Birch wondered why extrapolating from something far-fetched would lead to something far-fetched. If you're not going to follow along, you're going to fall behind.
And if you're going to respond incorrectly to my quotes taken out of context, prepare to be corrected.
“There are of course many phenomena in this world which are not explained and it is possible to say that the orthodox scientist is the last person to accept that something new (or old) may exist which cannot be explained in accordance with his understanding of natural laws.” Earl Alexander of Tunis, British Minister of Defense
Ironically, that is exactly how you initially messed up the thread of conversation I was having with Birch. You jumped in with a non sequitur (post 136), causing me to have to point out to you that your comment did not follow from what I said.
No..I was responding to the post that was a response to me. The one where you respond "or don't" to my statement that most things that exist "just exist". Go check it yourself.
Yeah. Your new thesis is that anything vaguely oval-shaped with a dark bar across the middle must be not only human, but the ghost of a dead human. Look! The ghost of a dead human! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Right? It's oval-shaped, has a dark bar across it. Therefore belongs in a thread about Ghosts, right?
Yup. Post 138. Which was AFTER post 136 the non sequitur you posted, where you misunderstood my discussion with Birch. If you hadn't jumped in, and responded to something I didn't say, we wouldn;t be having this discussion.
Like I said, don't incorrectly respond to quotes of me taken out of context. Read what I actually said and then respond intelligently. This isn't rocket science.
Actually I already solved it as fireman helmuts. Go back and check #146. Try to keep up with the thread.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "This interesting photo was taken sometime around the year 2000 in Manilla, Republic of the Philippines. According to The Ghost Research Society, two girlfriends were out for a walk one warm night. One of them entreated a passing stranger to photograph them using her cell phone's camera (hence the low-resolution picture). The result is shown here, with a transparent figure seeming to tug on the girl's arm with a firm if friendly grip. Without further information on this photo, we have to admit that the ghost could have been added with image processing software. But if it's genuine and untouched, it certainly qualifies as one of the best ghost photos." http://acidcow.com/pics/7602-best-ghost-pictures-ever-taken-26-pics.html
I saw that post already. Maybe do the 'research' part before the 'post as ghosts' part. Only took a few seconds, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you think that, if you keep responding about post 138, it will somehow mean you didn't screw up in post 136? That's called wishful thinking. And, ironically, highly germaine to this thread.
I didn't screw up. You claimed spirits are far-fetched from a rational analytical standpoint and I questioned that. I showed that the existence of something is not subject to rational criteria based on the fact that there is no reason for it existing. It just is. The question of its existing is an empiricle one, not a rational analytical one.
They are. See below. And how do you know something "just is" ... without analyzing it? If you were to analyze it irrationally, say, through the fog of a psycho-tropic substance, would it still "just exist" without rational analysis? That's the difference between science and woo. Sure, there's no problem saying something "just is", as long as it stays within the realm of woo. Like astrology for example. It's OK to say the planets' affect on us "just is", as long as no one cares to analyze it rationally. Which brings me around to my point with birch. An hypothesis based on a shaky hypothesis will also be shaky. The fact that this is in OTF, doesn't make it immune from basic deductive logic. That answers his/her question. It's really nothing to do with you, which is why you didn't understand the point.
By supporting it with evidence. No amount of analyzing or reasoning will do any more for you than that. Ontology is an empirical issue, not an analytical one. "Woo" is a made up term used by skeptics to conclude the falsity of something before they have studied it. It's a label justifying dismissal of something out of hand and is an example of confirmation bias. Example: ghosts are "woo", therefore we don't have to review the evidence for it. Tell me how you infer from pure deductive logic, without any empiricle data, the existence of say a giraffe.