5 ms·

> Prove That Ghosts Were Simply an Illusion This is false. The only thing it proves is that ghosts CAN BE an illusion. Failure to recognize the difference betw

> Prove That Ghosts Were Simply an Illusion This is false. The only thing it proves is that ghosts CAN BE an illusion. Failure to recognize the difference between the two is why such books haven't stopped people believing in ghosts.

RobertRoberts 2y ago
You are missing a critical point. Before this, there was likely no proof that people could share or rely on to question if _any_ ghost could be an illusion. This is very important to future critical thinking because this gave people evidence to back up being skeptical for future illusions that they can't immediately explain.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  I agree that it's important to advance knowledge of what's possible, but that is very different from proving a negative.
  - RobertRoberts 2y ago
    When I see a card magic trick, for all intents and purposes it "appears" magic. Once I learn _one_ card trick, I start to realize it's not magic. Regardless if I can prove anything or not. This same applies here with ghosts. People needed to know they _could_ be fooled, how it was done doesn't matter, because people were being scammed and were afraid of things that weren't ghosts. Proving something is a ghost has never been done, so ghost scams is a good thing to educate people on.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Do you ever notice how in Internet arguments people switch between logic and rhetoric seamlessly to support their argument? In a very real sense, it is a lot like watching children (with their intelligence limits) arguing, thinking what they say makes sound sense. This phenomenon is everywhere, including the most powerful places, and it is essentially not even on humanities radar.
mistermann 2y ago
Wouldn't the failure to recognize be more like the cause of why so many people believe that it is a knowable fact that there are no ghosts (and various other "supernatural" phenomena)?
- picture 2y ago
  Are any facts knowable? Besides the fact that something exists, in some shape or form, at this particular moment, that allows the thought about this to happen.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  Also that, yes. But I do see a space where the authors (and subsequent article writers) recognizing and acknowledging the limitations of proof would help them frame their arguments in such a way that they ultimately convince more people of not having seen actual ghosts.
- krzat 2y ago
  It's knowable in a sense that hallucination/scam is vastly more probable than an actual ghost (or any other supernatural phenomena). If there is a mistake in common knowledge, it's the belief that hallucinations/delusions happen only to mentally ill people or on drugs.
redundantly 2y ago
>> Prove That Ghosts Were Simply an Illusion > This is false. It's not false, that's just the headline. The book targeted a very specific illusion that con artists would use to scam people. That did prove the ghosts being presented as real were in fact illusions.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > It's not false, that's just the headline It is false, and it's also not just the headline. > That did prove the ghosts being presented as real were on fact illusions. Again, this is false. It proved only that illusory facsimiles of ghosts are possible. You cannot prove that someone didn't see a ghost just because there are non-ghost mechanisms for people to think they're seeing ghosts. That's not how proving things works.
nuancebydefault 2y ago
I've never seen of a convincing proof that anything exists nor that anything does not exist. 'prove' simply needs not to be taken literally in this context. You can replace it here by 'make a suggestion that'
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  Many of life's problems can be avoided by using the words that actually mean the thing you're trying to say rather than the ones that don't.
  - dpig_ 2y ago
    You'll create plenty of new problems in life, too, if you are so committed to being rigid at all times.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      Yes, well, some of us are cursed with hearing the words you say and not hallucinating different imaginary ones. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whose fault it is that not everyone pretends to be psychic.

RobertRoberts 2y ago

You are missing a critical point. Before this, there was likely no proof that people could share or rely on to question if _any_ ghost could be an illusion. This is very important to future critical thinking because this gave people evidence to back up being skeptical for future illusions that they can't immediately explain.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
I agree that it's important to advance knowledge of what's possible, but that is very different from proving a negative.
- RobertRoberts 2y ago
  When I see a card magic trick, for all intents and purposes it "appears" magic. Once I learn _one_ card trick, I start to realize it's not magic. Regardless if I can prove anything or not. This same applies here with ghosts. People needed to know they _could_ be fooled, how it was done doesn't matter, because people were being scammed and were afraid of things that weren't ghosts. Proving something is a ghost has never been done, so ghost scams is a good thing to educate people on.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Do you ever notice how in Internet arguments people switch between logic and rhetoric seamlessly to support their argument? In a very real sense, it is a lot like watching children (with their intelligence limits) arguing, thinking what they say makes sound sense. This phenomenon is everywhere, including the most powerful places, and it is essentially not even on humanities radar.

mistermann 2y ago

Wouldn't the failure to recognize be more like the cause of why so many people believe that it is a knowable fact that there are no ghosts (and various other "supernatural" phenomena)?

picture 2y ago
Are any facts knowable? Besides the fact that something exists, in some shape or form, at this particular moment, that allows the thought about this to happen.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
Also that, yes. But I do see a space where the authors (and subsequent article writers) recognizing and acknowledging the limitations of proof would help them frame their arguments in such a way that they ultimately convince more people of not having seen actual ghosts.
krzat 2y ago
It's knowable in a sense that hallucination/scam is vastly more probable than an actual ghost (or any other supernatural phenomena). If there is a mistake in common knowledge, it's the belief that hallucinations/delusions happen only to mentally ill people or on drugs.

redundantly 2y ago

>> Prove That Ghosts Were Simply an Illusion > This is false. It's not false, that's just the headline. The book targeted a very specific illusion that con artists would use to scam people. That did prove the ghosts being presented as real were in fact illusions.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> It's not false, that's just the headline It is false, and it's also not just the headline. > That did prove the ghosts being presented as real were on fact illusions. Again, this is false. It proved only that illusory facsimiles of ghosts are possible. You cannot prove that someone didn't see a ghost just because there are non-ghost mechanisms for people to think they're seeing ghosts. That's not how proving things works.

nuancebydefault 2y ago

I've never seen of a convincing proof that anything exists nor that anything does not exist. 'prove' simply needs not to be taken literally in this context. You can replace it here by 'make a suggestion that'

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
Many of life's problems can be avoided by using the words that actually mean the thing you're trying to say rather than the ones that don't.
- dpig_ 2y ago
  You'll create plenty of new problems in life, too, if you are so committed to being rigid at all times.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    Yes, well, some of us are cursed with hearing the words you say and not hallucinating different imaginary ones. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whose fault it is that not everyone pretends to be psychic.