a good age old question.

[villa_fan007]

do ghosts exist, and who is more likely to sence or see them.?

[tompaine]

Ludwig Its not rational to count up those who believe something V's those who don't, highest score wins. Rational behaviour isn't decided democratically. I thought I had shown that well with the miracle of the sun. To be rational you have to have a logical reason for believing ghosts are real as opposed to folklore related anecdote.

sometime in the future science may explain the moon is made of cheese, it may not. Arguing that science can't explain it yet but science is incomplete could be used to validate any extraordinary claim you wish to make. It doesn't make it likely. Its like Russell's teapot. All we can say is that we have no scientific evidence of life after death and the more evidence we gather the more we learn that whatever makes us unique is in the brain. Since the brain is the result of evolution the prospect of some afterdeath sentience is further eroded: or can you get ghost trees and ghost worms too?

We have evidence of the big bang which is consistent and rational and falsifiable that is why it is scientific theory (not fact). It didn't start off with an anecdote, it is an interpretation of observational evidence. There is no evidence that ghosts exist only anecdote. If ghosts were real then surely you could show me a ghost even if science couldn't yet explain them. Show me the evidence Ludwig, or at least give me an idea of what a ghost could be.

[tompaine]

Naomi

I don't have a line of enquiry. The questioner asked: Do ghosts exist? I have considered the subject carefully and concluded that they probably do not (with solid reasons) You are arguing that they do based on personal observation and defending your position by arguing that one day science will prove you right.. I think that personal observation is unreliable and it is unlikely that anyone could present a ghost to science for science to take a look at.

I have also argued that people who see ghosts are just as likely to be mistaken as hallucinating or lying.

Now you're saying you don't know what you saw, but it was a ghost. Which begs the question ...

What is your line of enquiry?

[ludwig]

Tom, Naomi is right - you don't seem to be reading the posts. With that being the case it's pointless to say much more - Life's too short ;-)*


(*geddit?)

[naomi24]

Ditto.

[tompaine]

What a strange reply Ludwig. I answered your post in full and in detail.

[tompaine]

And I answered yours in full and in detail naomi. Tell you what, give me an example where I haven't read your posts.

[ludwig]

Ok Tom, you tell me you're reading the posts but I only have your word for it.
I see no real evidence to support it.
Are you sure you're not just imagining that you're reading them?

Seriously, let's agree to differ on this. This has helped pass a dull day at work, but I'm going home now for my tea.