You must log in or register to comment.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
- 0 users online
- 217 users / day
- 934 users / week
- 2.44K users / month
- 5.59K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.07K Posts
- 119K Comments
- Modlog
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.”
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.
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.
deleted by creator
You don’t understand statistics at all.
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?
not defending all op’s claims, but…
some cryptids are real. for example in the past 40 years, giant squid have quite literally moved from the pages of ‘fun’ ghosts and cryptid books into scientific journals. and this process has repeated many times throughout history with other animals.
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.
Any alien photos of a coloured shaped were already disproved by an optic expert. Just ike you get sunflare in a regular camera lens as hexagons, you get triangle flare in military recording lenses.
People used to write that frogs were spontaneously born from mud. Just because a belief is written down or etched in stone doesn’t make it true or real.
As for supernatural stuff you have to realize that before scientists discovered things like we aren’t the center of the solar system, people were ignorant of physics and astronomy, and attributed everything to some supernatural god or alien force. We have moved past the idea of a guy in a chariot toeing planets across the night sky.
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.
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.
I never claimed that Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon, it was a hypothetical scenario to express a point.
If the scenario you’ve describing were to be true, then it’d be something more major to discuss than ghosts or aliens as it would provide the potential for groundbreaking discoveries. I don’t expect you to continue vouching for for Nessy and its research potential since it’d be off topic, however.
Okay, well let’s apply that newly specified set of requirements.
Earth must be flat for the same reason. There’s even more evidence for it than for aliens, across history, across continents and cultures, and there’s plenty of content regarding it in the modern world too, independent of any specific locale.
Do you believe the world is flat?
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?
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?
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.
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.
I appreciate the honesty. I can see how my post got so many downvotes. I definitely misused the term “statistics” by not inferring a casual and metaphorical tone.
No, I don’t believe that my reasoning is scientifically sound. I don’t claim that my observation is the final truth. I claim that my belief in such things are affirmed (albeit faintly) through the improbability that all unintentional reports and encounters all false.
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
No no no, with gods, you can kind of shop around, most of them won’t mind much, at least not in the ‘send a lightning bolt down to fry Mothra@mander.xyz’ kind of way. Essentially, gods need people to believe in them (so they can exist), and people need someone to blame. Offler, the crocodile-headed god, is quite popular, as is Blind Io, chief of the gods.
I work in IT, so in my headcannon, I pray to the gods of DNS. Put into a classical context, I imagine this is Hermes from Greek mythology (messenger of the gods), Thoth from Egyption mythology, etc.
Completely honestly though - I think faith is similar to energy, in the ‘conservation of energy’ type of way. So the total amount of faith humanity holds has stayed the same, but instead of praying to gods, we now have faith in things like… Ryzen processors. DNS. Manual transmissions. Black coffee. Subaru. These are just some of the things I have faith in, if you asked my daughter, the answers would probably be Peppa Pig, mom & dad, Everest the Paw Patrol character, a blue baloon, cheesecake is best cake, her stuffed animal squid, etc. Both answers are completely valid :-)
Ohhhhh i see, well, I’m relieved to know this means the ancient greek pantheon is the right one to follow and not just my personal preference. Guess I might start showing some public devotion then.
I agree with you in faith ≈ conservation energy. I already pray to my own personal Patron Saint of the Parking Spot, his name is José btw in case you ever find yourself stressing over finding where to park; you’re welcome to pray to him too. So far I’ve always managed to park in time.
I hope Zeus and co. don’t mind I pray to him, times have changed I guess, I’m sure they’ll all get along well. Okay gotta go now, I need to go read my horoscope now that I know statistics back it up.
You could really use a basic philosophy and logic education. Like one or two community college 100-level classes on critical thinking.
Any free/open online crash courses on it?
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.
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.
I won’t dispute your claim, as your argument is flawed from the beginning.
But answer me this: What’s the expiration date on ghosts? There has to be one, because otherwise there would be a lot more ghosts from any and all eras.
And that includes Neolithic era ghosts.
And what about the Neanderthals? And dinosaurs? Why do we never hear of ghosts from other species?
deleted by creator
I think you may be misunderstanding how statistics works.
Your “statistics” are fantasy numbers, not statistics. And statistics or probabilities, no matter how low or high, are not proof.
Using this approach, everything that can’t be disproven must exist
Not by a long shot.
deleted by creator
Yes, if you assume something is true then you can conclude that it is true.
OP, it’s fine to believe in whatever you feel like it, and IMHO ghosts and aliens are better beliefs than some other options.
With that said, I think it would be better to say that you believe those things and use the “not 100%” as a justification.
There is no way to gather all evidence about any topic, so we need to define what is acceptable as “enough” evidence and what “make sense” according to what we know; at least when we (as a society) talk about science.