Yes, because of the numerous stories I've read (some of which had multiple people in the household witness the same things and sometimes even come to knowledge from the ghost that they 'shouldn't' have had). People can lie, hallucinate, etc., of course, but it's too easy to just dismiss thousands upon thousands of stories just because people could lie or hallucinate. That's not real skepticism, a real skeptic would take in every story and consider its merit carefully, going by many clues in a way that's not easy and isn't always definitive, rather than just categorically dismissing them all using the expedient label "anecdotal evidence" because they don't fit into one's closed-minded materialistic worldview, and rather than expecting that assimilating truth can always be done in a clear, easy, definitive and methodical/algorithmic way, which is really just a form of denialism and dismissal of anything mysterious. It's preferring bias toward disbelief for fear of possibly believing something that might be ridiculed.
Edit: And it's as if people are unable to learn from others' experiences in this case. It's so common that it's almost a trope that someone staunchly doesn't believe in ghosts regardless of what they hear of others' experiences, thinking it must be some kind of misperception or whatever, until they see one for themselves and realize that there's no possible way they didn't see what they saw.