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 gleefully 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. 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 10-x % guaranteed “proof” of ghosts/aliens? imo no, but it isn’t unreasonable to consider it may suggest something beyond our current reproducible measurement capacity (which has eg. historically been filed under “ghosts”). therefore the ridicule in this thread - rather than friendly/educational discussion - is quite disappointing.
it’s not exactly reasonable to assume we’re at the apex of human sensory capability, history is full of this kind of misplaced hubris.
until the invention of the microscope, 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?
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.
A lot of things have been inscribed into historical texts. The problem with your claim is that it can’t be disproven - 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In fact, isn’t it perhaps suspicious that sightings of alien spacecraft didn’t start happening until semi-modern technology existed? Why aren’t there cave paintings from neanderthals of flying saucers? Why isn’t there evidence from ancient Egypt or Rome? It’s almost as though modern science fiction bringing such things to mind was the catalyst for these sightings.
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.
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 who could presumably document aliens or ghosts, I’d argue that the sightings per visitor are at a significantly higher rate than UFO or ghost sightings.
An assumption of 99% false sightings is not a statistic. Statistics are analyses of measured data, not assumptions. 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.
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.
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?
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.
Using this approach, everything that can’t be disproven must exist
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.
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
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. By assuming that 1% of all sightings are real, you already assumed that aliens must exist. The probability for aliens being real under the assumption that aliens are real is 100%, but you just made the premise up. This is not how statistics work.
There are many examples from the past, like witches, werewolves, vampires, giants, … People used to claim their existence but not anymore. By your reasoning 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.
Just for fun, Ill try to come up with an example using your ‘statistics’, I wonder if you can argue against it without invalidating the reasoning in your post.
There are 8bn people on earth. They are all reporting that they themselves are human. Even if 99.999% of those reports are true, that leaves 80,000 non-humans amongst them.TL:DR lies dont become true just because they are being told often.
Your “statistics” are fantasy numbers, not statistics. And statistics or probabilities, no matter how low or high, are not proof.
Dude, if you wanna believe in ghosts and aliens, just say you think they are real because vibes.
Don’t try to justify it with a clunky, misunderstood, and incorrect usage of “statistics.”
