If P(H|E) > P(H|E Λ ¬E) then E is evidence for H.
if the hypothesis "ghosts exist" leads you to predict X, then you don't observe X to happen, that's a blow for your "ghosts exist" hypothesis
If you were in the basement, and the door started going all 13 ghosts on your ass, how the hell did you get out of the house?
I literally have no idea how to interpret that man, sorry it's been years since I've done any physics.
I've been studying the paranormal for a while.
It's pretty hard to find empirical evidence for something that isn't physical.
I personally believe in ghosts because of a strange incident when I was younger.
Independently, my brother, my sister and I described a woman in our house whom we believed was real. We collectively said that she had blonde curly hair and a green dress.
Almost two years later, when I started attending pre-school, my mother met the previous owner of the house whom she hadn't seen since the late 1980s. Turns out we had described his deceased mother-in-law who had died in the house a few years before he sold the house. She had been buried in her wedding dress, which was green.
Evidence is not evidence unless it can be presented as such to an outside party. Eyewitness accounts cannot be presented as real evidence as they are just personal testimonies and can't be provided as evidence to someone who hasn't also experienced the event. They do not directly add proof to the existence of ghost, they simply demonstrate a unifying feature in human psychology. Just because a large number of people believe something doesn't make that thing true or add any truth to the matter.
'No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.' -David Hume
Yes, eyewitnesses are evidence. You're just not accepting it as such because it's not solid evidence. I never said it was. Evidence is used to support a claim, and as far as any smart person is concerned, eyewitnesses support claims regardless of if eyewitnesses are the most reliable type of evidence or not.
Point me to one scientific paper showing a means of detecting and interacting with any of those and successfully determining that they exist, then I'll gladly accept that ghosts or what not exist.
Until then, they are just another folk tale.
Going into a court room and saying you believe the defendant is innocent doesn't mean a fucking thing unless you are an expert in the relevant field.
For example, if you found some blood at a crime scene and didn't test it and said "this proves the defendant was at the crime scene" it would mean absolutely fuck all, where as a lab tech who actually tested the blood could say with absolute certainty that it was indeed the victims blood, that person would be believed cause he actually knows his shit.
Dude seriously, leave this debate you clearly have no idea what the criteria for evidence is.
Fuck if I convinced 100 people that I was Jesus, would that mean I'm Jesus?
Yeah that's what I'm saying, the eye witness testimony gives you avenues of investigation but the evidence itself takes precedence.
There is a distinction between rational evidence and legal evidence. Eyewitness evidence is still rational evidence, it's just extremely weak.
It shouldn't be used as evidence scientifically because the brain can have multiple interpretations of many situations, it doesn't deal with data empirically when it is involved in the situation.
Besides eye witness statements are almost always wrong, there have been a fair few studies that have shown just how flimsy human memory is and how easily they can be altered.
If eye witness testimony is allowed then I worry about the credibility of the data used in such studies.
if there was zero correspondence between that which is spoken and that which is real, the complex evolutionary adaption known as "speech" would never have developed.
You can't disprove them anyway, if they are supernatural. Supernatural beings are infallible, which are in turn unfalsifiable. If something is unfalsifiable it's bullshit.
Eye-witness testimony is completely inadmissible in SCIENCE.
Find ONE reputable scientific theory which is supported by eye-witness testimony.
Hell, not even GRAVITY, as a theory, recognizes eye-witness testimony. It is supported by objective, reproducible, EMPIRICAL evidence. The mathematical proofs which explained previously unobserved phenomenon (black holes) were later observed out here in reality. Not once did any scientist say "I saw X happen so it's true." (And before you say it, Netwon's Apple is about as true as Franklin's kite or Washington's cherry tree.)