What are your thoughts on the origin of ghosts?
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 07 Oct 2016, 14:37
- Currently Reading: The Monstrumologist (The Monstrumologist, #1)
- Bookshelf Size: 41
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-caitline.html
Re: What are your thoughts on the origin of ghosts?
- Wasif Ahmed
- Posts: 662
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
- Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
- Bookshelf Size: 110
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
- Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
- Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
- lane_vespertine
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 22:55
- Currently Reading: Ilium
- Bookshelf Size: 18
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lane-vespertine.html
- Latest Review: "Hell Holes 2" by Donald Firesmith
I disagree with both the question and how you phrase it.wasif_ahmed wrote:Gali, not believing in paranormal activities is fine but then how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced? Read the 'Do you believe in ghosts?' forum on this topic, the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly.
The "weird encounters written about in that forum" can be explained by many things. For instance:
1. Ghosts
2. Drugs
3. Aliens
4. Literally anything else you can think of.
The point here is that you can't ever say that there is only one explanation for anything. For example, gravity could be either the natural attraction between things with mass OR a giant hoax propagated by the "pro-gravity" lobby. The point is that you can only speculate on the most likely cause and never the "only" cause. Yes, some of the other causes might be silly and obviously wrong (like my example of "pro-gravity" lobbies), but they are still possibilities.
So when you say "can only be explained," you exclude through logical fallacy any, perhaps more reasonable, possible explanations.
On top of this, you assume an anecdote to be fact. An anecdote is one persons interpretation of an event. It inherently is subject to the natural biases and experiences of the person relating it. I'll give you an example:
Two people see a married couple having sex.
The first person is a modern adult and says, "This is natural and I shouldn't be looking at this."
The second person is a small child and says, "That man is beating that woman and I should get help!"
They both are using what they have learned up until that point in their life to interpret what is happening to the best of their knowledge. In this example I gave you the facts of what is happening first, but real life is never as accommodating.
Facts can only ever be called facts when they have been tested against other possible interpretations and are clearly shown to be the most likely explanation by a consensus (there is a bit of a rabbit hole here, what does it take to establish a consensus? Suffice it to be defined as "the majority agreement of well informed people." The more people involved with the consensus and the more they are informed, the stronger the likelihood of correctness. Yes, they do make mistakes, such as witch trials and medicinal leeches, but the point is that a large consensus is MORE likely to be correct than any single individual person, not that it always has been the case.)
Now that I am armed with all this logical stuff, let me get back to your original quote.
"...how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced?"
I do not disagree that people believe they have experienced "ghostly encounters."
But, this is their interpretation of an event.
If a person is inclined to suspect ghosts due to a preexisting belief, then an unexplained event may be attributed to them. If, on the other hand, that person had been inclined to suspect aliens, then it would have been unsurprising if the unexplained event had been attributed to aliens. Or fairies. Or demons. If a person is inclined to look for more physical explanations for the same event, they may have attributed it to chemical misfires in their brain. Or gravity. Or optic illusion. If that person was truly and utterly skeptical, they might have simply shrugged and said "I don't know what happened."
All of these examples are legitimate reactions to the same event, and thus carry the same legitimate weight.
In order for the interpretation of "ghosts" to be made fact, it must compare to every other possibility (all of those stated above, as well as those not stated, and for the sake of not having to compare things until the literal ending of time, we can limit these possibilities to those most likely.) At that point a consensus must be achieved.
I have seen no robust consensus ever agree that the most likely cause of any event was ghosts.
I cannot argue for every single possible event individually, since that would make this way too long posting even more way too long (approaching infinity in fact.)
"...the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly."
Nope. Not true. At all. Because of everything I've already said.
Anyway, sorry if I come across as a jerk. Hope you have a great day!
- gali
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 53653
- Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 07:12
- Currently Reading: Pride and Prejudice in Space
- Bookshelf Size: 2288
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-gali.html
- Reading Device: B00I15SB16
- Publishing Contest Votes: 0
lane_vespertine wrote:I disagree with both the question and how you phrase it.wasif_ahmed wrote:Gali, not believing in paranormal activities is fine but then how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced? Read the 'Do you believe in ghosts?' forum on this topic, the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly.
The "weird encounters written about in that forum" can be explained by many things. For instance:
1. Ghosts
2. Drugs
3. Aliens
4. Literally anything else you can think of.
The point here is that you can't ever say that there is only one explanation for anything. For example, gravity could be either the natural attraction between things with mass OR a giant hoax propagated by the "pro-gravity" lobby. The point is that you can only speculate on the most likely cause and never the "only" cause. Yes, some of the other causes might be silly and obviously wrong (like my example of "pro-gravity" lobbies), but they are still possibilities.
So when you say "can only be explained," you exclude through logical fallacy any, perhaps more reasonable, possible explanations.
On top of this, you assume an anecdote to be fact. An anecdote is one persons interpretation of an event. It inherently is subject to the natural biases and experiences of the person relating it. I'll give you an example:
Two people see a married couple having sex.
The first person is a modern adult and says, "This is natural and I shouldn't be looking at this."
The second person is a small child and says, "That man is beating that woman and I should get help!"
They both are using what they have learned up until that point in their life to interpret what is happening to the best of their knowledge. In this example I gave you the facts of what is happening first, but real life is never as accommodating.
Facts can only ever be called facts when they have been tested against other possible interpretations and are clearly shown to be the most likely explanation by a consensus (there is a bit of a rabbit hole here, what does it take to establish a consensus? Suffice it to be defined as "the majority agreement of well informed people." The more people involved with the consensus and the more they are informed, the stronger the likelihood of correctness. Yes, they do make mistakes, such as witch trials and medicinal leeches, but the point is that a large consensus is MORE likely to be correct than any single individual person, not that it always has been the case.)
Now that I am armed with all this logical stuff, let me get back to your original quote.
"...how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced?"
I do not disagree that people believe they have experienced "ghostly encounters."
But, this is their interpretation of an event.
If a person is inclined to suspect ghosts due to a preexisting belief, then an unexplained event may be attributed to them. If, on the other hand, that person had been inclined to suspect aliens, then it would have been unsurprising if the unexplained event had been attributed to aliens. Or fairies. Or demons. If a person is inclined to look for more physical explanations for the same event, they may have attributed it to chemical misfires in their brain. Or gravity. Or optic illusion. If that person was truly and utterly skeptical, they might have simply shrugged and said "I don't know what happened."
All of these examples are legitimate reactions to the same event, and thus carry the same legitimate weight.
In order for the interpretation of "ghosts" to be made fact, it must compare to every other possibility (all of those stated above, as well as those not stated, and for the sake of not having to compare things until the literal ending of time, we can limit these possibilities to those most likely.) At that point a consensus must be achieved.
I have seen no robust consensus ever agree that the most likely cause of any event was ghosts.
I cannot argue for every single possible event individually, since that would make this way too long posting even more way too long (approaching infinity in fact.)
"...the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly."
Nope. Not true. At all. Because of everything I've already said.
Anyway, sorry if I come across as a jerk. Hope you have a great day!
Pronouns: She/Her
"In the case of good books, the point is not to see how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you." (Mortimer J. Adler)
- Janetleighgreen
- Posts: 666
- Joined: 05 Jul 2016, 19:04
- Currently Reading: Before She Disappeared
- Bookshelf Size: 204
Even though, I do believe in ghosts, I absolutely love this response Gali! I also love the fact that someone asked the questions to elicit such a response! I am still smiling so big my cheeks are hurting!gali wrote:lane_vespertine wrote:I disagree with both the question and how you phrase it.wasif_ahmed wrote:Gali, not believing in paranormal activities is fine but then how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced? Read the 'Do you believe in ghosts?' forum on this topic, the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly.
The "weird encounters written about in that forum" can be explained by many things. For instance:
1. Ghosts
2. Drugs
3. Aliens
4. Literally anything else you can think of.
The point here is that you can't ever say that there is only one explanation for anything. For example, gravity could be either the natural attraction between things with mass OR a giant hoax propagated by the "pro-gravity" lobby. The point is that you can only speculate on the most likely cause and never the "only" cause. Yes, some of the other causes might be silly and obviously wrong (like my example of "pro-gravity" lobbies), but they are still possibilities.
So when you say "can only be explained," you exclude through logical fallacy any, perhaps more reasonable, possible explanations.
On top of this, you assume an anecdote to be fact. An anecdote is one persons interpretation of an event. It inherently is subject to the natural biases and experiences of the person relating it. I'll give you an example:
Two people see a married couple having sex.
The first person is a modern adult and says, "This is natural and I shouldn't be looking at this."
The second person is a small child and says, "That man is beating that woman and I should get help!"
They both are using what they have learned up until that point in their life to interpret what is happening to the best of their knowledge. In this example I gave you the facts of what is happening first, but real life is never as accommodating.
Facts can only ever be called facts when they have been tested against other possible interpretations and are clearly shown to be the most likely explanation by a consensus (there is a bit of a rabbit hole here, what does it take to establish a consensus? Suffice it to be defined as "the majority agreement of well informed people." The more people involved with the consensus and the more they are informed, the stronger the likelihood of correctness. Yes, they do make mistakes, such as witch trials and medicinal leeches, but the point is that a large consensus is MORE likely to be correct than any single individual person, not that it always has been the case.)
Now that I am armed with all this logical stuff, let me get back to your original quote.
"...how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced?"
I do not disagree that people believe they have experienced "ghostly encounters."
But, this is their interpretation of an event.
If a person is inclined to suspect ghosts due to a preexisting belief, then an unexplained event may be attributed to them. If, on the other hand, that person had been inclined to suspect aliens, then it would have been unsurprising if the unexplained event had been attributed to aliens. Or fairies. Or demons. If a person is inclined to look for more physical explanations for the same event, they may have attributed it to chemical misfires in their brain. Or gravity. Or optic illusion. If that person was truly and utterly skeptical, they might have simply shrugged and said "I don't know what happened."
All of these examples are legitimate reactions to the same event, and thus carry the same legitimate weight.
In order for the interpretation of "ghosts" to be made fact, it must compare to every other possibility (all of those stated above, as well as those not stated, and for the sake of not having to compare things until the literal ending of time, we can limit these possibilities to those most likely.) At that point a consensus must be achieved.
I have seen no robust consensus ever agree that the most likely cause of any event was ghosts.
I cannot argue for every single possible event individually, since that would make this way too long posting even more way too long (approaching infinity in fact.)
"...the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly."
Nope. Not true. At all. Because of everything I've already said.
Anyway, sorry if I come across as a jerk. Hope you have a great day!
I still say ghosts are out there though! Haha!
- Aleah
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 17:34
- Currently Reading: The Fault in Our Stars
- Bookshelf Size: 30
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-aleah.html
- karolinka
- Posts: 213
- Joined: 11 Oct 2016, 15:06
- Bookshelf Size: 20
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-karolinka.html
- Latest Review: "Loose Threads" by J. O. Quantaman
- Reading Device: 1400698987
- Wasif Ahmed
- Posts: 662
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
- Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
- Bookshelf Size: 110
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
- Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
- Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
- Kia
- Posts: 351
- Joined: 19 Feb 2016, 17:40
- Currently Reading: Damaged Goods
- Bookshelf Size: 46
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kia.html
- Latest Review: Wheel of Katarnum by James Calliotte
- Reading Device: B00JG8GOWU
- Wasif Ahmed
- Posts: 662
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
- Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
- Bookshelf Size: 110
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
- Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
- Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
-
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 13 Oct 2016, 16:16
- Bookshelf Size: 12
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-michelle92.html
- Latest Review: "Yesterdat" by Samyann
- Wasif Ahmed
- Posts: 662
- Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
- Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
- Bookshelf Size: 110
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
- Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
- Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 15 Oct 2016, 19:16
- Bookshelf Size: 93
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jjnessie-33.html
- Latest Review: "Audiobooks.com Book of your Choice" by Audiobooks
- greenstripedgiraffe
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 836
- Joined: 22 Oct 2015, 10:47
- Currently Reading: The New Strong-Willed Child
- Bookshelf Size: 274
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-greenstripedgiraffe.html
- Latest Review: Swarm by Guy Morris
- Megwe85
- Posts: 112
- Joined: 16 Aug 2016, 01:48
- Bookshelf Size: 91
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-megwe85.html
- Latest Review: "Cryptic" by Conrad Luznar
This post says it all for me. Thanks Sarah!Sarah_Khan wrote:It probably started as a legend or maybe people started believing in ghosts to help them cope with the loss of their loved ones. There are a lot of things in this world that we can't explain, and as human beings we're always searching for an answer, which sometimes leads us to make up things.