ghosts

LOL, there have been attempts to get pictures. But what I've seen always uses the same camera lens that takes UFO pictures -- out of focus at all settings.It would be fun to take a supposed haunting and construct a good test of it.However, ghosts seem to have the same personalities as most so called "psychics" -- that is shy.All I've ever read about are various claims. I haven't seen the publication of a careful, controlled measurement of "ghosts".All of which might give a clue as to why I would not consider the area a fruitful one for research.

Hi Nosy,
I was just wondering what the people doing this research were claiming as a working hypothesis...I mean,"there are ghosts" is not really a testable or falsifiable hypothesis much like saying "god exists".Peter may have located how science could address at least some claims i.e. does the presence of an electrical field induce particular behaviors or alter the perception of test subjects? It is sort of like the behavior studies where different areas of the brain are monitored for activity (or lack of activity) when people undergo different stimuli.Ironically given my post from yesterday (no I did not see a ghost in the interim) however, when I turned on the tv this morning before work..I did see Patrick Swayze in a rap video...how scary is that?

No, I disagree. Those who claim god exists also tell us that he is not one to be called up to be "tested". He is defined as being unfalsifiable.Those who claim ghosts exist don't "take it one faith". They claim that there are all sorts of measurable real phenomena. From electical fields (apparently) to bumps in the night and even things that can be seen by the human eye (but somehow don't make it into a camera?).If in the course of an investigation excuses are made that gradually moves ghosts into the unfalsifiable category then, yes, you are right.

quote:

---

No, I disagree. Those who claim god exists also tell us that he is not one to be called up to be "tested". He is defined as being unfalsifiable.

​

Those who claim ghosts exist don't "take it one faith". They claim that there are all sorts of measurable real phenomena. From electical fields (apparently) to bumps in the night and even things that can be seen by the human eye (but somehow don't make it into a camera?).

---

The second two sentences apply for some people. But there are creationists that do claim there is "evidence" of god(s) existence or that it is self-evident.But I still maintain that those who "believe in ghosts" are working under a similar unfalsifiable premise of "proving" the supernatural. You say to them, the presence of electrical fields correlate with the supposed appearance of a ghost...they can answer, no, it was a ghost because they believe it was one...especially, "things that don't make it into a camera" is akin to "there is plenty of evidence for design but you cant see it because it is self evident".One can design tests to examine conditions that lead to changes in perception but "testing" for the existence of ghosts is not possible as it deals with the supernatural.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 06-05-2003]

quote:

---

One can design tests to examine conditions that lead to changes in perception but "testing" for the existence of ghosts is not possible as it deals with the supernatural.

---

It depends how you approach the question .. i.e. your starting
assumptions.If one assumes that 'ghosts' are a supernatural phenomenon
then we are stumped (in the same way as proving god).If one takes the line that there is some form of interaction that
causes people to percieve what they describe as ghosts, then
one can start to look for unexpected energy fluctuations and
investigate the effects of those energies on people.That 'ghosts' do not show up on photographs is suggestive of
a 'hallucinatory' quality to the observations (if the
observers are to be believed in the first place). A problem,
for example, I have always had with UK hauntings is that many
supposed huanted locations are pubs (hmmm... wonder how alcohol
consumption might affect someone's perceptions).There are anomalies that show up on night-shot video camera's
called 'orbs' some of which may be light reflecting off insects
or dust particles ... but the motion & shape of some is decidedly unlike such effects. Cannot, of course, rule out digital
artifacts.My view is that there will be found at some stage a natural
explanation for the phenomena referred to as 'hauntings' or 'ghosts'.

We are basically in agreement..."ghosts exist" is not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis...but positing conditions that could lead to altered perceptions would be testable...I do however, like the correlation between hauntings and pubs ...perhaps the amount of alcohol consumption and first ghost appearance is quantifiable?...Well, it is Friday..perhaps I will do a few experiments this evening

Yes we are in agreement ... and I certainly intend to
do a little ghostly research later

I think it would be a good start to actually look at these investigations. We could discuss the anomalies that investigators have no explanation for.

I have a guess. When there are unexplained anomalies there won't be enough clear evidence to do more than say "I dunno".It's like the UFO claims that end up in the unexplained bucket. They are a sighting, there is no clear photograph and not enough information about the context. What can one do but put such a thing in the unexplained pile.Then when the unexplained pile grows big enough it is taken as "proof" of something. It would be very interesting if there was something better. I'd be surprised.(BTW as an aside I stood next to someone while he pointed to and describe a "flying saucer" that the radio had said was moving quickly over the city, flashing red, green and white lights, with windows and making right angle turns. For several minutes he jumped up and down pointing it out and describing it to me. )

Doesn't having to say 'I dunno' kind of go with the
term unexplained?An example of such phenomena is the 'orb'. This is a floating
'ball' of luminescence observed on night-shot video, and occasionally
on standard video recordings. They are observed in supposed
haunted locations at times when other unexpected observations
are being made (e.g. sudden noises (hardly unusual in themselves
of course), cold spots, emf fluctuations).It is possible that some of these are caused by dust motes reflecting
light that is then amplified by the night-shot process (or insects
for that matter), and indeed many of the 'orbs' I have seen
fall into this category.There are, however, some whose motion is not consistent with any
of the mundane explanations, and some whose shape is not
ball-like. What are they? I dunno ... but they are there and
often appear in response to appeals for contact (night-shot
videos of seance's for example often show 'orbs').Now I am not saying 'This is a ghost!!!', I am saying that something
causes these 'orbs', and that there must be some form of energy
involved. That energy seems to respond to the presence of people
(or is maybe generated by people). It is worth investigating
and may help us understand what a 'haunting' actually is.Some people do tend to claim that a weight of 'unexplained'
data means something specific... they are what I tend to call 'nuts'.
They give investigation of these phenomena a bad name, and make
people unwilling to admit an interest or think genuinely
about the observations.

quote:

---

What I object to is refusing to consider investigations on
the grounds that 'well that's hardly likely is it.'

---

It's not as though ghosts haven't been scientifically investigated at all.They have, anlong with dowsing, free energy, ESP, etc., and the research has shown that the most likely explanation is that people are self-deluded or mistaken or making stuff up.Read, "Flim Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and other Delusions" by James Randi, and "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.

quote:

---

It's not as though ghosts haven't been scientifically investigated
at all.

---

That's true ... but the fact that 'hauntings' (and I prefer to
look at it from that perspective) are still being investigated
is suggestive of observations that require further examination.Personally I look at things from observation to explanation,
rather than assumption about explanation (otherwise I wouldn't
object to creationists argument style ).So far with investigations of hauntings we only have observations.
Some hypotheses have been put forward, but appear to be
going relatively untested.What causes a 'haunting' is what interests me, and that hauntings
occur seems fairly certain (too much consistent, independent
observation to be ruled out entirely or assigned to over-active
imaginations).

quote:

---

They have, along with dowsing, free energy, ESP, etc., and the research has shown that the most likely explanation is that people are self-deluded or mistaken or making stuff up.

---

Isn't that the reaction that Pastuer, Gallileo, and Darwin
got when they first started putting their ideas forward?I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that the majority
of research done in this area has been by skeptics or by
believers and is biased in one direction or the other ...
hardly good science.

quote:

---

Read, "Flim Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and other Delusions" by James Randi, and "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.

---

Ok.

Not that I'm aware. Pasteur was subject to skeptical scrutiney as he should have been. Gallileo as subject to the same kind of rejection as evolution has been given by creationists based on the bible. And Darwin was accepted by the scientific community and lots of the none scientific community rather quickly -- quickly that is if you ignore the years he spent building his case privately first.

Pastuer and Darwin had to fight hard to have their data
accepted, even in the mainstream (which is all I meant),
and Gallileo ran up against the prejudices of the ultimate
authority on matters of life the universe and everything.One would hope that we had learned from the past that before
we discount something we should consider the evidences (or at
least find out what they are).In the case of ghosts, as I have pointed out, I am not making
any claims for what a 'ghost' might be. All that I am saying
is that eye-witness accounts of haunted locations tend to be
consistent over time (where the witnesses are independent).
Investigations have found anomalous energy fluctuations, and
artifacts on digital recording equipment that cannot be
readily explained.Discounting eye-witness accounts because you cannot beleive
in ghosts is bias whichever way you look at it.Critically analyse the sightings/experiences sure (and as
schrafinator has pointed out this has been done ... and many
case do appear to fall into the 'making it up' category).Critically evaluate the data that is obtained through investigations.I am against bias in all its forms, that doesn't mean I am
gullible or that I accept everything at face value. I simply
defer judgement until I have sufficient data (for me).As for ghosts ... I don't have enough to accept their existence
as departed spirits, nor enough to discount their existence
in it's entirety. So far it appears that hauntings are a
genuine phenomenon, but exactly what causes that is unknown.If (as research has suggested) emf can induce changes in mental
state, and emf is a feature of haunted locations, then that
may proove a good starting point to make a more formal hypothesis
as to what exactly a 'haunting' is.I suspect it to be some perceptual distortion ... but then
in a certain philosphical sense so is the rest of our
experience.

Yes, Pastuer had a fight and to, what I think is a lesser degree, so did Darwin. That is not the same as the "self-deluded" or "making stuff up" charges. They were not received in that way. Do you have anything indicating otherwise? Of course, ideas have to be supported and if they are really worthwhile they will be a big change and require some big fights. Not the same.Gallileo didn't to my knowledge have any problems with "life" or "everything". In fact, he was well respected for this work. It was his support for Copernicanism and for his use of some church authorities as apparent simpletons that caused the furor. And here the type of resistance was qualitatively different from that of the others. It wasn't you're wrong, this is the way things work. It was you're wrong because the bible says so.