Zombies or ghosts?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2012, 03:55 PM
Zombies or ghosts?
I'm doing a writing project about skepticism, and I'm conducting a very simple SCIENTIFIC SURVEY* on what readers would sooner believe in: Zombies or Ghosts. The caveat is that they should only take into account evidence about the natural world that we already have. So far, the results have been overwhelmingly in favor of ghosts. I'm not surprised by this, but the explanations I'm getting don't seem to take into account that caveat (The explanations all say things like, "Ghosts are how you can explain your TV randomly turning on." Ohhhhh....).


So, I'd love to see what you guys think. You can take the survey here: http://svy.mk/SPThVb It'll only take a minute or so.



*not really scientific
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 04:32 PM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
(06-12-2012 03:55 PM)GenerationWhy Wrote:  I'm doing a writing project about skepticism, and I'm conducting a very simple SCIENTIFIC SURVEY* on what readers would sooner believe in: Zombies or Ghosts. The caveat is that they should only take into account evidence about the natural world that we already have. So far, the results have been overwhelmingly in favor of ghosts. I'm not surprised by this, but the explanations I'm getting don't seem to take into account that caveat (The explanations all say things like, "Ghosts are how you can explain your TV randomly turning on." Ohhhhh....).


So, I'd love to see what you guys think. You can take the survey here: http://svy.mk/SPThVb It'll only take a minute or so.



*not really scientific
C) Neither.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
I don't understand the question. Must we accept that one is real and the other is false?

While I cannot prove the nonexistence of either, I'm pretty sure nobody (other than Matthew) has ever tried to really convince people that zombies are real. Nobody believes in zombies. Nobody has seen a zombie. People might fall for alien abductions, ghost haunting, bigfoot sightings, etc., but even those crackpots don't take zombies seriously.

As for ghosts, while lots of people are convinced that ghosts, spirits, and souls are real, there is zero evidence for any of it, and tons of evidence against it, and philosophically the whole concept is totally unsupportable.

Hence, the correct answer for the survey is that neither exists. Anyone who claims to be a skeptic, the core premise of your writing project, would not accept either undead phenomenon as anything other than hoaxes or delusions. A true skeptic, such as myself, may leave the door open for the possibility, however remote it seems, that such things may be real and one day we may find evidence to support their reality, but for now, no such evidence exists, so for now, the only acceptable answer to the skeptical mind is that I would not "sooner believe in" either one.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
06-12-2012, 06:00 PM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
Neither. But if I had to choose, on my life, I'd go with zombies. I'd sooner believe into the reanimation of flesh, than in spirits, souls and other such man-made concepts, that are totally devoid of any real meaning.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 06:10 PM
Zombies or ghosts?
Since most zombie stories involve some sort of plague, I suppose there's a minute chance a nervous system could be controlled by bacteria or nano-bugs.

Ghosts are allegedly based on a person having a consciousness that exists after death. Since there is no physical mechanism to create an incorporeal spirit, ghosts are 100% not possible.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
06-12-2012, 06:37 PM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
I'm with Aseptic on this one. The question itself is flawed. Neither option at this point has any more evidence in its favor than the other. However, if we were to go about asking which CONCEPT could more easily be enacted based on our understanding of reality, then I go with zombies.

Ghosts don't really have an agreed upon standard definition and is not applied upon tangible, or even realistically constructed elements. They are either described as the abandoned souls of deceased humans (which is religious/metaphysical woo woo), some unknown entity that interacts with our world from a nether realm, or maybe some pseudo-organic/electrical being (or some weird shit along those lines). Most people envision the first in the list, but not everybody is on the page.


However, zombies are strictly about reanimated flesh, which is tangible and applicable in terms of physical properties. The original folklore would have described the reanimation process as supernatural in origin, but there has been a shift in the media with associating it with biological contagions. Yeah, maybe we could eventually find a virus or some other biological/chemically based means of reanimating the dead somewhere out in the universe.

However, so far, there is no evidence of such an agent existing, and there might not actually be such an agent in existence, but it is at least a POSSIBLE outlet grounded in reality. This is opposed to ghosts, which is, despite the different definitions or variant descriptions, generally based upon metaphysical hogwash. Anyway, despite this, your question wasn't "which one has a greater possibility of reality based outlets of existence" but, "which one would you believe in sooner based on evidence WE HAVE NOW. The correct answer is indeed neither.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
07-12-2012, 10:04 AM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
Nah, the question is, "Which could you sooner accept as being real?"

I don't know anybody who "believes" in zombies (in fact, that very idea seems funny... if they existed, you'd see them), but I know plenty of people who believe in ghosts. But the point of the question is to gauge which you think is more believable. I think that, because we don't have evidence that consciousness survives past death, that automatically makes ghosts less believable. At least with zombies, we have the dead flesh.

I've found that skeptics generally answer zombies and believers answer ghosts.
(06-12-2012 05:13 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I don't understand the question. Must we accept that one is real and the other is false?

While I cannot prove the nonexistence of either, I'm pretty sure nobody (other than Matthew) has ever tried to really convince people that zombies are real. Nobody believes in zombies. Nobody has seen a zombie. People might fall for alien abductions, ghost haunting, bigfoot sightings, etc., but even those crackpots don't take zombies seriously.

As for ghosts, while lots of people are convinced that ghosts, spirits, and souls are real, there is zero evidence for any of it, and tons of evidence against it, and philosophically the whole concept is totally unsupportable.

Hence, the correct answer for the survey is that neither exists. Anyone who claims to be a skeptic, the core premise of your writing project, would not accept either undead phenomenon as anything other than hoaxes or delusions. A true skeptic, such as myself, may leave the door open for the possibility, however remote it seems, that such things may be real and one day we may find evidence to support their reality, but for now, no such evidence exists, so for now, the only acceptable answer to the skeptical mind is that I would not "sooner believe in" either one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
That's the point of the question, to gauge which is more conceivable.

And actually, I came up with this survey before finding out that zombies actually exist in nature... at least in parasites taking over hosts that are actually dead. (See this article: http://nyti.ms/TUC1wy) Now, obviously the leap from a microbe taking over the body of a dead wasp or whatever to a microbe taking over a dead human body is a bit much, but at least you have the components there in front of you. With ghosts, you've got nothing.
(06-12-2012 06:37 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  I'm with Aseptic on this one. The question itself is flawed. Neither option at this point has any more evidence in its favor than the other. However, if we were to go about asking which CONCEPT could more easily be enacted based on our understanding of reality, then I go with zombies.

Ghosts don't really have an agreed upon standard definition and is not applied upon tangible, or even realistically constructed elements. They are either described as the abandoned souls of deceased humans (which is religious/metaphysical woo woo), some unknown entity that interacts with our world from a nether realm, or maybe some pseudo-organic/electrical being (or some weird shit along those lines). Most people envision the first in the list, but not everybody is on the page.


However, zombies are strictly about reanimated flesh, which is tangible and applicable in terms of physical properties. The original folklore would have described the reanimation process as supernatural in origin, but there has been a shift in the media with associating it with biological contagions. Yeah, maybe we could eventually find a virus or some other biological/chemically based means of reanimating the dead somewhere out in the universe.

However, so far, there is no evidence of such an agent existing, and there might not actually be such an agent in existence, but it is at least a POSSIBLE outlet grounded in reality. This is opposed to ghosts, which is, despite the different definitions or variant descriptions, generally based upon metaphysical hogwash. Anyway, despite this, your question wasn't "which one has a greater possibility of reality based outlets of existence" but, "which one would you believe in sooner based on evidence WE HAVE NOW. The correct answer is indeed neither.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 10:09 AM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
(07-12-2012 10:04 AM)GenerationWhy Wrote:  Nah, the question is, "Which could you sooner accept as being real?"
Yes, but in the caveat it explains "based on evidence we have so far." If you include that caveat, then the answer is neither. That is my point.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
07-12-2012, 12:02 PM
RE: Zombies or ghosts?
Ghosts...

Zombies mold in wet, dry out in dry, and freeze in Cold weather...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Debating a Close Friend on the Topic of Ghosts and Hauntings pppgggr 6 203 03-07-2014 06:21 AM
Last Post: LostLocke
  Belief in Ghosts is not Harmless Airportkid 19 605 03-06-2014 01:06 PM
Last Post: Hamata k
  Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like. conkles 147 6,042 22-11-2013 01:44 PM
Last Post: LostCyborg
  Someone just reminded me... Let's talk about ZOMBIES! Peanut 48 1,498 06-04-2013 09:45 AM
Last Post: Erxomai
Forum Jump: