> Now, which of the other beliefs are the most plausible? I'd say the existence of ghosts. Maybe they're reluctant or unable to show themselves in circumstances where they could be recorded or otherwise definitively measured. Maybe they're incredibly adept at not giving themselves away. Their are still incredible leaps of faith to make if you believe in ghosts. For one thing, you have to believe in souls -- that something of an individual, besides the body, survives death. Okay, so that's not too big for some. You'd need to believe further that the soul is not only a tie between the body and the "spirit world", but that it has a way of either getting back to the physical world after death, or remaining partway between somehow.

Not neccessarily. It's perfectly possible to believe in ghosts without believing that they were ever living, breathing human beings. I actually have great difficulty believing in the existence of the Christian soul, far more so than in spirits or ghosts.

> You'd have to believe that not ONE ghost (out of, I'd estimate, millions of cases) has been willing or capricious (or foolish) enough to give sufficient evidence of its presence that more than a few people would take notice. Also, since the Earth is spinning about on its axis, going round and round the Sun and the galactic center, ghosts must have some physical way of attaching themselves to matter so that we see them as being relatively still from our point of view. One could probably draw many other physical difficulties.

Perhaps they're tied to physical locations. Perhaps, however, a psychic connection is more important - spirits haven't wheeled off into space because the people who can percieve them are here.

I haven't explained that very well. Basically, consider that ghosts may only exist when they're observed.

And you would only really have to believe that the average scientist being chooses not to believe in ghosts, rather than that ghosts have only been seen by gullible wierdos. The average scientist also chooses not to believe in God - does that mean that God has been very careful about not being seen?

> For other beliefs, such as telekinesis, it's a much more clear case. There's no reason to believe that such powers would remain hidden when put to the test in an intensely scrutinized setting. The non-existence of most paranormal abilities like this has been proven. Sure, they're always *possible*, but we may as well disbelieve in gravity.

Hmmm... Several tests have been perormed where the scientists basically said "These people are getting measurable results, but that's impossible, so the experiment must be contaminated. Only we can't work out how it's happened." These tend to get swept under the rug, but it seems to me that it could well be that the people being tested are demonstrating genuine phenomina. I'll look up references when I get a moment.

> Over the last few days, I've been reading archived articles and message forum posts at the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) website. It's a great resource for people who need ammunition to argue against paranormal beliefs. They also pose interesting puzzles from time to time. See the link below. Also check out:
>
> www.skepdic.com
>
> for more cool stuff.

James Randi's "debunking" method is basically to say "I can duplicate that effect by doing this. Therefore you must have done it exactly the same way."

I have yet to see an example of him actually demonstrating how something *was* done, rather than how it *might have been* done. He ignores any effect that he can't duplicate, and never manages to prove what he claims to prove. He also has a real hatred for Uri Geller, because he can't work out how to duplicate about half of Geller's tricks.

> > winter"I believe"mute
>
> --grem"I don't believe, but as a skeptic, am always open-minded to every possibility"linn

winter"A true Fortean attitude. I approve :)"mute