I've Seen Ghosts!

[Porterboy]

Yes, I've seen ghosts on several occasions through my life. I saw three ghostly horses in my local park.

I also saw a little boy in my bedroom, kneeling down as if in prayer. He wasn't lit up, but I could see him. It was as if he was made of smoke! He began to fade, but as he did so he turned and looked at me.

I remember seeing a ghost as a small child, but that was a long time ago.

I doubt if these experiences can be proved, but they certainly seemed very real; I can't reject them as hallucinations. What's more: there was another person present with the horses and she saw the same thing as me.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why are you of the opinion that what you witnessed were ghosts?

[uruk]

Keep a camera around you. Next time you see one take a picture and post it.

[tkingdoll]

Why can't you reject them as figments of your imagination, your eyes or the light playing tricks, hallucinations, dreams, daydreams etc? Have you studied the likelihood of all other, rational explanations before deciding on the unlikely, irrational one?

Are you prepared to accept that there may have been a mundane explanation for these 'sightings'? If the answer to that is no, then you might be in the wrong forum.

[sat556]

Why can't you reject them as figments of your imagination, your eyes or the light playing tricks, hallucinations, dreams, daydreams etc? Have you studied the likelihood of all other, rational explanations before deciding on the unlikely, irrational one?

Are you suggesting that Porterboy SHOULD reject them with one of the above suggestions? I understand that all options should be looked at first, but the way that post comes across it seems as if you are saying that there is only really one way to go.

[Blackwell]

He wasn't lit up, but I could see him. It was as if he was made of smoke!

I think maybe YOU had just lit up. That would explain the smoke, and the hallucinations...

[De_Bunk]

Hello 'Wanderin'WTF' sock puppet...

You saw 'dead people'...

Yeh...

Of course you did...

DB

[tkingdoll]

Are you suggesting that Porterboy SHOULD reject them with one of the above suggestions? I understand that all options should be looked at first, but the way that post comes across it seems as if you are saying that there is only really one way to go.

Nooo, not at all. But I am saying that the above are more likely explanations because they are recognised occurances with concrete evidence, and perhaps Porterboy might not have investigated them all thoroughly before reaching his 'ghost' conclusion. If he can eliminate all of the above with good cause then perhaps it is time to start looking for an otherworld explanation. Of course, some evidence for the existence of ghosts would certainly put them in the former category, and then it would merely be a matter of working out which phenomena to blame.

ETA, my post was a direct response to Porterboy's assertion that he can't reject them as hallucinations, i.e. that a mundane explanation did not do justice to his experience. I was asking him why he can't reject them as such.

[sat556]

I thought that might be the case, but I like to check :)

I will be willing to place a bet that all options haven't been looked into before the 'ghost' conclusion was reached. After all, ghosts are so much more interesting that mistaken identity aren't they?

I have been seeking spooks for years now. It's a subject that fascinates me, both from the possible unknown aspects to the psychological and mundane known explanations. Alas, I've never spotted one yet.

[tkingdoll]

I thought that might be the case, but I like to check :)

I will be willing to place a bet that all options haven't been looked into before the 'ghost' conclusion was reached. After all, ghosts are so much more interesting that mistaken identity aren't they?

I have been seeking spooks for years now. It's a subject that fascinates me, both from the possible unknown aspects to the psychological and mundane known explanations. Alas, I've never spotted one yet.

Sorry, I ain't gonna take your bet :D

I recently had a conversation in which a guy told me he'd walked into an old building in London and suddenly it went really cold and he got a shiver down his spine, and that it must have been a ghost. I asked him, could he think of any other possible, but mundane, explanations like a sudden gust of wind or an underground tube train, something like that. His reply? He looked at me straight and said "no". End of conversation.

I do believe your avatar is Grimer. Are you a fellow Pokéfan, or is it a little nod to evolution?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
I do believe your avatar is Grimer. Are you a fellow Pokéfan, or is it a little nod to evolution?

I thought sat's avatar was clayface from the Batman animated series. :confused:

[tkingdoll]

I thought sat's avatar was clayface from the Batman animated series. :confused:

Care to make it interesting?

:D

[Soapy Sam]

Are you suggesting that Porterboy SHOULD reject them with one of the above suggestions? I understand that all options should be looked at first, but the way that post comes across it seems as if you are saying that there is only really one way to go.
Yes. Given limited time and resources, there really is only one way to go. Eliminate the probable first and only then look at the improbable.
Consider the argument that when the ghost explanation has been consistently shown to be incorrect, in example after example, over many years, should there not come a point where it is downgraded to a last rather than first option?

Illness in cattle might be caused by witchcraft, but is it not generally accepted as wiser to call a vet first, a homoeopathic vet second and a witch doctor as backup? We cannot look at all options. We won't live that long. We must start with the mundane and work out to the improbable. Starting with ghosts and working in to hallucination and simple misunderstanding seems a perversely poor search algorithm.

[De_Bunk]

Err..

How about this person is lying thru his teeth...delusional...mentally ill...or a joker...

Or does anyone think he may have seen ghosts...?

How can there be a 'middle ground'...

He didn't...You know it and so do i...

Are you patronising this mentally ill person...because if you are, then i find that offensive...

And if you think he's not mentally ill...Then why are you replying to a joker or a liar...?

Or...Like i posted above, does anyone think there could be a possibility of him really seeing ghosts...and if anyone does think that he might have seen real ghosts...I'd like to see their rational answer...

Remember...i am not a skeptic...a skeptic questions his own mind...

I don't...I know that sh*t dont exist...

Do any you think it might...?

DB

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Care to make it interesting?

:D

Nah, but I will post a link showing why I thought that ;)

http://anbat.toonzone.net/btas/_assets/t-focx1.jpg

[ChristineR]

Being find of living sludge myself, I did some googling and I can tell you that both Arkan and tkingdoll are wrong.

One of them is much closer than the other, though. :D

[sat556]

Being find of living sludge myself, I did some googling and I can tell you that both Arkan and tkingdoll are wrong.

That is correct :)

[tkingdoll]

Err..

How about this person is lying thru his teeth...delusional...mentally ill...or a joker...

Or does anyone think he may have seen ghosts...?

How can there be a 'middle ground'...

He didn't...You know it and so do i...

Are you patronising this mentally ill person...because if you are, then i find that offensive...

And if you think he's not mentally ill...Then why are you replying to a joker or a liar...?

Or...Like i posted above, does anyone think there could be a possibility of him really seeing ghosts...and if anyone does think that he might have seen real ghosts...I'd like to see their rational answer...

Remember...i am not a skeptic...a skeptic questions his own mind...

I don't...I know that sh*t dont exist...

Do any you think it might...?

DB

I don't know if he's mentally ill, lying, joking, mistaken, or telling his version of what he perceives to be the truth. I have done him the courtesy of replying as though it's the latter. If subsequent posts seem to indicate that it is one of the other options, I will cease to reply. However, this discussion has gone beyond the OP and is actually rather interesting on its own merits.

I wasn't patronising, I was educating, based on my belief that Porterboy is probably mistaken about what he saw but at the least should explore all the options.

Personally I don't believe ghosts exist, no. But that's not to say we shouldn't use them as a good topic for debate.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Err..

How about this person is lying thru his teeth...delusional...mentally ill...or a joker...

Or does anyone think he may have seen ghosts...?

How can there be a 'middle ground'...

He didn't...You know it and so do i...

Are you patronising this mentally ill person...because if you are, then i find that offensive...

And if you think he's not mentally ill...Then why are you replying to a joker or a liar...?

Or...Like i posted above, does anyone think there could be a possibility of him really seeing ghosts...and if anyone does think that he might have seen real ghosts...I'd like to see their rational answer...

Remember...i am not a skeptic...a skeptic questions his own mind...

I don't...I know that sh*t dont exist...

Do any you think it might...?

DB

I viewed the initial post as probably falling into one of the following categories (no particuler order)

* Poster believes he saw a ghost, but was misinterpretting some natural phenomena (mirage, real person, light refraction, etc)
* Poster believes he saw a ghost, but was experiencing some internal cause for the experience (hallucination, drugs, mental abberation, Hypnagogic hallucinations, etc)
* Poster believes he saw a ghost, and experienced some unknown natural phenomena
* Poster believes he saw a ghost, and did
* Poster is trolling

Which is why I asked for the OP's reasoning that was used to come to the conclusion posted. Based on that we could begin evaluating the initial claim with more than pure speculation.

[tkingdoll]

Being find of living sludge myself, I did some googling and I can tell you that both Arkan and tkingdoll are wrong.

One of them is much closer than the other, though. :D

If you are saying it is Muk, I will concede the point but I get a half-point because that picture is actually of the evolution process, when technically there's still a bit of both.

Nya nya.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you are saying it is Muk, I will concede the point but I get a half-point because that picture is actually of the evolution process, when technically there's still a bit of both.

Nya nya.

Ah well, shows where my interests lie.

[sat556]

If you are saying it is Muk, I will concede the point but I get a half-point because that picture is actually of the evolution process, when technically there's still a bit of both.

Nya nya.

That's just cheating.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

IF someone says they've seen ghosts, it is first imperative to find out what their mental stake was at the time of the sighting.

I have a friend who is absolutely convinced that he saw a ghost some eight years ago, although his wife will tell you he had consumed some two and a half bottles of wine before the sighting.

[TimmyBerry]

Indeed: :tr:

[tkingdoll]

That's just cheating.

Oh yeah? Is it cheating when I whip my Rayquaza out on ya?

[sat556]

Oh yeah? Is it cheating when I whip my Rayquaza out on ya?

Put it away now :D

[tkingdoll]

Put it away now :D

Aw :(

*walks away, deflated*

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Indeed: :tr:

Possible, but looking at his intro post on the Introduce Yourselves thread, he seems well spoken and states outright he's not a skeptic, but is reasonable.

[Aoidoi]

I think the real question here is if he can see Bruce Willis.

;)

[WanderinWTF]

i beleive him hes lucky he got to just see one i got held down by one and watch light enter my room then i seen em for a verry long time with a certain person each time in fact one time he offered me to enter a room

[Nucular]

i beleive him hes lucky he got to just see one i got held down by one and watch light enter my room then i seen em for a verry long time with a certain person each time in fact one time he offered me to enter a room
I have no clue what you're on about other than "I have a pathological need to better the woo claims of others whether I come across as a raving lunatic or not".

[Spektator]

He's lucky just to have been held down by one. A group of them appeared in my house one night and forcibly sold me aluminum siding!

[pmckean]

When I was a kid, about the age of 9, I had an experience that kickstarted my skeptical thinking.

I was leaving the Cubs (like Junior Scouts) one cold, dark, Scottish evening, and I had to pass the Old Kirk's graveyard on my 20-minute hike home.

I always used to glance nervously into the graveyard as I passed, and that night was no different - except that this time, when I peered between the gloomy tombs I spied an ethereal, spectral glow, drifting from stone to stone.

I stopped, transfixed by terror. In those few seconds before I bolted, running all the way home, I swore I could see detail in the apparition - the faint, flickering figure of an old, stooped man. I was terrified, and never slept a wink that night.

A few weeks later, I was given an assignment in school. With a friend, we were to visit the graveyard during daylight hours, and find the oldest tombstone there. It was with more than a little trepidation that I ventured in, and I could feel the terror rise as dusk gradually descended....

And that's when the elderly graveyard attendant popped out to see if we were vandalising his carefully tended graves. He brought his oil lamp with him, which he always used to illuminate his path when he traversed the plots at night. Everything clicked, and in an instant moment of revelation, I learnt that not everything was what it seems!

Worryingly, though, had I not gone back, I think I would still believe to this day that I'd witnessed the spirit of an old gentleman, bound to the grounds of a little village churchyard, and I may not have developed my current, irritatingly smug, reductive materialist worldview!

As irresistible as the supernatural is, never rule out the mundane.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

A friend of mine likes to relate his favorite ghost story. When he was at a local village restoration (similar to Colonial Williamsburg), he had wandered into a closed area - the upstairs of a house. He saw a girl in period dress sitting on a bed. But one of the workers called to him and told him to come down, that the area was closed to the public. When he turned back, the girl had vanished. He was convinced it was a ghost. His reasoning? There was no way she could have disappeared so quickly; when he asked the worker about the girl, he had no idea what my friend was talking about; he got a chill.

My response was, why jump to the paranormal right away? Could she have left by an exit that wasn't visable? Maybe she was on a break, and didn't want to get caught by a visitor, and hid? Or ducked out a window?

But I think my friend (like most) prefers the supernatural explanation - it makes for a better story.

[articulett]

Andrea Yates spoke to the devil. She decidded to kill her kids to ensure their eternal bliss in heaven and keep them away from the devil tempting her. It certainly seemed real. Charles Manson's delusions seem real too. So do the delusions of those who claim to see the virgin mary in cheese sandwhiches. UFOs look real...and they truly are "unidentified flying objects" until or unless identified. It doesn't mean that they are crafts driven by aliens. The earth sure does seem flat to me.

[pmckean]

Thus, the problem. Supernature always makes for a better story.

Relating spooky things and then spoiling it with a perfectly neat, earthbound explanation is somehow anticlimactic.

We all love the thrill of a good ghost story. Have you ever retold a spooky tale and exagerrated some of the supernatural elements to rule out conventional explanations? I hate to admit it, but I think *I* have!

[I less than three logic]

These ghost stories remind me of a quote:

"When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not." - Mark Twain

I think it is important to apply skeptical thinking to anyone’s memories, including my own. Especially so if the memory is from along time ago, it is important to remember that the mind can be fooled and memories altered.

[Jesus Baby Daddy]

And that's when the elderly graveyard attendant popped out to see if we were vandalising his carefully tended graves. He brought his oil lamp with him, which he always used to illuminate his path when he traversed the plots at night. Everything clicked, and in an instant moment of revelation, I learnt that not everything was what it seems!


Are you sure this wasn't at the Haunted Mansion ride at Disney World? Did the old man have a skinny, mutt of a dog? :D ;)

[Dogdoctor]

I saw a ghost sort of. At least everyone with me saw a ghost. I saw a light colored bush. It was a dark no moon light and we 5 high school kids were in a graveyard drinking beer. My friends were talking about ghosts and I was bored so I was trying to make out what that light colored thing swaying in the breeze was. My eyes adjusted and I finally saw it was a light colored bush and someone noticed me looking and asked what I was looking at. I said that ghost over there and pointed. I said it looks like it's getting closer and they all agreed and we all jumped back in the car and drove rapidly out of there. A couple days later I asked each of them what they saw and they all saw a ghost. HEH! I was the only one who saw a light colored bush blowing in the wind. So I saw a ghost only it was a shrub.

[Nyarlathotep]

Yes, I've seen ghosts on several occasions through my life. I saw three ghostly horses in my local park.

I also saw a little boy in my bedroom, kneeling down as if in prayer. He wasn't lit up, but I could see him. It was as if he was made of smoke! He began to fade, but as he did so he turned and looked at me.

I remember seeing a ghost as a small child, but that was a long time ago.

I doubt if these experiences can be proved, but they certainly seemed very real; I can't reject them as hallucinations. What's more: there was another person present with the horses and she saw the same thing as me.


All threee sighting were actually the work of Mr. Smithers fromt he haunted Amusement park. And he would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling kids...

Seriously, though, I have no idea what you saw. But it strikes me as a helluva leap to go from "I saw something I can't explain" to "it must have been a ghost"

[richardm]

But it strikes me as a helluva leap to go from "I saw something I can't explain" to "it must have been a ghost"

Yeah. But I think one problem is that for many people, "It is a ghost" seems reasonable because they've been brought up in a culture where the existence of ghosts is not doubted. Even if they're not raving woo nutters there is a casual acceptance that ghosts exist, and it becomes quite easy to say "Must have been a ghost" instead of considering other possibilities that might involve some effort. Quite sad, really.

In other cases those alternatives aren't very glamorous even if they are considered, and don't make for good retelling, so are quietly ignored. Even quite mundane accounts are often embellished to make for a good story.

[Moochie]

Let's see if I have it right.


Things that go bump in the night,

Are apt to give one a fright.

It's the hole in each ear,

That lets in the fear.

That, and the absence of light.



I think Spike Milligoon wrote that.

[Porterboy]

I see many people have replied on this thread since I wrote it and it's still being looked at. I'm busy on another thread right now, but I will get back to you later. Thanks for your interest.

[Meffy]

...
Eeeeyahhhh! A ghost! =(@.o)=





[edit] The thought of Spike Milligan and his companions allays my fears somewhat.

[Beady]

I see many people have replied on this thread since I wrote it and it's still being looked at. I'm busy on another thread right now, but I will get back to you later. Thanks for your interest.

:tr:

[Porterboy]

:tr:

A troll!? How dare you!:mad: I was engaged in discussing a crucial matter with some other people. But fear ye not! I'm on the case now.

I wish there was a "I'm going to sue you for slander" emoticon!

[Porterboy]

Why are you of the opinion that what you witnessed were ghosts?

Because I call any kind of abnormal vision "ghosts".

If by "ghosts" you mean "supernatural spirits" then I'm not sure that's what they were. I don't know what they were.

[Porterboy]

Why can't you reject them as figments of your imagination, your eyes or the light playing tricks, hallucinations, dreams, daydreams etc? Have you studied the likelihood of all other, rational explanations before deciding on the unlikely, irrational one?

Are you prepared to accept that there may have been a mundane explanation for these 'sightings'? If the answer to that is no, then you might be in the wrong forum.

Yes, I'm prepared to accept that there might be a mundane explaination, but is it prudent to assume that's all it possibly could be? I think not. There was actually a witness with me who saw the horses.

As I said above, I'm not drawing conclusion from what I saw, only reporting what happened. When I use the word "ghosts", it doesn't mean that I've made up my mind that they were supernatural, it's just the way I speak

[Porterboy]

I'm glad some people on this thread are willing to entertain the possiblility that I something genuinely supernatural. Of course I can't pretend there's not an element of wishful thinking on my part. Nobody wants to be delusional, halucinating or drug-crazed (I swear I never had a puff).

The thing is, I was wide awake on all occasions, and when I saw the horses in the park, I'd just finished my morning jog and was as alert as one can get. My girlfriend Jenny saw them too and she was freaked out. The horses were not real, living horses; they seemed to be made of smoke, smoke that kept its shape. They were a colour I've never seem before nor since. And they were somehow luminous without glowing. I know that sounds like a paradoxical thing to say, but it's the nearest I can come to describing it. It's not something I can very easily put into words.

[steenkh]

Yes, I'm prepared to accept that there might be a mundane explaination, but is it prudent to assume that's all it possibly could be? I think not. There was actually a witness with me who saw the horses.

Dogdoctor has described in another post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1476456&postcount=39) how he was present when four other people identified a bush as a ghost. Witnesses do not count much in these circumstances.

I believe it is prudent to eliminate all other possibilities before concluding that one has witnessed a paranormal phenomenon. I also think that it is misleading to call any "kind of abnormal vision" a "ghost". Especially when a supernatural entity is not implied.

[TheBoyPaj]

Because I call any kind of abnormal vision "ghosts".

Check this out. A whole page of "ghosts".

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/

[Meffy]

Because I call any kind of abnormal vision "ghosts".
I call any kind of meat pie "igneous rocks."

I've Eaten Igneous Rocks!

[gfunkusarelius]

one problem with ghost sightings it that people who are not prone to "seeing things" can occassionally have a hallucination and it seems so freaking real that, even if you are fairly rational, your passion and, frankly, desire to believe that your mind couldnt play a trick that vivid leads you to believe you really saw what you thought you saw...so i think some people can be really honest and even fairly rational and believe they saw a ghost.

[bob_kark]

I call any kind of meat pie "igneous rocks."

I've Eaten Igneous Rocks!

Mmmmm... Igneous rocks...*

*Sorry, I couldn't stop myself. Carry on.

[sophia8]

I'm glad some people on this thread are willing to entertain the possiblility that I something genuinely supernatural. Of course I can't pretend there's not an element of wishful thinking on my part. Nobody wants to be delusional, halucinating or drug-crazed (I swear I never had a puff).

The thing is, I was wide awake on all occasions, and when I saw the horses in the park, I'd just finished my morning jog and was as alert as one can get. My girlfriend Jenny saw them too and she was freaked out. The horses were not real, living horses; they seemed to be made of smoke, smoke that kept its shape. They were a colour I've never seem before nor since. And they were somehow luminous without glowing. I know that sounds like a paradoxical thing to say, but it's the nearest I can come to describing it. It's not something I can very easily put into words.
We need a lot more detail here.
How far away were the "horses"?
Describe the surrounding area.
Were there other people in the vicinity?
What was the weather like?
Was it windy?
What first made you aware of the "horses", or did they just appear?
How long were you looking at them?
Did you attempt to approach them?
Were they moving?
How did they disappear?

Personally, the "strange" colour and the "luninosity" makes me think of a "son et lumiere" show.

[DrugFreeAlcoholic]

grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/
That dragon illusion is awesome. Made one at work. :D

Now back to looking like I'm working.

EDIT: Does the illusion work better if the dragon is colored, rather than black and white?

[TheBoyPaj]

Dunno. I printed a colour one, and it is amazing.

[Meffy]

Mmmmm... Igneous rocks...*

*Sorry, I couldn't stop myself. Carry on.
Nearly typed that myself. Glad I left an opening. :-)

[Porterboy]

Dogdoctor has described in another post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1476456&postcount=39) how he was present when four other people identified a bush as a ghost. Witnesses do not count much in these circumstances.

I believe it is prudent to eliminate all other possibilities before concluding that one has witnessed a paranormal phenomenon. I also think that it is misleading to call any "kind of abnormal vision" a "ghost". Especially when a supernatural entity is not implied.

I take it you're referring to Occam's Razor. The problem with Occam's Razor is that it is not a reasoning system in its own right, it is a reasoning superstructure. To grade possiblities on which is the most likely requires that what is more or less likely be already known.

And as for witnesses, it's a fair point. Jenny was actually very reluctant to speak about the incident; she ended our relationship a few weeks afterwards. What happened upset her a lot more than me; I think it was because she was always a very this-world kind of person who never contemplated such things as the paranormal. I, on the other hand, have been interested in such subjects for most of my life.

[Porterboy]

Mmmmm... Igneous rocks...*

*Sorry, I couldn't stop myself. Carry on.

Haven't you heard of rock cakes?;)

[Mojo]

I wish there was a "I'm going to sue you for slander" emoticon!The term "slander" applies to speech. Defamation that is published is called libel.

[Porterboy]

We need a lot more detail here.
How far away were the "horses"?
Describe the surrounding area.
Were there other people in the vicinity?
What was the weather like?
Was it windy?
What first made you aware of the "horses", or did they just appear?
How long were you looking at them?
Did you attempt to approach them?
Were they moving?
How did they disappear?

Personally, the "strange" colour and the "luninosity" makes me think of a "son et lumiere" show.

Sure, I'll add some detail: It was early morning in January and pitch dark; the weather was quite cold and damp, but it wasn't raining or snowing. I was sitting on a bench in a rec at a suburban park with Jenny beside me; we had just finished running. There was nobody else in sight. We heard a noise behind us like footsteps and turned round. There were indetermined shapes in the darkness behind us where there was a copse of trees. Jenny said: "What's that?", but I didn't speak. The "horses" became more distinct as they came closer. There were three walking in single file, equally spaced by about a length. As I said above they didn't look solid or material. They had no saddle or bridles or anything like that. Their feet made ordinary equine footstep noises, apart from that they were silent. They came from the darkness behind our left shoulders and walked along our left flank and out of the park gate. They crossed over a road and walked away down another road until they were out of sight. It must have taken about 3 minutes, but I'm not sure. Jenny and I didn't speak during that time and we didn't move either. I was pretty "spooked" and I think she was too. We were silent for a minute or two longer then she stood up and started talking on another subject. I said "What the hell was that?", but she just mumbled "Dunno" and continued on the other subject.

Looking back now I wish I had done a bit more to investigate at the time. I could have moved a bit closer etc. But I was pretty scared. I was only 17 at the time, not long out of school; a mere kid. I've had other encounters with ghosts since; maybe I'll have another soon which will give me another opportunity. I'll keep a camera handy.

[Porterboy]

The term "slander" applies to speech. Defamation that is published is called libel.

Libel I think only referrs to something published in a book, newspaper or magazine etc. I don't know for certain how the law regards internet forum posts, but I've a feeling it is classified under spoken words because it is not printed as such. If someone said something about you in a published article then that would be different.

[The_Fire]

A forum is published.

[Mojo]

Libel I think only referrs to something published in a book, newspaper or magazine etc. I don't know for certain how the law regards internet forum posts, but I've a feeling it is classified under spoken words because it is not printed as such. If someone said something about you in a published article then that would be different.Things are considered published in media other than print. It's still libel if a defamatory statement is published in a radio or TV programme, or a film, or on the internet.

[Hellbound]

I take it you're referring to Occam's Razor. The problem with Occam's Razor is that it is not a reasoning system in its own right, it is a reasoning superstructure. To grade possiblities on which is the most likely requires that what is more or less likely be already known.

A common misconception, but this is not what Occam's Razor states, noir does it require knowledge of "what is more or less likely". That's a common mis-statement and misunderstanding of the Razor's Edge (forgive the bad pun).

Occam's Razor states, simply, that one should not multiply entities needlessly. Another way of stating it is that any phenomena should first be described by the known, and only when these prove false does one posit the unknown.

In other words, if you see a light in the sky, don't assume "aliens". First, try to explain it in terms of things that we know exist, such as stars and planets, aircraft, fireworks, spotlights shining on cloud cover, etc. ONLY if all these explainations are insufficient in some way is it reasonable to take the position that this is some new phenomena. Even then, one can't say "Alien spacecraft", because we don't know that.

Likewise, if one sees a "ghost", first try out all the explanations that involve things we know exist. Hallucination, mistaken identity, hoax, etc, etc. My own ghost sighting (of a woman in white) turned out to be a cow. If I hadn't decided to get a closer look that day, there'd still be legends about the "White Woman of Senatobia Cemetary".

Just wanted to post that clarification, hopefully that will clear up your confusion about Occam's Razor.

[Dr B]

AAAHHHH Occam's razor....I've even seen it applied by woo's to woo-type stuff.

Example, = why go to all the trouble of a complex brain-based explanation (as I do) when a far simpler explanation is that ghosts are real!!!!

Trust me this has been said to me. I counter, "what is your evidence that a ghostly explanation is a far simpler one (let alone more reasonable and plausible one) relative to a brain-based one. What is simple about it?" Of course, there is no evidence - but a woo-type assumption is, generally speaking "is it not just simpler to admit to the exsitence of ghosts" From this position they invoke bastardised ideas of Occams razor.

The net consequence from this is a form of "twisted reasoning" where the simplest explanation is always a paranormal one :jaw-dropp

[Dr B]

In addition, woo's also argue against scientific accounts if they have a few degrees of freedom or factors by saying "they are too complex and go against Occam's razor"

The conclusion being - they must be wrong as they violate scientific principles. Of course, a theory can become too over complicated, but this is based again in a poor understanding of Occam, and science itself.

Nontheless, it explains their biased perception.