The existence of "Ghosts" means...

[Sejanus]

Oh nice, resorting to absurdities. Wrong! you do have to be familiar with the scientific method. You definitely need to take courses.

Oh but I am. And you know, at no point in any of my study has it been indicated to me that UFO's or Ghosts exist. That's because science deals with the natural world, not figments of your imagination.

You could respond to any post, of course, but knowing how and what to present as concrete evidence is the key. The Leprechaun reference was a joke, so i do not know where you going with that notion?

I was making the point that image/video "proof" of leprechauns/UFO/Ghost does not prove they exist, only that there are people out there who for whatever reason (probably monetary) feel the need to stage the sighting of a leprechaun, and there are people out there dumb enough to believe it (you).

Are you denying that there vids on "UFOs" and "ghosts"?

I'm not denying that, I'm just denying they have any basis in reality.

There are but it just is not 100% verifiable that does not mean it is not true.

Yes it does.

You better utilize Obamacare

You know, the US is not the only country in the world.

to cleanse out your colon because it is full of shit or something else entirely!

If you knew anything about physiology of human beings, you would know that the colon is usually full of shit.

[ignoramus]

Common judge, what's the fine!
1 week ban for blowing up our bullshit detector!

[CristW]

Sejanus,

1. I am fully aware that science deals WITH the OBSERVABLE(and TESTED) NATURAL world! Read Karl Popper's essay - The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Popper's essay has all the proof I need concerning this post(s) and our discussion. There are too many examples in his essay. This includes the 100% proof statement just in case it is not repeated further down. I suggest that you read his essay and then respond.

2. The Leprechaun thing was meant as a joke and when you introduced It I knew it was a joke. So, your further statements are just trying to find some flaw with me (grasping for straws).

3. Your logical flaw is PERSONAL INCREDULITY! Just because you do not understand my premise and conclusion it is not therefore false. This is further from the truth.

4. Again, a joke concerning (natural) "colon" cleansers when they are so so available on the market. So, if the shit comes from there what is the point of "colon" cleansers and then using Obamacare for it? It is usually full of shit, of course (Just returning the insult).

---

Common judge, what's the fine!
1 week ban for blowing up our bullshit detector!

Read post #25. You want a logical argument with premise from post#25? It goes like this:

1. If there are "ghosts" from previous living human beings, then the world would be filled(infested) with ghosts.
2. Then why is the world not filled(or infested) with past ghosts?
3. There are no "ghosts"!

Points 1 and 2 are supporting premises to the conclusion in point #3.

Now, it may be the case that I would be combining the "ghost" evidence with ETs and this would lead to a logical argument called - Reductio ad Absurdum or Reduce to a Contradiction.

[rexbeccarox]

OP, you really don't understand the logical fallacies you're accusing people of making... like, at all.

[ignoramus]

ChristW
Guess what! That made perfect sense.
I think this issue is also the same as the god issue.

What are the properties of a ghost?
(Other than dodgy pictures, he said/she said)

What exactly are we describing or arguing over?
A semi transparent entity?
What about totally invisible?

So basically we are asking what could be an explanation for such (ghost) like entities without breaking the laws of physics.

I won't use the word theory because that implies we have "facts" which we are trying to explain.

Hypothesis:

Cloaked aliens
Natural beings phasing in and out from other dimension
US Military cloaking testing
Genuine ghosts of people

Any others?
Then we can all discuss the probability of each.

[StealthySkeptic]

There is an afterlife(not Heaven or Hell simply leaving in another existence)...or that this universe(s) allows for the existence "ghosts" as residue of past lives' energies?

Why is there no option for "jack shit" since ghosts aren't proven to exist yet?

[bennyboy]

Any others?
Then we can all discuss the probability of each.

My vote is for coincidental lighting effects + fraud. Scooby dooby doo!

[CristW]

ChristW
Guess what! That made perfect sense.
I think this issue is also the same as the god issue.

What are the properties of a ghost?
(Other than dodgy pictures, he said/she said)

What exactly are we describing or arguing over?
A semi transparent entity?
What about totally invisible?

So basically we are asking what could be an explanation for such (ghost) like entities without breaking the laws of physics.

I won't use the word theory because that implies we have "facts" which we are trying to explain.

Hypothesis:

Cloaked aliens
Natural beings phasing in and out from other dimension
US Military cloaking testing
Genuine ghosts of people

Any others?
Then we can all discuss the probability of each.

I agree with your post and I am glad we past over the insults.

Let me redo the premises and conclusion because I had time to think over some things while on break. Also, a premise could not be a question rather a statement:

1. If there are "ghosts" from previous living human beings, then the world would be filled(infested) with "ghosts".
2. All living human beings on Earth are NOT all haunted by their past relatives.
3. There are no ghosts!

Evidence from vids: We have to conclude that there is something being misidentified as ghosts. What is it?

Possibilities as you have stated:

"""Hypothesis:

(1) Cloaked aliens
(2) Natural beings phasing in and out from other dimension
(3) US Military cloaking testing
(4) Genuine ghosts of people
""""

(1) and (3) possible. (4) impossible. (2) Could be a separate entity(species) which existed on Earth copying living people or a derivative of (1) and (3).

I think that it is possible that 1 through 3 are all happening simultaneously? Or one of the other.

Thanks for thinking this through and being patient.

[bennyboy]

Now, it may be the case that I would be combining the "ghost" evidence with ETs and this would lead to a logical argument called - Reductio ad Absurdum or Reduce to a Contradiction.

I don't think you understand how evidence works.

A hypothesis starts with an observation and an attempt to explain it-- ideally with the most likely explanation that one can think of. Evidence is new observations which provide new information about the correctness of the hypothesis.

"It's ghosts" has never, ever been the most likely explanation for anything. It's not a sensible hypothesis. All ghost researchers start with the "hypothesis" that "ghosts are real" and start looking for unexplained observations to confirm what they already believe. This is not science, and it's not a sensible way to form and confirm ideas about things. It's like believing Icarus is real, and going around looking for feathers on the ground for "evidence." It is evidence for something, maybe-- but not for what you want it to be for.

[CristW]

Now, it may be the case that I would be combining the "ghost" evidence with ETs and this would lead to a logical argument called - Reductio ad Absurdum or Reduce to a Contradiction.

I don't think you understand how evidence works.

A hypothesis starts with an observation and an attempt to explain it-- ideally with the most likely explanation that one can think of. Evidence is new observations which provide new information about the correctness of the hypothesis.

"It's ghosts" has never, ever been the most likely explanation for anything. It's not a sensible hypothesis. All ghost researchers start with the "hypothesis" that "ghosts are real" and start looking for unexplained observations to confirm what they already believe. This is not science, and it's not a sensible way to form and confirm ideas about things. It's like believing Icarus is real, and going around looking for feathers on the ground for "evidence." It is evidence for something, maybe-- but not for what you want it to be for.

Read post#58. Just read over my premises and conclusion.