After
hearing countless stories of things that go bump in the night, strange sights,
unexplainable happenings, and voices from beyond the grave, one has to start
believing those stories sooner or later.
Logic can’t always explain everything.
Sometimes the most real things in the world are the things that cannot
be seen unless it is searched for. This
is how it works when it comes to ghosts.
Without looking for evidence, the evidence may not be found; but once
the effort is put in the evidence is all around. Especially in modern society, there is
incredible technology available, therefor evidence that ghosts and spirits
exist can be easily obtained.
The most common
rebuttal to all the above mentioned evidence is that science clearly explains
that ghosts, spirits and poltergeists cannot exist mostly based on the laws of
physics. Lucian Dorneanu, a science
editor at Softpedia, states that there are a lot of things that ghosts “can do”
but after consulting the laws of physics these things can’t be possible. For example, Dorneanu writes that “Newton's
laws of physics say that if a ghost can walk, it shouldn't be able to pass
through walls, since a body at rest will remain so until it's subjected to an
external force and for every action there is an equal but opposite
reaction”. Knowing this fact, the idea
of a ghost walking through a wall is much less believable. According to the basic laws of science, the
theory of cold spots is also quite impossible.
“When a warm object is placed next to a cold object, energy flows from
the warm body to the cooler body, cooling the warm body…when a ghost causes the
temperature in a room to drop, the ghost itself warms up, so all ghosts should
be hot. But if ghosts are made of pure energy, where did the warmth go? Energy
doesn't just heat up, like matter” (Dorneanu).
Clearly Mr. Dorneanu is engulfed in his scientific opinions and does not
believe any of the ghost stories out there.
However, regardless of scientists attempting to prove that ghosts don’t
exist, there is an overwhelming amount of information supporting that they must
exist.
Granted, all living things abide
by these scientific laws of matter and motion but who is to say that non-living
things are bound by these same laws?
Scientific laws and rules obviously apply to the living but without
proof how can it be said that the same rules apply to the dead? Although there is scientific evidence on the
opposing side, on the other side there is evidence provided by the above
mentioned methods that can literally show a non-believer what it is that they
are denying exists. It is said that
seeing is believing, this definitely holds true when it comes to this
particular argument. The picture above
shows an apparent ghost sitting in his once favorite chair on the left hand
side. Whether or not it can be entirely
proven that ghosts exist, the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting their
existence cannot be ignored. After
reviewing all the evidence prevented, the clear conclusion is in favor of their
existence.
Works Cited:
• Krivyanski, J. Michael.
"Some Evidence Indicates the Existence of Ghosts." Paranormal
Phenomena. Ed. Karen Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing
Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Probing the Phenomena Called Ghosts." World
& I (Aug. 2001). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
• De Strother, Neil. "Ghost
stories make London heart of ghoul Britannia; London is reputed to be the
world's most haunted capital. The argument about the existence of ghosts never
loses its fascination and, as Neil del Strother reports, it will only be
fuelled by a new book - Haunted Britain and Ireland." Evening Standard
[London, England] 31 Oct. 2001: 18. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.
24 Oct. 2012.
·
Dorneanu, Lucian. "Ghosts Are Incompatible
with Scientific Principles." Paranormal Phenomena. Ed. Karen Miller.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Why
Ghosts Can't Walk Through Walls ... and More—Scientific Arguments."
Softpedia News. 2007. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
·
Steiger, Brad, and Sherry Hansen. Steiger.
"Ghosts and Phantoms." The Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and
Unexplained. Vol. 3. Detroit: Thomson/Gale, 2003. 11-24. Print.
I thought this post was really interesting. It starts out with an interesting hook but I didn’t particular agree with one of the first statements which explained how “…bump in the night, strange sights, unexplainable happenings, and voices from beyond the grave, one has to start believing those stories sooner or later.” I don’t know if it is entirely logical to tell your reader what they believe. It would have actually helped the introduction to the argument to maybe say something like, “you can’t blame people to start believing those stories sooner or later” or “it is not unlikely that one will start believing in…” Introducing the subject matter in that kind of way makes you seem like assuming, and not so ready to contradict you a short two sentences in to the post.
ReplyDeleteIn the end of the first paragraph when you’re talking about technology and explaining how “Especially in modern society, there is incredible technology available, therefore evidence that ghosts and spirits exist can be easily obtained”; one may argue that any sort of paranormal equipment actually is not easily obtainable, and so finding evidence for the existence of spirits actually is not so easy to come by. I’m not sure exactly what type of technology you mean, but if you’re referring to things like the internet or different types of media, one may also argue that those means of technology are not always accurate and can create fake illusions of ghosts and spirits.
The following paragraph talks very statically. The next few sentences go on about how more than fifty percent of Americans believe in ghosts, and other ranging statistics. The paragraph seems to insinuate that because so many other people believe in ghosts that you should too. Does many people believing in ghost really warrant there existence? Is it really right to have that sort of logic behind your beliefs? I don’t think it is smart nor ethical to base your beliefs on what other people believe to be true, rather than formulating your own opinions.