|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 14, 2014 8:00:23 GMT -5
Why are ghosts or ESP any more likely than Santa, shax? Pretty sure I answered this above. Santa is an incredibly specific belief system. There's either a jolly old bearded dude who goes to every child's house every Christmas, bringing them gifts, or there isn't. ESP is an umbrella term for a phenomenon for which there are any number of possible explanations as to how it works and what it can actually do. Thus, there are a number of variable possibilities for things to exist that would fit under the label "ESP," and thus, it's more likely that ESP could exist. It still doesn't make the existence of ESP likely, but it's statistically more likely for something that fits the label of "ESP" to exist beyond the boundaries of known science than it is for as specific a belief system as the existence of Santa Claus. I see what you mean insofar as in the real world, a single precise observation is probably less likely than any number of observations belonging to a specific category. For example, when playing roulette, getting 11 is less likely than getting any red number. In that sense, I'd agree that the specific phenomenon (11, or Santa) is less likely than the less specific one (red, or any kind of ESP). However, I maintain my point: the different types of ESPs that we've heard about, both in fiction and the real world, are unsubstantiated. ESPs are not like the numbers of the color red; the latter have been observed, and are quantifiable. Not so ghosts and paranormal manifestations. Because enthusiastic proponents of supernatural explanations do not rely on actual data, they can easily call on ad hoc explanations: ESP works, but only if everyone in the room believes in it and nobody checks the spoons before they're bent; ghosts exist, but if you try to get an actual proof of their existence they refuse to manifest themselves, and so on. Using the same argument for Santa, just for discussion's sake, we could use the standard UFO afficionado language and say things like "Sure, 99% of the time, the presents might be bought by the parents. But what about the remaing 1%?" or "Santa is magical; he's got spells that allow him to travel undetected to every home in the world in one night and to get down narrow chimneys -or even in homes without a chimney". Once we start accepting explanations that cannot be controlled, it is not possible to use statistics; there are no numbers to analyze. All we can say is that such and such might be possible, because there is no way to completely disprove it. And I say that as someone who would very much like it for ESP and the paranormal to exist. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 14, 2014 11:41:16 GMT -5
Pretty sure I answered this above. Santa is an incredibly specific belief system. There's either a jolly old bearded dude who goes to every child's house every Christmas, bringing them gifts, or there isn't. ESP is an umbrella term for a phenomenon for which there are any number of possible explanations as to how it works and what it can actually do. Thus, there are a number of variable possibilities for things to exist that would fit under the label "ESP," and thus, it's more likely that ESP could exist. It still doesn't make the existence of ESP likely, but it's statistically more likely for something that fits the label of "ESP" to exist beyond the boundaries of known science than it is for as specific a belief system as the existence of Santa Claus. I see what you mean insofar as in the real world, a single precise observation is probably less likely than any number of observations belonging to a specific category. For example, when playing roulette, getting 11 is less likely than getting any red number. In that sense, I'd agree that the specific phenomenon (11, or Santa) is less likely than the less specific one (red, or any kind of ESP). However, I maintain my point: the different types of ESPs that we've heard about, both in fiction and the real world, are unsubstantiated. ESPs are not like the numbers of the color red; the latter have been observed, and are quantifiable. Not so ghosts and paranormal manifestations. Because enthusiastic proponents of supernatural explanations do not rely on actual data, they can easily call on ad hoc explanations: ESP works, but only if everyone in the room believes in it and nobody checks the spoons before they're bent; ghosts exist, but if you try to get an actual proof of their existence they refuse to manifest themselves, and so on. Using the same argument for Santa, just for discussion's sake, we could use the standard UFO afficionado language and say things like "Sure, 99% of the time, the presents might be bought by the parents. But what about the remaing 1%?" or "Santa is magical; he's got spells that allow him to travel undetected to every home in the world in one night and to get down narrow chimneys -or even in homes without a chimney". Once we start accepting explanations that cannot be controlled, it is not possible to use statistics; there are no numbers to analyze. All we can say is that such and such might be possible, because there is no way to completely disprove it. And I say that as someone who would very much like it for ESP and the paranormal to exist. Well I think we need to draw a line of distinction between people who claim to know about (and even be experts on) things like ESP, and people who simply accept the possibility that something like ESP could exist. You are correct that someone who purports to know all about it really is no different from the person who believes in Santa Claus (as per my example). So I can disprove Santa Claus because of the specificity and criteria involved in the belief. Let's draw a logic proof: Santa delivers presents to good Christian children. I have good Christian children. Santa does not bring them presents. Therefore, the original claim is invalid. I suppose it therefore falls upon purported experts on ESP and other supernatural sciences to make their own proofs. I have no intention of providing a blanket defense for them  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 16:53:28 GMT -5
Well I think we need to draw a line of distinction between people who claim to know about (and even be experts on) things like ESP, and people who simply accept the possibility that something like ESP could exist. You are correct that someone who purports to know all about it really is no different from the person who believes in Santa Claus (as per my example). I sit here as someone who enthusiastically devours infinite installments of miracle-workers dressed in spandex, all working by purest Handwavium and Phlogiston. I would (probably*) love there to be room in the world for telekinesis and super powers, but.... stripped of the serums and glowing rocks and unobtanium, how can any of that stuff work? What is the mechanism by which ESP of any kind can function? For telepathy to function there has to be some sort of information exchange at a distance which implies FTL communication and in the case of mind-reading the ability to interpret stored memory encoded as chemical signals which are recreated from scratch by the owner when s/he has to remember them; for precognition, somehow causality has to be be subverted and people are able to gather information from outside their light cone; for spirits, in what medium is their continuing existence maintained and what is the source of the energy that sustains it? It's all very well to posit ESP or ghosts or spirit messengers or whatever flavour of the paranormal anyone is interested in, but ultimately it becomes like the "god of the gaps" - all the unexplained places where those things can fit between the bits of understanding of the physical world gradually get squeezed smaller and smaller, so we start with thunder gods and spirits and end up with meterology and thermodynamics and psycho-acoustics and quantum mechanics and there's just no room left for the paranormal. Now, each person will have a different tolerance for the claims of the paranormal and a different perception for the size of the gaps: some people will see holes they can fit an omnipotent deity or two through, others will see no room at all. It will probably come as no surprise that I sit in the latter camp; it's not that I think that everything has been explained about allegedly-supernatural events, but to my mind, science has established to my satisfaction that there's literally no way they could ever happen in the way they are believed to happen (* not sure if a real Doctor Doom is such a good idea) |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 21, 2014 16:51:05 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. The human brain is a complex and imperfect organ that is subject to receiving all kinds of erroneous information all the time (not to mention pure imagination.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Nov 21, 2014 17:08:39 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time. . . I voted likewise and the image your post prompted of innumerable, annoying ghosts constantly underfoot and in the way gave me a chuckle. "Ugh. Great-Grandma! Get out of my underwear drawer! Gah!" |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 21:02:58 GMT -5
The human brain is a complex and imperfect organ that is subject to receiving all kinds of erroneous information all the time (not to mention pure imagination.) Well that explains one of my exes. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 21, 2014 22:42:51 GMT -5
Is the board suppose to work if only one person uses it? I'm watching a movie right now where people are using it to find out who killed a girl. It all seems a bit silly and ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Nov 21, 2014 22:47:35 GMT -5
Here in North Georgia, that's known as "forensics."  |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 21, 2014 22:55:41 GMT -5
That's not science Phil, that's letting superstition rule your cognizant reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 22:57:43 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. Yeah. Like coelecanths, which of course science knew damned well had been extinct for millions & millions of years. Until they started turning up in 1937. Oopsie. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 22, 2014 8:49:56 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. Yeah. Like coelecanths, which of course science knew damned well had been extinct for millions & millions of years. Until they started turning up in 1937. Oopsie. But, Dan, coelacanth did leave demonstrable proof of their existence: fossils for the old variety, and corpses for the contemporary ones. And even if nobody was actively searching for ceolacanth in this day and age, all we required to find one was for someone to pay attention while visiting a fish market in Africa. Their continued existence does not force us to reconsider our view of reality (nor even our biological assumptions) because finding that an ancient creature is still around is not a revolution: the nautilus, sharks, crocodiles, sponges and jellyfish have been around for more than a hundred million years. At best, the discovery of living coelacanth was a case of " how cool! This fish we thought gone forever is still around!" I understand what you say, that science can't claim something does not exist just because we haven't observed it yet. But science never claims that in absolute terms; the best it can do is insist on how unlikely something is if it is not observed in conditions where it should be observed. In the case of ancient critters, the discovery of a live coelacanth deep in the Indian ocean strikes me as far less unlikely as that of, say, a live plesiosaur in Loch Ness, surrounded by people who actively search for it. Things are more or less implausible, based on evidence, past experience and how they fit in the objective universe and how we understand it to function. - a comic by Grant Morrison that would make it to my "best ten comics ever" list : past experience says it's unlikely, but I did enjoy some of Morrison's books, and he's still writing so it's a possibility. - an entire print run of Brother Power #3 : the thing almost existed, and there are cases of print runs not being distributed, but given the work of comics historians I'd expect some of the issues to have surfaced by now. - a giant megalodon still swimming in the ocean: we know that megalodons existed, so it's a start, but these creatures would not be bottom dwellers and should have been observed on the surface; barring that, victims of megalodons (badly mauled whales) should have been found; and even then, since we've been busy fishing the oceans for all they're worth during the past 50 years, it would seem unlikely never to have caught any megalodon yet, given its huge size. Heck, even the very elusive giant squid has been caught repeatedly. - ghosts: no fossil, no contemporary evidence, no requirement for our universe to function, and even worse: the necessity to develop a whole new way of explaining things for them to be possible. Science can't say any of these things are impossible. But it can say that some are more likely than others. Sorry for the rant. I'm like a puppy who won't let go of a sock. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 9:30:24 GMT -5
Hardly a rant, sir -- rather, an extremely, & characteristically, cogent contribution to the conversation. Which I need to try to participate in myself at a much higher level; I've been distracted as hell by various things in life &, mostly, work. (Boooooooooooo.)
Much of what you said occurred to me when I posted what I did, but of course I wasn't about to weaken my own point ... if, indeed, that's what would've happened.
Must return to this later & try to hold up my end. Need caffeine to start with, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 22, 2014 10:00:53 GMT -5
RR your knowledge in science blows my mind. I always enjoy your even handed and exceptional posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 19:18:19 GMT -5
- ghosts: no fossil, no contemporary evidence, no requirement for our universe to function, and even worse: the necessity to develop a whole new way of explaining things for them to be possible. How is a ghost supposed to have a fossil if it's intangible in nature? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 19:25:10 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. I don't think it works that way. Bernadette, for example, claims she saw an apparition of Mary while crowds which grew to 20,000 looked on and saw nothing. Should she have been sent to Arkham Asylum? |
|
