Are ghosts real?

[Syne]

Skeptics routinely knock anecdotal accounts as unreliable.

Because they are unreliable as any kind evidence, in science or law.

But I find them especially convincing as it takes personal courage and integrity to admit you had a paranormal experience. What could these office workers possibly gain from making up their encounters with ghosts? It doesn't make sense.

Nah, it takes as much courage as someone saying they met a celebrity. Without actual evidence, people just shrug them off. Unless you're a wild-eyed zealot about ghosts, in which case people will try to avoid you...like any other loon.

In an office, it could be fun to share such stories. Just for fun.

[Magical Realist]

We seem to have a fascination with the macabre in general, which is why the horror movie genre is so popular.

True. It was just a matter of time before History Channel, Travel Channel, A&E, and the Science Channel went the way of ufos, bigfoot, and ghosts. People find these fringe topics more interesting than history and science it seems. But a fringe is not just an marginalized subset. It's also a horizon toward new knowledge and discoveries. It's the edge where epistemological certainly breaks down and what could be might be.. And that's always an exciting prospect.

[Syne]

It's also a horizon toward new knowledge and discoveries.

Unless it ever produces actual knowledge or discoveries, it's just as much faith, unfounded speculation, and paranormal-of-the-gaps as scientism.