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.

  • Pegajace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • razorozx@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 days ago

        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?

        • razorozx@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • tomi000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 hours ago

            You claimed that you are basing your belief on statistics, which are the opposite of ‘a hunch’. Turns out it was just that.