Ghostbusters

Ghostbusters are the bane of my life, not the cracking blockbusting Hollywood 'Ghostbusters', they're fantastic, I am talking about the general haven't got a clue but will pretend I am doing scientific investigation, type Ghostbusters.

They bring all the scientific Ghostbusting 'tools' of the trade and try to bust some Ghosts, theyre a real hoot to watch which is probably why series such as 'most haunted' etc have such high viewer ratings.

Now before you feel I am being cynical, there are two types of ghostbuster, one uses the scientific method approach to their investigations, the other makes a false premise that ghosts exist and the building is haunted and they are going to find a ghost.

The former I have respect for:

Joe Nickell

Joe Nickell

Professional paranormal investigator Joe Nickell is a senior research fellow for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a non-profit organization that applies scientific methods to claims of paranormal or supernatural phenomena. He has investigated hundreds, if not thousands, of haunted houses and other paranormal phenomena. He has worked as a detective, a stage magician and a journalist and is now a full-time, salaried paranormal investigator.

He has published several books and many articles and is also an expert in forgery detection and document authentication.

Now I know I am slipping in to argument from authority, but most of the latter type ghostbusters call themselves an authority any way.

Joe Nickell is someone I respect as an authority on investigations of the paranormal for the simple reason he does not have preconceived ideas. He approaches every case with the scientific method in mind and is scrupulous in his methodology.

Now the latter type Ghostbusters that I absolutely disdain, as mentioned earlier approach cases of Ghosts and hauntings as true before they even ask the first question. They hold the false premise that Ghosts do exist, the person absolutely saw a ghost and the building is definately haunted, they are simply there to log the incident and cash in by writing an article for the paper or inclusion in yet another credulous book about ghosts.

I have lots of respect for Joe Nickell types and love hollywood Ghostbusters, but unfortunately for every Joe Nickell, there are a thousand credulous 'Ghostbuster' types that honestly do not have the first clue.

Be sceptical,

Den.

Ockham's Razor

William of Ockham

The Razor

Ockham’s razor is the principle of parsimony or simplicity according to which the simpler theory is more likely to be true. Ockham did not invent this principle; it is found in Aristotle, Aquinas, and other philosophers Ockham read. Nor did he call the principle a “razor.” In fact, the first known use of the term “Occam’s razor” occurs in 1852 in the work of the British mathematician William Rowan Hamilton.

Although Ockham never even makes an argument for the validity of the principle, he uses it in many striking ways, and this is how it became associated with him. For some, the principle of simplicity implies that the world is maximally simple. Aquinas, for example, argues that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices. This interpretation of the principle is also suggested by its most popular formulation: “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Yet this is a problematic assertion.

We know today that nature is often redundant in both form and function. Although medieval philosophers were largely ignorant of evolutionary biology, they did affirm the existence of an omnipotent God, which is alone enough to render the assumption that the world is maximally simple suspicious. In any case, Ockham never makes this assumption and he does not use the popular formulation of the principle.

For Ockham, the principle of simplicity limits the multiplication of hypotheses not necessarily entities. Favouring the formulation “It is useless to do with more what can be done with less,” Ockham implies that theories are meant to do things, namely, explain and predict, and these things can be accomplished more effectively with fewer assumptions.

At one level, this is just common sense. Suppose your car suddenly stops running and your fuel gauge indicates an empty gas tank. It would be silly to hypothesize both that you are out of gas and that you are out of oil. You need only one hypothesis to explain what has happened.Some would object that the principle of simplicity cannot guarantee truth. The gas gauge on your car may be broken or the empty gas tank may be just one of several things wrong with the car. In response to this objection, one might point out that the principle of simplicity does not tell us which theory is true but only which theory is more likely to be true. Moreover, if there is some other sign of damage, such as a blinking oil gage, then there is a further fact to explain, warranting an additional hypothesis.

Although the razor seems like common sense in everyday situations, when used in science, it can have surprising and powerful effects. For example, in his classic exposition of theoretical physics, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking attributes the discovery of quantum mechanics to Ockham’s razor.

Nevertheless, not everyone approves of the razor. Ockham’s contemporary and fellow Franciscan Walter Chatton proposed an “anti-razor” in opposition to Ockham. He declares that if three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on. Others call Ockham’s razor a “principle of stinginess,” accusing it of quashing creativity and imagination. Still others complain that there is no objective way to determine which of two theories is simpler. Often a theory that is simpler in one way is more complicated in another way. All of these concerns and others make Ockham’s razor controversial.

At bottom, Ockham advocates simplicity in order to reduce the risk of error. Every hypothesis carries the possibility that it may be wrong. The more hypotheses you accept, the more you increase your risk. Ockham strove to avoid error at all times, even if it meant abandoning well-loved, traditional beliefs. This approach helped to earn him his reputation as destroyer of the medieval synthesis of faith and reason.

So when we look at the world with a modern days sceptical viewpoint, we must ask, is there a simpler hypothesis? When people maintain a belief they have seen a ghost it is right to apply Ockham's razor and ask, 'Is there a simpler explanation?'

Regards,

Den.

Welcome

Hard evidence ghost's exist?

Hello and a warm welcome to my Blog spin off dealing exclusively with Ghosts.

My intention with this blog will be to write relevant articles about Ghosts which I hope will dispel any myths perpetrated by Ghostbusters and their ilk that pass themselves off as an 'Authority' on the subjects of Ghosts and are adamant Ghosts do exist, even though they have no more evidence than purely anecdotal.

I hope you enjoy this specialised Blog and don't forget you can access my main blog at:

http://www.undercoversceptic.blogspot.com/

The forum at: http://www.sceptic.darkbb.com/

Warm regards,

Den.