I believe in ghosts and aliens because of statistics. What do you think?
-
In terms of other spooks and gooks, like the Lochness monster, those are not being reproduced on the daily from decentralized sources.
In the case for the Lochness monster, it's localized to a certain location and mostly within a certain period of time. Not much weak proof or statistical evidence is being produced to be considered an anomaly worth believing in.
Specifically in terms of ghosts and aliens, it has been known for ages, inscribed into historical texts, of which were inscribed from different eras of human history completely decentralized via continents, that we can relate certain experiences to -- eg, ghostly and alien experiences. On the contrary, there are historical texts of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns, but no modern or excessive amounts of proof or statistical anomalies to consider them worth believing in.
People used to write that frogs were spontaneously born from mud. Just because a belief is written down or etched in stone doesn't make it true or real.
As for supernatural stuff you have to realize that before scientists discovered things like we aren't the center of the solar system, people were ignorant of physics and astronomy, and attributed everything to some supernatural god or alien force. We have moved past the idea of a guy in a chariot toeing planets across the night sky.
-
Full disclosure, I'm not claiming the aliens or ghosts to be real, I am affirming my belief due to the improbability of all reports being claimed false.
People will use the incentive to make hoaxes for fame and money. This adds to the 99%.
People have reported high quality pictures. Which begs the question of whether it is real or fake. If fake, it adds to the 99%. If real, it adds to the 1%.
Modern astronomical and surveillance have captured evidence of them. Which begs the question of whether it is real or fake. If fake, it adds to the 99%. If real, it adds to the 1%.
We are not relying on shaky polaroid pictures. And the pictures must disproportionately be seemingly random since they're difficult phenomenon to capture.
Any alien photos of a coloured shaped were already disproved by an optic expert. Just ike you get sunflare in a regular camera lens as hexagons, you get triangle flare in military recording lenses.
-
Then all the gods must be real too according to your statistics. Now tell me, which is the right one to follow? I better pick a side soon
No no no, with gods, you can kind of shop around, most of them won't mind much, at least not in the 'send a lightning bolt down to fry [email protected]' kind of way. Essentially, gods need people to believe in them (so they can exist), and people need someone to blame. Offler, the crocodile-headed god, is quite popular, as is Blind Io, chief of the gods.
I work in IT, so in my headcannon, I pray to the gods of DNS. Put into a classical context, I imagine this is Hermes from Greek mythology (messenger of the gods), Thoth from Egyption mythology, etc.
Completely honestly though - I think faith is similar to energy, in the 'conservation of energy' type of way. So the total amount of faith humanity holds has stayed the same, but instead of praying to gods, we now have faith in things like... Ryzen processors. DNS. Manual transmissions. Black coffee. Subaru. These are just some of the things I have faith in, if you asked my daughter, the answers would probably be Peppa Pig, mom & dad, Everest the Paw Patrol character, a blue baloon, cheesecake is best cake, her stuffed animal squid, etc. Both answers are completely valid
-
You could really use a basic philosophy and logic education. Like one or two community college 100-level classes on critical thinking.
Any free/open online crash courses on it?
-
When people ask whether or not they believe ghosts or aliens exist, they typically point to something that is somewhat tangible as proof such as "the government says it is real" or "this video explains it all".
I think these responses are valid, but with low confidence in what they're trying to prove. A government can simply be making stuff up and a video explaining it could of simply been misinformed into some false truth.On the contrary, I think they exist because of statistical improbability. I see that there are an uncountable amount of videos claiming to have recorded proof for ghosts and aliens. Assuming that 99% of them are hoaxes, clout chasers, or misidentified phenomena, that still leaves 1% of all those videos to be true. As long as the percentage is not 100%, it means that there is solid proof out there, weak in confidence or not, it's a lead to the truth.
Your "statistics" are fantasy numbers, not statistics. And statistics or probabilities, no matter how low or high, are not proof.
-
When people ask whether or not they believe ghosts or aliens exist, they typically point to something that is somewhat tangible as proof such as "the government says it is real" or "this video explains it all".
I think these responses are valid, but with low confidence in what they're trying to prove. A government can simply be making stuff up and a video explaining it could of simply been misinformed into some false truth.On the contrary, I think they exist because of statistical improbability. I see that there are an uncountable amount of videos claiming to have recorded proof for ghosts and aliens. Assuming that 99% of them are hoaxes, clout chasers, or misidentified phenomena, that still leaves 1% of all those videos to be true. As long as the percentage is not 100%, it means that there is solid proof out there, weak in confidence or not, it's a lead to the truth.
By this logic, if I post 10000 videos claiming 2+2=5, it becomes true by 'statistics'?
To answer your question though, statistics are not predetermined independently from the truth. Truth is the basis and the number of claims for any statement does not change that.
There are many examples from the past, like witches, werewolves, vampires, giants, ... People used to claim their existence but not anymore. By your logic they must have existed back then but suddenly they dont anymore?
Also how come ghosts and aliens exist almost exclusively in the US? There are almost no reports in any other country. -
No, I'm not claiming that there is there is any evidence for the 1%, the post was entirely on a hunch and speculation. I never claimed that I had proof or claim that the statistics prove on the name of science. It is just a casual thought on affirmation.
You claimed that you are basing your belief on statistics, which are the opposite of 'a hunch'. Turns out it was just that.
-
I won't dispute your claim, as your argument is flawed from the beginning.
But answer me this: What's the expiration date on ghosts? There has to be one, because otherwise there would be a lot more ghosts from any and all eras.
And that includes Neolithic era ghosts.
And what about the Neanderthals? And dinosaurs? Why do we never hear of ghosts from other species?
Ghosts expire once they complete their unfinished business. So any Neanderthal ghost around now would have to be spectacularly incompetent. Despite their popular reputation, Neanderthals were quite successful in their survival strategies.
Dinosaurs can't be ghosts. They can become zombies though.
So basically we can understand ghostliness as a property of the tool using hominids, and almost exclusively those which have developed civilization.
Personally, I don't believe in ghosts but their existence doesn't depend on my belief.
-
No no no, with gods, you can kind of shop around, most of them won't mind much, at least not in the 'send a lightning bolt down to fry [email protected]' kind of way. Essentially, gods need people to believe in them (so they can exist), and people need someone to blame. Offler, the crocodile-headed god, is quite popular, as is Blind Io, chief of the gods.
I work in IT, so in my headcannon, I pray to the gods of DNS. Put into a classical context, I imagine this is Hermes from Greek mythology (messenger of the gods), Thoth from Egyption mythology, etc.
Completely honestly though - I think faith is similar to energy, in the 'conservation of energy' type of way. So the total amount of faith humanity holds has stayed the same, but instead of praying to gods, we now have faith in things like... Ryzen processors. DNS. Manual transmissions. Black coffee. Subaru. These are just some of the things I have faith in, if you asked my daughter, the answers would probably be Peppa Pig, mom & dad, Everest the Paw Patrol character, a blue baloon, cheesecake is best cake, her stuffed animal squid, etc. Both answers are completely valid
Ohhhhh i see, well, I'm relieved to know this means the ancient greek pantheon is the right one to follow and not just my personal preference. Guess I might start showing some public devotion then.
I agree with you in faith ā conservation energy. I already pray to my own personal Patron Saint of the Parking Spot, his name is JosĆ© btw in case you ever find yourself stressing over finding where to park; you're welcome to pray to him too. So far I've always managed to park in time.
I hope Zeus and co. don't mind I pray to him, times have changed I guess, I'm sure they'll all get along well. Okay gotta go now, I need to go read my horoscope now that I know statistics back it up.
-
When people ask whether or not they believe ghosts or aliens exist, they typically point to something that is somewhat tangible as proof such as "the government says it is real" or "this video explains it all".
I think these responses are valid, but with low confidence in what they're trying to prove. A government can simply be making stuff up and a video explaining it could of simply been misinformed into some false truth.On the contrary, I think they exist because of statistical improbability. I see that there are an uncountable amount of videos claiming to have recorded proof for ghosts and aliens. Assuming that 99% of them are hoaxes, clout chasers, or misidentified phenomena, that still leaves 1% of all those videos to be true. As long as the percentage is not 100%, it means that there is solid proof out there, weak in confidence or not, it's a lead to the truth.
everyone in here shitting on op (in a rather unfriendly fashion btw)
getting hung up on the 1:99 thing, when what they actually said was
As long as the percentage is not 100%
obviously i'm not saying op has presented firm evidence of the supernatural (nor did i read anywhere they said they did). but the irony of supposedly espousing the scientific method, while completely ignoring the critical part of op's argument.
who here is claiming to know 100.000000% of all supernatural evidence is absolutely disproven? that would be an unscientific claim to make, so why infer it?
is the remaining 1E-X% "proof" of ghosts/aliens? imo no, but it isn't unreasonable to consider it may suggest something beyond our current reproducible measurement capacity.
it's quite unreasonable to assume we're at the apex of human sensory capability, history is full of this kind of hubris.
until the invention of the microsocpe, germs were just "vibes" and "spirits"
-
There's an uncountable number of pictures claiming the Loch Ness Monster is real; do you believe in it, too? What about all of the other cryptids? If your logic is sound, it should be able to be applied to everything else that fits the same criteria. If not, why do you apply a lower burdon of proof to aliens and ghosts than to everything else?
other cryptids
some cryptids are real. for example in the past 40 years, giant squid have quite literally moved from the pages of 'fun' ghosts and cryptid books into scientific journals. and this process has repeated many times throughout history.
-
everyone in here shitting on op (in a rather unfriendly fashion btw)
getting hung up on the 1:99 thing, when what they actually said was
As long as the percentage is not 100%
obviously i'm not saying op has presented firm evidence of the supernatural (nor did i read anywhere they said they did). but the irony of supposedly espousing the scientific method, while completely ignoring the critical part of op's argument.
who here is claiming to know 100.000000% of all supernatural evidence is absolutely disproven? that would be an unscientific claim to make, so why infer it?
is the remaining 1E-X% "proof" of ghosts/aliens? imo no, but it isn't unreasonable to consider it may suggest something beyond our current reproducible measurement capacity.
it's quite unreasonable to assume we're at the apex of human sensory capability, history is full of this kind of hubris.
until the invention of the microsocpe, germs were just "vibes" and "spirits"
our sensory capabilities are probably better than you think, and, among other things, that doesnt make any sense anyway. if they can tangibly interact with the world in any way, such as a human noticing them, knocking stuff off tables, showing up on videosā¦ there is really no scenario where this logic works, and while toxicity isnt nice, the argument presented is wrong in humorous ways.
-
When people ask whether or not they believe ghosts or aliens exist, they typically point to something that is somewhat tangible as proof such as "the government says it is real" or "this video explains it all".
I think these responses are valid, but with low confidence in what they're trying to prove. A government can simply be making stuff up and a video explaining it could of simply been misinformed into some false truth.On the contrary, I think they exist because of statistical improbability. I see that there are an uncountable amount of videos claiming to have recorded proof for ghosts and aliens. Assuming that 99% of them are hoaxes, clout chasers, or misidentified phenomena, that still leaves 1% of all those videos to be true. As long as the percentage is not 100%, it means that there is solid proof out there, weak in confidence or not, it's a lead to the truth.
OP, it's fine to believe in whatever you feel like it, and IMHO ghosts and aliens are better beliefs than some other options.
With that said, I think it would be better to say that you believe those things and use the "not 100%" as a justification.
There is no way to gather all evidence about any topic, so we need to define what is acceptable as "enough" evidence and what "make sense" according to what we know; at least when we (as a society) talk about science.
-
our sensory capabilities are probably better than you think, and, among other things, that doesnt make any sense anyway. if they can tangibly interact with the world in any way, such as a human noticing them, knocking stuff off tables, showing up on videosā¦ there is really no scenario where this logic works, and while toxicity isnt nice, the argument presented is wrong in humorous ways.
our sensory capabilities are probably better than you think
however good our current capabilities are, it's not exactly reasonable to think we're at the apex. we don't know everything - perhaps we never will, but even if we do it'll surely be in 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years, rather than 10 years.
i'm not aware of any sound argument that the final paradigm in sensing capability has already happened.
there is really no scenario where this logic works
assuming you mean there's no known scenario where this logic works? then yes, that's the point - we currently don't know.
this is asklemmy not a scientific journal. there can be value or fun in throwing ideas around, or helping op improve their discussion, rather than shit on it.
-
our sensory capabilities are probably better than you think
however good our current capabilities are, it's not exactly reasonable to think we're at the apex. we don't know everything - perhaps we never will, but even if we do it'll surely be in 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years, rather than 10 years.
i'm not aware of any sound argument that the final paradigm in sensing capability has already happened.
there is really no scenario where this logic works
assuming you mean there's no known scenario where this logic works? then yes, that's the point - we currently don't know.
this is asklemmy not a scientific journal. there can be value or fun in throwing ideas around, or helping op improve their discussion, rather than shit on it.
my friend, think this through. if they can move stuff off tables, if cameras can record them, if humans can see them, if they create chillsā¦ these are all measurable, tangible, things. if your explanation of ghosts requires that they be immaterial and incapable of affecting reality in any way, then that's trivial and inane.
-
System shared this topic onSystem shared this topic on
