# 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:** 7
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/121 "2004-10-01T18:14:37Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> Or they may simply be bored to tears with the persistent masturbatory ramblings…
As opposed to punctuated masturbatory ambushes?
> [@](#):
>
> …of an unregenerate epistemic relativist
If you’re going to attempt to hurl veiled insults in this forum, hurl them precisely: I am an unregenerate _normative_ epsitemic relativist.
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/122 "2004-10-01T18:20:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> I am an unregenerate _normative_ epsitemic relativist.
Oh, well, that changes _everything_.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/123 "2004-10-01T18:32:45Z")
Well, there you are. Try to keep your wits about you in the future.
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/124 "2004-10-01T18:44:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Try to keep your wits about you in the future.
Supremely lame…
Anyhoo, moving right along, any progress on coming up with a non-trivial-yet-empirically-falsifiable definition of a ghost, anybody?
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/125 "2004-10-01T18:56:33Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> Anyhoo, moving right along, any progress on coming up with a non-trivial-yet-empirically-falsifiable definition of a ghost, anybody?
Up next, a non-trivial-yet-Biblically-verifiable definition of a red blood cell having no hemoglobin.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/126 "2004-10-01T20:03:17Z")
> [@Fish](#):
>
> I would be curious to see if any real “ghost sighting” claims can be found, written by the witness himself, from various eras to see if they, perhaps, display more objective consistency than what I read above. Even more fictional accounts would help to chart “ghostness” through the ages. I’m not sure that I will accept the blanket statement that “millions of reports of (what I’m calling) ghost phenomena throughout history…show remarkable consistency across eras and cultures” because from this small random sample of contemporary fiction, it doesn’t appear to be true except in the most gross of generalities.
**Fish** , I have to reject the idea that fictional account of ghosts mean anything more than fictional accounts of spaceships. Despite your lenghty, time-consuming posts, I think we have to stick to actual observance on this one, and even that will be fraught with observations that people only thought were ghosts, and would have to be carefully sifted.
Nice idea, though!
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/127 "2004-10-01T20:14:25Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Geller never did that.
>
> Targ & Puthoff have demonstrated that they were not ‘credible’ by any stretch of the imagination.
Cite?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/128 "2004-10-01T20:19:04Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Its not like they have infinite resources. These things do take time and effort, and the JREF doesn’t have a hoard of employees.
This is a pretty weak argument considering that Randi had a spare million dollars to put in trust in case a real psychic ever came along.
Or was that his last million?
Randi’s best talent, remember, is deceiving people.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/129 "2004-10-01T20:38:40Z")
> [@CurtC](#):
>
> As Randi has said many times, the people who apply for the test mostly fall into one of two categories:
>
> 1. “Nutsos” as you call them. People who are simply delusional. See the threads at Randi’s forums concering [http://alienrockwherediditcomefrom.com](http://alienrockwherediditcomefrom.com) , with someone who goes by the forum user name DALTON.
>
> 2. Dowsers. They really believe they have these powers, and are truly surprised when they fail the controlled tests.
>
> For the most part, no one else even applies. Why? The simple answer I can think of is that they know they’re lying. You say that Randi ought to be testing more people, but they have to apply for the test.
Wow! Talk about a sucker punch!
If one can only think of a simple answer then one must assume the workings of a simple mind…
There’s hundreds of people who have had, and believe in their psychic experiences. Some don’t have enough control for testing. Others can’t perform with the accuracy required for the test, and know that. Some just aren’t replicable.
But no, you have to imply that every psychic is lying.
So much for simple answers.
Got a simple answer for nuclear physics, too?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/130 "2004-10-01T20:41:36Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> Anyhoo, moving right along, any progress on coming up with a non-trivial-yet-empirically-falsifiable definition of a ghost, anybody?
_A_ ghost? You mean there’s only one type of ghost?
And how did you come to this amazing conclusion?
Supremely lame…
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/131 "2004-10-01T21:00:11Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> This is a pretty weak argument considering that Randi had a spare million dollars to put in trust in case a real psychic ever came along.
That money is the operating fund of the JREF. It works off the interest of that fund (plus donations). When you do the economics, it ain’t that much.
> [@](#):
>
> Or was that his last million?
>
> Randi’s best talent, remember, is deceiving people.
Oooh. Thought that up all by yourself did ya?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/132 "2004-10-01T21:09:04Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Cite?
[http://66.221.71.68/nature.htm](http://66.221.71.68/nature.htm)
The editorial the Nature ran prefacing the paper by T&P. T&P have since avoided mention of this damning editorial.
> [@](#):
>
> There was agreement that the paper was weak in design and presentation, to the extent that details given as to the precise way in which the experiment was carried out were disconcertingly vague. The referees felt that insufficient account had been taken of the established methodology of experimental psychology and that in the form originally submitted the paper would be unlikely to be accepted for publication in a psychological journal on these grounds alone. Two referees also felt that the authors had not taken into account the lessons learnt in the past by parapsychologists researching this tricky and complicated area.
>
> (2) The three referees were particularly critical of the method of target selection used, pointing out that the choice of a target by “opening a dictionary at random” is a naive, vague and unnecessarily controversial approach to randomisation. Parapsychologists have long rejected such methods of target selection and, as one referee put it weaknesses of this kind reveal “a lack of skill in their experiments, which might have caused them to make some other mistake which is less evident from their writing”.
>
> (3) All the referees felt that the details given of various safeguards and precautions introduced against the possibility of conscious or unconscious fraud on the part of one or other of the subjects were “uncomfortably vague” (to use one phrase). This in itself might be sufficient to raise doubt that the experiments have demonstrated the existence of a new channel of communication which does not involve the use of the senses.
>
> (4) Two of the referees felt that it was a pity that the paper, instead of concentrating in detail and with meticulous care on one particular approach. to extra-sensory phenomena, produced a mixture of different experiments, using different subjects in unconnected circumstances and with only a tenuous overall theme. At the best these were more “a series of pilot studies . . . than a report of a completed experiment”.
>
> On their own these highly critical comments could be grounds for rejection of the paper…
In addition, two of Randi’s books have damning criticisms of their methodology (Truth about URi Geller and Flim-Flam), as have several of Martin Gardener’s books.
Now don’t get me wrong, when T&P were working in their respective fields of training (physics) they probably did fine. However they have only done goofy woowoo stuff since Geller, look up their efforts with Inigo Swann, and Zero point energy. Not marks of effectiveness.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/133 "2004-10-01T21:10:50Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Oooh. Thought that up all by yourself did ya?
No. I got it off his website.
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/134 "2004-10-01T21:37:47Z")
Snake, the Uri Geller thing should have been settled ten years ago, if not a decade earlier. The major difference between Randi and Geller is Randi admits his act is an illusion meant to entertain. Geller is a bona fide crook, and I wonder if your name shouldn’t be Snake_oil_ if you still take that moonshine seriously. I mean, wasn’t the whole CSICOP debacle enough of an embarassment? Must we _really_ keep dredging up this sort of twaddle as if it had any further use or applicability to anything beyond illustrating the escapades of frauds and conterfeits. The evidence against Geller was always _overwhelming_, and if all you can do to enhance the discussion is offer repetitious smear tactics (“He’s a magician! Pants on fire!”), I have to ask, what’s the point? Really, what on Earth can you possibly get out it?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/135 "2004-10-02T03:34:40Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> Snake, the Uri Geller thing should have been settled ten years ago, if not a decade earlier.
Really, yet it persists, why? Why won’t it go away like the cynics wish?
Well, let’s look at the cite mentioned:
> [@](#):
>
> some people can read thoughts or see things remotely.
> Such a claim is, of course, bound to be greeted with a \*preconditioned reaction \* amongst many scientists.
Emphasis mine. 🙂
> [@](#):
>
> But to a few - \*\*though perhaps to more than is realised - \*\* the questions are still unanswered, and any evidence of high quality is worth a critical examination.
ibid.
> [@](#):
>
> We have also corresponded informally with the authors on one or two issues such as whether the targets could have been forced by standard magical tricks\*\*\*, and are convinced that this is not the case\*\*\*.
And this is the cite by which **Mr. M** declared:
> [@](#):
>
> Targ & Puthoff have demonstrated that they were not ‘credible’ by any stretch of the imagination.
Uh…
I don’t think so…
It might have been more useful to reference [Targ & Puthoff’s original report site.](http://66.221.71.68/sria.htm) In which the scientists dis various configurations of the same experiment, and achieved positive results when UG was not isolated with a faraday cage, but negative results when he was. Possible evidenct for the electrical nature of non-physical information transfer.
From these sites, sorry, neither T&P or UG have been disproven or discrecited, in fact they poin to the need for further investigation.
Unless you have some other insights relevent???
I worked with Ingo (not Inigio) Swann and Ed Mitchell during the 1970’s on several investigative projects. These projects did _not_ support the presence of PSI, nor did they support Ingo Swann’s claims of psychic sensitivity. To toss the baby out with the bathwater, though, is akin to dismissing Babe Ruth’s claim to fame when he has a bad season. One exercise is not enough to prove or disprove anything. – that is unless one knows all the variables, and no one has made _that_ claim yet.
In short: So what? You ain’t showed me nuthin’ of substance.
And what does this have to do with the OP anyway?
SnakeS forever
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/136 "2004-10-02T04:30:17Z")
I didn’t want to freight my statement with baggage of “right” or “wrong,” **Aeschines** , much less with “sane” or “crazy” as you appear to have added. Can we agree upon a bias-neutral phrasing? I only wanted to suggest that eyes, ears and minds do not all process input and get the same result.
If we were attempting to detect the motion of a distant star, we would obtain the finest telescope available and calibrate it and re-calibrate it until we could be certain it had no internal optical faults. If we wished to detect a tiny earthquake we could produce a seismograph worthy of the task and equip it with the best sensors we could obtain.
I believe if we are serious about detecting or investigating ghosts, we _must_ investigate our available recording devices: our own eyes and ears and minds. Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated in the most basic classroom tests that eyewitness accounts, especially those under stress, are amazingly inconsistent, even among people who were all present and paying attention. In the afterglow of a bright light our eyes see things which are no longer there; in the right light we even see our own blood vessels.
This suggests to me that our human, organic ghost-detecting equipment is not very consistent. Two avenues of exploration become available: first, some kind of battery of visual perceptive tests which can check subjects for their ability to see and/or appreciate abstract imagery, optical illusions, and composition, and other visual tests (speed of pattern recognition, perhaps… inkblots?) designed to see if there is any correlation among the visual abilities of Those Who See Ghosts, and test again for Those Who Can’t.
Second, we must find a more reliable way to detect ghost phenomena than what is currently available. Photo evidence abounds; sadly, it is so easily cheated in these days that it would take years to wade through it all.
Regarding the citations I posted from different periods of fiction, **SnakeSpirit** , yes, I know they were from fiction. I said so. I said so explicitly and I said that authors may not have been writing with the intent of exactly reproducing a ghost they themselves had seen; yes, I said that. Thank you for reminding me. I was responding to **Aeschines** ’s unsupported generalization that ghost sightings throughout history and across cultures demonstrated remarkable consistency. I wanted to see for myself if that statement could be proved by an examination of some famous ghosts in literature, but no dice.
I still would like to see that general statement backed up before I will accept this remarkable consistency at face value. That Person’s Ghost looks like Person’s Dead Body does not seem like such a great leap of imagination, and I am not sure how much weight to give it.
If ghost sightings throughout history and across cultures all depicted the person _as they were_ at the age of twenty, then perhaps that might be significant enough to sit up and take notice. I would certainly credit the sightings with consistency if every culture in history showed a ghost with Spam on his head and a cucumber up his nose. But dead bodies are, unfortunately, everywhere. A culture needn’t cast about far for a suitable description. In the same way, I am not amazed that cultures independently invented the idea of walls, doors, and roofs: caves are everywhere and easy enough to copy.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/137 "2004-10-02T07:15:02Z")
“Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?”
Probably not at this time.
1. As so many have already said, we need a mutually acceptable definition of “ghosts.”
2. That being said, we need some mechanism to be able to detect ghosts that will be accepted by the various branches of science tht are interested in the detection and identification of those various phenomenon labeled as “ghosts.”
Now, that being said:
“Can mind be scientifically proved to exist?”
Probably not at this time…
SnakeSp
😉
---
### Author:  [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/138 "2004-10-02T07:24:55Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Now, that being said:
>
> “Can mind be scientifically proved to exist?”
>
> Probably not at this time…
_Definitely_ not, I’d say. It’s terribly tricky to prove the existence of something that probably doesn’t exist.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/139 "2004-10-02T12:10:05Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> And this is the cite by which **Mr. M** declared:
> Uh…
> I don’t think so…
Your choice.
> [@](#):
>
> It might have been more useful to reference [Targ & Puthoff’s original report site.](http://66.221.71.68/sria.htm) In which the scientists dis various configurations of the same experiment, and achieved positive results when UG was not isolated with a faraday cage, but negative results when he was. Possible evidenct for the electrical nature of non-physical information transfer.
A little piece from the American Psychology Association Monitor
> [@](#):
>
> February 1974:
>
> “Uri Geller: Is He a Medicine Show Hype or a Challenge to Science?”
> by Jules Asher
>
> The psychologists at SRI had, according to Geller, originally opposed
> the Institute’s studies of his powers. After the “Time” article,
> internal politics gave SRI psychologists an opportunity to run their
> own tests of his alleged paranormal ability.
>
> They devised an elaborate, double blind experiment employing 100
> envelopes with drawings in them. It was to have run over a 5-day
> period. According to Dr. Charles Rebert of the Life Sciences Division,
> Geller tried for three days to reproduce the psychologists’ drawings
> but was unable to function clairvoyantly.
>
> “He passed on every envelope,” said Robert.
>
> On the third day the psychologists reluctantly yielded to the
> physicists’ request that the experimental procedures be loosened up.
> Geller then achieved one “hit,” but by that time there were suspicions
> of foul play and the experiment was abandoned, said Robert.
>
> “I’m convinced that he [Geller] swapped envelopes on us,” remarked
> Robert. “He flunked our test.”
>
> Targ admits that Geller cannot always function paranormally and he
> places some of the blame for failures on “non-believers.”
Even astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who actually believes in Geller’s abilities said of the SRi experiments:
> [@](#):
>
> “I was there virtually all the time. I am a co-investigator on all that work …
> Frankly, [there’s] a problem that Russ and Hal had - they were so eager to keep
> him around that they worked themselves into a box by meeting his every whim, and
> if he threatened to walk off they would relent and do what he wanted. Of course they lost control of the situation and it just got worse and worse …”.
Not exactly a shining recommendation.
> [@](#):
>
> From these sites, sorry, neither T&P or UG have been disproven or discrecited, in fact they poin to the need for further investigation.
Before I waste my time any more, what evidence will convince you? I don’t like chasing after moving goalposts.
> [@](#):
>
> Unless you have some other insights relevent???
>
> I worked with Ingo (not Inigio) Swann and Ed Mitchell during the 1970’s on several investigative projects. These projects did _not_ support the presence of PSI, nor did they support Ingo Swann’s claims of psychic sensitivity. To toss the baby out with the bathwater, though, is akin to dismissing Babe Ruth’s claim to fame when he has a bad season. One exercise is not enough to prove or disprove anything. – that is unless one knows all the variables, and no one has made _that_ claim yet.
So why dis T&P present their lame ‘chat about Saturn & Jupiter with Ingo’ as some kind of breakthough?
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/140 "2004-10-02T15:48:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> **glee.** I don’t think we really have an argument going. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to make sense.
You’re being perfectly polite and I appreciate that.
I think your first post about the Randi test was inaccurate, and I just wanted to give the full reference and correct a few things.
Dowsers do claim a very high rate of success; they do believe passionately in their ability; and they remain convinced even when they fail every time they are tested.
None of this proves dowsing doesn’t work (proving a negative is often incredibly hard). But there is no evidence at all for it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=8)