Edited to comment on the following. RE: " Since these things only ever happen to people of lesser intelligence, it means that those people are simply incapable of understanding the rational explanation."
It is typically the case that an unintelligent person makes the case for a specious argument, which he presumes to be self-evident without regard for something as important as supporting fact. In particular regard to the case above, one might ask - so, is there any support for the argument that "only unintelligent people believe in ghosts"?
None.
Farha-Steward (2006)Oaklahoma City University put this question to the test and actually found no correlation whatsoever between the level of one's education and belief in ghosts. Quite the contrary - it is, accordingly, an entirely specious argument to think that only the unintelligent believe in ghosts etc. There is no evidence to support it, and in fact the available evidence completely denounces such lacklustre reasoning. Prediction: Stubborn persons of low intellectual capability will of course, refuse to believe the available evidence, on this question, and instead will continue to live their lives as if such mistaken belief were fact.
A further comment on the truly unintelligent:
Dogmatic, as opposed to open-minded viewpoints, are more usually the preserve of those with feeble intellect. People of lower intelligence often believe, for example, that the science of today, has an answer for everything. The truth is that science certainly does *not* have an answer for everything - notwithstanding that the unintelligent like to place their faith in such a dogmatic/closed-minded position. Such people have, nonetheless, an absolute faith in man's achievements to date, and entirely write off the possibility that scientific discovery to date is moreover a continuing process - one which has a long, long, long way to go.
That is to say, the truly scientific mind is open to possibility. The unintelligent mind is usually closed to possibility.
Thus for example, the search term "Hampton Court 2003 CCTV skeletor" - on youtube, yields that which is not at all explained by modern science.
Again, modern science does not yet explain everything paranormal, nor has everything which has been claimed as a sighted entity been entirely rebutted. Otherwise that Hampton Court CCTV evidence would not have made BBC news that day, in 2003, as "a possible ghost?". And there are plenty of other examples to date, which make the closed minded position a very questionable one indeed.
Some sixty years ago, we did not have the technology to speak into a tool in our hands, while seeing and hearing a person who is on the other side of the globe. With the technology at our disposal in the 1950's such was impossible, and every experiment which then tried to prove it were possible would have failed - owing to the fact that humankind had not yet discovered the means to do so. The unintelligent ones, those closed to possibility, the vision and foresight, would undoubtedly argue something along these lines:
"The fact is that no one in the history of humanity has ever produced a single shred of evidence that a battery powered tool in one's hand could allow one both to speak and see someone in Hong Kong, in real time, when he is in New York."
Does such reasoning sound familiar to anyone?
;-)
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
reply
share