ghosts

Please supply useful references to the details of this data. But discounting eye-witness accounts when they are not backed up in anyway isn't to far out of line when we know how very unreliable they are. I posted somewhere a bit about my experience standing next to someone "observing" a flying saucer complete with flashing lights, windows and doing high speed maneuvers over the city.

These article outline some very interesting research on this phenomenon ... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Ghosts 'all in the mind'
http://phoenix.herts.ac.uk/pwru/ghosts.htmlIn essence they are saying that hauntings exists - in that people of varying cultures have repeatable and observable experiences in the same places over years, but that these experiences are caused by environmental factors.

quote:

---

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.

---

mmm, I tend to think that these 'hauntings' are being investigated for the same reasons UFO stories abound. People want for it to be true, or already believe and are looking for evidence, so they spend their time doing it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure they have been tested. Every time one ghost investigator makes a claim, then it is followed up on by a scientist, that is a test of the findings.The fact that the follow up investigations don't ever contribute positive evidence, at least so far, should tell you something.

quote:

---

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).

---

I disagree. There is absolutely zero evidence in favor of any kind of intelligent alien presence or contact with Earth or humans, yet there is a great deal of "consistent, independent obsevation".

quote:

---

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.

---

Good research, by definition, is always done with a skeptical attitude."Skepticism", by definition, means that you require evidence in order to accept a claim. That's also the definition of science.I will agree that both sides are biased, but that the skeptical side is biased on the side of evidence.

quote:

---

All that I am saying is that eye-witness accounts of haunted locations tend to be consistent over time (where the witnesses are independent).

---

And this is very readily explained by cultural influences.People who live in certain regions tend to have similar "ghost stories" to each other, which tend to be different from other regions' "ghost stories". In a similar vein, "alien abduction" stories have become quite "standardized" over the decades, as a common "script" has become widespread throughout the culture. Intrestingly, before humans began anything like space exploration, accounts of encounters with demons, called succubi or incubi, share a remarkable similarity to the experiences described by people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. So, we can trace such consistent stories across many centuries.

quote:

---

Investigations have found anomalous energy fluctuations, and artifacts on digital recording equipment that cannot be readily explained.

---

What is your best example of actual research showing one or a few of these "energy fluctuations", and "digital artifacts?"I am wondering is what the experimental methodology is in cases where there are such anomalies, and what is the rate of "anomalies" produced by the equipment when not being used for paranormal research (control)Given two houses, can someone determine which one is supposed to be the "haunted" house, given this equipment?

quote:

---

Discounting eye-witness accounts because you cannot beleive
in ghosts is bias whichever way you look at it.

---

I agree.However, downplaying eyewitness accounts because they are notoriously unreliable is quite reasonable.Check out the research of Elizabeth Loftus. She is a Psychologist who studies memory. The research is conclusive that memory is very, very plastic, particularly in high-stress situations. It is a given in the field.

quote:

---

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.

---

But how many investigations do we have to do before we decide that this is not a fruitful line of research? We have been doing these investigations for decades and nobody has found any positive evidence. Tell me again why we should pursue this any more than we should persue free energy machines and dowsing?

quote:

---

I am against bias in all its forms,

---

are you against a bias towards reliable evidence?

quote:

---

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).

---

So how many decades do we have to research something that has produced no promising or compelling positive evidence?

quote:

---

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.

---

"Genuine phenomena" of what, exactly?Cutural expectations of what "bumps in the night" are caused by?

quote:

---

If (as research has suggested) emf can induce changes in mental
state,

---

What research is that? That's a new one for me.

quote:

---

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.

---

There are emf fields everywhere. You are going to have to be much more specific about what kind of emf you are talking about.

Re: Galileo ....'Your wrong 'cause the Bible says so' is the same argument
as 'huantings are figments of your imagination because
science cannot explain them any other way.'Re: Pastuer & Darwin ...Paranornmal researchers have made controlled observations that
lead them to conclude that further research is warranted.To discount such out-of-hand would be the same as those who
scoffed at the early work of the two mentioned individuals.The details are different ... the attitude isn't.And it's the attitude I object to ... in any field of knowledge
regardless of my own personal beliefs.

quote:

---

'Your wrong 'cause the Bible says so' is the same argument
as 'huantings are figments of your imagination because
science cannot explain them any other way.'

---

No, it's not the same."Hauntings" (whatever they are) can often be shown to be mundane in origin. Given our propensity for producing many "figments of imagination", I am surprised that you want to reject it out of hand as a likely explanation, especially given that there is no reliable positive evidence for anything else going on.You cannot discount what our culture has taught us about what "spooky" noises are "supposed" to indicate.

quote:

---

Paranornmal researchers have made controlled observations that
lead them to conclude that further research is warranted.

---

Citation please, to your best examples of well-conducted, replicated research.You've got to convince me that these paranormal researchers who have concluded that further research is warranted are not deluded crackpots.

quote:

---

To discount such out-of-hand would be the same as those who
scoffed at the early work of the two mentioned individuals.

​

The details are different ... the attitude isn't.

​

And it's the attitude I object to ... in any field of knowledge
regardless of my own personal beliefs.

---

You still haven't answered my question, Peter.We have been investigating these "hauntings" for decades and still have not produced any reliable positive evidence for...whatever.Given this paucity of results, why should we continue to persue this line of research any more than we would persue research into free energy machines or dowsing?Galileo and Pasteur had actual evidence to look at, that other people could replicate using the same methods. THAT is why their work was accepted.

Hoping you didn't miss my reply, message #34.

quote:

---

I disagree. There is absolutely zero evidence in favor of any kind of intelligent alien presence or contact with Earth or humans,
yet there is a great deal of "consistent, independent obsevation".

---

The problem here is mixing 'explanation' with 'observation'.That I agree is ... well ... nutty.What we can say about both hauntings and some UFO sitings is that
the observers saw something.The reason we can say this is that for many cases a number of
independent (either in space or time) observers have witnessed
the same thing (or very close-to the same thing).Single eye-witness testamony can be discounted, but multiple
independent corroboration is harder to dismiss out-of-hand
(unless you are the Warren Commission [maybe I am a nut
after all] ).Re: skepticism :- healthy skepticism of the 'show me' variety
is fine by me ... necessary even. Unfortunately we are often
clouded by a kind of 'social' skepticism. It's not popular to
believe that hauntings may have some actual cause, or that
UFO's may be of extra-terrestrial origin.The propositions in themselves are not that way-out (though some
explanations are) ... so why do we resist the idea.I'll get on your other responses when I have time (off for the
school run now!!!!)

quote:

---

People who live in certain regions tend to have similar "ghost stories" to each other, which tend to be different from other
regions' "ghost stories". In a similar vein, "alien abduction" stories have become quite "standardized" over the decades, as a
common "script" has become widespread throughout the culture. Intrestingly, before humans began anything like space
exploration, accounts of encounters with demons, called succubi or incubi, share a remarkable similarity to the experiences
described by people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. So, we can trace such consistent stories across many centuries.

---

By consistent over time I meant in very specific detail for
particular 'hauntings'.Fro example, there is a hotel in the UK (one of many) where several
guests over the course of the last thirty or more years have
awkened in the night to see an old lady seated in a nearby
cahir watching them as they slept.The descriptions (as is often the case) come from people who
do not know each other, and who are not aware of the history
of the area (being a hotel tends to mean that out-of-towners are
the occupiers). They describe the experience consistently
even though the liklihood of them knowing the story (all of them)
is slim.Independent corroboration of eye-witness accounts tends to strengthen
the case for 'something' rather than 'an undigested bit of beef.'That stories almost identical to alien abduction accounts have been
around for hundreds of years (I have always felt) tends to
strengthen, rather than weaken, the testimony. The exeperiences
are so consistent (although naturally in earlier times the concept
of extra-terrestrials didn't exist) that it makes one wonder more
rather than less, surely.

quote:

---

What is your best example of actual research showing one or a few of these "energy fluctuations", and "digital artifacts?"

​

I am wondering is what the experimental methodology is in cases where there are such anomalies, and what is the rate of "anomalies" produced by the equipment when not being used for paranormal research (control)

​

Given two houses, can someone determine which one is supposed to be the "haunted" house, given this equipment?

---

A typical investigation will see the researcher examine a location
with an EMF meter, taking note of electrical cabling and other
natural sources of electromagnetic fields and create a base-line
for each location.What then tends to happen during the course of an investigation
is that readings are found in areas of previously known values
that exceed by a significant amount what would normally expected.
Further these readings are transient and often coincide with sudden
noises, smells, cold-spots, and (where digital video is being shot)
so called 'orbs'.The batteries on these devices often dissipate for no known reason
during investigations also.

quote:

---

However, downplaying eyewitness accounts because they are notoriously unreliable is quite reasonable.

​

Check out the research of Elizabeth Loftus. She is a Psychologist who studies memory. The research is conclusive that memory is
very, very plastic, particularly in high-stress situations. It is a given in the field.

---

Fair enough, but when you have consistent reports from independent
witnesses over a span of twenty or thirty years then one surely
finds some common core.One would, naturally, need to assess the 'independence'.

quote:

---

But how many investigations do we have to do before we decide that this is not a fruitful line of research? We have been doing
these investigations for decades and nobody has found any positive evidence. Tell me again why we should pursue this any more than we should persue free energy machines and dowsing?

---

No conclusive evidence is not the same as no positive evidence.Why would people (well educated ones at that) continue their
investigations if there were 'no positive evidence'?

quote:

---

are you against a bias towards reliable evidence?

---

I am against bias.For a weight of evidence to point in a certain direction is
acceptable ... but discounting other evidence out-of-hand
because it doesn't fit is still bias.Investigate it properly before discounting it ... after all
scientists have been wrong in the past (due to insufficient
evidence). We are all fallible.

quote:

---

"Genuine phenomena" of what, exactly?

---

I don't know.My best guess at present is that there is some environmentally
induced hallucinatory effect. I referred to research on EMF and
cognitive state ... and I freely admit that this is hearsay in the
sense that it was referred to in a TV documentary by a parapsychologist from a UK University.People hear, feel, and smell things that are incongrous to the
environment.People have sudden unexpected mood changes (not just into panic
either).EMF studies show unexpected fluctuations in the (I think) 2-7 milliguas range.

... and different investigators of 'hauntings' around the
globe find the same anamalies.EMF fluctuations in the 2-7 milligaus range where there should
not be any.Battery dissipations.Temperature fluctuations.'orbs' on digital video.These are phenomena that recurr for different investigators in
different 'haunted locations' ... whether supposedly non-haunted
locations are tested I don't know, but that has often occurred
to me.By your responses I presume that you have not encountered any
of these supposed evidences before ... doesn't that make your
immediate 'it's piffal' biased?

quote:

---

What we can say about both hauntings and some UFO sitings is that the observers saw something.

---

Maybe, maybe not.Do you know how easy it is to implant false memories, even self-induced?The answer is, very, very easy in a significant percentage of the population.

quote:

---

The reason we can say this is that for many cases a number of
independent (either in space or time) observers have witnessed
the same thing (or very close-to the same thing).

---

Whaich cases are you talking about, specifically?Have they been shown to have mundane origins, or what?

quote:

---

Single eye-witness testamony can be discounted, but multiple
independent corroboration is harder to dismiss out-of-hand
(unless you are the Warren Commission [maybe I am a nut
after all] ).

---

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote about UFO sightings and experiences becoming standardized into several scripts over the last several decades.

quote:

---

Re: skepticism :- healthy skepticism of the 'show me' variety
is fine by me ... necessary even.

---

That's good, considering that this is how all science is done.

quote:

---

Unfortunately we are often clouded by a kind of 'social' skepticism. It's not popular to believe that hauntings may have some actual cause, or that UFO's may be of extra-terrestrial origin.

---

Of course hauntings have an "actual" cause. Unless there is reliable, replicated evidence for anything not mundane, tell me why we should persue them any more than free energy or dowsing?

quote:

---

The propositions in themselves are not that way-out (though some explanations are) ... so why do we resist the idea.

---

I'm really looking forward to looking at the research you come up with.

quote:

---

These are phenomena that recurr for different investigators in
different 'haunted locations' ... whether supposedly non-haunted
locations are tested I don't know, but that has often occurred
to me.

---

So, you trust the research methodology of people who don't mention anything in their results about controls being used in their investigations?I repeat; given the same equipment and procedures, can an investigator tell which of two houses is supposed to be haunted?

quote:

---

By your responses I presume that you have not encountered any
of these supposed evidences before ... doesn't that make your
immediate 'it's piffal' biased?

---

But you haven't told me anything meaningful, such as what kind of experimental controls are being put in place, or what the methodology of the investigations are.For one thing, how often do all of those readings occur compared to what chance would predict? Do the investigators test random houses and ones supposed to be haunted, without knowing which ones are which, to see if there is any difference in frequency? Do other (non-believer) investigators find the same results when following the same methodology?I am willing to accept that "something might be going on" if you show me something substantive, but you have yet to provide any detailed evidence or research or descriptions of methodology and control procedures of these investigations. Therefore, I have every right to remain highly skeptical.Skepticism is good. It's a great bullshit detector.

I hope folks didn't miss the links I posted - this research into hauntings is very interesting and covers exactly the issues of repeatability, consistency over time, culture and place, and includes control cases.It really is worth a read ... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Ghosts 'all in the mind'
http://phoenix.herts.ac.uk/pwru/ghosts.html

quote:

---

By consistent over time I meant in very specific detail for
particular 'hauntings'.

​

Fro example, there is a hotel in the UK (one of many) where several
guests over the course of the last thirty or more years have
awkened in the night to see an old lady seated in a nearby
cahir watching them as they slept.

​

The descriptions (as is often the case) come from people who
do not know each other, and who are not aware of the history
of the area (being a hotel tends to mean that out-of-towners are
the occupiers). They describe the experience consistently
even though the liklihood of them knowing the story (all of them)
is slim.

​

Independent corroboration of eye-witness accounts tends to strengthen
the case for 'something' rather than 'an undigested bit of beef.'

---

What kind of assurances do you have1) that this isn't just a made-up story to gain publicity for the hotel that the witnesses were asked or paid to tell,2) that the witnesses weren't contaminated with the story before they had the experience,3) that the witnesses haven't had such dreams before in other places,4) that a certain percentage of people in the population at large has had such a dream at some point in their lives,5) is the frequency of people having this experience differ from the frequency of the same experience in other places, or in general?I could probably come up with a bunch more problems with the "cleaness" of this eye-witness data, but you see where I'm going.

quote:

---

That stories almost identical to alien abduction accounts have beenaround for hundreds of years (I have always felt) tends to
strengthen, rather than weaken, the testimony. The exeperiences
are so consistent (although naturally in earlier times the concept
of extra-terrestrials didn't exist) that it makes one wonder more
rather than less, surely.

---

Um, no. The most likely explanation for these experiences are sleep/dream phenomena called hypnapompic or hypnagogic hallucinations.In simple terms, what happens during one of these hallucinations is the brain fails to bring the sleeper's brain out of REM sleep when the sleeper wakes up. Therefore, the muscles are paralyzed and the brain's dream factory is still producing all the crazy stuff that our dreams are made of, except we're awake the whole time.Read more about them here:http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P.htmlAllison: I am wondering is what the experimental methodology is in cases where there are such anomalies, and what is the rate of "anomalies" produced by the equipment when not being used for paranormal research (control)

​

Given two houses, can someone determine which one is supposed to be the "haunted" house, given this equipment?

quote:

---

A typical investigation will see the researcher examine a location with an EMF meter, taking note of electrical cabling and other natural sources of electromagnetic fields and create a base-line
for each location.

​

What then tends to happen during the course of an investigation
is that readings are found in areas of previously known values
that exceed by a significant amount what would normally expected.
Further these readings are transient and often coincide with sudden
noises, smells, cold-spots, and (where digital video is being shot)
so called 'orbs'.

​

The batteries on these devices often dissipate for no known reason
during investigations also.

---

You still haven't mentioned anything about control procedures...

quote:

---

Fair enough, but when you have consistent reports from independent
witnesses over a span of twenty or thirty years then one surely
finds some common core.

​

One would, naturally, need to assess the 'independence'.

---

Exactly. Like the alien abduction "script" that has coalesced over the years.

quote:

---

No conclusive evidence is not the same as no positive evidence.

---

You don't have positive evidence.Positive evidence for what, anyway? To have positive evidence, you need to have a theory that makes specific predictions. You don't have any specific predictions, so you don't have any positive evidence.What you have is an odd assortment of "anomolies", which may or may not be real depending upon how rigorous the experimental design and controls for each and every investigation. After-the fact labeling of "anomolies" is not positive evidence.So far, I have little confidence in the experimenatal design you have described to me so far. I'm open, though. If you have something better, let me know.

quote:

---

Why would people (well educated ones at that) continue their
investigations if there were 'no positive evidence'?

---

Is this a serious question?Because they want to believe and/or they can make a living at it.Allison: are you against a bias towards reliable evidence?

quote:

---

I am against bias.

​

For a weight of evidence to point in a certain direction is
acceptable ... but discounting other evidence out-of-hand
because it doesn't fit is still bias.

---

What other evidence? Seriously, I don't think that ghost stories and poorly-conducted research constitutes evidence, do you?

quote:

---

Investigate it properly before discounting it ... after all
scientists have been wrong in the past (due to insufficient
evidence). We are all fallible.

---

I'm all for proper investigation. The scientific method is not that hard. Anybody can learn it, and you don't need a degree to do it well. The thing is, I have great suspicion that the experimental design of these investigations is poor at best and has allowed for all sorts of experimenter bias and doesn't properly account for all the mundane things that could be causing the "anomolies".For example, do you know that people have produced "orbs" on photographs on purpose?

quote:

---

My best guess at present is that there is some environmentally
induced hallucinatory effect. I referred to research on EMF and
cognitive state ... and I freely admit that this is hearsay in the
sense that it was referred to in a TV documentary by a parapsychologist from a UK University.

​

People hear, feel, and smell things that are incongrous to the
environment.

​

People have sudden unexpected mood changes (not just into panic
either).

---

So, ghosts is a good explanation, rather than, maybe, the brain, or hormones, or pathogens, or just a lousy day?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-18-2003]

I had this happen to me once - it was quite terrifying.