I used to believe that the existence of ghost is absolutely baseless. The claim of witnessing such 'things' are born of fear and fueled by paranoia. I am such a big believer of science, anything defy the laws of science would merely be a joke to me. So much so that I even doubt the existence of religions. However, I had thought it over again these few days.
When people asked Einstein, one of the great quantum physicists, whether he believe in ghost, he did not deny the existence. Instead, he said: When twelve other persons have witnessed the same phenomenon at the same time, then I might believe.
So why is one of the greatest scientist does not reject the idea of super-nature? And yet there are plenty of activists out there against the idea of atheism?
Logic tells us so.
The legal system of our society is one good example. Before the judge sentence anyone in court, the suspect is always innocent, until there is SUFFICIENT evidence to prove otherwise. On the other hand, upon release of anyone in court, it is not due to the fact that he isn't guilty, it's because there is INSUFFICIENT evidence to show that he is guilty. That is how a legal system work in most of the societies around the globe.
Therefore, naturally by using this logic, as long as there is INSUFFICIENT evidence to show the existence of ghost, we shall reject any claim.
This argument is obviously flawed. I believe there is no need of stating the counter-argument for this, as it is pretty straight forward.
So what should be the right attitude towards somethings is so intangible, so contentious that people have debated over and over since time immemorial?
IN Quantum physics, we have learnt the photoelectric effect. The experiment results reject the claim of treating light as purely wave. In fact, light was considered as a stream of photons. This further led to the discovery of quantum physics theory which were so ridiculous at that time. No one would even thought about equating mass with energy! But Einstein came out the famous equation which earned him the Nobel prize.
What if he didn't have the courage to announce his hypothesis? ( of course, the Japanese would be so delighted if that was the case...)
Things we can see in everyday life because it falls inside the visible light spectrum, there are plenty of other waves are not inside the range, therefore we do need a detector to sense the existence, such as X-ray, Microwave, etc. However, is that any possible waves, or other forms of natural phenomenon outside the EM wave spectrum that are yet to be discovered, which would ultimately give us a proper explanation of super-nature?
Since we all have INSUFFICIENT knowledge to reject the claim, let's just sit down and wait for the next brilliant scientist to unveil it for us.
BUT WAIT,
If that is the case, we are assuming super-nature is indeed exist, since we can't reject otherwise?
So do we really know what is science?
After all, science is a joke.
Because its creation is merely to satisfy the human's unlimited wants and desire. Its creation make human more and more knowledgeable in a way, but become more and more stupid in the other way.
So what is the point to study our mother nature so thoroughly, while we destroying it at a faster pace?
WHY?
Maybe science can one day give us the answer, in a empirical way, which we are the guinea pigs.




