RE: The existence of "Ghosts" means...
August 15, 2014 at 2:35 am
(This post was last modified: August 15, 2014 at 2:37 am by bennyboy.)
(August 14, 2014 at 10:46 pm)CristW Wrote: 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.