# 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:** 3
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/41 "2004-10-01T00:25:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Let’s keep in mind that it’s not for lack of trying that there is no scientific evidence for the exhistence of ghosts. One would indeed be on shaky ground to say definitifely that extraterrestrial life does not exist, but I think we’re pretty safe on ghosts-- unless there are ET ghosts. 🙂
😃
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/42 "2004-10-01T00:35:59Z")
As always when this question comes up, I must point out that before the OP’s question can even begin to be answered it is necessary to first define the term “ghost” in a scientifically meaningful way, i.e. in a way that is subject to Popperian falsification. Without a defonition of “ghosts,” the question of whether they exist is no more meaningful than asking if Gorps or Bleeks exist. It’s just a nonsense word.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/43 "2004-10-01T01:03:35Z")
Well, we just got **DtC’s** incorrect boilerplate on the matter, so I’ll give mine. (We do a “Ghost = Real?” etc. thread about once every two weeks.)
You don’t start with an exhaustive definition of something and then go looking for it. You start out with unexplained phenomena and build research, experiments, and ultimately words (explanations, etc.) around them.
Cold fusion is a poor example of rejected lab science that people confidently throw out (I have no dog in that fight; just saying that it’s not that simple). The legend is that there was no repeatability; in fact, there has continued to be research and people have continued to get the same unimpressive yet positive results. And funding, too.
Key boilerplate point: The scientific method is not a system for creating logical, mathematical proof. It’s as much sociology as anything else. In a way, it represents a way of twisting other scientists’ thumbs so that they have to admit a certain theory is right (Hey, I got this published in XYZ, so now you can’t say what I say is total bullshit).
Unforunately, you still get a lot of false positives (Freudian psychology) and a lot of false negatives (psi). I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it can be naughty.
And yes, it’s already been proven that ghosts exist, so it is also possible.
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/44 "2004-10-01T01:09:39Z")
True. It may not be possible to define “ghost” in a way that is not trivial and also empirically falsifiable, but I’m not certain of this. Can we come up with a definition of “ghost” that is a reasonable candidate for the lamp-thrower, but can be disproven by observation? By this I mean, something presently unexplainable by what we know of physical laws, but still can be tested by beings constrained by those laws? Observations utilizing the scientific method were proposed above, and it seems to me that if a ghost chose to show itself and be filmed/recorded answering questions, levitating objects, and so forth, that would constitute strong supportive evidence. But even in this example, I don’t have a definition for “ghost”.
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/45 "2004-10-01T01:45:45Z")
I leave for dinner, and look where this thread goes. 😉
> [@](#):
>
> Can we come up with a definition of “ghost” that is a reasonable candidate for the lamp-thrower, but can be disproven by observation?
>
> – **Loopydude**
This is exactly what I mean. Is it possible to create a working definition for those seeking to validate / disprove ghosts?
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/46 "2004-10-01T01:47:36Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> That was already settled in another thread, **Kyth**. You can read through the entire four pages that got us there, but here’s the one page that has the [definition, as provided by Fish.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5157780&postcount=102)
>
> No one has been able to refute it or improve it yet.
Thanks muchly for the link! 🙂
And hey, I’m in training to be a linguist–I don’t think that’s going to pay any more than metaphysics. 😛😃
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/47 "2004-10-01T01:49:21Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> \
>
> And yes, it’s already been proven that ghosts exist, so it is also possible.
Hate to be a bugger, but…
Cite? _is honestly curious_
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/48 "2004-10-01T02:41:52Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> Hate to be a bugger, but…
>
> Cite? _is honestly curious_
At last! Proof of the existence of an afterlife! I presume that **Aeschines** will be busy applying for his $1,000,000 prize immediately over on the JREF site.
How do you plan to spend the money, **Aeschines**?
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/49 "2004-10-01T03:04:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> At last! Proof of the existence of an afterlife! I presume that **Aeschines** will be busy applying for his $1,000,000 prize immediately over on the JREF site.
> How do you plan to spend the money, **Aeschines**?
Oh yes, new members: this is SDMB boilerplate in every paranormal thread: if [phenomena x] were real, someone would have claimed Randi’s prize by now.
Someone as intelligent as Czar should be less fain to make this argument, but every such thread is like this.
For cites galore by me and others on both sides of the issue, see any of the 15,560 threads dealing with ghosts, psi, etc., blah.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/50 "2004-10-01T03:07:00Z")
Threads just chock full of _claims_ of proof, and equally chock full of people disappearing when the actual proof is asked for.
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/51 "2004-10-01T03:11:18Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Oh yes, new members: this is SDMB boilerplate in every paranormal thread: if [phenomena x] were real, someone would have claimed Randi’s prize by now.
>
> Someone as intelligent as Czar should be less fain to make this argument, but every such thread is like this.
>
> For cites galore by me and others on both sides of the issue, see any of the 15,560 threads dealing with ghosts, psi, etc., blah.
Randi’s prize? _even more curious_
And what kind of proof do you mean? Real scientific stuff? Documented cases?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/52 "2004-10-01T03:15:55Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> Randi’s prize? _even more curious_
>
> And what kind of proof do you mean? Real scientific stuff? Documented cases?
Easy money, if what **Aeschines** claims is true, can be found [here.](http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/53 "2004-10-01T03:18:02Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> Hate to be a bugger, but…
>
> Cite? _is honestly curious_
BTW, welcome to the SDMB, the greatest message board on the Net. I hope you enjoy your stay as a guest, pay the highly minimal fee, and join us for good. You seem to be doing well in GD thus far, and the call of Cite! is entirely justified.
I’ve argued my position in many threads before on this very topic. Basically, the photographic, audio, and other physical evidence for ghosts is overwhelming. You can find pics, famous and amateur all over the net. Skeptics call it all fraud and error.
The theory of ghosts is also solid and jibes nicely with what we know about the afterlife. Mediums confirm details, etc. Of course, the skeptics guffaw.
On a personal level, I finally _saw_ the ghost that I had heard before in a bedroom in my mom’s house. I was getting up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, and it looked like a ribbon-y flash in the middle of the room. “Oh, my eyes and the light playing tricks,” I thought. But then, as I reached the door, the same kind of shape rushed passed me into the hall with blinding speed.
Here’s an example of jibing: it looked like the kind of shape that appears in spirit photography all the time. Now I know what I’ve seen. But skeptics call this “anecdotal evidence” and discount it, no matter how many people have had the same type of experience. This stricture agasint _so-called_ anecdotal evidence is one the biggest canards of their philosophy and has no validity vis-a-vis the scientific method. It is simply used ad hoc to invalidate undesired phenomena.
In 2002 I also heard a very clear voice in the same room. Actually, instead of clear, it was really _loud._ Just one word, which sounded like “Mine.” But not definite. Then, later that night, when I walked into the hall, I heard three loud raps on the wall right next to me and right in a row; the kind of sounds that a creaky old house can’t produce.
So, the skeptics will call me nuts, and people here normally quite nice and reasonable can be extremely vicious in this regard. But if I’m nuts, why would I have heard a ghost only once in my life in that room, then two years later see a ghost in that room–without similar “hallucinations” elsewhere and at other times?
BTW, of course my experience alone does not equal proof. But millions of people around the world have had similar experiences, which all add up to a remarkably consistent and coherent story. And then the physical evidence backs that up.
I work with paranormal invetigators who encounter and collect hard evidence on a regular basis. I know them and trust them. To us, this stuff is all just as plain as day–no controversy whatsoever. But the phenomena blow away the physicalist-atheist worldview of the skeptics, and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their meme. Why? I don’t know, but memes are like that.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/54 "2004-10-01T03:20:24Z")
Czar, really, the Randi’s prize argument is soooo cheesy!
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/55 "2004-10-01T03:26:24Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> BTW, welcome to the SDMB, the greatest message board on the Net. I hope you enjoy your stay as a guest, pay the highly minimal fee, and join us for good. You seem to be doing well in GD thus far, and the call of Cite! is entirely justified.
>
> I’ve argued my position in many threads before on this very topic. Basically, the photographic, audio, and other physical evidence for ghosts is overwhelming. You can find pics, famous and amateur all over the net. Skeptics call it all fraud and error.
>
> The theory of ghosts is also solid and jibes nicely with what we know about the afterlife. Mediums confirm details, etc. Of course, the skeptics guffaw.
>
> On a personal level, I finally _saw_ the ghost that I had heard before in a bedroom in my mom’s house. I was getting up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, and it looked like a ribbon-y flash in the middle of the room. “Oh, my eyes and the light playing tricks,” I thought. But then, as I reached the door, the same kind of shape rushed passed me into the hall with blinding speed.
>
> Here’s an example of jibing: it looked like the kind of shape that appears in spirit photography all the time. Now I know what I’ve seen. But skeptics call this “anecdotal evidence” and discount it, no matter how many people have had the same type of experience. This stricture agasint _so-called_ anecdotal evidence is one the biggest canards of their philosophy and has no validity vis-a-vis the scientific method. It is simply used ad hoc to invalidate undesired phenomena.
>
> In 2002 I also heard a very clear voice in the same room. Actually, instead of clear, it was really _loud._ Just one word, which sounded like “Mine.” But not definite. Then, later that night, when I walked into the hall, I heard three loud raps on the wall right next to me and right in a row; the kind of sounds that a creaky old house can’t produce.
>
> So, the skeptics will call me nuts, and people here normally quite nice and reasonable can be extremely vicious in this regard. But if I’m nuts, why would I have heard a ghost only once in my life in that room, then two years later see a ghost in that room–without similar “hallucinations” elsewhere and at other times?
>
> BTW, of course my experience alone does not equal proof. But millions of people around the world have had similar experiences, which all add up to a remarkably consistent and coherent story. And then the physical evidence backs that up.
>
> I work with paranormal invetigators who encounter and collect hard evidence on a regular basis. I know them and trust them. To us, this stuff is all just as plain as day–no controversy whatsoever. But the phenomena blow away the physicalist-atheist worldview of the skeptics, and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their meme. Why? I don’t know, but memes are like that.
Thanks! 🙂 I love reading the articles by Cecil, and then I saw the message board–and I was hooked!
You’re so nice, now I feel like a complete :wally for saying this…
Your real-life experiences (the apparition, the voice, the raps) sorta jibe with my fictional experience of the lamp being flung across the room. We both believe 100% there’s a ghost behind it–but is there?
The behaviours we’ve both correlate with the attributes of what ghosts look like and do. A scientist would make this observation and then try to negate all other possibilities (i.e. we’re winding people up, we’re crazy, there’s a natural explanation).
Until the scientist has done that–eliminated all the other proofs, had his work reviewed, and had other scientists repeat his experiment–it seems like a stretch to say it’s a ghost.
I’m not disparaging you at all–you make a really thoughtful, intelligent point. Just my thoughts on the subject…
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/56 "2004-10-01T03:28:19Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> The behaviours we’ve both correlate with the attributes of what ghosts look like and do. A scientist would make this observation and then try to negate all other possibilities (i.e. we’re winding people up, we’re crazy, there’s a natural explanation).
>
> Until the scientist has done that–eliminated all the other proofs, had his work reviewed, and had other scientists repeat his experiment–it seems like a stretch to say it’s a ghost.
behaviours we’ve both **seen**
to say **conclusively**
:smack:
A ghost did it! I swear!
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/57 "2004-10-01T03:30:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Threads just chock full of _claims_ of proof, and equally chock full of people disappearing when the actual proof is asked for.
Yeah, right. I’m about the only one who’s bothered to take this side of the debate for the past year, and I’ve usually stuck it out pretty long each time, so the above statement isn’t very accurate.
I’m hardly a paranormal expert, and my resources are limited to web links. My sole purpose in these debates is to make sure that posters like our guest understand that there a lot of people out there doing research, and they get pics, audio, and movies all the time. All of which is instantly declared fraudulent, without any evidence of fraud, by the skeptics here.
If you think we’d have a better debate if I just didn’t bother posting, please let me know. I personally know one major expert, but I’m not going to post about him and his work only to have him laughed at and trashed on this site. I respect him as a friend.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/58 "2004-10-01T03:30:47Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Czar, really, the Randi’s prize argument is soooo cheesy!
Which argument this time?
1. He doesn’t really have the money!
2. He doesn’t really intend to distribute the money!
3. I’ve got nothing to prove to _you_!
4. I don’t need $1,000,000.
5. The money comes from an evil source.
6. The thoughtwaves of skeptics scare away the ghosts.
7. Unlike Randi and his ilk, I accept the anecdotes(NOT “anecdotes”) of complete strangers, because I can’t think of a single reason why people would lie about something like that, and there is no possible way for (usually blurry) photographs to be faked, and it’s much more plausable for a ghost to make a strange noise in the middle of the night than to lay the blame on some mysterious essence some call “the wind.”
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/59 "2004-10-01T03:46:33Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> You’re so nice, now I feel like a complete :wally for saying this…
Not at all. Debate hard, debate fun. I used to get really pissed at people here, and sometimes they can be bastards in the paranormal threads. But now I have a soft spot for Czar, Diogenes, SentientMeat, and I dares ay that now and then they find something to like in me as well. 😕
> [@](#):
>
> Your real-life experiences (the apparition, the voice, the raps) sorta jibe with my fictional experience of the lamp being flung across the room. We both believe 100% there’s a ghost behind it–but is there?
We get people reporting the same phenomena across cultures around the world. I found my recent experience interesting because the ribbon shapes look like what we see in photographs a lot. If all these things never showed up on physical media, we could call them perceptual “goofs” common to hummanity; but they do show up. This plus the very good hypothesis that ghosts are the confused remnants of the dead (which has generated many other verifiable hypotheses) makes it all seem like a no-brainer to me. But YMMV.
> [@](#):
>
> The behaviours we’ve both correlate with the attributes of what ghosts look like and do. A scientist would make this observation and then try to negate all other possibilities (i.e. we’re winding people up, we’re crazy, there’s a natural explanation).
Well, it _is_ a natural explanation, jibbing perfectly with what we’ve learned from NDEs about death and the afterlife. As to eliminating all other explanations, that’s not how the scientific method works. If I want to prove that a neutron star has neutrons in it, I am not required to prove that it doesn’t have peanut butter in it. Or grape jelly, apricot preserves, etc. You observe the phenomena, form a hypothesis, collect data, etc. Where exactly has the ghost hypothesis failed the scientific method? Only on the sociological level, owing to the fact that all things labeled “spiritual” were thrown out with the bathwater when the scientific community rejected the dogma of Christianity (as they should have). It has taken a long time for the pendulum to begin to swing back, but that’s happening now.
> [@](#):
>
> Until the scientist has done that–eliminated all the other proofs, had his work reviewed, and had other scientists repeat his experiment–it seems like a stretch to say it’s a ghost.
Of course it does. Because of the prevailing worldview right now. But the world has become schizoid because so many people believe in ghosts, psi, and other “verboten” phenomena while the scientists but thumb, finger, and other bodily members in the dike while it leaks all the while. Something’s gotta give, and it is giving. For example, many countries are less comitted to the physicalist agenda than the US. It seems to me that the paranormal is on the verge of being “approved” by the scientific community in Japan. I could be wrong, though.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not disparaging you at all–you make a really thoughtful, intelligent point. Just my thoughts on the subject…
I see it as primarily a sociological and political issue at this point. People are free to connect or not connect the dots, as they please.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/60 "2004-10-01T03:50:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Which argument this time?
You’re punching hard but not accurately. I’ve gone over the whole Randi thing in other threads, and none of what you wrote applies to what I’ve said in the past, so what gives?
The whole Randi argument is just a diversion like the SBVFT–the arguer for the “paranormal” (usually just little ol’ me ☹ ) then has to argue the original topic PLUS get into the whole shebang about Randi’s joke of a prize.
I ain’t biting. Quote my old posts if you’re really interested.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=4)