Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyVegn
^My mind is even MORE open than that bc I think: why wouldn't there be?..
|
According to the laws of nature as we know them, ghosts are a phenomenon we can't explain. That doesn't mean ghosts don't exist, but it means that evidence indicates that they don't. So, a critical thinker will think that the burden of proof is on those who would claim ghosts exist and not vice versa. In other words, from a logical point of view, the question should be "how can you prove ghosts exist?" rather than "how can you prove they don't?" ..
Furthermore, as current evidence is against the existence of ghosts, claiming that ghosts exist is a fantastic claim and fantastic claims should require extraordinairy evidence.
This is generally how a critical thinker will approach it and a critical thinker is someone who tries to keep their idea of the universe as close a resemblance to the truth as possible by applied logic and having some quality control of the information they accept as true or not.