Posted: May 13, 2010 7:34 pm
by Luis Dias
Lion IRC wrote:The "same ghost" might not be identically described by two eye witnesses - so what?


It's no problem if you manage to come up with a similarly good empirical test as double blind ones are.

If person A is the only one to have seen a "particular" ghost, we cannot confirm whether if it's an internal issue with their brain or an actual observable phenomenon. But if two people A and B confirm the exact same observation independently (without contact between them), at same time, preferable same place, then we have a good evidence that this is indeed an "outside" phenomenon, for it would be extraordinarily unprobable for two people having mental disorders at the same time with the same attributes.

From them on we might try to explain said phenomenon in various multitudes of ways.

Follow hypothesis, and then falsification. "Ghosts" as much are not even in this category. Mind you, the test I was referring is only important to establish that there is "something interesting" going on, it's still not a confirmation of "actual" ghosts. (It could still be an environmental phenomenon, or some environmental disease affecting both brains, etc.,etc.).

In order for "Ghosts" to be accepted, they would have to be very specifically defined so as to conduct tests of falsification (as in, if "Ghosts Theory" is true, then we *should not* expect result A with experiment B). If they pass such tests of science, then I'll be more interested.

As it is, it's just a good exercise on the powers of belief, suggestion and gullibility in general.