0 members (),
388
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
OP
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
It is my belief that any logical explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is still more valid than any non-logical one e.g. that ghosts are holograms and not ?life after death? (which is probably the most illogical assumption there ever was.) Has science ever investigated ?ghosts??
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Some scientists have attempted to examine ghosts. They almost invariably discover there is nothing to explain. There was a lot of this back in the 1800's and early 1900's, back before the modern view of science arose.
Science can't really disprove ghosts. However, it can - and has - shown that there are other explanations. 1. Science doesn't do "supernatural." 2. Scientists collectively are not immune to self-delusion. 3. Scientists can be fooled, for example, by charlatans.
Typical example: claims of a poltergeist in a house. Team of scientists goes in and they observe all sorts of mysterious happenings. They ask for advice from a magician. Magician tells them to put secret cameras all over the place, which advice the scientists follow.
Some more spooky things occur, but this time they go back to tape and discover teenage girl throwing stuff across room while looking innocent. Afterward everyone SWEARS she wasn't anywhere near the incident - but there's the tape showing her doing it clearly in every instance.
Did the experiment prove there was no ghost? Not absolutely, but for all practical purposes.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119 |
Ghostbuster Ghosthunting Equipment
Ghosthunters take a variety of tools with them on an investigation. Kits include: analog and digital video cameras with infrared night-vision capabilities; hand-held camcorders and stationary units that feed to a central command center; 35-mm film still cameras and digital cameras; analog and digital audio recorders; amplified or parabolic surveillance microphones; atmospheric environment monitors; motion detectors; Geiger counters; a seismograph and a thermal-imaging camera. One of the most frequently used devices in a ghosthunt is an EMF detector. These devices detect fluctuations in magnetic, electric and radio/microwave energy levels. Some investigators have speculated that anomalous readings in those energy fields are a sign of a ghost.
Are ghosts life after death holograms?
Yes, several live three-dimensional ghosts came to our front porch just last year: each of them said the same thing; "Trick or Treat!" and; "Thank You!"
They even speak!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Rob wrote: "It is my belief that any logical explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is still more valid than any non-logical one e.g. that ghosts are holograms and not ?life after death? (which is probably the most illogical assumption there ever was.) Has science ever investigated ?ghosts??"
Lets examine this Rob.
1. You claim to be looking for a logical explanation. 2. You are trying to explain ghosts. 3. A logical person would first want a shred of evidence that they even exist: There is none.
The logical thing would be to think about something of substance until someone provides a single byte of verifiable evidence.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
I agree. There's nothing yet that makes us feel there's anything to explain.
The most miraculous thing about miracles (such as ghosts, ESP, etc) is that they dematerialize on exposure to people who think critically about them.
If a person were worried about poltergeists, it seems his best defense would be to have a skeptical friend spend the night in his house.
In Rob's defense, though, he has probably been misled. Most commonly available books and television programs present a certain case - which, if that was the only evidence one saw - would often seem quite compelling one.
When authors (and directors) tell a story they get to decide what "evidence" goes into it. It can be half a story. It can be completely or mostly fabricated. After a little practice, though, it becomes easier and easier to see the flaws - but in the beginning what a reader (or viewer) has to go on is simply this: "That's a good story, but what is this person NOT telling us?"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
There is no defense for those that believe what they see on TV. We paraphrase Neil Postman, are amusing ourselves to death.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
|