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.
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.
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”
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 :-)
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?
Ghosts expire once they complete their unfinished business. So any Neanderthal ghost around now would have to be spectacularly incompetent. Despite their popular reputation, Neanderthals were quite successful in their survival strategies.
Dinosaurs can’t be ghosts. They can become zombies though.
So basically we can understand ghostliness as a property of the tool using hominids, and almost exclusively those which have developed civilization.
Personally, I don’t believe in ghosts but their existence doesn’t depend on my belief.
You don’t understand statistics at all.
They’re two very different things. One is supernatural one is simply unknown.
Statistically, yes, life on other planets probably exists in some form as there’s just so many. But whether they’ve contacted, visited or even known about us - I don’t think so. Conspiracists will think secrets are being hidden but that’s what makes them feel important.
Ghosts - nah. There’s no proof beyond human imagination.
Ghosts don’t even make sense scientifically. There has not been a single bit of evidence because Videos and photos on their own never proof anything. Aliens on the other hand are just lifeforms on other planets. We ourselves are proof that life exists so the probability of more is not 0. We don’t need sketchy photos as proof for that and they will probably never visit us anyways.
Flies eat poop, and theres a lot of them. Can’t all be wrong. Even if 1% of them are right to do so, you should eat poop.
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.”
Using this approach, everything that can’t be disproven must exist
Not by a long shot.
deleted by creator
nice try ghostie , go back to your void
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.
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.
I think you may be misunderstanding how statistics works.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
