I never saw a ghost. It does not prove that they do not exist, just that I never saw one. Asked if I believe them real, the proper answer would go : I do not think so but it remains possible. A friend of mine, having heard me state as much asked why I was so open as most people thought me to be hyper-rational. I first answered by dispelling that myth since I am quite emotive, thank you, and went on to explain.
I can do things most people can’t ; ambidextrous writing, catching stuff ( and events ) fast, “guessing intentions in movement” … Yes, I can write with both hands. A relative amount of ambidexterity is necessary in music and sports and even some jobs but apart from left-handers schooled to write “normally”, writing is rare. The same applies to catching stuff. Anytime that I drop or bump something down, I expect to catch the object before it hits the ground ( except things like anvils though; when an anvil falls nearby, I just make sure to get my feet out of the way ). Similarly, as it was part of my job for years, I can interpret situations, correctly “guessing” intents. Most of us actually do it to some extent. In sports as on say a penalty goal attempt, the goalie tries to foresee the shooter’s actions. To do so mainly on interpreting motivation is a notch harder and relies on knowing humans well. The important thing being that those traits or abilities are rare.
I have to understand that one which never managed one of those could “not believe” me. If any of my readers doubts any of this, I can understand that. Maybe all seem tall claims? If that’s so then most likely, they are simply doubting me : the blogger / person. That’s their problem really! If however they doubt a particular ability from the 3 mentioned up there, that is altogether a different situation. It most likely stems from a dissociation regarding the act itself. Maybe they are so far from “owning” that capacity that it is unbelievable to them. Another explanation might be that for some reason, their whole system for validation of belief is blocked to the class of processes implied. Was I the ultra rational thinker my buddy believed me to be, I might refute ab initio anything not scientific. And yet stories abound on the power of the mind or will that apparently transcends standard medicine as reported by doctors themselves? Similarly, religious belief and psychotic episodes can convince an individual that the reality facing him/her is unacceptable. These attitudes are belief-based; even that of the pseudo rational thinker.
As an example of that, let us suppose that an object is reported to hang in thin air. A staunch believer in science will refute the possibility whole. A true scientist however would inquire. Of course, gravity did not stop functioning. Not because it is impossible that such a thing happens but because if it did, the first place that would show evidence of that would be the cosmos : orbits in our solar system would fail, break if you will and eight minutes later our Sun would start changing dramatically which we’d likely not witness at all for the fact that we would all be dead or dying by then as our planet disintegrates! No, the reason for not dismissing a flying boulder would simply rest on the hypothesis of a trick being involved. The boulder could be fake and contain a motor or a nearby hidden mechanism may come in play to keep the rock aloft. As unlikely as this is, both options are scientific theories trying to reconcile facts and knowledge under the new conditions observed. Simple denial on the other hand is a belief overload.
I do suppose for instance my readers to be familiar with the flat Earth at the center of the Universe that was the long held view of things? It was proved wrong ( the flat part at least ) by science before Christ was born and yet, endured for centuries as belief had to erode before it became the accepted norm.
What I just showed is that we limit ourselves on a regular basis that way. In order however to understand the world in which we live, these self-inflicted limitations have to be overcome. If your morals exclude a part of the human experience, you will not understand many things about many people. I then have to hope for your sake that that set of morals did not include being nice to others since your attitude renders that unlikely for all those who happen to be too different from you/it?
It is hard not to experience hunger as a human. It is however possible to never have gone hungry for more than a few hours. If one was to find therein the basis to refuse to acknowledge that dying of hunger is possible, that would close their eyes to the daily plight of many. Again, it would be excessive belief in one reality, that experienced by the subject, over the variety of experiences had by the rest of the gang.
It is logic and not belief nor even scientific postulates that serves the best in evaluating possible realities. Do ghosts exist? I have never seen one so experience says no. Are there true things that I never experienced? Yes, a lot! Giving birth or dying which I witnessed but never felt myself? Can I then say how either feels? No! And yet both are an essential part of reality. So not having seen ghosts brings me to suppose them not to be real but in no way offers logical basis to deny their existence.
Logic is a tool. It is not a truth or a value system per say. Just a tool. As the archeologist uses a trowel and a brush to uncover artefacts, the thinker uses logic to uncover likelihoods. Logic does not however prove these anymore than the brush knows if it is dusting a soft drink bottle or the missing link. It still remains for the human using them to evaluate the finds.
Where did all this lead us? To a poem. A poem by Rudyard Kipling found in the Citations & quotes Page at the top of this blog and called IF. In that poetry piece, Kipling lists the incredibly difficult considerations minimally necessary for one to be open and fair to all. One reads thus :
“… If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too; …”
The consideration here is seemingly the reverse of the one I expounded on so far but logic will now serve its function. There was almost certainly a moment when people doubted you, your word, your abilities or your sincerity. Chances are you felt resentment at that. Yet they had the right to doubt, even erroneously. From that situation though, you should have picked up on how unjust it is to declare untrue something for the sole reason that you do not trust it? This is where “make allowance for their doubting too” stems from.
Coming back to those abilities that I credited myself with up there, I understand how they may seem untrue to a person that never came close to experiencing them. It allows me to make allowance for their doubt. I still however trust myself to be able of each, mind you! 😀
In similar fashion, ghosts are still in a class of phenomena that eludes me. But making allowance for my incomplete experience of all things human, it does not negate their existence; it simply makes it unlikely. I am not anymore authorized to dismiss ghosts than I am to dismiss the existence of the Large Hadron Collider. I have seen neither with my own eyes and yet, others have.
http://www.livescience.com/26697-are-ghosts-real.html
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/large-hadron-collider
My knowledge of physics may make the latter more understandable but it is still belief talking in the end. I strongly suspect that we choose what to believe on a very emotional basis mostly if not always. Even scientists.
The only way to elude this is to make allowances. I will not negate a possibility because it is not mine. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you profess something I know not of, doubt may be mine but truth may still be yours.* Science never ran an experiment that proved ghosts not to exist. It ran many that failed to prove it though. And logic runs that ball in the doubtful in-zone. Touchdown!
Similarly, lacking the capacity to catch falling objects or to write with your left ( other ) hand does not show these “feats” to be impossible.
The common point between them is what they prove : NOTHING! Your disbelief that I can mostly guess what people think in some precise situations is your own and yours only and I will make allowance for your inability to trust me. I can however prove you wrong anytime the occasion surfaces?
Do you now get why making allowances is so important?
It makes you more open. It makes you nicer to others. And, … and it makes you right more often?
( Or at the very least, wrong less frequently? 😎 )
Besides, do make allowances; forgetting to do so can be devastating.
Food for thought; thank you, Rudyard and good day all, Tay.
* Most fans of learning and knowledge no matter how accomplished actually love people who know more than they do if only they are ready to share that excess in soft-spoken fashion.
If you’d rather know less than be wrong long enough to know more, you are a fan of being right and not of knowledge itself. 😉
Definitive Lapse of Reason 