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]

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

That’s quite a surprising claim. I’d like to see a reliable cite for the attempted ban. Here’s a counter-claim, providing some historical evidence of science studying psychology fairly continuously from the nineteenth century onwards:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/6976

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.

[Diagoras]

While you say that scientists can not deal with sightings that occur after the fact, I would rather say they can't deal with it as they do other phenomenon. Otherwise, it would go a long ways for scientists to at least document that these things exist and all that's required is 'observation'.

<bolding mine>

Sorry, I missed this post before, so am answering slightly out of order. The point I am trying to establish is that the scientific investigation of ghosts (or other ‘paranormal’ sightings) can’t have any real value if no repeatable experiment can be performed on it.

As a ‘thought experiment’, if I had been the one hearing those footsteps, I might have been able to design some experiments to test whether what I heard could be reproduced by natural methods (having friends walk about in other nearby rooms, try to hide quickly after making a noise, etc), and also try to falsify them - perhaps going through CCTV footage to confirm exactly who was where and when. But all this effort would still be ultimately unsatisfactory. Being able to replicate the effect with an acrobatic friend doesn’t totally disprove the ghost theory, and who’s to say I had considered every possible natural explanation anyway? Perhaps a bird had flown into the room somehow, panicked and started flapping about - sounding somewhat like footsteps? How likely is that? Not easy to say. Could we replicate the effect? Not ethically.

I bolded a portion of your post because I think that line of reasoning is in danger of putting the cart before the horse. In effect, determining that something exists before performing an experiment to test whether it does or not.

I don't completely agree with your characterization of telepathy. I've read about studies showing results being higher than chance. What we may be seeing in these studies is that telepathy is a weak effect, but that doesn't preclude the fact that it can be strengthened.

While we’re in the Science forum, I’d like to see a link to one of those studies.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

That’s quite a surprising claim. I’d like to see a reliable cite for the attempted ban. Here’s a counter-claim, providing some historical evidence of science studying psychology fairly continuously from the nineteenth century onwards:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/6976/

That's an excellent source. Thanks! I'll quote some areas of your article that should be of interest.

From your article:
Your article opens up describing the history of relationship between science and consciousness. It's not too different than what I said. You never brought up the "ban" which gives the impression that consciousness was always studied.

Despite the central importance of consciousness to human mental life, scientific psychology has had a complex relationship with it (1⇓–3). Many early psychologists were introspectionists and prized consciousness. Behaviorists later banned it from the field. Cognitivists, upon dethroning behaviorism, focused on information processing rather than subjective experience, keeping consciousness within reach but seldom touching it.

Here's another part of the article that brings up the study ban:

In response to the interpretive excesses of human psychology and the rampant anthropomorphism in animal psychology, in 1913 John Watson (45) proposed that a scientific psychology must be based on observable events (stimuli and responses) and not on presumptions about mental states. The result was the behaviorist movement, which essentially banned subjective experience from the field of experimental psychology throughout much of the first half of the 20th century.

Perhaps our confusion has to do with how we define consciousness. My definition mainly emphasizes subjective experience which has been the main problem that consciousness has with science:

Our goal in this article is to provide a historical account of some of the key research findings and theories about consciousness that have been overshadowed by more recent history. The focus will be on consciousness as subjective experience rather than on other meanings, such as the ability to be awake and responsive to external stimuli.

[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]

While you say that scientists can not deal with sightings that occur after the fact, I would rather say they can't deal with it as they do other phenomenon. Otherwise, it would go a long ways for scientists to at least document that these things exist and all that's required is 'observation'.

<bolding mine>

Sorry, I missed this post before, so am answering slightly out of order. The point I am trying to establish is that the scientific investigation of ghosts (or other ‘paranormal’ sightings) can’t have any real value if no repeatable experiment can be performed on it.

As a ‘thought experiment’, if I had been the one hearing those footsteps, I might have been able to design some experiments to test whether what I heard could be reproduced by natural methods (having friends walk about in other nearby rooms, try to hide quickly after making a noise, etc), and also try to falsify them - perhaps going through CCTV footage to confirm exactly who was where and when. But all this effort would still be ultimately unsatisfactory. Being able to replicate the effect with an acrobatic friend doesn’t totally disprove the ghost theory, and who’s to say I had considered every possible natural explanation anyway? Perhaps a bird had flown into the room somehow, panicked and started flapping about - sounding somewhat like footsteps? How likely is that? Not easy to say. Could we replicate the effect? Not ethically.

I bolded a portion of your post because I think that line of reasoning is in danger of putting the cart before the horse. In effect, determining that something exists before performing an experiment to test whether it does or not.

I don't believe there is a danger of doing science in some negative way just as long as we're honest by not conflating 'observation' with 'explanation' or even inferences. Like brunumb, you've repeated that there is no value in observational evidence. If that were the case, then why do experts admit that UFOs exist and not ghosts? Both lack scientific explanations. There is clearly value in observational evidence (observational data, descriptions, measurements) which is why even the US government takes UFOs seriously.

In fact, I don't see that scientists have any good responses here. If we have a type of phenomenon, such as UFOs, that we have very good evidence for, esp. enough for a world superpower (the US government) to be concerned about and want to investigate, then why should the response be to leave it alone? That's not practical; it's get you nothing. So let me put the burden back on you.

We have a phenomenon that is reported and confirmed by multiple experts. Perhaps it's even a national security threat. We don't have a means of controlling it or bringing it into a laboratory, especially if it is advanced alien technology or supernatural. That cancels out some of the methods that you brought up regarding footsteps. So can you offer a practical approach for dealing with that scenario? I've asked some to respond to a similar scenario in the past, and they did so by trying to change up the scenario. They presumed that we could control or grasp anything that we could observe. But what if you can't, then what?

I don't completely agree with your characterization of telepathy. I've read about studies showing results being higher than chance. What we may be seeing in these studies is that telepathy is a weak effect, but that doesn't preclude the fact that it can be strengthened.

While we’re in the Science forum, I’d like to see a link to one of those studies.

Actually, this was YOUR claim. You started it when you said telepathy was pretty much debunked. You did not offer any sources. Is there a real scientific body that are trained or devoted to telepathy and phenomena like it? Or do you just have some lone researcher, who may not even be qualified or trained to deal for such phenomenon, perhaps already having some preconceived conclusions about it, dealing with the matter?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #26]

Glad you found the link useful.

You never brought up the "ban" which gives the impression that consciousness was always studied.

On reflection, I suspect I wasn’t clear enough. My point was that the ‘ban’ (more a falling out of favour) didn’t mean consciousness wasn’t being studied at all.

Perhaps our confusion has to do with how we define consciousness.

It’s certainly tricky to nail down, so not going to disagree.

Your claim that scientists rely on subjective methods to study consciousness is therefore misleading.

You asked me to elaborate. I was concerned that if unchallenged, your claim would imply that subjective methods were the only methods being currently used or accepted. I could have emphasised that better. Hopefully that clears things up and doesn’t need a link to an MRI machine?

I don't believe there is a danger of doing science in some negative way just as long as we're honest by not conflating 'observation' with 'explanation' or even inferences.

Agreed.

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

To clarify: limited value in second-hand historical one-off accounts. Like evidence in any scientific field, there’s a scale from ‘zero to irrefutable’ and I submit that for the vast majority of ghost encounters, such evidence is very low on that scale. UFO’s can be ‘higher’ by virtue of photos and videos. That might go a long way to answer you when you then asked:

If that were the case, then why do experts admit that UFOs exist and not ghosts?

Finally, you touched upon telepathy. I’ll own that I made the original claim (of it being disproven). Searching for a trusted source to back up that claim has proven difficult - it’s a lot easier to find ‘exciting new discoveries’ that turn out to be more conjecture or highly dubious. There’s a blog called Psychology Today which provided some evidence pointing toward telepathy being possible, but it concluded by noting, “The sample sizes in these studies are very small, and the findings have not been well-replicated. The ability to duplicate findings is a far more complex issue than we can deal with in this blog, but suffice it to say that many scientists do not believe that replication of any such finding is statistically feasible.”

If I’m to uphold scientific principles, then I should in fairness to you retract the claim that telepathy is disproven and instead keep an open mind about it. I could reword that last part of Post #18 as:

“For other, testable supernatural phenomena, scientists have studied plenty, and have been open to persuasion by those who claim the power of telepathy, telekinesis, etc. Any evidence of such powers has been largely inconclusive when examined under laboratory conditions. Given the extraordinary nature of such claimed powers, science has yet to conclusively attain proof of a sufficient standard that would validate them, or to provide a serious hypothesis to explain them.”

That doesn’t change my essential point about the testability of ghost sightings though.

[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]

As a ‘thought experiment’, if I had been the one hearing those footsteps, I might have been able to design some experiments to test whether what I heard could be reproduced by natural methods (having friends walk about in other nearby rooms, try to hide quickly after making a noise, etc)

Such a "thought experiment" had in essence been conducted long before the incident in question. I have enough experience in that building with others to be well familiar with the differences in sound quality between someone walking in that room and someone walking in another; that's why I thought the location of the sound source strange in the first place. And having a friend "try to hide quickly" assumes that the unknown visitor would for some reason have done the same, which significantly lowers the reliability of such an experiment.

Perhaps a bird had flown into the room somehow, panicked and started flapping about - sounding somewhat like footsteps? How likely is that? Not easy to say.

Actually, it is easy to say. The chances of the flapping of a bird's wings exactly duplicating the sound of hard heels moving in a straight line across a wooden floor are so low as not to be worth mentioning. It really falls more into the "grasping at straws" category.