Aliens and Ghosts.. (2 Viewers)

[Jeff Gatie]

Who taunted and used the word "kook" first? You come into what is essentially an electronics and art hobbyist forum and immediately taunt every scientist here who has dedicated decades of their lives to a pursuit and/or a career of science; telling them not only are they wrong about your premise, but they are also full of shit about everything they have dedicated their lives to studying. Then you complain about "mildly disguised taunts"? I am deeply offended, and not by the original offensive derision you heaped on science, for I've heard that 100 times before. I'm offended by the fact you called my taunts "thinly disguised". As others will attest, I never disguise my taunts, I lay em out in the open.

 

[Holadem]

Sorry John but utterly fail to understand this principle. Perhaps an example will help:

Requiring me to prove that all dogs have 4 legs to someone who claims he saw a seven-legged dog is beyond absurd.

It just doesn't work that way, nor should it. We can't go around proving all established working theories to every new challenger, we wouldn't be moving forward, but backward.

It's your job to provide credible evidence to support your theory. Geez why is that so difficult to understand?

--
H

 

[BrianW]

Ah, I think I see part of the problem. Saying an occurrence is simultaneously "unexplained" and "due to a presence" is a contradction. If it is unexplained, then you don't know what it is due to. If it is due to a presence, then it is explained.

If I may ask, which is it?

 

[MarkHastings]

You guys want proof; I've been dead for the past 8 years.


Who's the kook now!!!!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Let me ask this, can any of the skeptics here give me or point me to indisputable proof, proof that cannot be argued with in any way shape or form, that ghosts don't exist?

You can't can you, so why are you getting on me about providing proof that they do exist when you know that I can't, either? I'm not bashing anyone's chosen careers, i'm simply saying that we humans are not quite as smart as we think we are when it comes to certain subjects, this being one of them.

Do ghosts exist? Perhaps, perhaps not, I happen to think the former.

I'm not pushing my beliefe off on anyone, do your own research, draw your own conclusions, I mean, in the end, what do I know, i'm a believer in ghosts afterall. Don't kid yourselves or me, speak the truth, a couple of you in this thread think me naive for my stance here, and that's cool, i'll continue believing in ghosts just like I believe those people on Sunday mornings.

Peace fellas.

 

[BrianB]

Man, I wish logic was taught in schools.

 

[MarkHastings]

John, proving something doesn't exist is almost impossible because in order to prove it doesn't exist, you need to know EVERYTHING that does exist first. Since it's impossible to know that, it's very difficult to prove that something doesn't exist.

For example, Let's say I gave you a magical box of Cheerios (LOL - why not Cheerios ) and this box had an infinite number of Cheerios in it...Now let's say I tell you to prove that there are no Fruit Loops in that box.

This would be hard to do because the box has an infinite number of Cheerios in it. In order to disprove that there was a Fruit Loop in the box, you'd have to sift through the infinite number of Cheerios first.

It's easier to prove that one IS in the box because you keep looking until you find one. But with an infinite amount, you'll never prove that the box does not contain a Fruit Loop because you'll never get to the end of the box.

It's the old "Innocent until proven guilty" - Most people don't believe things exist unless they are proven that they do. Again, that's mainly because proving they don't, is a lot trickier.

Speaking of never ending; was this post???.....

 

[Holadem]

*Sigh*

Me dies.

--
H

 

[Bryan X]

I believe ghosts exist, but your logic here is messed up. As numerous others have pointed out, it is up to us who believe to provide proof of existence. It is not up to the non-believers to prove they don't.

Here's another example. Let's assume that I claim that polka-dotted unicorns with gold horns exist and I tell you to prove that they don't. Just try to prove that they don't exist. You can't. Give it a try......

 

[RobertR]

Of course, the possible examples are literally INFINITE. You can say absolutely ANYTHING exists, and according to John, no one can EVER prove you are wrong. In his world, ANYTHING goes, and logic and reason mean nothing.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

We do not think you naive, get off the pity pot. We think you are merely ignorant of the concepts of logical thought. It is a tenet of mathmatics and science that "you cannot prove a negative". Once you request that someone prove a negative, the rules go out the window and we are no longer talking "proof". Now, couple that lack of knowledge of the basics of "proof" with your derision of the scientific method and science in general, we arrive at another quite applicable saying, and that is "do not criticize that which you do not know".

By the way, I learned the "cannot prove a negative" concept in the ninth grade when I futilely tried to trisect an angle using a just compass and a straightedge, something which was proven impossible back in the days of ancient Greece. I came away quite humbled, which is saying something for me.

 

[Holadem]

Wait... Wendy's has a 99-cent Chicken Sandwich?

--
H

 

[Bryan X]

LOL

 

[BrianW]

John, here are some ground rules:

1. Requiring the proof of a negative, as has been pointed out numerous times, is a logical fallacy and will get you nowhere in a debate. It is utterly impossible to prove that something doesn't exist even if the thing you're trying to prove doesn't exist, doesn't exist. You may as well be asking us to sprout feathers and grow two more heads.

2. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Specifically, the fact that there is no proof that ghosts exist is not the same as proving they don't exist. (In case you didn't notice, this one works in your favor, John. Run with it.)

And, just to be gracious, I'll add a third item that is not a ground rule, but something else I think you can latch onto and use to your advantage: Any skeptic worth his precipitate will never definitively proclaim that ghosts do not exist. The absolute most a skeptic can claim is that there is not enough evidence to believe that ghosts do exist. (See #2 above.) Therefore, it doesn't serve you well to characterize all the skeptics here as asserting that ghosts do not exist. In fact, after re-reading this thread, I don't see any of the skeptics making any such proclamation. That you have taken request for proof to mean that they disbelieve is another logical error on your part. Keep in mind that this is not to say that there are no disbelievers among the skeptics. There may well be. However, the skeptics, mindful of the ground rules, will not allow their “unrpoven disbeliefs” to enter the debate.

Also, to be fair, you were the one who brought up science in the first place. I was happy simply reading this thread and enjoying the many viewpoints expressed. There were no rules. But once you invited the scientists to join in -- and on the defensive at that – you forfeited the pleasure of forgoing the ground rules above.



Now, here's a test. In this post, I did just the following:

A. Once again condemned your belief in ghosts as baseless, ridiculous, and meritless.

B. Told you that your belief in ghosts, while questioned on a logical level, is perfectly acceptable on a personal level, even among skeptics.


If you answered A, then you're still not getting it.

 

[Chu Gai]

Next time use a marked straight edge!

 

[BrianW]

I thought I was the only one who tried to trisect an angle in the ninth grade!

So, Jeff, how's your work on the Riemann Hypothesis coming? Perhaps we should compare notes.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I thought that had been solved, or was that "what's his name's" last theorem? Actually, I was a stubborn ass who hated my geometry teacher and thought it would be an easy way to make him look foolish. A very early lesson on the development of math and science; i.e. "Standing on the shoulders of those who came before you". Funny thing, after that miserable failure my relationship with my geometry teacher became quite friendly and we remained in touch for years after that class.

 

[Radioman970]

I failed geometry in 9th grade. :frowning: I did well in drafting class though.

We should really set this thread to music like Schoolhouse Rock. That Cheerios Analogy would be perfect: dancing cheerios and fruitloops teaching us with a cool ditty that'll never leave our heads. I certainly need it!

 

[Brad Porter]

I was so tempted to jump in to this thread two days ago. Now I'm really glad I didn't.

It does make me miss Steeve, though.

Brad

 

[Jeff Gatie]

**whisper** Shhhh, I think John may actually be Steeve. I'll see if I can flush him out . . .**whisper**

Guy Lafleur was about as tough as his name and Patrick Roy was an overrated hack!!

**whisper**That oughta do it. **whisper**