# 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:** 15
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/281 "2004-10-12T21:28:14Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> 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.
This seems half true, half not. The insightful part is that Randi is going to refuse to test anything with a “non-paranormal” analog. For example, if said I could cause wounds to heal moderately faster with my abilities, Randi would say it’s the placebo affect and refuse to test.
The insight you have here is that, once a phenomena is understood and ubiquitous, we don’t consider it paranormal any more. I’m sure that if only 1/10,000 persons had dreams, skeptics would be denying that any such phenomena exists. It really is an odd thing. Same thing with the placebo effect. Giving it that scientific-sounding name really does nothing to explain it. It’s for reasons like this that I don’t like the word “paranormal” at all. Obviously, if a phenomenon exists at all, it’s as normal as anything else.
But I think, **Peter** that you’re incorrect that Randi would _ever_ admit that ghosts had been proven in the laboratory. Such and admission would explode his atheist worldview, and he’s simply not going to allow that to happen. Rather, he’d do anything in his power simply to deny that results had been produced.
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/282 "2004-10-12T21:33:54Z")
To un-hijack this thread, here’s a definition that might be useful, and could probably be tested scientifically, although not without a rather complex, expensive and time-consuming experiment:
A “haunted area” is one in which people feel less comfortable, more alarmed, and have more trouble sleeping, than in an another area which is similar in all measurable ways.
This could cover haunted houses, rooms in houses like the one described by someone a few pages back in which he had nightmares and couldn’t sleep, the seat in the theater somewhere that’s always left vacant because (it is claimed), the ghost always sits there, etc.
It’s actually fairly straightforward to test whether a house is haunted, by this definition, bearing in mind that it simply means that it makes people uneasy, not that it is necessarily inhabited by spirits of dead people.
Basically (using the example of haunted houses, although this could also work for rooms, etc), choose 20 houses, 3 of which are reputed to be haunted. Make sure that they are of a varieties of sizes and architectural styles. Then cover everything in both houses with white dropcloths to render the interiors as visually identical as possible. Then put beds in lots of rooms. Then get a bunch of volunteers and tell them that you’re studying the effects of proximity to telephone lines (or something like that) on sleep patterns, have them spend the night in all of these houses (in a properly set up double blind fashion), ask them how they slept, and see if they slept worse in the “haunted” houses.
(OK, it’s a bit more difficult than that, but that’s a pretty good start.)
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/283 "2004-10-12T21:39:21Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> But I think, **Peter** that you’re incorrect that Randi would _ever_ admit that ghosts had been proven in the laboratory. Such and admission would explode his atheist worldview, and he’s simply not going to allow that to happen. Rather, he’d do anything in his power simply to deny that results had been produced.
I don’t know Randi personally, but the thing that’s truly amazing and unique about Science (as a whole) is that science **does** admit its mistakes and does change its mind. That’s built into its very structure.
Which of these is more likely:
-Remote viewing is demonstrated conclusively in the laboratory, and scientists spring into action attempting to study it, explain it, and learn from it
-A series of tests fails to demonstrate the existence of dowsing, and all of the dowsers in the world admit that they were wrong
-The Catholic Church admits that no physical evidence exists for the divinity of Christ, and disbands
?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/284 "2004-10-12T21:50:18Z")
> [@ElectricZ](#):
>
> So why shouldn’t the dowsers go through the motions of proof like anybody else?
Oh, they should. And so should every other claim where you got something on the line. (be that your money or your life!)
Frankly, I have no faith in dowsing. I worked with a dowser once in a parapsychology experiment. I was not impressed at all by his results. I have never met a dowser _or_ a _professional_ psychic that I have been impressed by, as a matter of fact. And I recommend that before you lay your money down you better make sure you’re ready to lose it.
I have never seen a scientifically-designed psychic experiment that produced undeniable positive results (I have heard of some, but even in those cases the results were mixed: sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
But that’s also the case with any other human ability! Even Michael Jordan sometimes missed the basket! Snipers sometimes miss their targets. Financial advisors sometimes have to file bankruptcy.
Why should psychic phenomenon be held to a different, unrealistic standard?
What convinces me that there _is_ something occurring are those unplanned cases, those random events where the phenomenon rears its head.
Like that time in May of 1968 when our two electronic mine detectors went over and scanned an area of road that had also been walked over by our squad leader and 15 other trained combat engineers before I got there. I was the last one in line, the APCs were right behind me. I looked at one part of the road and I ‘knew’ a mine was there. I didn’t know _how_ I knew it, but the feeling moved me enough that I dropped my gear, called the column to a halt and got yelled at by my sargent for ‘wasting time.’
That is, until I scraped off the top inch of soil and uncovered a 40 lb. plastic Russian anti-tank mine. Then he called everyone back to re-scan the road. It was the _first_ mine in a total of ten mines we found in that road that day.
Gee, what if I had listened to the skeptiks? Probably a dozen people would have died.
**SGT:** Come on, Snake! Leave that be, we checked it with our mine detectors. There’s nothing there!
**Snake:** Gee, OK, sarge, I just had the wierdest feeling though…
**SGT:** We ain’t got no time for your wimpy ass ‘feelings,’ this is the Army, and we’re at war! Get your shit in order.
**Snake:** Alright. (Walks on…)
**Mine:** **KABOOM!**
Things happen that defy conventional explanation, and I am one of _many_ people who want to understand the phenomenon involved. I hope some day we can understand it, explain it and even learn to harness it.
Something is going on. If you choose to deny and dismiss it, that’s your problem. I don’t care if you don’t believe, and I’m not trying to convince you. I know that something exists that defies conventional explanations, and we will be the better for discovering it.
Yes, there are a lot of gullible people out there that are tricked by frauds, believe in anything, and support a whole industry of deception. That’s unfortunate, but there’s not much I can do about it.
I don’t put much stock in most of the wierd stuff that people claim; I don’t go to psychics, don’t believe in magic of any sort, crystal balls, tarot cards, aliens, angels, faith healing, it’s all a bunch of bunk to me, until proven otherwise. (I’d venture a guess that this is not what you thought I believe in, as I’ve gleaned from most of the skeptik comments here.)
But there is something… something real… and denial will not make it go away.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/285 "2004-10-12T21:58:41Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Second Randi lie: Randi tells of offering this test to dowsers, and them refusing. But this is a fiction. When I corresponded with him, he admitted that this was just a “figure of speech”, he had in fact never asked an applicant to do this. When I told him that I was willing to take the test that he designed and offered, he backed out. He is the one that ‘doesn’t want to.’
>
> I think he knows just how wrong his statement is. But he keeps making it, because it’s a great tale that always impresses an audience of skeptics, who will accept his word without question.
It’s the talking points syndrome. It’s no different than what the Dems and Pubs do: you have a “fact,” a number, a statement; it’s compelling and you just stick through it through thick and thin. Skeptics–self-styled “rationals”–out to be above this kind of thing. Some are, probably. But Randi? Hell no.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/286 "2004-10-12T23:16:12Z")
A small note to **Peter Morris** , **SnakeSpirit** and **Aeschines** -this is supposed to be a debate about ghosts, _not_ a James Randi Pit Festival. If you want to cast aspersions on Mr. Randi’s character, start a thread in The BBQ Pit.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/287 "2004-10-13T00:06:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> A small note to **Peter Morris** , **SnakeSpirit** and **Aeschines** -this is supposed to be a debate about ghosts, _not_ a James Randi Pit Festival. If you want to cast aspersions on Mr. Randi’s character, start a thread in The BBQ Pit.
Noted. (I assume this is a “moderator hat on” type of post, and not a personal contribution to this thread?)
In the case someone holds up Mr. Randi as “evidence” in this debate, I believe we are permitted to respond in appropriate debate format with rebuttal evidence countering the validity of such claims. Please correct me if this is an incorrect assumption.
I take it your guidance here refers to continued comments about Randi after such rebuttals are posted.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/288 "2004-10-13T00:19:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> A small note to **Peter Morris** , **SnakeSpirit** and **Aeschines** -this is supposed to be a debate about ghosts, _not_ a James Randi Pit Festival. If you want to cast aspersions on Mr. Randi’s character, start a thread in The BBQ Pit.
Riiiiiight. And next time Uri Gellar comes up in a paranormal thread, will you instruct those skeptics “casting aspersions on his character” to head to the Pit?
Doubts, many doubts about that. :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/289 "2004-10-13T01:48:05Z")
So as not to risk incurring the Mods wroth, please step over [here](I was originally going to post the following in [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5360681#post5360681) if interested in continuing the Randi thing.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/290 "2004-10-13T02:36:41Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Good point, **EZ**. Until we know more about what factors are involved, pretty much any test would be meaningless, to wit:
>
> **TAR:** “OK for today’s test we have ten plastic containers. One is full of dry soil, and the other nine contain wet soil. Your challenge is to find the dry soil!”
>
> He then places the ten containers down on the floor, right above (choose one):
>
> [ul]
> [li]a deep underground water supply[/li][li]the water pipes in his studio[/li][li]the downstairs bathroom[/li][li]an underground sewer[/li][/ul]
>
> If it’s true that the surface of the Earth has a high percentage of underground water, you’d first have to find a dry spot to ensure a fair test!
It looks like you may not be familiar with how the tests are done. I suggest you read some of the experiences at JREF before criticising what you are not familiar with. In brief, a “dry spot” is not required. What IS required is that the applicant dowser agree, thru use of his own devices and powers, that the test is fair. He may scan the area in advance and specify locations that are OK or not OK. He may try a “dry run” (no pun intended) with open containers to test his powers before doing a real test with closed containers. And applicants have done exactly that in past tests.
Only after the applicant is satisfied that the test is fair does it proceed, and he is required to sign a statement to that effect so there is no question later.
Only after the JREF representative is also satisfied that the test is not biased does it proceed.
And the containers with or without any special substance are randomized. _No one present at the test_ knows which ones have what.
So the presence or absence of underground pipes, sewers, bathrooms or gold bullion have no effect _because all parties have agreed that such factors have been eliminated_.
I cannot conceive of a fairer test that will provide a useful result.
---
### Author:  [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/291 "2004-10-13T02:37:25Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> The expert geologists I asked about this were unable to put a figure on it. This is unknown. But all were in agreement that Randi’s figure is nonsense.
If they were unable to put a figure to it how do they _know_ Randi’s presumably hyperbolic figure is nonsense? And who are these experts?
> [@](#):
>
> Way back several pages ago somebody raised the canard that if ghosts exist Randi will pay out $1M for proof. No claim for the prize means proof there are no ghosts, say the Randi fans.
Not true. Nonexistence of proof is not proof of nonexistence. No reasonable, fair, honest skeptic would say otherwise.
However, repeated debunking of alleged evidence does allow the formation of a hypothesis that ghosts don’t exist.
Put it this way: If a thousand people claim to be able to start fire with thoughts alone, and they all fail tests _the form of which they agreed on in advance_, it is not unreasonable to state that it’s **unlikely** that any person can start a fire telekinetically. That’s not the same as saying it’s impossible. There is still room to test anybody else who makes the same claim.
Likewise with ghosts. Pictures and sounds that can be duplicated by simple explainable means are not\* proof\* of anything. Tthey aren’t proof that ghosts do exist and they aren’t proof that ghosts don’t exist. They simply show that nonreplicatable evidence is needed.
> [@](#):
>
> I just show that Randi’s offer is a fraud, not taking his test, or taking and failing is meaningless. Even a true claim will be rejected by Randi. Randi’s unclaimed prize means nothing, about ghosts or any other claimed phenomena.
You’re half right. The unclaimed prize only means that so far nobody has been able to present proof of a phenomenon. It certainly doesn’t mean the tests are fixed or fraudulent. Since you make the claim that they are, it’s up to you to prove your claim.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/292 "2004-10-13T02:40:12Z")
I think **Princhester** intended [this](http://www.doorbell.net/mb/showthread.php?threadid=145) to be the link to the new thread.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/293 "2004-10-13T02:46:59Z")
Crap! Is this thread jinxed? Ghosts taking over?
Please disregard my previous bogus link.
What I meant was, [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5360886#post5360886) is where **Princhester** wants us hijackers to go on the Randi question.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/294 "2004-10-13T03:18:11Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> So as not to risk incurring the Mods wroth, please step over [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5360949#post5360949) if interested in continuing the Randi thing.
What hath Mods wroth??
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/295 "2004-10-13T03:32:26Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> I cannot conceive of a fairer test that will provide a useful result.
**Cat,** that certainly _sounds_ like a fair test, as long as everything goes according to plan.
I’m not going to discuss it further here, however, because a moderator ( **Czarcasm** ) has ruled it inappropriate discussion for this thread and forum.
Another time, perhaps.
SnkSprt
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/296 "2004-10-13T06:25:03Z")
I’ve only skimmed the earlier posts to this thread and the Randi-bashing is off-topic, so screw it.
Wouldn’t a ghost _seek_ to prove its existence, if we assume the ghost has some fragment of a human consciousness? Shouldn’t ghosts be lining up in photo studios, mugging endlessly for the camera? Ghosts of people who died long ago may be unfamiliar with photography and video, but anyone from a technologically-advanced nation who died in the last 20 or so years should be sufficiently familiar with cameras.
Are ghosts just echoes of dead people, locked into unchanging patterns of behaviour? If so… what good are they? Lazy-ass broken-record apparitions. Hmph.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/297 "2004-10-13T07:24:59Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Wouldn’t a ghost _seek_ to prove its existence, if we assume the ghost has some fragment of a human consciousness?
Assuming that assumes that ghosts care! About a lot of things, BTW, like us, our perceptions, etc. Maybe that far away from our petty interests, they just don’t care! Are you interested in communicating with scared embryos in-utero, letting them know that it’s a GOOD thing to go out the birth canal?
How can we even begin to assume that “ghosts”, spirits, etc. even give a fork about us?
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Shouldn’t ghosts be lining up in photo studios, mugging endlessly for the camera?
Maybe they have better things to do? (Frankly, living humans have better things to do, but it’s difficult to convince them.)
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Are ghosts just echoes of dead people, locked into unchanging patterns of behaviour? If so… what good are they? Lazy-ass broken-record apparitions. Hmph.
Answer that question, and win the Nobel Prize!
SnskeS
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/298 "2004-10-13T09:42:12Z")
I find it highly curious that there are no ghosts whatsoever that are interested in proving their existence. I could see that some ghosts might not want to, and I might even stretch that to most ghosts, but _all_ ghosts? Do you only become a ghost if you sign a ghost-release stating that you will never try to reveal yourself to the general public? **SnakeSpirit** , you speak of ghosts as if they all have the same mindset-is it your belief that all ghosts want the same thing, and that none of the hundreds(thousands? millions? billions?) of ghosts are interested in being discovered? All it would take is just _one_ spook to show up at a laboratory, manifest her/himself, and moan out,“let’s chat-I’m bored.”
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/299 "2004-10-13T11:46:29Z")
Thanks for cleaning up after me, Musicat.
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2004, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/300 "2004-10-13T12:07:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> I find it highly curious that there are no ghosts whatsoever that are interested in proving their existence…
Hey, we generally don’t know who is on the other side of the keyboard. Perhaps **SnakeSpirit** is a visitor…_from beyond!_
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=14)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=16)