Would you consider yourself to be open minded?

[highwaystar101]

HappySqurriel said:

highwaystar101 said:

Rath said:

I'm a skeptic, I generally only believe in things after I have seen sufficient proof. I guess in some ways that makes me close minded, if somebody told me they had been abducted by aliens or had seen a ghost I simply wouldn't believe them.

That's probably a good description of me too, to be honest. I like claims to be proven to me. But there are some cases where people have tried to prove their claim to me, and after hearing the same case made to me many dozens of times I pretty much dismiss it right after they've made their initial claim now.

If someone said to me and said that they've just seen a ghost I wouldn't believe them at that point. I wouldn't believe them because I've spoke to people before who have claimed to have seen ghosts or believe in ghosts, and they have never been able to back up their claim. So from my personal knowledge, I know there are most likely no such things as ghosts, and so that's the answer I automatically come to when someone makes that claim.

That being said, if someone came to me with a fresh claim of something I've never come across before, I would try to give it a fair hearing.

I guess it's just down to experience really.

You claim to be driven by science, yet you seem to be abandoning logic and creating beliefs that are unsupported by evidence ...

The statement "I cannot demonstrate the existence of ghosts and therefore ghosts probably do not exist" is not a particularly sound statement; because many of the things we know exist today could not have been demonstrated to exist a couple of generations ago.

On the other hand, the statement "I cannot demonstrate the existence of ghosts and therefore will not make decisions that depend on the premise that ghosts exist" is much more sound.

Well, yes. My statement may be unsound from a scientific perspective, and probably hypocritical too. In an ideal world where I apply scientific knowledge to everything I would be agnostic to things like this, at least until we have evidence that shows us what the case is.

I think from a scientific perspective, I certainly don't know whether they exist or not, and it would be foolish to make an assumption on something based on whether they do or do not exist.

However, when I hear the same claim argued again and again without success, I tend to find that my instinct is strengthened in the other direction, which I admit is very unscientific. But coupled with the fact that very often there are more rational explanations to encounters with ghosts, which I find far more satisfying than the evidence used to support them, I think it becomes more reasonable for me to make a statement saying ghosts don't probably exist from a purely personal perspective.

In short, if you were to ask me seriously about what I think, I would say "Scientifically I don't know if ghosts exist or not, but my personal opinion would lead me to lean on the one side and say I don't think they exist."

You are right though. I know my statement is flawed, and usually against my character.

(On an unrelated side note, to add to my views: When people make claims for the existence of ghosts using evidence I've never encountered before I'm usually all ears.)