I believe in ghosts and aliens because of statistics. What do you think?
-
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.
-
A [email protected] shared this topic
-
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?
-
You could really use a basic philosophy and logic education. Like one or two community college 100-level classes on critical thinking.
-
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.
-
An assumption of 99% false sightings is not a statistic. The percentage of true vs. false sightings is something that needs to be measured, not assumed. To know the actual percentage of true sightings, you’d first have to confirm that some sightings are actually true, which would require some actual evidence of ghosts/aliens.
Consider the inverse for a moment: if ghosts/aliens don’t actually exist, then the percentage of false sightings must be 100%, not 99.9%. As long as you start with the assumption that there are some true sightings, you’re just starting with the assumption that ghosts/aliens are real.
-
A lot of things have been inscribed into historical texts. The problem with your claim is that it can't be proven - you can't prove a negative, so saying "Well, you can't disprove all of these photos!" isn't a scientifically sound hypothesis.
In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe aliens exist, but not the sort that people claim to be taking pictures of. I thought based on your title that your argument was going to amount to "There's an incredible number of planets out there, so the chance that we're the only one that supports life and evolved intelligent life is astronomically slim", and I was ready to agree with you, but this is just a weak argument.
Let me ask you this: If plentiful pictures are evidence, why are there no clear, indisputable pictures? Surely, if these things are as real as you believe, there should be at least one super clear picture that doesn't leave room for doubt. Unless, of course, the people taking those pictures were intentionally trying to deceive, and didn't want them to be too clear.
-
Okay, well let’s apply that newly specified set of requirements.
Earth must be flat for the same reason. There’s even more evidence for it than for aliens, across history, across continents and cultures, and there’s plenty of content regarding it in the modern world too.
Do you believe the world is flat?
-
I will also point out that the first recorded sighting of aliens that I can find is from 1947, and the Loch Ness Monster was "first brought to world-wide attention" in 1933, so your claim of historical evidence falls apart.
-
I think you may be misunderstanding how statistics works.
-
I might be confusing your inverse response.
To lay it out, in my head:
False 99:1 Real, therefore there is a solid sighting worth taking a lead.
Real 99:1 False, therefore the truth is evident.Assuming you imply that I take an inverse bias, the ratios still stand.
-
In the case of a flat Earth, no.
We've developed the appropriate tools to identify the Earth as it it.It had been proven false. Using solid science.
-
Okay, so now that the requirements are even further defined, let us continue applying them.
God must be real.
Do you believe in god?
-
The same can be said about your belief for the number of planets out there. You believe that the universe holds many planets to foster alien life, and to say otherwise would be such an astronomically slim probability. That's a belief through statistical improbability, explicitly.
In my case, I claim that the mountains of evidence is analogous to the planets in your belief, which is a belief through statistical improbability. Albeit less improbable.This post isn't a matter of "solid proof, 100% evidence, cannot deny this" nor hard science. It's a matter of using statistics to affirm belief.
-
The point they're making is that you're basing your claim that 99% of sightings are false on nothing. It's a hunch, nothing more. When you start with that assumption, the conclusion is already made. Which 1% are not false? Surely you should be able to point us to some examples? Or are you just making the claim that 1 in 100 must be true out of nowhere?
-
In terms of God, it cannot be confirmed. There are historical texts with claiming proof, but no evidence to support said proof. There may be modern evidence, but most are known to be hoaxes.
There isn't a staggering amount of evidence being produced in modern times to suggest that God exists either.
I cannot confidently say to believe in God.
-
But you do choose to believe in aliens and ghosts, despite there being a lot more claimed evidence even in today’s world towards god?
Or do you think that aliens and/or ghosts can be confirmed to a greater extent than a god? What is the difference?
-
You're horribly mis-using statistics and making claims that are not the logical conclusion.
We know that intelligent life exists, and that one specific, if very rare, set of circumstances can definitively bring it about. We know there are other planets that are similarly capable of supporting life. We have evidence - irrefutable, hard evidence - that such planets can, and do exist, because we live on one.
You have far worse evidence of ghosts or aliens. Having photographic proof of either is a highly sought after thing, that comes with notoriety and in some cases fame or money. Statistically, wouldn't you say it's more likely that, given the incentive to do so, the people claiming to produce such evidence are lying to reap the benefits? If not, again, why don't we have actual, clear, indisputable pictures? Are you telling me that these phenomenon have been occurring throughout recorded history, but there's not one single high quality picture? How could that be? Surely if you have enough people taking pictures, one of them by sheer chance should come out clear.
Similarly, how is it that modern astronomical or surveillance equipment hasn't captured evidence of them? Why are we relying on shaky polaroids taken by random people? You're cherry picking evidence that you feel has the highest likelihood of being true while discounting all of the evidence against it being true.
-
Thing about Nessy is that it is localized. It started in an area in Scotland. Assuming Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon where sightings are found more than a couple of times a month, it'd be different. How small the location of sightings and frequency of sightings play an massive role in the probability of their existence.
To rebut your documentation claims, there is evidence to suggest that sighting have been documented prior to 1947, but only formally reported on 1947. However, these claims may of had religious bias so they cannot be used individually as evidence towards statistical proof. It is its decentralized nature of documentation that makes it moreso valuable. These documentation are indeed from ancient Egypt and Greece, so your argument for their origin falls short there.
-
I was interested in your post title.
But your post suggests your title was misinformed.
Your premise is "Ghosts must be real because an arbitrary 1% of ghost sightings must be real". That's not statistics, that's you trying to convince yourself you're right by misusing math.
-
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.
