# 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:** 18
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/341 "2004-10-17T01:14:17Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> 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.
Peter, you fail to understand that in the past, sometimes the accepted view was the psuedoscience, and that the Maverick theory was the actual fact. Was Newtonian mechanics ‘paranormal’ before it took over from Aristotle-ian mechanics? No it was not.
By comparison, a quack theory is one with no basis in fact, evidence or reality. Your example of excess conservatism in treatment methods. Resistance to new theories is an unfortunate side-effect of science’s skpeticism and conservatism. The very fact that the Sister in question was able to convince people by demonstration showing how it worked better than the limb immobilazation. In her case the evidence was winning out, until the Polio vaccine made such a treatment almost unrequired. Compare her actions to those of an actual quack, such as Hulda Clark’s 'Cancer Zapper and you will see a marked change. Your example went through the proper motions and was sadly and unfairly scorned. Clarke by contrast, hides from anything that might be an evangelistic and enthusiastic audience.
Now before you go condemning science’s natural skepticism and conservatism (oh wait…too late). I would point out that when science has failed to act in such a manner it is almost invariably a fiasco. Cold Fusion comes to mind, as do N-rays (at least in France). Thousands of theories have been tossed into the ashcan can because they simply did not stand up to scrutiny.
Now what makes something paranormal? Simply that it does not have a science based explanation most of the time. If you see a ghost, there may be a host of mundane reasons, such as your mind playing tricks, optical tricks, etc. It only becomes paranormal when you actually have a real ghost, (whcih simply hasn’t been demonstrated yet). Since no-one has a theoiry of how ghosts could exist that doesn’t involve newage gobbldeygook, it would remain paranormal.
The simple cry that “everything is paranormal until proven true” is simply wrong. Newton’s mechanics were never paranormal, they just didn’t have an adequete description.
---
### Author:  [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/342 "2004-10-17T02:37:42Z")
We may have a problem with the definition of “paranormal.” **Peter Morris** may think it means “unexplained.” I don’t give it that broad a category.
I invite all those that dare to join me at [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=281305) where we will discuss such a definition.
---
### Author:  [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/343 "2004-10-17T02:59:17Z")
There are at least two things with which is useless to argue:
!. **Is the person whose mind is already made up.**
and
1. **IGNORANCE !**
Disclaimer: None of the SDMBer are in either of these sad states, of course, it’s just the readers who stumbles in for a look around in the hope of being informed and educated.
I heard a philosopher once say that ordinary folk thought that his kind stood around and talked about the obtuse and threw dust in the air.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/344 "2004-10-17T05:18:14Z")
I feel myself slightly libelled, here, kinda sorta maybe.
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> 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.
As I understand it, the sequence was:
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Lavoissier was one of the greatest scientists in history [despite being wrong about meteors]
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> That scientists make mistakes proves nothing more than… scientists can make mistakes.
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> Yeah, but some people don’t recognise the fact that science makes mistakes. to some people, science is infallible.
> [@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.
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> 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.
At this point, I’m not sure if the “obsessed jerk who hates [you]” is Czarcasm or me. It sure doesn’t _sound_ like me. Truth be told, I’m pretty comfortable using the words “science” and “scientists” interchangably, unless a _specific_ scientist is being discussed, in which case I prefer the more specific term. The only nitpicking I see on this matter is Czarcasm’s (and yours).
And (heh) I don’t actually hate you. In fact, I get the impression Czarcasm feels far more strongly about you than I do.
It’s a mistake to assume I was trying to sneak something past the readers of this thread. My original use of the word “scientists” was with Lavoisier (a man you were the first to mention, as well as describing him specifically as a scientist) in mind. The main reason I used “scientists” instead of “science” was because of the specific example being offered. Consider the following exchanges:
A: Science sometimes gets things wrong.
B: Yes, I agree. Science sometimes makes mistakes.
A: Science sometimes gets things wrong. Look at Lavoisier and his opinion on meteors.
B: Yes, I agree. Scientists [such as Lavoisier] sometimes make mistakes.
Had you not given a specific example, using “science” would’ve been just fine with me.
Your arguments are undermined by accusing your opponents of debating in bad faith (as it were). The amusing this is, you seemed to get angry at Czarcasm and directed some of your wrath my way with no justification whatsoever. Does an ad hominem attack count if it’s directed against the wrong person?
Besides, as I said in my first post to this thread, Randi-bashing is off-topic (in fact, that was the only time I even mentioned Randi) and I prefer instead to discuss how ghosts could be scientifically proven to exist. I’ll cheerfully stipulate that science/scientists make mistakes, but that doesn’t get us any closer to a solution, does it?
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/345 "2004-10-17T05:22:29Z")
> [@spingears](#):
>
> There are at least two things with which is useless to argue:
>
> !. **Is the person whose mind is already made up.**
>
> and
>
> 1. **IGNORANCE !**.
Yeah, but it’s fun to watch them squirm.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/346 "2004-10-17T05:28:25Z")
> [@Musicat](#):
>
> We may have a problem with the definition of “paranormal.” **Peter Morris** may think it means “unexplained.” I don’t give it that broad a category…
No, that’s not my definition. There’s plenty of unexplained things that aren’t paranormal.
In my definition something is paranormal if it is doubted by skeptics.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/347 "2004-10-17T05:36:40Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> No, that’s not my definition. There’s plenty of unexplained things that aren’t paranormal.
>
> In my definition something is paranormal if it is doubted by skeptics.
Well, I’m sure we could find a few skeptics here who doubt the Red Sox have a chance of taking the World Series. I don’t expect a Red Sox victory would be considered “paranormal” by anyone, though, including yourself.
[sub]Go Sox![/sub]
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/348 "2004-10-17T21:33:39Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#):
>
> No, that’s not my definition. There’s plenty of unexplained things that aren’t paranormal.
>
> In my definition something is paranormal if it is doubted by skeptics.
Pheh, I’m doubtful of used car salesmen. Doesn’t make them paranormal.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/349 "2004-10-17T21:48:52Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Pheh, I’m doubtful of used car salesmen. Doesn’t make them paranormal.
Some of them are pretty creepy, though. I sense correlation, rather than causation.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/350 "2004-10-19T22:12:30Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Some of them are pretty creepy, though. I sense correlation, rather than causation.
And this relates to the OP… how?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/351 "2004-10-19T22:16:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Originally Posted by Peter Morris
> No, that’s not my definition. There’s plenty of unexplained things that aren’t paranormal.
>
> In my definition something is paranormal if it is doubted by skeptics.
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Pheh, I’m doubtful of used car salesmen. Doesn’t make them paranormal.
While I don’t agree with Peter’s definition (which is [another thread, BTW.)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5386890#post5386890)
Your smarmy, off the wall comment does nothing to further resolution of the OP. Perhaps you thought you were in the pit?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2004, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/352 "2004-10-19T22:46:35Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Pheh, I’m doubtful of used car salesmen. Doesn’t make them paranormal.
How about an _honest_ used car salesman? 😉
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/353 "2004-10-19T23:26:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> How about an _honest_ used car salesman? 😉
I’ll have to weigh in as a cynic on this one. Never seen proof, therefore they just don’t exist. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/354 "2004-10-20T02:47:44Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> While I don’t agree with Peter’s definition (which is [another thread, BTW.)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5386890#post5386890)
>
> Your smarmy, off the wall comment does nothing to further resolution of the OP. Perhaps you thought you were in the pit?
Its not a direct personal insult, so what is the problem?
You are allowed to target the arguement, you know.
---
### Author:  [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/355 "2004-10-20T03:41:53Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> I’ll have to weigh in as a cynic on this one. Never seen proof, therefore they just don’t exist. 😉
I see you still haven’t looked up the word “cynic.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/356 "2004-10-20T05:13:48Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Its not a direct personal insult, so what is the problem?
>
> You are allowed to target the arguement, you know.
Non sequiter. Allowed (I guess), but irrelevent.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/357 "2004-10-20T05:25:11Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Its not a direct personal insult, so what is the problem?
>
> You are allowed to target the arguement, you know.
BTW, HOW did you ever know I’m a used-car salesman???
I’ve hidden it quite carefuly all these years.
Oh…
You’re psychic…
And you’re trying to hide it from us…
(Me thinks the Miskatonic doth protest, _too_ much!)
So we don’t pull out our 1920’s Style Death Rays…
And [comment deleted because it does not fit the parameters of acceptable posting in "Great Debates’]
Heh, heh, heh. We’re on to you now, you, you, you smarmy _new car salesman_ you!
We have our PLANS! And you CANNOT ESCAPE!
Alert: All agents decode the following and storm into ACTION!
[spoiler]Time for a bit of comic relief. Hope you don’t mind. If you DO mind, no matter, Ming the Merciless will get you ‘in the end…’
Signing off: True Skeptic # 17
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/358 "2004-10-20T05:39:06Z")
> [@Early Out](#):
>
> I see you still haven’t looked up the word “cynic.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
CYNIC: (n.) a faultfinding capitious critic; _esp._ : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest. One who is contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives.
from the Greek, kynikos, lit., like a dog.
Webster good enough for you? Or are you too cynical?
(_sigh_) :rolleyes:
“Next!”
---
### Author:  [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/359 "2004-10-20T06:13:43Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> BTW, HOW did you ever know I’m a used-car salesman???
> I’ve hidden it quite carefuly all these years.
>
> Oh…
>
> You’re psychic…
>
> And you’re trying to hide it from us…
> (Me thinks the Miskatonic doth protest, _too_ much!)
>
> So we don’t pull out our 1920’s Style Death Rays…
>
> And [comment deleted because it does not fit the parameters of acceptable posting in "Great Debates’]
>
> Heh, heh, heh. We’re on to you now, you, you, you smarmy _new car salesman_ you!
>
> We have our PLANS! And you CANNOT ESCAPE!
>
> Alert: All agents decode the following and storm into ACTION!
>
> [spoiler]Time for a bit of comic relief. Hope you don’t mind. If you DO mind, no matter, Ming the Merciless will get you ‘in the end…’
>
> Signing off: True Skeptic # 17
What in God’s name are you talking about? Are you even bothering to put together an argument any more?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2004, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/360 "2004-10-20T08:08:59Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#):
>
> What in God’s name are you talking about? Are you even bothering to put together an argument any more?
What? They don’t believe in 'breaks" down under? Or ‘humor?’
Sad.
This tedious thread needed a humor break. I provided it free of charge.
If it’s not youyr style, you are free to set me to “Ignore,” but you’ll miss some real good stuff!
Lighten up, man. It’s not like we’re nuking Afghanistan or anything!
As my friend **Minty Green** says: “Hey dude, take a Valium. In fact, take a handful!”\*
You’re just too uptight!
- I, however, do not recommend the use of actual prescribed medications except _as prescribed by a medical doctor!_ **Minty Green’s** suggestions are recommended to be taken as a humerous interlude when being undulely upset by postings on a website message board, not an actual recommendation to abuse pharmacologicals.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=17)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=19)