# 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:** 4
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/61 "2004-10-01T03:56:47Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> 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. đ 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 âgoofsâ 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.Well, it _is_ a natural explanation, jibbing perfectly with what weâve learned from NDEs about death and the afterlife. As to eliminating all other explanations, thatâs 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 doesnât 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 âspiritualâ 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 thatâs happening now.
> 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 âverbotenâ phenomena while the scientists but thumb, finger, and other bodily members in the dike while it leaks all the while. Somethingâs 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 âapprovedâ by the scientific community in Japan. I could be wrong, though.
> 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.
Hey, I like you lots! đ
About NDEs: As much as Iâm a faithful Christian and believe in the afterlife, I have to doubt the accuracy of NDEs, merely because my (admittedly stubborn) mind holds out that if youâre not dead deadâi.e. no pulse, no vital signs, nothingâyouâre still alive. Most people report NDEs while dying, but not (obviously) dead.
The ghost hypothesis is so tenuous, I think, because so much of the hypothesis is difficultâalmost impossibleâto prove. Ghosts = confused remnants of the dead, for example, is very hard to prove.
And hey, not all scientists have thrown out the dogma of Christianity. Some people I know are the most logical, clear-thinking scientists and faithful believers. (Not prostelyzingâdid I spell that right?âjust saying.) đ
For the most part, I think that the scientific community is working on negating the other variables in their evaluations of ghostsâtheyâre working on disproving all other explanations. When you have some cases that canât be explained any other way, then you have the start of something.
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/62 "2004-10-01T03:57:55Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> That was already settled in another thread, **Kyth**. You can read through the entire four pages that got us there, but hereâs 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.
If I could step in here for a moment and observe that the definition I provided was done under duress.
It is, in short, a fancy way of saying that a ghost is _like_ interacting with a human being, but minus the human beingâs physical presence. Or, a âghostâ is all of the observed phenomena **Aeschines** loves to point at, minus the ones which have **proved** to be error, fraud, accident, etc.
My definition does **not** say anything about souls, death, the moon landing, reincarnation, psychic talent, skeptics, spoon-bending, Bigfoot, the shape of the Earth, near-death experiences, or why thereâs never enough ketchup left in the packet for a full order of fries. My definition only encapsulates a description of the superficial observable qualities of a phenomenon, without trying to postulate any explanation: that which we _have not_ explained, but which may be possible to explain in the future.
Yes, by my definition, âghostsâ exist. I do **not** personally believe that it logically follows that there are disembodied human spirits roaming the world looking for lamps to throw and chains to rattle. Unexplained != spirits of the dead.
This isnât a thread about whether ghosts _do_ exist so Iâll leave it at that.
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/63 "2004-10-01T04:09:52Z")
> [@Fish](#):
>
> If I could step in here for a moment and observe that the definition I provided was done under duress.
>
> It is, in short, a fancy way of saying that a ghost is _like_ interacting with a human being, but minus the human beingâs physical presence. Or, a âghostâ is all of the observed phenomena **Aeschines** loves to point at, minus the ones which have **proved** to be error, fraud, accident, etc.
>
> My definition does **not** say anything about souls, death, the moon landing, reincarnation, psychic talent, skeptics, spoon-bending, Bigfoot, the shape of the Earth, near-death experiences, or why thereâs never enough ketchup left in the packet for a full order of fries. My definition only encapsulates a description of the superficial observable qualities of a phenomenon, without trying to postulate any explanation: that which we _have not_ explained, but which may be possible to explain in the future.
>
> Yes, by my definition, âghostsâ exist. I do **not** personally believe that it logically follows that there are disembodied human spirits roaming the world looking for lamps to throw and chains to rattle. Unexplained != spirits of the dead.
>
> This isnât a thread about whether ghosts _do_ exist so Iâll leave it at that.
I hear ya. đ
I think the problem with the hypothesis is weâre seeing different parts of it: thereâs the âghosts throw things around, make spooky noises, are coldâ part, and then thereâs the âghosts are disembodied spirits of the deadâ part.
It all depends on what you want to include in your definition of a ghost, I guess.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/64 "2004-10-01T04:12:39Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Czar, really, the Randiâs prize argument is soooo cheesy!
Agreed, and overdone.
Loved your discourse, **Aeschines** , I wish I was still as erudite.
âThe Amazing Randiâ started as a carnival huckster, and somehow, no matter how hard he tries, for intelligent people, that image clings to him like limpets.
And, he continues to reinforce it.
Participant for the $1,000,000 prize: There!
Randi: (Slight of hand) Oops, you missed here, here, and here. Did you read the fine print???
Participant: Huh? Where did that cigar come from?
**Czar** , you can do better.
---
### Author:  [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/65 "2004-10-01T04:20:56Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> After gibbering and cowering and hiding in the closet for a minute or two, how could I proveâscientifically, concretely, absolutely, 100% beyond a doubtâthat I have a ghost in my room throwing a lamp?
If I could summon this ghost at will in an auditorium packed with scientists on international TV live, and these scientists could offer no other explanation, this would be significant.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/66 "2004-10-01T04:21:58Z")
And you can quit using strawman arguments against the challenge and actually _take_ it. It is so easy to âwinâ an argument when you make up both sides of a debate, but reality doesnât work that way. I suggest that **Kythereia** actually go to the link I provided and read the challenge. If she has a problem with the actual challenge(NOT the massive distortion provided so far), Iâm sure sheâll let us know.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/67 "2004-10-01T04:23:13Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> Hey, I like you lots! đ
And I thank you.
> [@](#):
>
> About NDEs: As much as Iâm a faithful Christian and believe in the afterlife, I have to doubt the accuracy of NDEs, merely because my (admittedly stubborn) mind holds out that if youâre not dead deadâi.e. no pulse, no vital signs, nothingâyouâre still alive. Most people report NDEs while dying, but not (obviously) dead.
You have to take them for what they are: theyâre called _near_-death for a reason. I donât think even the skeptics here would say that the phenomena arenât extremely important for understanding consciousness. No matter what they are or arenât, theyâre amazing. I find them compelling evidence for the afterlife. Others disagree.
> [@](#):
>
> The ghost hypothesis is so tenuous, I think, because so much of the hypothesis is difficultâalmost impossibleâto prove. Ghosts = confused remnants of the dead, for example, is very hard to prove.
Perhaps, but skeptics deny the phenomena themselves, because they know that if they admit that an âorbâ was captured on filmâa tiny thing like thatâthe floodgates are open.
> [@](#):
>
> And hey, not all scientists have thrown out the dogma of Christianity. Some people I know are the most logical, clear-thinking scientists and faithful believers. (Not prostelyzingâdid I spell that right?âjust saying.) đ
No, I havenât found that faith gets in the way of rational thoughtâunless the dogma specifically prohibits belief in a particular phenomenon, etc. These days the blinders belong equally to theists and atheists and sometimes even find their way onto the heads of New Agers like me. đ
> [@](#):
>
> For the most part, I think that the scientific community is working on negating the other variables in their evaluations of ghostsâtheyâre working on disproving all other explanations. When you have some cases that canât be explained any other way, then you have the start of something.
Uh, well, I donât think most scientists are thinking about it at all. As for âsome cases,â Iâm not sure what you mean. The kind of video footage and EVPs that people get these days is pretty in-your-face and not rare at all. But like I said, skeptics wonât even recognize the existence of the phenomena.
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/68 "2004-10-01T04:23:34Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#):
>
> If I could summon this ghost at will in an auditorium packed with scientists on international TV live, and these scientists could offer no other explanation, this would be significant.
:o đđ
I know, you need observations that can be checked for accuracy. This, hopefully, is what some scientists are working on with paranormal phenomenon right now.
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/69 "2004-10-01T04:28:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> And you can quit using strawman arguments against the challenge and actually _take_ it. It is so easy to âwinâ an argument when you make up both sides of a debate, but reality doesnât work that way. I suggest that **Kythereia** actually go to the link I provided and read the challenge. If she has a problem with the actual challenge(NOT the massive distortion provided so far), Iâm sure sheâll let us know.
I did, and the whole thing sounds reasonable to me, but I wish I could actually see proof being processed by the expertsâŚ
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/70 "2004-10-01T04:28:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> I suggest that **Kythereia** actually go to the link I provided and read the challenge. If she has a problem with the actual challenge(NOT the massive distortion provided so far), Iâm sure sheâll let us know.
If Randi wants his thing to be taken seriously, he needs to make a case file to see how each applicant has failed. Iâve seen one case about a dowser and commented on that extensively in a thread way back (nutshell: dowser was pretty pathetic, but the test was too stringent by far, statistically speaking).
I have searched for such a case file on the site. If Iâve missed it and thereâs a link, please post it.
Otherwise, weâve just got to take Râs word that these people arenât pathetic losers like the dowser to begin with and that R is treating them fairly.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/71 "2004-10-01T04:30:39Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#):
>
> If I could summon this ghost at will in an auditorium packed with scientists on international TV live, and these scientists could offer no other explanation, this would be significant.
Yeah, and if Uri Gellar could actually _do his feats in a lab with credible scientists watching and cameras rolling_ then that would be significant!
Been there, done that. Doesnât work.
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/72 "2004-10-01T04:32:49Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> And I thank you.You have to take them for what they are: theyâre called _near_-death for a reason. I donât think even the skeptics here would say that the phenomena arenât extremely important for understanding consciousness. No matter what they are or arenât, theyâre amazing. I find them compelling evidence for the afterlife. Others disagree.Perhaps, but skeptics deny the phenomena themselves, because they know that if they admit that an âorbâ was captured on filmâa tiny thing like thatâthe floodgates are open.
> No, I havenât found that faith gets in the way of rational thoughtâunless the dogma specifically prohibits belief in a particular phenomenon, etc. These days the blinders belong equally to theists and atheists and sometimes even find their way onto the heads of New Agers like me. đ
> Uh, well, I donât think most scientists are thinking about it at all. As for âsome cases,â Iâm not sure what you mean. The kind of video footage and EVPs that people get these days is pretty in-your-face and not rare at all. But like I said, skeptics wonât even recognize the existence of the phenomena.
NDEs: Theyâre cool and fantastic, and theyâre definitely worth investigation, but itâs also very hard to prove that the light at the end of the tunnel is a gateway or passage into the next life. All others have to rely on that it actually took place is the personâs word that they saw this, and then youâd have to set about proving that the light _was_ indicative of heaven, or nirvana, or wherever.
I donât think all skeptics are stonewalling about the existence of the paranormalâI think there is research in this area continuing, and that itâll turn up some remarkable results. đ
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/73 "2004-10-01T04:33:34Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Yeah, and if Uri Gellar could actually _do his feats in a lab with credible scientists watching and cameras rolling_ then that would be significant!
>
> Been there, done that. Doesnât work.
Donât you mean âBeen there, done that poorly, he was caught cheating, and the poorly done tests were never duplicated by independent sources.â?
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/74 "2004-10-01T04:34:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Donât you mean âBeen there, done that poorly, he was caught cheating, and the poorly done tests were never duplicated by independent sources.â?
Forgive my ignorance, Modman of the Underoos (Iâve been reading the boards for a loooong time :D)âŚ
whoâs Uri Gellar?
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/75 "2004-10-01T04:39:09Z")
Many modern ghost hunters use modern technology to try to detect ghosts. Things like magnetometers for example will show strong spikes when a ghost is supposedly present. They also use temperature guages as temperature supposedly goes down if a ghost is present. Others have used cassette recorders set to a certain frequency and claimed to have gotten messages by doing that.
[http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNN/DailyNews/wnn\_ghosts020917.html](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNN/DailyNews/wnn_ghosts020917.html)
According to this article until methods of detecting consciousness in the living are developed (we donât have them yet) detecting it in the dead will be impossible. However if you combine electromagnetic fluctuations with temperature fluctuations with abnormal sights and sounds on audio and video recordings then you have at least something to work on.
Here is an interesting site on audiorecordings.
[http://www.mcmsys.com/~brammer/ourbest.htm](http://www.mcmsys.com/~brammer/ourbest.htm)
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/76 "2004-10-01T04:40:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Donât you mean âBeen there, done that poorly, he was caught cheating, and the poorly done tests were never duplicated by independent sources.â?
I would like to see the cite in which Gellar is accused of cheating in the lab.
Not just saying it, I actually read these things and try to understand both sides. From what Iâve read, Gellar did well in the lab and has bent keys in the hands of many famous people (Werner von Braun is listed as an example on UGâs website) _without even touching them himself._
And then the keys continue to curl up even after Gellar has left the room, etc. Iâd like to know how he pulls that off.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/77 "2004-10-01T04:40:59Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> I donât think all skeptics are stonewalling about the existence of the paranormalâI think there is research in this area continuing, and that itâll turn up some remarkable results. đ
If you find a self-described âskepticâ who isnât stonewalling, please let me know. They are rare and valuable!
Most who called themselves âskepticsâ are actually functional cynics. Tread carefully, trust marginally. Be a true âskepticâ yourself. Demand proof, but remember to examine the proof that is presented, and not dismiss it because âIf it were true Randi would have awarded them the money.â
Be neither quick to accept or reject results. Examine, study, and withhold judgement until YOU are ready to decide.
Donât let the cynics-calling-themselves-skeptics bully you. They will, if you let them.
SnakeS
---
### Author:  [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/78 "2004-10-01T04:41:33Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#):
>
> Many modern ghost hunters use modern technology to try to detect ghosts. Things like magnetometers for example will show strong spikes when a ghost is supposedly present. They also use temperature guages as temperature supposedly goes down if a ghost is present. Others have used cassette recorders set to a certain frequency and claimed to have gotten messages by doing that.
>
> [http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNN/DailyNews/wnn\_ghosts020917.html](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNN/DailyNews/wnn_ghosts020917.html)
>
> According to this article until methods of detecting consciousness in the living are developed (we donât have them yet) detecting it in the dead will be impossible. However if you combine electromagnetic fluctuations with temperature fluctuations with abnormal sights and sounds on audio and video recordings then you have at least something to work on.
>
> Here is an interesting site on audiorecordings.
>
> [Voices on the Wind, Our BEST "Clearest" EVP Files!](http://www.mcmsys.com/~brammer/ourbest.htm)
Thanks so muchâfascinating stuff! đ
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/79 "2004-10-01T04:42:39Z")
[http://www.uri-geller.com/](http://www.uri-geller.com/)
I am not a Geller fanatic or anything. It just seems that his rather limited range of claimsâhe can bend metal, sprout seeds: he at least hasnât changed his story over the yearsâseems correct and backed up with plenty of proof.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/80 "2004-10-01T04:42:46Z")
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> Forgive my ignorance, Modman of the Underoos (Iâve been reading the boards for a loooong time :D)âŚ
>
> whoâs Uri Gellar?
Just type the name into your favorite search engine, stand back, and be amazed at what some people will do to grab a little publicity.
Anything else of value I have to say about him would have to go in The BBQ Pit.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=5)