've always wondered how 'ghosts' can be seen in the form of people with the clothes they used to wear. They are supposed to be incorporeal yet they seem to affect things, well if you believe some stories or videos. Could it be that they can somehow convey to us thoughts of how they used to be? Or as JJ said or mind fills the gaps according to what it senses?
Sadly we don't know much of our brain's functions and potential, we only use a small part of it.

Someone here mentioned we are having a case of physical manifestation which could be true but raises another question. How can a 'spirit' take physical form or at least interact with the material world.

Ok, back to the fantasy-reality discussion

[Corribus]

Corribus, for the third and last time, I will repeat: the phenomenon that requires an explanation are the reports of ghosts (or fairies). I agree that the "Ghosts Exist" theory is highly unlikely. But so is "Everyone is lying".

And for the third (?) and last time, you cannot compare the relative probabilities because you cannot, as far as I know, CALCULATE a problability for "ghosts exist". Further, I don't claim "everyone" is lying. Some may be, but I suspect many people are telling the truth, at least insofar as they believe they saw what they saw, or that they believe in the interpretation they made of what they saw. I do not believe that X amount of people are plain making it up, so to speak. So let's say I even grant you that they are all telling the truth - they saw SOMETHING. And those somethings, THEY interpreted as "ghosts". I certainly don't think its beyond credulity that all of them are interpreting what they saw WRONG. We KNOW that thousands upon thousands once interpreted lighting WRONG. Why could or should this be any different?

We are left with a set of low probability theories, none of which is proven.

Sorry, "ghosts" is not a theory in the scientific sense.

Your alternative "Seeing something else" is probably the least verifiable in that it is simply a denial of another alternative. Now if we had a theory as to what they are seeing (such as tryptaphine hallucinations), we can add that to the list.

I can give you several scientific theories to explain random patches of light or pockets of hot air that, while statistically very unlikely, are at least statistically calculable. Which is more than I can say for some vague "ghosts" concept.

Perhaps ghosts are also created by the observers.

Ghosts are made up by the observers? Hmm... sounds about right to me.

If you could do all that and convince people beyond all doubt of the validity of what you say, would you do it? Yes or no.

"Validity of what I say." What does that mean?

[theLuckyDragon]

Oh come on, you can't not understand. Is my English that bad?

"Validity of what you say" refered to "completely disproving the existence of everything people refer to as 'fantasy', of giving thorough scientific explanations to each and every 'paranormal' phenomenon".

So here's the question again:

If you could prove to everybody beyond any shadow of doubt that fantasy and paranormal events have a scientific explanation or do not exist (e.g. ghosts would have an explanation, while unicorns would not exist), if you could prove it thoroughly in such a way that absolutely no one could deny it, would you do it?