Numerous first-person stories exist regarding the existence of ghosts. Many credible experiencers can be trusted by those close to them to truthfully recount what they claim to have witnessed. This ‘inductive reasoning,’ which implies proof based on probability, still raises doubts about empirical evidence for hauntings. What arguments support or challenge belief in ghosts? Below are both familiar and less common explanations and methods used in this argument, including the application of scientific concepts to understand evidence and its associated reasoning in various contexts.
The null hypothesis involves determining, through objective analysis of observed associations related to the hypothesis, whether they are statistically significant or merely due to chance. Based on this analysis, in the absence of empirical evidence, one assumes through statistical inference that an observable effect does not exist until proven otherwise by a relationship between variables. Importantly, this method begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis is true.
The Negative Proof Fallacy is widely recognized and is typically employed by skeptics. For those unfamiliar, it essentially means that you cannot prove a negative or the nonexistence of something. It is hard to argue against this point unless you introduce speculative hypotheses. However, there exist mathematical methods that aim to demonstrate the negation of a proposition.
Modus Ponendo is a logical approach applied to an argument. While your argument may be hypothetically valid, the statements within it may not necessarily be true. In summary, it can be expressed as follows: ‘A’ implies ‘B.’ If A is true, then B must also be true. This could translate to: A = if ghosts exist, there would be credible evidence of their existence. B = there is credible evidence of ghost sightings, paranormal experiences and unexplained phenomena. Result = ghosts exist.
Modus Tollens is another form of inference in logic closely related to Modus Ponendo. It's essential contention is that if B is false, then A also must be false. This could translate to: A = if ghosts exist, there would be empirical evidence that can be scientifically verified. B = There is no empirical evidence that can be scientifically verified for the existence of ghosts. Result = ghosts do not exist.
Now before all you ghost believers out there get upset about what you are reading here so far, let me introduce the concept of "Reductio ad Impossibile." This one is about contradiction. The numerous eyewitness testimonies about seeing a ghost are supported by this concept. Skeptically asserting that all claims of ghostly experiences are fabrications or mere imagination creates an ‘impossible’ situation due to the resulting contradictions. When the skeptical denial is taken to an extreme, it does not allow for critical thinking and further analysis. Should there ever be a 100% skeptic?
Now we come to "Sequent Calculus" where each line of a proof is what is known as a conditional tautology or sequent as opposed to an unconditional tautology. By definition, a tautology is a statement that is always true, regardless of the truth values of its individual components. It is made with two or more simple statements using conditional words such as ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘not’, ‘if’, ‘then’, and ‘if and only if.’
Conditional tautology: If ghosts exist, then they may be perceived as supernatural entities. Result = This statement always holds true regardless of whether ghosts exist or not. If ghosts exist, they would be perceived as supernatural entities. If ghosts do not exist, then the conditional statement, while devoid of substance, is vacuously true, as there is no condition to be met, but the statement remains true in all cases.
Unconditional tautology: "It is what it is." Result = This statement asserts the inherent nature of something without making any specific claim about the existence or non-existence of ghosts. It's a tautology because it is always true regardless of the context, including belief in ghosts. Therefore, unconditional tautologies reinforce belief in ghosts by contention of being unquestionable regardless of any external evidential factors. This type of logic also can be readily noticed in "The Curse of Oak Island" TV series. Listen for when the narrator uses the conditional term "if so."
It is important to note that belief in ghosts or spirits has its roots in ancient spiritual origins, long before "religions" were established. This undoubtedly led to religions copying some of these beliefs, extracting them for use in their religion for their own purposes. One could argue that as far as a Christian influence is concerned, Pope Gregory I 'christianized' certain pagan celebrations with All Souls Day and All Saints Day being examples. This same Pope initiated the suggestion of saying masses for ghosts (possibly the Souls in Purgatory) emphasizing their need for help from the living. Over time, spiritualists embraced the idea of establishing contact with the ghosts of dead relatives and friends, using seances and spirit photography in the attempt. Fast-forward to today, and we encounter the popular ghost hunting teams with their tech devices.
Additionally, there exist several other methods not discussed in this article that are also part of the bigger conversation as well. Regardless of the methodology employed in discussions about the existence of ghosts, including those already mentioned above, they remain fundamentally propositional arguments. They should be treated as such in conversation and/or debate. One need not feel threatened by opposing opinions any more than in the context of belief versus non-belief in a God or Creator.
Whether you are a paranormal researcher or not, or employ methods as those mentioned in this article, contentions should strive toward continued experimentation with open-minded and objective conclusions, allowing for future developments that currently remain unseen or involve mathematical and physical rules not yet discovered. In my humble opinion, even if that day eventually arrives, there may not be absolute certainty. Travel your own path and enjoy the ride as it pertains to you!
- MoonJoey