The Existence of Ghosts

[Kylie]

From a discussion in another thread with Purple Knight.

Do you believe in ghosts? Please feel free to add any more information as a post in this thread, such as a story where you encountered something you believe was a ghost, etc.

[AgnosticBoy]

It wasn't until recent sightings by the US military, that just so happened to be leaked, that now the issue is being taken seriously.

This isn't true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_ ... on_Program

In all fairness, your source shows when the military started taking UFOs seriously, but I'm referring to when the government as a whole started taking it seriously. That occurred this year when the US government demanded that the Pentagon release a report on this issue.

I think study into the supernatural should follow the same track.

And just how would you suggest we "study" the supernatural? What specific tools do you suggest could be used in such an endeavor?

I don't have a comprehensive plan, but I threw out some ideas in my last post. We can start with observation and documentation. Lets firmly establish that such phenomena exists. Another point I brought up is about practicality.

Not being practical by not adjusting your methods and standards just leads to our knowledge being stunted. You are basically saying that I have strong evidence that this exists, but because I can't explain it or control it in a laboratory, therefore we'll just remain in some indefinite state of agnosticism or just leave it alone. Not practical!

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's another example based on the history of science.

Once upon a time, scientists started studying consciousness. Then later on scientists try to ban it from being studied. Now they've accepted it.

Why did they ban it? Because consciousness wasn't observable. Now to be practical, they study it but not in all of the same ways as other natural phenomenon. Scientists study it indirectly by asking the subject questions, doing surveys, etc. In other words, scientists rely on subjective (subject-based) methods to study consciousness.

[Diagoras]

[Diagoras]

[AgnosticBoy]

[AgnosticBoy]

Why did they ban it? Because consciousness wasn't observable. Now to be practical, they study it but not in all of the same ways as other natural phenomenon. Scientists study it indirectly by asking the subject questions, doing surveys, etc. In other words, scientists rely on subjective (subject-based) methods to study consciousness.

Modern imaging techniques allow consciousness to be studied in other ways than those you have described, and more directly. Your claim that scientists rely on subjective methods to study consciousness is therefore misleading.

Please elaborate on what you're referring to with the relevant sources. Self-reporting is widely used by scientists and doctors to gauge pain level, thoughts, feelings, responses to stimuli (asking when something was noticed, etc.), and so on. Here's some good information on that topic:

Self-report is indispensable for any more nuanced assessment of mental states. While it is possible to examine general physiological properties of thought and affect using brain-imaging, and their consequences through performance tests and behavioral observation, assessing the contents and complex cognitive processes involved in human thinking, emotion, and motivation requires self-report. As such, self-report was a primary assessment method in psychology and education from early on, and it continued to be a primary method throughout all developmental phases in the history of these disciplines, even in the prime time of behaviourism early in the 20th century. However, self-report also has limitations. Self-report is restricted to processes that are accessible to consciousness; is typically limited to assess contents that can be verbally described; can be subject to various biases; and is always lagging behind the processes it aims to assess, even if only for seconds, which implies that it lacks the temporal resolution needed to capture the real-time dynamics of learning.

Source: Source

[AgnosticBoy]

[Diagoras]

[brunumb]

While some skeptics like brunumb try to reduce observation of UFOs as being nothing,....

Like brunumb, you've repeated that there is no value in observational evidence.

May I ask where I have tried to reduce observation of UFOs as being nothing or that there is no value in observational evidence. I'm sure that I have never intentionally made such declarations. Could you have misconstrued what I was saying?

[Athetotheist]