Do you believe in ghosts?

[Unholyground]

You should adopt a position based on explanations and not based on evidence though. People are easily capable of seeing observational evidence where there is none and it's not worth much if it can't be explained.



No amount of anecdotes is evidence that something exists. Knowledge is never derived by accumulating more and more supporting evidence and all that does is leads to confirmation bias.

Yes I know all of that, and I get it. Some experiences are not just random though, especially when many other people also experienced it at the same time, and I don't count religious experiences because most of them have been proven to be chemical related. Doesn't mean there is not a scientific explanation because I guarantee there always is, it just means it is out of our rate to figure it out currently due to lack of proper tools and/or technology.

- - - Updated - - -

So is the science of finding invisible pink rainbow unicorns. And...maybe it's for the best that they stay vastly ignored.



Me too!



Oh. Well, not for very long, were you?

See above.

[Zantos]

A field of what?

Its called Parapsychology. Look it up. Its been a field of study for a very long time.

[Adam Jensen]

There's no reason to believe there's any physical part of us that continues on after death. And if it's not physical, then it may as well be speculation.

[tikcol]

Its called Parapsychology. Look it up. Its been a field of study for a very long time.

It is considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists, in part because, in addition to a lack of replicable empirical evidence, parapsychological claims simply cannot be true "unless the rest of science isn't."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Parapsychology research is largely conducted by private institutions in several countries and funded through private donations,[9] and the subject almost never appears in mainstream science journals. Most papers about parapsychology are published in a small number of niche journals.[10] Parapsychology has been criticised for continuing investigation despite being unable to provide convincing evidence for the existence of any psychic phenomena after more than a century of research

I did, did you?

[Amerissis]

I am an advocate for science but I have had enough really strange classical style ghost shit happen to me that I cannot count it out completely. Now will there be an explanation on what they are some day? Ya probably, but likely not in our lifetime.

- - - Updated - - -



Not in the classical sense, but there are too many stories for it all to be fake. My best guess is converging realities/timelines slamming into each other causing glitches in each others universes. The universe does have a code base so glitches are likely to happen.

Too many stories to be fake? They created multiple religions that billions of people believe in and it’s all fake. There is absolutely no reason why all the so called sightings aren’t fake too. But yeah, if you believe the universe has a code base and glitches...

[PC2]

There's no reason to believe there's any physical part of us that continues on after death. And if it's not physical, then it may as well be speculation.

Yeah true, technically the human mind is based on a running software program which exists virtually and not physically but that's a minor quibble because once the brain decays the running software program is destroyed and it's not whisked off to some spiritual utopia.

[Unholyground]

Too many stories to be fake? They created multiple religions that billions of people believe in and it’s all fake. There is absolutely no reason why all the so called sightings aren’t fake too. But yeah, if you believe the universe has a code base and glitches...

There is math that points to it having some kind of mega complex code base, it is theoretical of course like much of quantum physics that cannot yet be tested.

I said everything can be explained with science you need to go back and read, what I am saying is just because someone experienced something unexplained doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your personal experiences are going to shape you and I would be the same way had certain things not happened to me. I am still scientific in every way possible but some things just have no way to be explained yet.

[Azadina]

There is math that points to it having some kind of mega complex code base, it is theoretical of course like much of quantum physics that cannot yet be tested.

I said everything can be explained with science you need to go back and read, what I am saying is just because someone experienced something unexplained doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your personal experiences are going to shape you and I would be the same way had certain things not happened to me. I am still scientific in every way possible but some things just have no way to be explained yet.

You mean to say that....Invisible pink rainbow unicorns are in fact real, but we're just waiting for the science to come around and confirm it as true? Or did I misunderstand somewhere? Because it does sound pretty much like it.

[Unholyground]

You mean to say that....Invisible pink rainbow unicorns are in fact real, but we're just waiting for the science to come around and confirm it as true? Or did I misunderstand somewhere? Because it does sound pretty much like it.

Take UFO's for example, they have been confirmed by multiple governments, and it was confirmed not all of them are of known origin which means extraterrestrial. This is a fact now and it is something people have been seeing for millennia in the sky but was only officially confirmed this year.

Something like that exists but we do not have the understanding to know what is actually going on and of course a ton of sightings are bullshit but I guarantee some are not as this new information has brought to light (I have seen a couple in my lifetime already whether people believe me or not).

Most things like what you stated are clearly not real while others have physical impact on our reality that we just don't fully understand yet.

[PC2]

There is math that points to it having some kind of mega complex code base, it is theoretical of course like much of quantum physics that cannot yet be tested.

I said everything can be explained with science you need to go back and read, what I am saying is just because someone experienced something unexplained doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your personal experiences are going to shape you and I would be the same way had certain things not happened to me. I am still scientific in every way possible but some things just have no way to be explained yet.

No that's called scientism. Science can't address things like the validity of moral and artistic preferances and various first-person phenomenologies. For everything to be explainable by scientific theories they would have to be testable in a way that could potentially falsify(most of) the theories in a conclusive manner.

[Unholyground]

No that's called scientism. Science can't address things like the validity of moral and artistic preferances and various first-person phenomenologies. For everything to be explainable by scientific theories they would have to be testable in a way that could potentially falsify(most of) the theories in a conclusive manner.

That is fine, but eventually everything is testable when we discover/create the tools to test them.

[PC2]

That is fine, but eventually everything is testable when we discover/create the tools to test them.

Why do you believe that? While science is always about increasing the scope of testable knowledge that's highly wishful thinking to assume that science will be able to completely address all our concerns and questions. Not only that but I'd argue there's no reason to believe that science can ever prove any theory correct under any circumstances.

[Unholyground]

Why do you believe that? While science is always about increasing the scope of testable knowledge that's highly wishful thinking to assume that science will be able to completely address all our concerns and questions. Not only that but I'd argue there's no reason to believe that science can ever prove any theory correct under any circumstances.

Huh? Science has already proven many theories correct and some day tools will exist to test more things whether humans are the source of that creation or not.

[PC2]

Huh? Science has already proven many theories correct and some day tools will exist to test more things whether humans are the source of that creation or not.

Actually no, theories can't ever be proven correct. That's precisely why we call things like the theory of general relativity a theory and not "the proof of general relativity" even though it has been 'confirmed' many times. The reason for that is because no amount of scientific experiments that do not result in a false prediction ever constitutes a proof of correctness.

[Unholyground]

Actually no, theories can't ever be proven correct. That's precisely why we call things like the theory of general relativity a theory and not "the proof of general relativity". The reason for that is because no amount of scientific experiments that do not result in a false prediction ever constitutes a proof of correctness.

(In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. ... " A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.")

Scientific Theory is much different than Theory. You first need to understand the difference.

[PC2]

(In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. ... " A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.")

Scientific Theory is much different than Theory. You first need to understand the difference.

Except you're supporting my point with that quote, because that quote merely says that scientific theories can be 'well-substantiated' and it never says a scientific theory is proven correct. Where as you did claim that science has proven a theory correct in your prior post.

[Unholyground]

Except your proving my point with that quote, because that quote merely says that theories can be 'well-substantiated' and it never says a scientific theory is proven correct. Where as you did claim that science has proven a theory correct in your prior post.

You are just sounding extremely under educated and this conversation is over if you cannot understand the difference between scientific theory and theory or what facts are. Have a good day

[PC2]

You are just sounding extremely under educated and this conversation is over if you cannot understand the difference between scientific theory and theory or what facts are. Have a good day

This is how you know you've lost the argument. Instead of showing that a scientific theory can be proven correct you've shifted to an ad hominem argument about education.

If you can't win an argument and have to resort to personal comments then maybe you should have an open-mind and ask yourself "could I be wrong in this debate?".

[Unholyground]

This is how you know you've lost the argument. Instead of showing that a scientific theory can be proven correct you've shifted to an ad hominem argument about education.

If you can't win an argument and have to resort to personal comments then maybe you should have an open-mind and ask yourself "could I be wrong in this debate?".

No dude you are not understanding the English language or Science and now your are harassing me about your own lack of understanding.

[PC2]

No dude you are not understanding the English language or Science and now your are harassing me about your own lack of understanding.

No there's no language issue except that you don't seem to understand that a theory is a theory because it is not a proof.

Again I ask you to keep an open-mind and consider the idea that what you believe might not be the absolute truth and it could be false.