# Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 30, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917 "2004-09-30T20:25:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 13
### Author:  [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/241 "2004-10-11T03:37:49Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> You miss the point. This board is biased against paranormal phenomenon. Maybe you haven’t noticed?
Maybe you haven’t noticed what the purpose of this board is supposed to be? It’s going to be biased against believing in anything that lacks sufficient evidence.
> [@](#):
>
> -
>
> There’s always alternatitive explanations. Doesn’t mean that _just because_ there is an alternative that the alternative is the right explanation. Where is your proof that these are just sleep paralysis?
\*I am not required to provide proof for claims I never made just because you have decided to pretend that I have made them.
> [@](#):
>
> \*never mind proof, how about evidence, or even suggestions?
\*Already covered. Many descriptions of supposedly paranormal experiences are completely consistent with the known physical/neurological phenomenon of sleep paralysis.
> [@](#):
>
> -
>
> Interesting. You are asking for physical evidence for non-physical phenomenon??
\*Uh, no, I’m not. I would appreciate it if you’d stop making stuff up like this.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Who’s claiming “physical evidence” in the first place?
\ ***Aeschines** was.
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Reveal? No, the device is described on the Web on a website.
Well, I can’t debate a cite like that, can I?
In fact, it appears that I cannot debate the two noble defenders of the paranormal at all, because neither of you are interested in debate. You’re interested in hand-waving, misdirection, and plain ol’ making stuff up. That you engage in such tactics in a rhetorical situation does nothing to inspire my faith in your accounts of the supernatural. As much as I love wasting my time, I will not be wasting it further attempting to discuss this matter with either of you.
---
### Author:  [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/242 "2004-10-11T03:49:25Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> And maybe there’s still WMD in Iraq.
In ethereal form no doubt. Perhaps you should volunteer to go search for them. Or is that a job best left for Ghost Busters?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/243 "2004-10-11T03:49:36Z")
> [@Lamia](#):
>
> As much as I love wasting my time, I will not be wasting it further attempting to discuss this matter with either of you.
Break my heart.
However, I predict you’ll be back!
(Not becuse of any supposed psychic ability, just by observation of human nature…)
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/244 "2004-10-11T04:05:22Z")
> [@Lamia](#):
>
> Well, I can’t debate a cite like that, can I?
It’s not a cite. Someone said that the device would have to be “revealed” to Randi, as though it were hidden. It’s not hidden. In fact, the device is for sale, although quite expensive. But I’m not going to link to pics that could reveal people’s names, lest people here get their kicks mocking my colleagues.
> [@](#):
>
> In fact, it appears that I cannot debate the two noble defenders of the paranormal at all, because neither of you are interested in debate.
Oh, you’ve had your debate–in this and other threads.
> [@](#):
>
> You’re interested in hand-waving, misdirection, and plain ol’ making stuff up.
Vote Bush.
> [@](#):
>
> That you engage in such tactics in a rhetorical situation does nothing to inspire my faith in your accounts of the supernatural.
Yeah, we’re goddamn liars, too. Oh the shame of it!
> [@](#):
>
> As much as I love wasting my time, I will not be wasting it further attempting to discuss this matter with either of you.
What? Not engage any more with the ultimate time-wasting duo? Who else will help you waste it thus efficiently?!
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/245 "2004-10-11T04:16:26Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Because Randi does not really want to give up his ‘million,’ and will alter the terms of the agreement in order to make it impossible or unlikly to attain.
It appears that you have not actually read the challenge you are dismissing with a “_barf_”.
First, the money is not Randi’s. He did not contribute it and he will not benefit by it, except perhaps the interest on it. Second, he is not involved with the actual testing. And third, “All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant,” and fourth, “test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place,” and fifth, “No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned.” Yep, that sounds terribly biased, don’t it?
Actually [read The Challenge.](http://randi.org/research/challenge.html)
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/246 "2004-10-11T04:31:38Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> It appears that you have not actually read the challenge you are dismissing with a “_barf_”.
>
> First, the money is not Randi’s. He did not contribute it and he will not benefit by it, except perhaps the interest on it. Second, he is not involved with the actual testing. And third, “All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant,” and fourth, “test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place,” and fifth, “No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned.” Yep, that sounds terribly biased, don’t it?
>
> Actually [read The Challenge.](http://randi.org/research/challenge.html)
I respectfully ask that people read the above link and not lie about the conditions of the Challenge again. If you are debating honestly, you will abide by this request.
Thank you.
---
### Author:  [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/247 "2004-10-11T04:39:47Z")
Okay, I’m coming in late to this party and have not read the whole thread, so excuse me if this has been covered before, but some basics need to be rehashed.
If a hypothesis is not even potentially falsifiable then it aint really science. (Apologies to Popper.)
An observation having no current good explanation is not evidence for whatever other nonfalsifiable story someone wants to tell.
A hypothesis that requires the disbelief of large portions of established scientific thinking had better had a large amount amount of evidence behind it and explain a whole lot if it wants to be taken seriously as science by anyone who takes science seriously.
Religion is another matter. One can belief religiously without evidence. To some, steadfast faith in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the only kind of faith worth having. (In my tradition there is the story of Rabbi Hillel … or was it Akiva? … saying the _Sh’ma_ as he was being burned to death.) Religious belief is not falsifiable and can coexist with other explanations despite apparent contradictions.
Belief in ghosts fits one of these two sets of characteristics. Hint: it isn’t science. I respect religious belief as long as it recognizes that it is religious belief. When it tries to call itself science it deserve ridicule.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/248 "2004-10-11T08:32:23Z")
> [@](#):
>
> **Snakespirit** : “10 out of 10” ??? Really???
Yet _again_ I must point out that “10 out of 10” is not necessary to win the $1M: **It was what that particular applicant AGREED TO**.
Yet again, I must point out that **what the applicant claims** determines the testing timescale: An applicant who claims 90-100% accuracy can likely be tested in an afternoon, whereas one who claims “slightly better than chance” must likely give up a year of their lives since that requires a _lot_ of testing.
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/249 "2004-10-11T19:40:20Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> In investigation of the paranormal, it is always important, and supremely so, o elimin ate any esidual physical causes of the phenomenon observed.
>
> In this case, it would require some sort of explanation as to how a generated electrical field from a fan would affect the printed image on polaroid camera!
So I didn’t read the cite. Sorry, was dashing off somewhere, and thought that I’d mention the typical ghosting effects I see from fans. It’s a fun one. I’ll pay more attention to it tonight.
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/250 "2004-10-12T02:16:47Z")
Okay. I need more information about the box… but I can tell you, I can fake a Polaroid out easily. I just need a gizmo that I can palm. Or I just have a ring or various other things that screw with the film or lens. It’s not hard to make streaks or ghosts by accident. Easier on purpose.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/251 "2004-10-12T03:37:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> The only thing “done” with the Randi Prize Argument in this, and most other threads on this subject, is that it has been dismissed without just cause. Give us a legitimate reason why you don’t want a million dollars.
sigh. It’s not a question of not ‘wanting’ a million dollars.
Quite simply, people don’t **trust** Randi. He is rude, aggressive, immature, ignorant, closed-minded and thoroughly unprofessional. People who encounter him are unable to believe that he is either willing or capable of conducting a test fairly and properly. And with good reason.
Randi is an infant, who uses words like ‘woo-woo’ and ‘grubby’ to attack anyone that happens to disagree with him. How is it possible to take him seriously?
Really, I mean it. His fans consist of people that thinl ‘woo-woo’ is a big, clever word.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/252 "2004-10-12T04:05:45Z")
So you would turn down $1,000,000 just because someone called you a “woo-woo”??
Hmm, do you have any evidence that he has treated people who have bothered to apply this way, or is it just the people who make the claim then back off when asked for proof?
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/253 "2004-10-12T04:10:25Z")
Oh, and perhaps you would explain why you don’t apply for [Hovind’s](http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/676654/posts) challenge.
Why would anyone who believes in evolution refuse a $250,000 offer? After all, if it’s put on the internet, it has to be sincere, doesn’t it. Nobody would make an offer if they didn’t actually mean it, would they? :rolleyes:
Randi and Hovind are using the same tactic, it’s often used and invariably dishonest. It’s used by any idiot with an axe to grind. It goes like this “I dont belive in **XYZ.** I offer $$$$ for proof of **XYZ.** To claim, you must take my test. I will discuss the conditions of the test with you, but I can veto any test I don’t like. Any test that I dislike will not take place. Claimants must take the test I like, or not take the test at all. I shall decide whether the claim has succeeded or not. Failure to accept my challenge is the same as admitting you’re wrong. Ha ha ha ha ha.”
The only people that find that argument convincing is people that have already made their minds up. They who believe pat each other on the back, and swap stories of the coward that refuse to take the test. But this argument never convinces anyone to change their minds, and should not because it’s baloney.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/254 "2004-10-12T04:18:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> So you would turn down $1,000,000 just because someone called you a “woo-woo”???
I would think that person was an infant, and the offer wasn’t serious. I would think he is an appallingly behaved, immature, stupid, and deeply pathetic. I would not trust him to conduct any test fairly.
> [@](#):
>
> Hmm, do you have any evidence that he has treated people who have bothered to apply this way, or is it just the people who make the claim then back off when asked for proof?
Yeah. I’ve commented on it before, at length. See previous threads.
Of course, the Randi fanatics always have some excuse for him.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/255 "2004-10-12T05:13:58Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Randi is an infant, who uses words like ‘woo-woo’ and ‘grubby’ to attack anyone that happens to disagree with him. How is it possible to take him seriously?
Indeed. He’s the very worst person to serve as the skeptic’s main media personality. If I were a skeptic, I’d be ashamed to have this clown represent my cause.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/256 "2004-10-12T05:15:36Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> The only people that find that argument convincing is people that have already made their minds up. They who believe pat each other on the back, and swap stories of the coward that refuse to take the test. But this argument never convinces anyone to change their minds, and should not because it’s baloney.
It can’t be baloney, because it’s a staple argument of the skeptics on this board. :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/257 "2004-10-12T06:53:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> So you would turn down $1,000,000 just because someone called you a “woo-woo”??
Would you believe anyone who called anyone a “woo-woo” as being capable of administering the award of a million dollars?
You seem pretty gullible, **Czarcasm**. Why should we believe anything that such a gullible shill has to say?
Do you have some scientific evidence to present here?
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/258 "2004-10-12T09:17:27Z")
Well, isn’t this nice - good old **Peter** has joined us once again, forming a multi-pronged attack on the Randi Foundation.
I have news for you **Peter**. The reason he called you a “woo-woo” is because you were being an insufferably irritating pedant.
[Exhibit A](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271065&page=2) gives a history of this saga: Randi says, as part of a long reply on the subject of dowsing, that finding a “_dry_ patch” is actually a better test of paranormal abilities than “finding water”.
This, when run through the **Peter Morris** pedant-o-cryptor comes out as: “Randi says that finding a dry patch shows paranormal ability sufficient to claim the $1M”. And so **Peter** suggests that he can find a dry patch **but claims to have NO paranormal abilities**. Randi becomes understandably peeved, and suggests the “10 opaque boxes of soil, you pick out the dry one” test. **Peter** says “Oh, you’ve changed the test!” Randi tells **Peter** in no uncertain terms what he thinks of him.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine who deserved what here.
As for Young Earth Creationist nutjob Kent Hovind the challenge is actually this:
> [@](#):
>
> Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under “known options”) is the **only possible way** the observed phenomena could have come into existence.
Bolding mine. He is asking us to prove that God _couldn’t_ do it by magic.
Comparing this to a testing program **agreed between both tester and candidate** is intellectual dishonesty of the grubbiest calibre.
Pray, tell us **Peter** , because we have been asking you for months:[ul][li]What paranormal ability do you claim?[/li][li]How could this be tested in such a way that cheating and luck were eradicated?[/li][li]If you are claiming NO paranormal ability, \*why are you corresponding with somebody offering a prize for **evidence of one**?[/li][/ul]
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/259 "2004-10-12T12:48:55Z")
Typical Randi fan BS. Lets review.
> [@](#):
>
> I have news for you Peter. The reason he called you a “woo-woo” is because you were being an insufferably irritating pedant.
I wasn’t talking about myself. I was talking about his behaviour when he appears on TV, the articles he writes, etc. He never called me, personally, a woo-woo. And in my correspondances I was perfectly polite, HE was aggressive and childish.
SM twists this around. I do not attack Randi because he rejected my claim, it’s the other way round. I am a long-time crittic of Randi. I have never taken him seriously. I put in my application because I wanted to see for myself what happens to applicants
> [@](#):
>
> This, when run through the Peter Morris pedant-o-cryptor comes out as: “Randi says that finding a dry patch shows paranormal ability sufficient to claim the $1M”. And so Peter suggests that he can find a dry patch but claims to have NO paranormal abilities. Randi becomes understandably peeved, and suggests the “10 opaque boxes of soil, you pick out the dry one” test. Peter says “Oh, you’ve changed the test!” Randi tells Peter in no uncertain terms what he thinks of him.
Randi became ‘peeved’ because I point out a lie that he’s been telling over and over for years.
> [@](#):
>
> Comparing this to a testing program agreed between both tester and candidate is intellectual dishonesty of the grubbiest calibre.
You are under a wrong impression when it comes to Randi. You seem to think that Randi is a reasonable person who will negotiate sensibly to find a test acceptable to both parties. Not so. What actually happens is that Randi demands acceptance of the test he offers. In negotiation he is totally inflexible. He absolutely does NOT strive to design a fair test. An applicant has to accept the test on offer, or not take it at all.
[quote]
Pray, tell us Peter, because we have been asking you for months:
[ul][li] What paranormal ability do you claim?[/li][li] How could this be tested in such a way that cheating and luck were eradicated?[/li][li] If you are claiming NO paranormal ability, \*why are you corresponding with somebody offering a prize for evidence of one?[/ul][/li][/quote]
And the answer has been given, over and over and over. Yet again, SM twists everything around.
I’m not offering this as a demonstration of “the paranormal.” I’m offering it as a demonstration of Randi’s inability to conduct a test properly.
SM’s response is a last resort get out that can be used any time someone succeeds in Randi’s test. Simply declare that the ability isn’t paranormal, so fails. ANY claim is normal, once it’s been demonstrated . Show a ghost in the laboratory, the result is that ghosts become an accepted part of science. They would then be ‘normal’ and not ‘paranormal’ thus not worthy of Randi’s million.
In his lectures and articles, Randi frequently says that finding a dry spot is a “paranormal” ability. He has frequently issued the challenge to demonstrate “paranormal ability” by finding a dry spot. More fool him. He regards it as paranormal. I don’t. He made the challenge, I accepted, he backed out. Making the challenge in the first placce makes him a fool, backing out of it makes him a weasel.
The combination of incompitence and dishonesty makes Randi’s tests worthless.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/260 "2004-10-12T13:14:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> HE was aggressive and childish.
I like to consider myself as one of the more fair-minded and level-headed members here, **Peter**. I think you would test the patience of a saint.
> [@](#):
>
> I put in my application because I wanted to see for myself what happens to applicants
Your “application” was to prove something Randi said was incorrect (which it might well have been), **not for the $1M prize for evidence of dowsing ability**. You did not “apply”, you jerked him around.
> [@](#):
>
> What actually happens is that Randi demands acceptance of the test he offers. In negotiation he is totally inflexible. He absolutely does NOT strive to design a fair test.
**WHY** is the “soil in 10 boxes” test an **UNFAIR** test for **DOWSING ABILITY**?
> [@](#):
>
> **SM:** What paranormal ability do you claim? How could this be tested in such a way that cheating and luck were eradicated?
> If you are claiming NO paranormal ability, _why_ are you corresponding with somebody offering a prize for evidence of one?
> \*\*PM:\*\*And the answer has been given, over and over and over.
Please give it again here, for completeness.
> [@](#):
>
> SM’s response is a last resort get out that can be used any time someone succeeds in Randi’s test. Simply declare that the ability isn’t paranormal, so fails.
It must be an _ability_ - not luck or cheating. You agree that the test must eradicate luck and cheating?
> [@](#):
>
> Show a ghost in the laboratory, the result is that ghosts become an accepted part of science.
I can assure you that if you “show a ghost in a laboratory” (_ie._ repeateably reproduce inexplicable external, objectively observable physical phenomena consistent with an invisible consciousness in a cheat-proof environment) you will get a Nobel Prize for physics, let alone $1M.
> [@](#):
>
> In his lectures and articles, Randi frequently says that finding a dry spot is a “paranormal” ability.
Please cite the **exact quotation** , including the context. Every quote you have ever offered is him saying it is **better than** finding water, with no mention of whether it is a **sufficient test for PARANORMAL bility**.
> [@](#):
>
> He made the challenge, I accepted, he backed out.
He said a particular sentence. You tried to correct him on it (and I agree that he, like us all, sometimes makes literally incorrect statements). This is not paranormal ability. It is _pedantry_.
> [@](#):
>
> The combination of incompitence and dishonesty makes Randi’s tests worthless.
Is there a word for misspelling “incompetence”?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=12)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=14)