Do we know ghosts don't exist

[darkwinter]

Is now a good time to point out that science is probabilisitc and not deterministic and that the question itself is loaded and flawed - because it begs a specific perverse answer in the first instance.

Hence my attempts to reframe the question. There must be a way of asking it that avoids this kind of problem.

[Tim the Mage]

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"

To know ghosts exist we have to change the usual definition? If there is no 'spirit' of the living, how can there be a 'spirit' of the dead?

I find most of Mulder's arguments still make sense if I substitute the word, 'fairy', for the word 'ghost'. Does this mean that fairies exist?

[Dr B]

Hence my attempts to reframe the question.

but then....you already have your answer

[Mulder]

I find most of Mulder's arguments still make sense if I substitute the word, 'fairy', for the word 'ghost'. Does this mean that fairies exist?

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades. Also, many such reports are not first hand and so may fall more into the folklore category. So, I don't think you can equate fairies and ghosts. People are reporting ghosts right now whereas very few are reporting fairies. Maybe the fairies took to piloting UFOs ....

[Mike Hall]

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades. Also, many such reports are not first hand and so may fall more into the folklore category. So, I don't think you can equate fairies and ghosts.

Then substitute bigfoot, the loch ness monster or chupacabra for fairies

[Tim the Mage]

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades.

It's not really so very odd - if I say to somebody; "I saw some fairies on the road thorugh the woods", they think I'm mad. If however I say; "I saw a ghost on the road through the woods"; their ears prick up and they get all interested.

If we thought that seeing ghosts was as daft as seeing fairies we'd have to think of another word for ghosts...

I do however take your point about UFOs - when ever a sighting of spaceships is reported to me I always suggest that it was in fact Will 'O the Wisp or Lack 'O Lantern!

[Mulder]

At one time, a century or two ago perhaps, reporting a fairy would not have seemed any stranger than reporting a ghost, especially in country areas.

[Tim the Mage]

At one time, a century or two ago perhaps, reporting a fairy would not have seemed any stranger than reporting a ghost, especially in country areas.

...as those of us who love the story of the Cottingley Fairies know well. When you look at the photos you wonder why anyone was taken in.


http://lesalon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/fairies.jpg

[lazerustheduck]

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"

If you can answer the statement "do we know we exist" with a 100% certainty, then that could lead to the start of your question.

[Pebble]

If you can answer the statement "do we know we exist" with a 100% certainty, then that could lead to the start of your question.

If we knew ghosts existed the question posed would be redundant. The real question is are we 100% certain of their non existence, and if not what degree of certainty can we attribute to this proposition.

[lazerustheduck]

If we knew ghosts existed the question posed would be redundant. The real question is are we 100% certain of their non existence, and if not what degree of certainty can we attribute to this proposition.

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

[SimonC]

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

If you were to doubt your own existence, lazerustheduck, then you would also have to doubt the existence of me, and anyone else you communicate with.

If you maintain that you do not exist you would, therefore, be communicating with nonexistent people. To do this could not be the action of a rational being.

So, you have to dismiss the possibility that you do not exist in order to justify the rationality of your own statements about anything. Including existence.

The subjective-idealist argument is as self-refuting as the nihilist, philosophical stance.

[Mongrel]

The subjective-idealist argument is as self-refuting as the nihilist, philosophical stance.

I always preferred the 'Teaching Stick' method.

Take one large, pointy stick, aka Teaching Stick
Prod philosopher repeatedly
Taunt prodee by mentioning that if they create or shape their own reality why does this hurt? *prod*
Conclusion: Either they really hate themselves or they're talking nonsense

[Tim the Mage]

I always preferred the 'Teaching Stick' method.

Take one large, pointy stick, aka Teaching Stick
Prod philosopher repeatedly
Taunt prodee by mentioning that if they create or shape their own reality why does this hurt? *prod*
Conclusion: Either they really hate themselves or they're talking nonsense

This is true but trite - I think that Book V of Plato's Republic does this one best ('the stone that wasn't a stone' and all that guff).

[Pebble]

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

Sorry, Mis-read your question. But then as Simon C and Mongrel have pointed out the question posed is futile other than as a philosophical enquiry into the nature of knowledge. By definition once one asks for empirical evidence we have taken the existence of knowledge for granted.