DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To be clear though, Y, skeptics don't start an argument in a vacuum by declaring there are no ghosts, any more than they start an argument that there are no purple people eaters.2. The problem of circular reasoning. That crops up when people address a question with their conclusion already in mind, then look for arguments and evidence that will support that preexisting conclusion. Religious people and atheists both typically do it when they address the question of God's existence. Ghost-believers like MR do it when they assume that what most of us would consider flimsy evidence is in fact conclusive evidence of the existence of ghosts. And self-styled "skeptics" do it when they approach purported hauntings with the intention of persuading others that they are bullshit. In fact, this kind of circular reasoning is exceedingly common in most human thought. It's how people typically think.
...
Anyone who asserts the truth of any proposition, and wants to convince somebody else to believe it who doesn't believe it already, has the burden of persuading that other person. (Otherwise he or she won't agree.) That's going to be true whether the proposition asserts the existence or non-existence of something. "Negatives" don't get a special 'Get Out of Epistemological Justification Free' card.
There are an infinite number of things in the universe that don't exist until they do.
And it always must start with someone first asserting that they do.
So, yes the skeptic's job is to start with the assumption that something does not exist until sufficient compelling evidence is accepted.
That is not an a priori assumption (any more than the scientific method requires) or circular reasoning.
(Unless you want to assert purple people eaters and those infinite number of things exist until we can show they don't.)
Finally, thoughtful skeptics do not assert a truth that (for example) ghosts or UFOS don't exist. They assert that the evidence provided is insufficient to conclude they do.