Critical thinking revisited

A recent exchange on the AOL Journals message board:

Subject: A journaler who claims to be taking pictures of ghosts.

Paul: The young person in question is simply taking pictures of dust motes on his camera lens that become illuminated by the flash. An extremely common photographic artifact

Lahoma: I hope he does get a Ghost pic though.

Paul: Given the fact that ghosts are creations of our imaginations, I'd have to say it's pretty darn unlikely.

Lahoma: Wrong! That's all I got to say about that.

Paul: Proof?

Sherri: If it is her opinion, she dosen't need proof or justification, just as you don't.
Just because you don't beleive it, dosen't mean she can't believe there are.
She shouldn't have to give someone on the internet proof to have her own opinion.

An unruly mob: I agree with Sherri.

Sheila: There is really no concrete evidence that ghosts exist.  There is also no concrete evidence that they don't.  It really is left up to personal experience and how you were raised as far as religion goes, and your personal beliefs. Until such evidence is determined, you are neither right nor wrong.


::sigh::

Let's have another little discussion about scientific method, and critical thinking, shall we?

I like broccoli. That is a statement of opinion. I'm entitled to it. Your opinion on the taste of broccoli may or may not differ from mine. That is your right.

Broccoli exists. Ah! Now, that is not a statement of opinion. That is a scientific hypothesis. As such, proof is required. Don't be silly, you say. Of course broccoli exists. I've eaten it before. I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof. Why not, you ask. Think about my last journal entry. We all write "anecdotes" down in our journals. We've already agreed that some people are not entirely honest in the things they are writing. So, just because you say you've eaten broccoli before, doesn't mean you are necessarily telling the truth. More proof is required. OK smartypants, you say. Here is a piece of broccoli. What do you say to that? Excellent. You have shown me an actual piece of broccoli. We can now state uncategorically that broccoli exists. Save that piece, just in case we come across somebody else that denies the existence of broccoli.

Ghosts exist. Another hypothesis. Show me the proof. Here, look at these pictures. Let's show those pictures to a photographic expert, shall we? This is a dust mote on the lens illuminated by the flash. This is a camera strap illuminated by the flash. This is an internal reflection within a poorly coated camera lens. This one is an obviously deliberate double exposure. This one is an accidental double exposure. This one is caused by a light leak in the camera. This one is caused by defective film. And this one? Well, this one is your thumb. There is nothing here that I haven't seen a thousand time before, and isn't easily explainable. Next? Look, this electromagnetic device registers a disturbance in the area. Look, it also registers a disturbance in my kitchen, in my neighbour's back yard, in the school parking lot, in the grocery store, in your elbow. Everywhere. But, I've seen a ghost in my house. Let's go to your house, and you can show me... Seventeen ghost free days later: The ghost doesn't like you, or, the prescence of scientific examination causes the ghosts to disappear. (Don't laugh, people have actually claimed that) I'm sorry, but no truly scientifically honest study ever done has turned up a single shred of evidence to support the possibility that ghosts exist.

You can't prove that ghosts don't exist. I don't have to. I have to prove that they do exist. I can't prove that broccoli doesn't exist, because you can prove that broccoli exists. That's how scientific method works. You start with an hypothesis, and you try to disprove it. There is no other way to do it. According to scientific method, the hypothesis is: ghosts don't exist. We must attempt to prove that ghosts do exist. Even though we believe that they don't, we must do our best to prove that they do. And I will repeat: no truly scientifically honest study ever done (and there have been many, many of them) has turned up a single shred of evidence to support the possibility that ghosts exist.

I don't care. I still believe that ghosts exist: Well, that's different. That makes you superstitious, and there's nothing I can do about that.

 

edit: you can replace the word Ghost with Astrology, Dowsing, Tarot Cards, Psychics, Reflexology, Feng Shui, or the Bedini Ultra CD Clarifier in this article and it would read the same.

 

For more on critical thinking, read this older entry.