At a recent BBQ, a couple of guests described in length their experiences ghost hunting at nearby haunted buildings. Myself and another skeptic attempted to poke some holes in their airtight logic (e.g. "You just.. had to be there.. You could just FEEL it, you know?"). They seemed surprised and disappointed that we wouldn't simply take their word for it, and insisted that we couldn't offer an opinion until we spend an entire night stumbling in the dark of a moldy condemned building with no electricity or functioning indoor plumbing (I refuse to do so, so I must either be too scared or too proud to admit I'm wrong).
Among some of the points Team Skeptic brought up:
1. If ghosts really do exist, why can't they haunted a functional, contemporary household in good repair? After all, people have also died in such houses. Why is a spooky atmosphere a prerequisite to having a ghost encounter?
2. Unbelief in ghosts is not simply about "only believing what you can see around you". I can see no dinosaurs around me, but I know that they once existed because I can go to a museum and be surrounded by physical evidence. There are no museums full of ghosts.
3. Out of the infinite possibilities (both known and unknown) to explain the feeling of being lightly touched in a pitch black room, or hearing noise that sounds like a voice, etc, why must it be a ghost? A person goes looking for evidence to confirm an already-held unjustified conclusion (ghosts exist), and then conveniently uses any sensory perception that fits that prejudice, without giving the evidence it's due diligence exploration and research.
I've been dwelling on that third argument. Skepticism is not just about avoiding silly beliefs. It's also about avoiding prejudice, and I think that is frequently overlooked (especially by die hard believers). Belief (in something, anything) is often revered, or at least respected in our culture. Taking a skeptical stance, while seen as sensible, is also looked at as being a killjoy or fuddy-duddy.
Skeptics do not deny the evidence (even if it's personal and subjective), but they do question the conclusion if it is not supported by sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with what they want to believe, it is the recognition that what they want is irrelevant, and prejudice and selectivity about a conclusion has no place in honest inquiry. The evidence (say, for ghosts) may actually indicate something. It may be centuries, or even never that we understand what it really is. But jumping to belief in the supernatural, for the sake of spicing up life is doing a disservice to the truth, and putting ones own needs before self honesty. To recognize that is not a weakness. It is, indeed, a virtue. And one that requires deliberate effort and discipline.
There is definitely valid points brought up by team skeptic there.
ReplyDeleteBut being skeptical, while yes reasonable, is to be a fuddy-duddy. Most people seem to be wired to believe in things without incontrovertible evidence while some are not. Ghost hunting and getting all spooked is probably fun if you let yourself believe. People like fun.
But as to your 3 points.
1. Amusing, but all a ghoster type need do is show an example of a modern haunted building and that's out. For example, SSU's library is allegedly haunted.
2. Ghost believers do have some things they call evidence, just nothing like that ever seems to come out of a group of 15 to 20somethings going to a creepy building.
3. Perfect point. I believe there can be ghost hunter types that do it right and really try to debunk any "experience" they have, but most probably don't.
I have a question for you as a skeptic. In the absence of what you'd accept as hard evidence for ghosts, but with a preponderance of anecdotal stories and circumstantial things, is it ok for someone to make a statement such as:
"While I don't really know, it seems one of the more possible conclusions based on the evidence is that ghosts do (or don't) exist."
In essence, without a certainty, how do you feel about someone "leaning" a certain direction?
I think that's fine. I think it's also possible to be rigorously skeptical, and at the same time privately "lean" in a direction, given no other better alternative. As long as you are clear with yourself and others that this doesn't constitute KNOWLEDGE, and that it's not in the same neighborhood as certainty.
ReplyDelete"Ghost hunting and getting all spooked is probably fun if you let yourself believe. People like fun."
ReplyDeleteI don't know...it seems kind of pathetic to believe in something just because it's fun. Especially when there could be rational explanations to what's going on. Fear, for example, will heighten your senses, and suddenly ever little noise and every misinterpreted sight in the corner of your eye will become the doing of a ghostly apparition.
Also, did you know carbon monoxide poisoning (for example, the carbon monoxide produced from a poorly maintained furnace) can cause auditory and visual hallucinations similar to the experiences described in a haunting?
Personally, I don't believe in ghosts, but I am open to the idea of their existence. If I see some sort of spectral ball floating in the air, I'm not going to wait around and ponder if I'm suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. I'M GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE!
The notion that it's fun and it's not hurting anyone, therefore it's OK, bugs me. Choosing to believe in something because it's fun is a form of lying. Even worse than lying to someone else, you're lying to yourself.
ReplyDeleteNow, kind of leaning one way without making a complete commitment to it is another story. But choosing to wholeheartedly endorse something that has no real evidence to support it is lying to yourself. It's not just disrespectful to some abstract notion of truth, it's devaluing your own mind and your own ability to determine what's real and not. If there's one thing distinctly human, it's that. While it may seem like a minor thing, I think it's a bigger deal than most people believe.
I also don't think that some people are simply wired that way, they've just not been called out as filthy liars (as they should), so they've fallen into mind-corruption and crimethink.
ReplyDeleteI think some people may be wired that way, but mostly insofar as they're not smart enough to even consider the topic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not sure, but I think for "fun" to happen, in almost any sense outside of the fun of intellectual debate, requires some suspension of rationality/belief, otherwise all "fun" endeavors would seem meaningless, and maybe they are, but realinzg it might kill the fun.
Nah. Smartness doesn't come into this. It doesn't require any exceptional intelligence to come at the question properly. Devoted ghost hunters do indeed consider the topic, they just intentionally suppress the voice of rationality, in favor of their own judgement of what, they feel, SHOULD be real and true. In my book, that's a sin. Maybe the chief sin.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest, a person can be rational without constantly analyzing and rigorously behaving logically. A person can engage in irrational behavior without violating rationality.
I really enjoy Halloween, despite the fact that I don't believe in ghouls, goblins, demons, vampires or the grim reaper. It's fun! I know it's not real, but I don't care at the time, because it's not a relevant question. I know that rollercoasters are designed to be safe and that I'm in no real danger, but it's still thrilling.
Would it be scarier if someone lied to me, by yelling, as the coaster was starting out, that the track was bent halfway down? Sure, I would probably peepee in my pants. But society can't work if we just cry wolf to each other for the sake of livening things up. Likewise, our brains won't work properly, as a human brain should, if we lie to ourselves through lax self discipline.
I'm not saying there's a happy medium between silly beliefs and perfect rationality. I'm saying a person can strive for perfect rationality (in matters of what is real, and what is true) without sacrificing fun. Not every question in life is answered by rationality. Some questions (like, what do you feel like doing today?) can rely on emotion or vulgar appetites. But when people mix the two, it makes a revolting (and in my book, gravely immoral) gravy.