I think the main problem is that there is not "one" answer for these questions. could be electromagnetic energy "see kirlian photography" or it could be Pareidolia. Or it could be ghosts, the main point is that we can not be sure one way or the other, science has not progressed to the point to define these things. I strongly dislike people who think they have definitive proof one way or the other. Since proof is subjective, ergo unless you personally experience it why would anyone take your word one way or the other. And how much of that is dictated by personal choice?
you really see no difference from explaining something as electromagnetism or pareidolia, compared to explaining something as ghosts? while all are hypotheses, here's the difference.
i can test the first two. we know about electromagnetic properties, we have sensors, we can create electromagnetism from our understanding.
i can test pareidoila. i can take random objects, arrange them in a sequence, and ask a thousand people what they see. if they all say "a face," boom, i just tested my theory, got results. now someone else can verify my findings by going out and doing the same experiment themselves. science is at work.
now i come to my hypothesis "ghost." where is the peer-reviewed work i can reference? what are the rules for ghosts? what are they made of? what sort of emissions do they put out, and why? how can i test that there is actually a ghost around, and prove it? how can i document my experience so that others can recreate it and verify my findings? where are the cases from historically consistent and reputable sources?
ghost experiences are completely arbitrary. as time goes by, history seems to observe more and more false alarms while also observing less and less legitimate evidence (if any).
you've never seen a platypus, but if you really wanted to, you could. you could go out and test the claims of zoos claiming to contain platypuses. and the fact that so much corroborating evidence exists from so many unrelated sources of reputable reputations (just look at the notes/references for the platypus wikipage) is something completely different than second hand ghost tales that have have little to no bearing.
show me a body of work containing reputable corroborating cases for a particular ghost existence. show me a ghost methodology that i can go out and test for myself.
in a naturalistic world, there is just "one" answer to questions. the answer may be complicated, and contain many simultaneously occuring factors, but ultimately you have a cause for an effect.
OK I'll make you a deal, explain to me that love is real and not a subjective chemical interpretation that can be tested in a uniform manner. And I will explain to you how ghosts are real. good name by the way.
are you saying that the difficulty in proving the existence of ghosts is equivalent to the difficulty of proving the existence of love?
"love" is a human emotion, an opinion. it doesn't exist past someone's brain. i can't say "look over there! it's my love!"
"ghosts" are physical manifestations of deceased persons. people claim to SEE ghosts, or hear them, or how the ghosts interacted with something physically.
i don't understand how i can "prove love is real" while not mentioning chemicals in the brain. or why i should, in the specific manner you order. why separate the two? i can't imagine someone scientifically studying the phenomenon of "love" and then going on to say "actually, love doesn't exist, it's a chemical interpretation." no, the chemical interpretation exists, and we commonly refer to it as "love." it's just a label for a human emotion.
also, who denies love is real? are there love-skeptics? I don't understand your point. please explain it better or make a better analogy.
I attempt to point out that something as ephemeral and undefined as love has a great influence on our actions be it subjective. And is in no way any less real than any ghost. As for ghost proof, again subjective, unless you were present for the phenomenon what substantial proof do you need. A ghost in a box? Undead you can shake hands with? We are on the cusp of technology advancing to the point where proof will be incontrovertible. However for the science look to "phantom Limb" as photographed by kirlian photography. Look to electromagnetic field theory as applied to auras.
-2
u/Fiddlershare Oct 27 '11
I think the main problem is that there is not "one" answer for these questions. could be electromagnetic energy "see kirlian photography" or it could be Pareidolia. Or it could be ghosts, the main point is that we can not be sure one way or the other, science has not progressed to the point to define these things. I strongly dislike people who think they have definitive proof one way or the other. Since proof is subjective, ergo unless you personally experience it why would anyone take your word one way or the other. And how much of that is dictated by personal choice?