Emerson Green (the only non-dogmatic, real skeptic on the internet) deconstructs three bad arguments against ghosts. Weirdly, they are Chinese and 2000 years old?! Presumably the internet skeptics who linked to the article about the old Chinese philosopher Wang Chong thought he really nailed it.
Not so, argues Green. In fact, Wang´s arguments are rather weak and based on implicit assumptions about how ghosts "should" behave. Yet, no ghost-believer actually makes them and the assumptions aren´t even logical to begin with. In other words, the skeptics are attacking a strawman. Or perhaps boogeyman?
Green also points out that there *are* cases in which ghosts supposedly behaved in exactly the way Wang claimed they never do. Finally, he points out that the data-set (behavior of alleged ghosts) is compromised *by the skeptics themselves* (or hostile religious authorities) since they create a climate in which eye-witnesses are mocked and seen as crazy. So how the heck does a skeptic know how ghosts are supposed to behave in the first place?
As far as I know, Green doesn´t actually believe in ghosts, but he loves to explore the fringes of human knowledge. This is probably connected to his rejection of physicalism in favor of dualism or panpsychism. And also to his observation of a werewolf-like creature as a teenager!
No comments:
Post a Comment