Reality and Fantasy, a discussion.

[Corribus]

What reason could I have to want to?

And even so, it's not a good question. For to answer it, I'd have to be absolutely sure, without a doubt, that I am correct in the belief that empiricism is 100% possible of explaining everything, which, I have already admitted, I am not and can never be.

What I *am* sure of is that I would rather pursue explanations that I can test and demonstrate logically rather than ASSUME a dead-end "ghost" explanation is the right one and not even BOTHER to look for other answers. And even if you say to me, "Well, SOME day ghosts may be testable, so it's a valid potential explanation", while I cannot exclude that possibility because I cannot read the future, I would *STILL* rather pursue explanations that I can show NOW to be empirically true. Yet, ironically, *I* am the one who is accused of being closed-minded, arrogant, not-open to alternate explanations, or possessing opinions which are "tainted" and "useless"*! It is not *I* who have already made up my mind before the search has even begun.

*EDIT: And let's not forget "lack of imagination". Frankly, I find the lazy "ghosts" explanation to be the unimaginative one.

[Jolly Joker]

Well, the only closed-mindedness *I* see is, that the word "ghost" seems to be associated with a certain notion of what it would have to be - which is obviously the problem. Let's simply call it "apparition".
Because the question is not, "Are there ghosts?" The question is, are there apparitions and if yes, what would be their nature. (Which would imply the question, are those apparitions really "ghosts"?)

For the question, I'd have no trouble answering it with a clear "no".

[theLuckyDragon]

What reason could I have to want to?

Thank you. It's the answer I was hoping for.

[Corribus]

Sure, whatever.

[asandir]

Ghosts are made up by the observers? Hmm... sounds about right to me.

that's the theory I subscribe to as well