I am not being defensive, or disingenuous. I could easily say the same of you. Pad is stating that he believes in “the existence of aliens” (with no proof), based solely on the mathematical probability that the sheer size of the universe must make it so, however, he argues that the existence of ghosts is ridiculous, even though the sheer volume of actual accounts and evidence make the existence of ghosts much more plausible mathematically. I have not seen that Pad is asking questions worthy of a response. Demanding that someone provide a newspaper clipping on a pot forum to prove their claim is ridiculous. Seems for him to say it is OK for him to believe in aliens with no proof, but you cannot believe in ghosts, is hypocritical, no?
It's not hypocritical, it's consistent. Pad is not saying he believes in aliens because so many people have stories and personal experiences. He is not sighting close encounters or UFO videos. If the only support for aliens was the same support we have for ghosts, Pad would be just as doubtful. The idea of aliens enjoys mathematical plausibility, ghosts do not.
The sheer number of ghosts reports do nothing to help us draw a conclusion, just as alien sightings do not help us confirm aliens. Anecdotal information is enough to begin an investigation, that's it. This is because anecdotal information is uncontrolled and very likely to contain mistakes and unknown variables. This is what it means to be careful during investigation. If you think that argument from popularity indicates truth, then you do not understand careful investigation or logic. If all the people who have seen ghosts also said the moon was made of cheese, would the cheese moon then have mathematical likelihood?
I personally would not ask for a newspaper clipping because, in the end, that doesn't prove anything either. In fact most ghost or psychic stories have elements of truth to them, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see an actual clip. Pad however did not demand this clip, he asked for it, and if he were doing a thorough investigation, that would be the first step. If the media had performed this step then Lennay Kekua would have been outed as fake a long time ago. The media went for months without even asking for a death certificate. That is sloppy investigation.
So, you are stating as fact, that I” have anomalies that cannot be explained, labeled them ghosts, and call it research”. You know nothing about me, or my research techniques and findings. But, don’t let that stop you from “purposely placing (me) in a bad light to lend credence to your position.” I would say THAT is “making as many assumptions as needed to support your pet theory”. Hypocritical, no?
I am not putting words in your mouth or twisting them around. I am saying that, with the information you have provided, it tells me nothing except that you have a collection of unexplained happenings. I do not have a pet theory, therefore I can not make assumptions towards it, just as I can not lend you credit for simply saying you have a ghost video.
Ghosts are an observable phenomena, but they are not usually observable on command. That does not make them non-existent. There are many videos and recordings of people getting ghosts (or something) to do things in our realm, be it turning a light on and off, opening a door, knocking, or saying something. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence to support the assertion that there are ghosts, but you will not acknowledge them because they cannot (yet) be proven by scientific method. Just seems so unenlightened. Look at all of the scientific “truths” that have been proven wrong. String theory is very interesting, and may some day be validated. Before Einstein, what were our scientific “truths”that people like you would claim as right and declare anyone who thought outside that box, “misguided, misinformed, and ignorant of the facts”?
You start off by deciding the conclusion. Ghosts are an observable phenomena. Actually we have a very loosely defined collection of phenomena that are connected only by the fact that people label them ghosts. Sometimes ghosts leave cold spots, sometimes warm spots. Sometimes they are orbs, sometimes human figures, sometimes cars and trains. Sometimes they are demons, sometimes trapped spirits, sometimes malicious entities or oblivious children. Sometimes they can be felt by psychics, sometimes they can not. Sometimes they produce EMF readings, sometimes not. The emergent phenomena seems to involve people's perception and logic leading them to think unexplained anomalies are ghosts, and that is a phenomena which we can fully explain and account for.
You think you are so smart, but you are stuck in the basic rut of “prove it” through scientific method. Be a pioneer, man.
At what point have I declared myself smart? Apparently, since I have made no comments as to my intelligence, and have not called anyone else stupid, it is you who thinks I am smart. This 'rut' of the scientific method has given you plenty in your life that you value. Antibiotics, cell phones, cheap and readily available food, ect ect. Being A pioneer means discovering truth. Since pioneers saw ghosts themselves, ghost hunting is hardly a new venture, and in fact has uncovered nothing useful about ghosts.
If every scientist, was like you, we would have no advancement. “You prove it”, “No!, you prove it”, “No!, YOU prove it!” Do your own GD research and quit regurgitating scientific method as “proof” that you are right. What ARE you doing to actually advance your understanding?
Again, you fail to understand science. "Prove it" is exactly what scientists say to each other, in fact it is embedded as part of the process of the scientific method. The reason this works in science and does not hamper progress is, real scientists can stand up and say "ok heres the proof". This is how we make sure our advancement is correct and we don't end up taking snake oil as medicine or convict people of molestation based on implanted memories. The truth requires discourse, as the only other alternative is indiscriminate credibility. Facts should stand on their own merit and not rely on twists of logic and attitude.
I do not believe I have suggested a false dilemma a tall. What I have suggested is that he do some research of his own if he is so curious about it. If he was not curious, I don’t think he would make posts about it, or seek out posts about it, then ridicule people for their personal accounts. I know how science works. I prefer to actually do some research to advance my understanding, than to sit behind a keyboard demanding others to prove things to me. THAT does not seem vey intelligent. You claim there are no ghosts, yet you feel no burden to prove your claim.
There is no way to prove a negative claim. If I say there are no such things as pink elephants, how can I prove it? Have you ever seen a white crow? Can you prove white crows do not exist? This is a strawman as I have never said ghosts do not exist, I say we have no good reason to think they exist.
This further shows your lack of understanding science. In science, the null hypothesis is favored until proven otherwise.
I do not see you telling people who believe you that they should do their own research. If I say "ghosts are real and Clayton knows what's up" are you gonna tell me that I am not intelligent unless I do my own research? This is a way to deflect criticism and it is the opposite of how science works. Science replicates results only after data has passed certain standards of merit and rigorous critical analysis. We do not go looking for gold at the end of the rainbow until it has been demonstrated that the rainbow has an end that is reachable and there is reason to believe gold will be there.
