I believe in ghosts and aliens because of statistics. What do you think?
-
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.
-
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.
Nessy is purported to be a single creature living in a single Loch in Scotland; why would there be sightings elsewhere in the world? That's like saying "The Eiffel Tower is only ever sighted in Paris, isn't that suspicious?"
Given the relatively small number of visitors to Loch Ness vs. the number of people in the world with cameras, I'd argue that the sightings per visitor are at a significantly higher rate than UFO or ghost sightings.
-
Yes, I do believe aliens and ghosts can be confirmed for a greater extent than God.
The difference being that we can use provided recordings, sightings, and reports (as false as many of them may be) to take a lead into discovering more about these phenomena. Using physical instruments to deduce, observe, and hypothesize we can have greater confidence in proof.
In terms of God, from what I have seen, there is no way to deduce and observe using physical instruments.Evidence in God is entirely localized and biased. God, assuming a Judeo-Christian flavor, only accounts for approximately 30% of all belief in the world, which is centralized into more popular locations such as the US, UK, China, and Europe. Other locations may have a more diverse religious background, in which case, a God may be believed in.
Evidence in aliens and ghosts are not limited to location. It is decentralized. -
Statistics don't make something real.
Specially when those statistics are related only to human perception and not a single scientific evidence.
So, no, statistics doesn't make me believe in something.
-
nice try ghostie , go back to your void
-
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.
-
Fair enough. I’m not going to, nor do I want to, dissuade you from continuing your search and believing what you believe, just wanted to get a better understanding on how you reason about these things. And initially I had hoped also to spark some questions and maybe second thoughts on your part.
For the record, I’m not entirely following your chain of thought here, and I do not believe as you believe, nor do I really see the the distinction you posed just now, but who knows, maybe I’m wrong and it turns out you’re right.
-
Using this approach, everything that can't be disproven must exist
