Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Do You Believe In Ghosts?
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: Marge_Innavera on October 24, 2006, 11:41:44 am ---I really don't know whether that's a believable explanation or not. However, I did notice a long time ago that people who are wedded to the western superstition that "there's a logical explanation for everything" can come up with goofier explanations than any fantasy writer.
I'm slightly telekenetic and you'd have to hear some of the "explanations" to believe them. My favorite so far was one about a bedside table that moved suddenly enough to trash both a lamp and an alarm clock: that it was a "gravitational eddy." :o
--- End quote ---
Once, on a sunny afternoon, me and two friends sat on a couch - stone cold sober - and watched as the torchiere lamp, standing by the side of the couch suddenly started rocking back and forth all on its own.
They had no pets, no rats underfoot. We sat there and watched it until it stopped. Our explanation then was a poltergeist. Later, I imagine it could have been anything. They had a wooden floor, in a slab construction house, they lived near a freeway, seismologists tell us there are earthquakes happening all the time, but they are too faint for us to feel them...[shrugs] who knows?
Kelpersmek:
--- Quote from: David925 on October 24, 2006, 08:16:34 pm ---But what if there really is a spirit world? If there is (and I believe there is) it would be perfectly rational to say "a ghost did it". What defines a rational or irrational explanation depends on the person's perspective. :)
--- End quote ---
Interesting! Just before I get into this, i just want to say I am quite interested in this as a debate, but if at any time you feel I am overstepping a line or being too insistent please PM and I will apolgise and drop the subject. i realise that people's personal beliefs are important and sacred, and I am replying to share mine, and not attack those of anyone else. That said...
It would be perfectly rational if there was indeed a spirit world. I happen to believe there is not, but if it can be proven that there is, that would change my belief. I think things rest on 'reasonable proof'.
For example, if I expose a material, say copper, to flame, the copper will increase in temperature. The molecular structure will expand as it is heated. It will always happen if you use the same copper and the same temperature flame. We can infer that flames give off heat, that the copper is absorbing that heat, the heat expands the material... and we have sufficient 'reasonable proof' to say we 'know' these things.
Now, I avoid and reject all philosophical rebuffs on this in terms of "Ah but what if we are all brains in jars" and other such stuff. If we are, we have more to worry about.
So 'reasonable proof' to me is the result of a repeatable experiment which yeilds the same results, and a hypothesis (preferably more than one) which we can then test to see which is most likely.
What defines rational is that this model, this approach, has served us very well in obtaining knowledge. I wouldn't state that there is such a thing as a gravity particle, because we have no evidence that it exists. Sure, people may have assumptions that it does, there may be some evidence, but nothing like reasonable proof.
Similarly if I say "that happened because of the magical powers of the Invisible Pink unicorn!" people won't assume I am rational. Even if it fits *my* perspective and makes sense, where is my proof? My worldview must be supported by evidence. let me move to a more practical example:
A man sincerely believes he is being hunted by the CIA, because he knows about the experiments they carry out on people, and about the aliens that have been visiting the earth. Every phonecall is a potential spy tring to track him down, every news story a coded message. That's his belief.
Society would deem this man irrational (probably paranoid, maybe suffering a mental illness) unless he could show us documented evidence of these claims.
That same man would be deemed rational if he could point out real CIA agents following him around, show us un-faked photographs of aliens, and show consistent cyphers that explain the coded messages and tie these messages to real world events.
In my opinion, rationality it is not quite perspective, but evidence which causes the majority of people to agree on the same perspective.
fernly:
I picked the first choice, but need to qualify it a bit. I've seen a ghost, and so I believe in that one. Far as other ghosts, I guess I'm keeping an semi-open mind. If someone I know and trust as a reasonable person says they've seen a ghost, I'm more likely to believe it.
But just 'cause I've had a visitation, doesn't mean I'm ready to believe in any story of other ghosts. Look how differently people, for all kinds of reasons, interpret objective, verifiable events in the real world. Not very likely that we're going to agree on interpretations of apparently other-worldly events.
But I have read a couple lovely ghost stories (fanfic) lately that I've quite willing to believe in. ;D
David In Indy:
--- Quote from: Kelpersmek on October 25, 2006, 02:54:17 pm ---Interesting! Just before I get into this, i just want to say I am quite interested in this as a debate, but if at any time you feel I am overstepping a line or being too insistent please PM and I will apolgise and drop the subject. i realise that people's personal beliefs are important and sacred, and I am replying to share mine, and not attack those of anyone else. That said...
It would be perfectly rational if there was indeed a spirit world. I happen to believe there is not, but if it can be proven that there is, that would change my belief. I think things rest on 'reasonable proof'.
For example, if I expose a material, say copper, to flame, the copper will increase in temperature. The molecular structure will expand as it is heated. It will always happen if you use the same copper and the same temperature flame. We can infer that flames give off heat, that the copper is absorbing that heat, the heat expands the material... and we have sufficient 'reasonable proof' to say we 'know' these things.
Now, I avoid and reject all philosophical rebuffs on this in terms of "Ah but what if we are all brains in jars" and other such stuff. If we are, we have more to worry about.
So 'reasonable proof' to me is the result of a repeatable experiment which yeilds the same results, and a hypothesis (preferably more than one) which we can then test to see which is most likely.
What defines rational is that this model, this approach, has served us very well in obtaining knowledge. I wouldn't state that there is such a thing as a gravity particle, because we have no evidence that it exists. Sure, people may have assumptions that it does, there may be some evidence, but nothing like reasonable proof.
Similarly if I say "that happened because of the magical powers of the Invisible Pink unicorn!" people won't assume I am rational. Even if it fits *my* perspective and makes sense, where is my proof? My worldview must be supported by evidence. let me move to a more practical example:
A man sincerely believes he is being hunted by the CIA, because he knows about the experiments they carry out on people, and about the aliens that have been visiting the earth. Every phonecall is a potential spy tring to track him down, every news story a coded message. That's his belief.
Society would deem this man irrational (probably paranoid, maybe suffering a mental illness) unless he could show us documented evidence of these claims.
That same man would be deemed rational if he could point out real CIA agents following him around, show us un-faked photographs of aliens, and show consistent cyphers that explain the coded messages and tie these messages to real world events.
In my opinion, rationality it is not quite perspective, but evidence which causes the majority of people to agree on the same perspective.
--- End quote ---
I understand where you are going with this, but your argument doesn't support itself.
You started off by using molecular expansion (and contraction) of metal (copper) as one of your examples. Today it is a scientific fact. The problem is, it was a scientific fact even thousands of years ago. Certainly people noticed metals expanding when heated and contracting when chilled. They didn't understand why it happened, but they were aware it would happen.
Let's approach this from a different angle. When I look at the color red, I know I see red. When I look at the color blue, I know it is blue and it is a totally different color than red. But how do I KNOW you see (or perceive) the color red the same way I do? Could it be possible your interpretation of the color red might in fact be my interpretation of the color blue? How would we ever know for sure? How does one explain a color to another person? In fact your perception of color might be completely different from mine altogether. Perhaps every individual human has his or her own unique perception and understanding of color which is totally different from everyone else. There is no way to prove you see and perceive a color the same way I do. We just assume we do.
David In Indy:
--- Quote from: fernly on October 25, 2006, 03:44:31 pm ---I picked the first choice, but need to qualify it a bit. I've seen a ghost, and so I believe in that one. Far as other ghosts, I guess I'm keeping an semi-open mind. If someone I know and trust as a reasonable person says they've seen a ghost, I'm more likely to believe it.
--- End quote ---
You sound fairly certain you saw a ghost. Why then would it be difficult to believe others see them too?
Besides, it's almost Halloween! 8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version