Define what you would consider a "better reason", because there are those who would think Jane had the best reason, she saw a ghost. Try to go beyond the example, or at least fill in the gaps, because Jane still doesn't know it was really an alien.

No reasonable person would assume, at first guess, that what they see is a ghost.

Zeth this is a nit picky little thing and has nothing to do with the rest of your post.

However, there are groups of people who belong to cultures and or subcultures where assuming the immediately unexplainable is a ghost is the most reasonable thing. These people aren't unreasonable, they are not stupid, or even uneducated within the sphere of their experience.

Zeth you are positing that there is only one basic type of reason. If that is where you are coming from then in all reality the only truely reasonable people already agree with you on just about everything. Reasoning is a process using X criteria to come to Y conclusion. Obviosuly anyone who doesn't use one person's X criteria are not going to come up with that person's Y conclusion. The process of reason using another person's X criteria will naturally result in that person's Y conclusion and is only unreasonable if you dissallow that person's X criteria.

Add the parameters of socio-cultural, religious, institutional normality, not everyone would be reasonable although they might have their reasons.

Define what you would consider a "better reason", because there are those who would think Jane had the best reason, she saw a ghost. Try to go beyond the example, or at least fill in the gaps, because Jane still doesn't know it was really an alien.

But Jane certainly did not see a ghost. She thought she saw a ghost. But if I were at a magic show, I might think I saw a lady being cut in half, too. But I would not call for the police, since I would realize it was only a trick, and I would have better reasons to think that no lady was being cut in half. You wouldn't call for the police in those circumstances, would you? And, as an educated person, you wouldn't think that what you saw was a ghost, would you?

You may be surprised by the answers you receive!

No reasonable person would assume, at first guess, that what they see is a ghost. But we often mistake things for what they are not. For instance, I went in my garage the other day and thought I saw a snake on the floor. As I approached it, I realized it was just some rope coiled up. But my reason for thinking it was a snake was because, well, first, I know snakes exist, and secondly, I know snakes often get locked in my garage.

What about "better reason" do you want me to define? Do you want me to give you a better reason than ad populum for not believing ghosts exist? Sure thing: There is no evidence for ghosts having existed. But, stop right there, because I already know what you're thinking - you think I'm saying ghosts don't exist. But I'm not. Note that I said "for not believing ghosts exist", not "for believing ghosts do not exist". There is a big difference. In fact, it is the difference between a weak and strong atheist. And it is the difference between committing the fallacy argument from ignorance, and not.

Do you have a specific question to ask me?

But Jane certainly did not see a ghost. She thought she saw a ghost. But if I were at a magic show, I might think I saw a lady being cut in half, too. But I would not call for the police, since I would realize it was only a trick, and I would have better reasons to think that no lady was being cut in half. You wouldn't call for the police in those circumstances, would you? And, as an educated person, you wouldn't think that what you saw was a ghost, would you?

No you've got me all wrong, I'm not assuming you are saying ghosts don't exist. The point is who told you it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts? Who taught you to think in such a way? Sure it makes good sense that believing in ghosts is unreasonable, but based on what grounds? Does it not come back to nature vs. nurture? Nurture represents ad populum and nature relies on one's experience.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 02:32 PM ----------



I wouldn't, but we're talking about Jane here and Jane could have all sorts of ideas about what it is reasonable to believe.

I am afraid I don't know Jane. Is she the same Jane who is affiliated with Tarzan?

No you've got me all wrong, I'm not assuming you are saying ghosts don't exist. The point is who told you it is unreasonable to believe in ghosts? Who taught you to think in such a way? Sure it makes good sense that believing in ghosts is unreasonable, but based on what grounds? Does it not come back to nature vs. nurture? Nurture represents ad populum and nature relies on one's experience.

If she is she may find it reasonable to believe animals of all kinds can talk in English.

I told you. It's based on evidence, or a lack thereof. There is no evidence that ghosts exist, so if I see a shadowy figure, I'm not going to assume it is a ghost. Who taught me to be reasonable? Professors. Some intelligent peers. Myself, through reading and thinking.

Why do you continue to bring ad populum into this? No one has ever claimed that you should even present that argument when it comes to ghosts. I've actually spoken against it. And I will again, more explicitly this time. It is fallacious to assume that ghosts don't exist simply because most people do not believe they do.

but to them it was obvious that is was not reasonable to believe in The New World.

But what is reasonable "to them" is not the issue. The issue is what is reasonable.

Let me just manipulate that quote:

But what is reasonable "to us" is not the issue. The issue is what is reasonable.

Did that make anything click? That it will always be what a person deems as reasonable, whether or not it is?

I'm trying to develop a subtle point about having an open mind, I'm not trying to say nothing is reasonable.