FreeDuck wrote:Quote:I will grant that anything is possible, even the supernatural. But is it reasonable to put unknown natural phenomena higher on the probability list than known natural phenomena which simply haven't been identified yet.
Known but unidentified is equivalent to unknown in my opinion.
There's a difference between saying:
* "I don't know, but I think it's something mundane"
and saying
* "I don't know, but I think it's something extraordinary"
FreeDuck wrote:Quote:Without physical evidence, the number one natural possibility on the top of the list is human error and perceptual distortion. Most people may not want to accept this, but it's easily a higher probability than unknown natural phenomena.
Really? How do you measure such a probability? How do you know that one is more probable than the other?
To me, the mundane is always more probable than the extraordinary.
Otherwise , extraordinary claims wouldn't require extraordinary evidence. But they do.
FreeDuck wrote:I think this is something you'd have to take on a case by case basis. Certainly sometimes a "ghost" might actually be a creaky floor on a windy night. But in cases where there are audible directional footsteps? Where people have seen ghostly images?
I agree that to discuss this much further we will probably have to be more specific.
We have each stated our basic general philosophy regarding the 'unknown'. Beyond that we will have to start comparing our interpretations of 'evidence' to determine our levels of skepticism over empirical data.
(and don't worry, renters will love a house with atmosphere!)
