Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[James Gasik]

But plenty of things are flat-out impossible. Why is it wrong-minded to acknowledge it?

Because our understanding of things is always changing. History is full of people who thought this or that thing was "impossible" only to be eventually proven wrong. We can say that things are impossible according to the laws of physics, for example, but we do not know everything there is to know about physics.

Take the ability for a human to run a sub-4-minute mile. Experts for a long time claimed that the human body couldn't take the strain of such a feat. Then Sir Roger Bannister did it. Now it's a benchmark for runners.

Our understanding of our universe changes all the time. This isn't to say that there cannot be impossible things, but at any moment, what we presume is impossible could be contradicted, so I feel that it's always better to keep an open mind, no matter how improbable something may seem to be.

The ability for a human to fly through the air without some device to defy gravity is currently impossible. I think we can all agree on that. But when the day comes that someone falls and misses the ground, we'll all feel a bit silly, won't we? : )

 

[Cadence]

The ability for a human to fly through the air without some device to defy gravity is currently impossible. I think we can all agree on that. But when the day comes that someone falls and misses the ground, we'll all feel a bit silly, won't we? : )

Well, those of us who found out about it before they blew up the planet to make a thru-way...

 

[CleverNickName]

The ability for a human to fly through the air without some device to defy gravity is currently impossible. I think we can all agree on that. But when the day comes that someone falls and misses the ground, we'll all feel a bit silly, won't we? : )

Actually no, we won't feel silly. Quite the opposite! It is silly (and rightly so) to assume someone could fall down and miss the ground, because it has neither evidence nor precedent. There is nothing to base that assumption on. But if it happens, we will have learned something new about the fundamental laws of the universe...we would feel smarter.

To bring this back 'round to the subject of ghosts, some people think ghosts exist, and some people think they could exist, but both are doing so without concrete evidence. The more flexible argument is harder to discredit, but that doesn't make it the "more correct" argument. Without evidence, both are equally impossible to demonstrate, verify, and prove.

 

[Deset Gled]

Actually no, we won't feel silly. Quite the opposite! It is silly (and rightly so) to assume someone could fall down and miss the ground, because it has neither evidence nor precedent. There is nothing to base that assumption on. But if it happens, we will have learned something new about the fundamental laws of the universe...we would feel smarter.

It's called "orbit"

 

[CleverNickName]

...I walked right into that one.
Well played.

 

[Ryujin]

It's called "orbit"

I think we're generally talking more about obit than orbit.

 

[James Gasik]

Actually no, we won't feel silly. Quite the opposite! It is silly (and rightly so) to assume someone could fall down and miss the ground, because it has neither evidence nor precedent. There is nothing to base that assumption on. But if it happens, we will have learned something new about the fundamental laws of the universe...we would feel smarter.

To bring this back 'round to the subject of ghosts, some people think ghosts exist, and some people think they could exist, but both are doing so without concrete evidence. The more flexible argument is harder to discredit, but that doesn't make it the "more correct" argument. Without evidence, both are equally impossible to demonstrate, verify, and prove.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." ~ Clarke's First Law of Prediction

 

[briggart]

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." ~ Clarke's First Law of Prediction

I'd bet Clarke didn't have ghosts in mind when he wrote that, except possibly for these.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd bet Clarke didn't have ghosts in mind when he wrote that, except possibly for these.

Oh probably not, but then again, in his later years, he did become fascinated with anomalous things. I was a big fan of Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World as a kid.

 

[briggart]

Oh probably not, but then again, in his later years, he did become fascinated with anomalous things. I was a big fan of Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World as a kid.

Oh, that's interesting. I only read some of his SF work, I wasn't aware of his TV shows. I'll see if I can find some way to watch them. I have a fond nostalgia for those kind of shows from the 80s. Thanks!