Red-Ink
Very Well-Known Member
Haha, everyday Thats fine, but when you jump to a conclusion without any degree of certainty you are committing a logical fallacy. Specifically 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' or an argument from ignorance. Just because something appears to be unexplainable does not mean it cannot be explained. Simply applying Occam's Razor should lead you to a more earthly conclusion. What is more likely, that its simply an artefact in the photo that pattern seeking mammals see as a person or that the natural laws of the universe have been suspended and it is indeed a ghost?
What if Occam's razor solution offers no degree of certainty and is committing logical fallacy in itself.
In this scenario one side of the opposition as concluded that it is a ghost applying subjectively Occam's razor reasoning that the other opposing arguments in itself can not provide evidence with all certainty; that the anomally is in deed an equipment malfunction or higher formed intelligence just simply applying the Gestalt principles.
Would your counter reasoning not apply in retort as well to your arguments.
I am not stating that the image artefact is in deed of a supernatural nature nor am i stating that it is not.... It is simply an anomally with an inconclusive explanation.
If you follow my thought process a few post down from the one you qouted me on I believe that you will see I'm neutral on the matter. I was simply asking people if the skeptics themselves had some experiences that they could not simply explain.
Last edited: