# 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:** 17
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/321 "2004-10-16T03:10:40Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> I don’t know what “psuedo-skeptics” do,
More than pleased to enlighten you, **Bryan.**
Pseudo-skeptics \*reject \* possibilities due to lack of adequate evidence.
Skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer) \*suspend judgement \* due to lack of adequate evidence. They don’t jump to conclusions in any direction, pro or con. They don’t close doors and nail them shut just cause it doesn’t seem to be anyone there.
SnakeSpirit
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/322 "2004-10-16T03:20:43Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> And while I agree that _in theory_ science _should_ strive to increasing levels of accuracy, all to ofen it fails to live up to such ideals. Frequently scientists refuse to accept data that contradicts their own theories. After all, scientists are only human and have the same flaws as the rest of us.
All too often? I daresay when the scientific method is correctly applied, bad theories don’t “often” stick around at all. _If_ there was data that contradicted exsting theory, it _would_ be challenged, argued about, ridiculed, etc, but if the data persisted, and it could be replicated by other scientists, existing theory would eventually adapt (though it may have to wait until the scientists who cling to the old theory die off). If “ghost” observations _can’t_ be replicated, then the whole notion of trying to prove their existence scientifically is moot.
> [@](#):
>
> I never claimed otherwise. Maybe it’s one in a hundred, maybe its one in a million.
Well, I’ll be so bold as to make a claim. I’ll hazard a guess that one percent of science is bullshit (actually, that’s conservative, I think the real value is closer to 0.01%), because of the failings of flawed human scientists. And if the one in a million “paranormal” claims turn out to be valid, that means a bullshit factor of 99.9999%. When given a choice between something that is 99% likely to be right and something that is 99.9999% likely to be wrong, the smart money is on the former.
> [@](#):
>
> Ah, but it _was_ chemical analysis that validated meteorites. See [here.](http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/rocksky.htm)
These historical claims of yours aren’t helping your argument. That the 1890 theories of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier were disproved by the 1901 theories of Edward Charles Howard _strengthens_ the scientific method. A weak theory was advanced, and then replaced by a stronger theory with supporting evidence. In any case, pointing up the scattered failings of scientists in no way mitigates the massive frauds and nonsense presented by psychics.
Right now, as far as I know, the prevailing theory regarding “ghosts” is that claimed sightings stem from hallucinations, dreams, fraud or honest mistakes. If another theory replaces it, it’ll need some _very_ strong supporting evidence.
> [@](#):
>
> Yeah, but some people don’t recognise the fact that science makes mistakes. to some people, science is infallible. They say if any “paranormal” phenoma exist, science would validate it already.
Well, some people are idiots. What can you do? I’ll wager that for each person who belives science is infallible, that are a hundred or more who believe unshakably in tarot cards, horoscopes, healing pyramids and, yes, ghosts. Both groups of people are believing somehting unsupported, but the science-believer can at least get a good correspondance of cause and effect (if I put this wire here and this wire here, I can operate my fan), while the pseudoscience-believer can’t (if I sprinkle tea leaves in this way and say this chant, I can make someone fall in love with me).
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/323 "2004-10-16T03:30:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Yet another “Morris Misquote”.
“Morris Misquote” - cute.
Glad to see you learned _something_ from me. 😉
Peace.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/324 "2004-10-16T03:35:34Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> More than pleased to enlighten you, **Bryan.**
>
> Pseudo-skeptics \*reject \* possibilities due to lack of adequate evidence.
>
> Skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer) \*suspend judgement \* due to lack of adequate evidence. They don’t jump to conclusions in any direction, pro or con. They don’t close doors and nail them shut just cause it doesn’t seem to be anyone there.
How rigidly are you defining “reject”, though? If someone presents a theory that strikes me as preposterous, am I a “pseudo-skeptic” if I ridicule it? If someone presents a theory but can’t add any supporting evidence, am I a “pseudo-skeptic” if I tell him he is unconvincing?
Actually, it strikes me as perfectly sound to reject a theory that lacks adequate evidence, if the observation can be explained by an alternate theory that _has_ adequate evidence.
What is the _point_ of this label, is what I’m asking. My first reaction to it is that it’s an attempt to deride critics of a pseudoscientific claim, by claiming they operate from reflexive dogma and not logic. It seems more like a counter-attack than a defense, and a weak one at that. But I may be wrong.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/325 "2004-10-16T03:36:19Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> Right, I hear you. 😉
>
> But what kind of criteria would the scientists work with? There are several different myths about ghosts. What kind of things would they observe?
>
> Drops in temperature? Unexplained movements of objects?
Hella I know.
How _does_ one know that there’s ghost around?
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/326 "2004-10-16T03:40:08Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Of course “rational” skeptics used to say the same thing about the deluded idiots that believed in meteorites.
Cool. Let’s just use the same methods that were used to demonstrate the existence of meteorites.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/327 "2004-10-16T03:42:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> 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.”
Sorry, I missed this first time around.
First of all “ghosts” is a catch-all term for what may be numerous independent phenomenon. We assume that: thet are spirits of the dead, that they are even spirits, that one kind of ghost is bounded by the same rules as another, that they even care about us (minor evidence indicates that. most indicates they are self-centered or unaware of us, and some seem to be there to harass us (like mine).
No, **CZ,** I don’r believe they all have the same mindset, and if that is what was communicated, it was a mis-communication (I seem to be a master at mis-communication lately). I really think there are a variety of different phenomenon that _we_ mis-classify as “ghosts.”
I don’t know what their level of perception and/or communication abilities are, but let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Besides praying, what are we doing to make our existance known to spiritual entities.
We must be careful to not assume too much, or it will lead us down long roads that end up as dead ends. 🆒
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/328 "2004-10-16T09:23:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Yet another “Morris Misquote”. He didn’t say that science makes mistakes, he said that _scientists_ make mistakes. I expect that _most_ of the people participating in this thread know the difference.
I excpect that _most_ people participating in this thread will recognise that it is the desperate nit-picking of an obsessed jerk who hates me for criticising his idol.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/329 "2004-10-16T10:04:07Z")
In fact, let’s review. I said:
> [@](#):
>
> Hardly a tired old chestnut, it’s a point the pseudo-skeptics have no answer to. It happens from time to time that an absurd claim turns out to be true after all. Sometimes the science books have to be rewritten. Once in a while the “paranormal” becomes normal. From time to time “quack” cures become legitimate medicine. Occasionally, “fringe” science becomes mainstream science.
So, clearly in the original statement, I spoke about “science” being wrong sometimes.
In his response, Bryan changed that to “scientists make mistakes.” A trivial difference, in my opinion, one that slipped beneath my radar. The difference is utterly uinimportant to me. The change is unimportant to any rational operson, but the change was his.
But since you see such a huge difference between the two, Czarcasm, why exactly aren’t you flaming him for it? Why attack me for an error that was a) trivial, b) made by someone else?
This is the illogic and irrationality of the average Randi fan.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/330 "2004-10-16T14:51:15Z")
He wasn’t quoting you, he was _correcting_ you.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/331 "2004-10-16T16:33:31Z")
Ah yes, the usual feeble weasel out. Him changing “science” to “scientists” is not a lie, it’s a correction. You can forgive him anything. But when I change the word back to the original word, that’s an unforgivable lie. Randi fans are excused from any blame, a lie is just a correction when they do it. When a Randi critic undoes the change, that’s a lie.
What a hypocrite you are. :wally
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/332 "2004-10-16T18:18:43Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> What a hypocrite you are. :wally
Wow! What a powerful argument you’ve made.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/333 "2004-10-16T19:11:37Z")
> [@SimonX](#):
>
> Wow! What a powerful argument you’ve made.
I thought use of the ‘putz’ smiley was frowned on in GD? 😕😕😕
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/334 "2004-10-16T21:19:31Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> I thought use of the ‘putz’ smiley was frowned on in GD? 😕😕😕
My understanding as well. However, consider Peter is relatively new here, with only about 700± posts, and he may have not run into this before.
I’m sure with your and my pseudo-junior-modding he’ll straighten right up without even having to involve a mod.
But, wanna take bets that **Czarcasm** will mention it to him anyway? I mean, to make it official. Guess that’d depend on how far he reads past the wally, and how necessary he thinks a mention would be.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/335 "2004-10-16T21:43:50Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> It happens from time to time that an absurd claim turns out to be true after all. Sometimes the science books have to be rewritten. Once in a while the “paranormal” becomes normal. From time to time “quack” cures become legitimate medicine. Occasionally, “fringe” science becomes mainstream science.
I’m hard-pressed to think of an example of a quack cure becoming mainstream or a paranormal claim becoming a normal, proven scientific fact. Since this is GD, not the Pit (altho it’s becoming hard to distinguish in this thread), I think we would all appreciate your best examples of this process.
Notice I said, “best.” That would exclude acupuncture, therapeutic touch, the discovery of the coelacanth, or the use of bee stings to cure cancer.
And, regardless of how good your examples are, just because something is labeled quack, fradulent or paranormal now, doesn’t mean that it will ever become otherwise. Some things were once quack, are quack now, and will quack forevermore, McDuck.
Our challenge, should we decide to accept it, is to use our knowledge to find out which is which.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/336 "2004-10-16T22:39:48Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> acupuncture
Isn’t acupuncture still “quack?”
I thought the only reason it got accepted was due to pressure from billions of orientals who have been accustomed to it for hundreds of years. Has it been actually proven to work? I tried it, and I think it’s BS. (The hair fine needles are used to extract money from your wallet.)
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/337 "2004-10-16T22:59:05Z")
Paranormal claim proven - already mentioned. 200 years ago meteorites were considered supernatural. Only the superstitious believed in them. Today, they are proved true.
Paranormal 200 years ago, normal today. The paranormal becomes normal once in a while.
Quack medicine validated. - well, a few decades ago polio was a deadly disease that caused permanent paralysis. Medical Science knew that it was a disease of the nervous system, and the paralysis was incurable. Then there came a nurse with a new idea. She said that it’s not a disease of the nervous system, its actually a disease of the muscles. It could be treated by rubbing with damp wool. Oh, how the medical community roared. For 30 years she was called crank, liar, chrlatan, quack… then medical science realised she was right all along.
[http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html](http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html)
Note that she agreed to have her ideas tested, but failed the test. So much for the notion that “if it’s true it will pass” that Randi fans cling to. Even a true claim can fail a test.
Here’s a more recent example. Another guy who was attacked by skeptics for years, before he was proved right.
[http://www.metamath.com/math124/statis/Marhelio.htm](http://www.metamath.com/math124/statis/Marhelio.htm)
Oh, yeah, I know the standard word game. If they aren’t paranormal today, they weren’t paranormal then either. The old “it’s not paranormal” excuse that would explain away any successful test. If it fails the test, then its paranormal and wrong. If it passes the test, then it’s not paranormal.
Call it a “wild idea that the skeptics attacked”
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/338 "2004-10-16T23:40:57Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Isn’t acupuncture still “quack?”
Yes, I would call it quack. Others might call it “unproven,” or “worth investigating,” but it certainly is NOT mainstream science.
Did I miss something here? I gave a list of items that are NOT mainstream science (acupuncture, therapeutic touch…or the use of bee stings to cure cancer) as examples of items considered quack years ago and still considered quack today (at least if “quack” means “of doubtful use, and not mainstream”). and you seem to agree with me. 🙂
> [@](#):
>
> I thought the only reason it got accepted was due to pressure from billions of orientals who have been accustomed to it for hundreds of years. Has it been actually proven to work? I tried it, and I think it’s BS. (The hair fine needles are used to extract money from your wallet.)
Absolutely, I couldn’t agree with you more. The only possible explanation that is “accepted” by science is the placebo effect, and even that is dubious. :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/339 "2004-10-17T00:10:36Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Paranormal claim proven - already mentioned. 200 years ago meteorites were considered supernatural. Only the superstitious believed in them. Today, they are proved true.
>
> Paranormal 200 years ago, normal today. The paranormal becomes normal once in a while.
Paranormal? Ya got a cite fer that? Unexplained, questionable claims, puzzling objects, didn’t fit the Church’s view of the heavens, perhaps, but _paranormal_?
Note that, unlike pseudo-science claims, the evidence became stronger for rocks falling from the sky. Bits and pieces were brought forward. They were analyzed. They were exhibited in museums. They were found not far from bright streaks in the sky that appeared to reach earth. They fit newly developed theories of celestial objects, in spite of what the Church said. Gradually, they became accepted.
It took 200 years? About the speed of science onceuponatime. Consider how fast a similar discovery would be handled today, then contrast that to the evidence of paranormal events today. For a true phenomena, the evidence should build. Is the evidence for dowsing or any other paranormal claim today becoming stronger?
From [Russell Turpin’s “Characterization of Quack Theories”:](http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html)
> [@](#):
>
> NO DEEPENING EVIDENCE. Similarly, theoretical knowledge should grow and become more detailed as experience increases. In the 1960s, molecular biologists could only mouth vague claims about DNA guiding the development of organisms. Now they can tell how this happens in more detail, and back this discussion by (tens of?) thousands of experiments that evince these details. Two centuries ago, Lavoisier described how oxygen combines with other elements to release energy. Our knowledge of chemical reaction has increased tremendously since then. But what has happened to the theoretical underpinnings of homeopathic dilution in two centuries? Why does it remain vague mouthings about “molecular patterns”?
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Quack medicine validated. - well, a few decades ago polio was a deadly disease that caused permanent paralysis. Medical Science knew that it was a disease of the nervous system, and the paralysis was incurable. Then there came a nurse with a new idea. She said that it’s not a disease of the nervous system, its actually a disease of the muscles. It could be treated by rubbing with damp wool. Oh, how the medical community roared. For 30 years she was called crank, liar, chrlatan, quack… then medical science realised she was right all along.
This hardly seems applicable. I don’t think Polio was considered paranormal, at least in the 20th Century. And while I have received Polio vaccine in the form of the Salk and the Sabin preparations, I don’t think the accepted treatment or prevention today is “rubbing with damp wool.” 😕
> [@](#):
>
> Here’s a more recent example. Another guy who was attacked by skeptics for years, before he was proved right.
>
> [Loading...](http://www.metamath.com/math124/statis/Marhelio.htm)
>
> Oh, yeah, I know the standard word game. If they aren’t paranormal today, they weren’t paranormal then either. The old “it’s not paranormal” excuse that would explain away any successful test. If it fails the test, then its paranormal and wrong. If it passes the test, then it’s not paranormal.
>
> Call it a “wild idea that the skeptics attacked”
Strange. That link has no reference to a paranormal claim whatsoever. Changing the medical cause of a ulcer from spicy foods to a bacteria, while a fascinating story, hardly fits in a discussion of the paranormal. I do not recall any doctors saying an ulcer was caused by a witch, demon or ghost.
If these are the best you can come up with (you did say those were the best, right?), I’d say you pretty much have nothing. Like the UFO enthusiast that proudly holds up a blurry, indistinct photo of a pie plate and says, “See, this proves aliens are here! Head for the hills!”
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/340 "2004-10-17T00:27:03Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> Paranormal? Ya got a cite fer that? Unexplained, questionable claims, puzzling objects, didn’t fit the Church’s view of the heavens, perhaps, but _paranormal_?
Yup as predicted, the desperate “its not paranormal” response.
Paranormal means unproven and in doubt. Once a paranormal claim is proven, it ceases to be paranormal. Once a quack cure is accepted by mainstream medicine, it ceases to be quack.
Meteroite WERE paranormal 200 years ago. They atren’t today.
The other two WERE quack cures once, dismissed as absurd by the medical community. Today they are legitimate.
Yeah, the usual, predictable word games. If it passes the test, deny it’s paranormal. That way, the test can never be won, and you will be right, even when you’re wrong.
Please define what you think “paranormal” means. Name just one thing that would still be “paranormal” if it were proved true.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=16)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=18)