# 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:** 8
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/141 "2004-10-02T16:25:49Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> “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
>
> 😉
What about the modern technology used by ghosthunters? Don’t temperature fluctuations or electromagnetic fluctuations count? What if a person in a supposedly haunted house takes pictures with a polaroid and when the film develops there is writing on the film (this has happened)?
On that page I listed earlier
[http://www.mcmsys.com/~brammer/ourbest.htm](http://www.mcmsys.com/~brammer/ourbest.htm)
There is a file called “Terry’s losing faith”. In it the supposed sister who died in a housefire of one of the ghosthunters says this phrase, and the ghosthunters recognize the voice as the dead sisters.
What would be interesting if voice recognition software was able to conclusively prove that the voice on the tape and old recordings of the dead sister were the same person the same way the CIA uses voice recognition software to prove if a speech by Bin Ladin is truly him. That would be damn conclusive. Especially if the voices were responding to questions made by the ghost hunters. Like if the hunter says ‘where did I put my watch in my house’ and the voice says something like ‘in the second drawer in your dresser’. Not only would that seem to prove consciousness (because alot of people think ghosts are echos and echos can’t respond to questions), but it would seem to prove that a specific person’s consciousness had survived.
---
### Author:  [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/142 "2004-10-02T16:38:01Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#):
>
> What would be interesting if voice recognition software was able to conclusively prove that the voice on the tape and old recordings of the dead sister were the same person the same way the CIA uses voice recognition software to prove if a speech by Bin Ladin is truly him. That would be damn conclusive. Especially if the voices were responding to questions made by the ghost hunters. Like if the hunter says ‘where did I put my watch in my house’ and the voice says something like ‘in the second drawer in your dresser’. Not only would that seem to prove consciousness (because alot of people think ghosts are echos and echos can’t respond to questions), but it would seem to prove that a specific person’s consciousness had survived.
It wouldn’t prove a thing. It wouldn’t prove the “sister” was actually dead or ever really existed, or that the old recordings were actually of the sister. It wouldn’t prove the tape wasn’t made when she was still alive.
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/143 "2004-10-02T17:30:32Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#):
>
> It wouldn’t prove a thing. It wouldn’t prove the “sister” was actually dead or ever really existed, or that the old recordings were actually of the sister. It wouldn’t prove the tape wasn’t made when she was still alive.
If it was verified by unbiased outside sources it would count as pretty good proof. At the very least it would be a strong case for the existence of consciousness after death.
Just taking a website at face value wouldn’t count as proof (I assume/hope the webmasters there are not running a scam) but if it was verified it would count as something.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/144 "2004-10-02T18:14:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> Nothing can be scientifically proved to exist. Existence is a metaphysical claim.
This reminds me of a conversation I once had with my friend Eddy, who was a dual-major in philosophy and linguistics. Bi-useless, I called him. 😃
Eddy: “Thus far I’ve managed to prove that the universe exists and that I exist. But I can’t prove yet that anyone else exists.”
LPN: “Then why are you talking to me?”
Eddy: _pause_ “…I’m willing to go with the assumption for the moment.”
LPN: “I’m flattered.”
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/145 "2004-10-02T18:18:54Z")
Your friend has it backwards. He can prove the existence of anything but himself. In attempting to prove one’s own existence, it is impossible to avoid the logical fallacy of petitio principii.
---
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/146 "2004-10-02T19:59:36Z")
Why is it that after 150+ years of photography, and 40+ years of cheap videotape recorders, we have yet to see a photo of a ghost?
Heck, England is full of haunted castles, houses, graveyards…damn it, JUST show me a picture!!
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/147 "2004-10-02T20:12:59Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Even astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who actually believes in Geller’s abilities said of the SRi experiments:
Much clearer than you initial cite. Why didn’t you just say that the first time?
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> So why dis T&P present their lame ‘chat about Saturn & Jupiter with Ingo’ as some kind of breakthough?
I’m supposed to know this? I never worked with T&P.
Again: What does this have to do with the OP?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/148 "2004-10-02T20:24:29Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#):
>
> What about the modern technology used by ghosthunters? Don’t temperature fluctuations or electromagnetic fluctuations count? What if a person in a supposedly haunted house takes pictures with a polaroid and when the film develops there is writing on the film (this has happened)?
There are some of us who can accept personal experience and anecdotal evidence as evidence for the existance of ghosts, or as some sort of heretofore undescribed phenomenon functioning in a way people would tend to describe as ghosts. I do. Because of _my_ personal experience, I know that something other than fraud & hallucinations is going on.
However, any physical evidence presented to _scientifically prove_ the existance of ghosts has to meet the rigid requirements of scientific investigation. Too often these occurrances are spontaneous, unexpected and unrepeatable. This makes them difficult to submit them to scientific investigation. Doesn’t mean they aren’t _real,_ but it’s hard to _prove_ they’re real.
SnakeS
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/149 "2004-10-02T20:51:54Z")
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> Why is it that after 150+ years of photography, and 40+ years of cheap videotape recorders, we have yet to see a photo of a ghost?
> Heck, England is full of haunted castles, houses, graveyards…damn it, JUST show me a picture!!
Gee, have you tried google? The web is full of pictures.
[Here’s one](http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/jul04/willard.htm)
[Here’s another](http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/jul04/hotel.htm)
**Aeschines** has posted pictures on another similar thread, less than a month ago.
Don’t be so lazy!
BTW, I don’t vouch for the validity of any of these pictures, and these are just random selections, not even the best out there!
They’re out there, though. Google got 2,240,000 hits searching “ghost photo” – and many of these sites had hundreds of photos. But, on the first page there were also several dead-ends, but if you want a “good” ghost picture, you’ll find it.
(I take it you’re kinda new to the field?)
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/150 "2004-10-02T21:35:35Z")
What with bad photographers taking double exposures and good photographers _creating_ double exposures, evidence like those last two are not next to worthless-they _are_ worthless. When people ask for good evidence of the paranormal, they would like to see good evidence of the paranormal. The trouble is, you seem to think that hundreds(or even thousands) of pieces of bad evidence are somehow the equivalent of one piece of good evidence, and that just isn’t so. When scientific studies are show to be tainted or sloppy, pointing to another tainted or sloppy scientific study to somehow bolster your own doesn’t work. Five bad examples do not equal one good example. Fifty bad examples do not equal one good example. Five hundred bad examples do not equal one good example.
Another problem with photos like those is that people use _other_ photos of _other_ “ghosts” to bolster their claim. Now, if other (independent) _photographers_ and taken photos of the same “ghost” at approximately the same time, those photos could be used as supporting evidence.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/151 "2004-10-02T23:34:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> What with bad photographers taking double exposures and good photographers _creating_ double exposures, evidence like those last two are not next to worthless-they _are_ worthless. When people ask for good evidence of the paranormal, they would like to see good evidence of the paranormal. The trouble is, you seem to think that hundreds(or even thousands) of pieces of bad evidence are somehow the equivalent of one piece of good evidence, and that just isn’t so. When scientific studies are show to be tainted or sloppy, pointing to another tainted or sloppy scientific study to somehow bolster your own doesn’t work. Five bad examples do not equal one good example. Fifty bad examples do not equal one good example. Five hundred bad examples do not equal one good example.
> Another problem with photos like those is that people use _other_ photos of _other_ “ghosts” to bolster their claim. Now, if other (independent) _photographers_ and taken photos of the same “ghost” at approximately the same time, those photos could be used as supporting evidence.
Right. Like I said in post # 148. Guess you missed it. In fact, I basically inferred that _all_ photographic evidence is worthless, unless produced under controlled conditions.
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> However, any physical evidence presented to scientifically prove the existance of ghosts has to meet the rigid requirements of scientific investigation. Too often these occurrances are spontaneous, unexpected and unrepeatable. This makes them difficult to submit them to scientific investigation.
I also said I didn’t support those linked photos.
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> BTW, I don’t vouch for the validity of _any_ of these pictures, and these are just random selections, not even the best out there!
\*\*ralph124c \*\* said:
> [@](#):
>
> Why is it that after 150+ years of photography, and 40+ years of cheap videotape recorders, we have yet to see a photo of a ghost?
> Heck, England is full of haunted castles, houses, graveyards…damn it, JUST show me a picture!!
I just gave h some direction where to look and included some examples of what e was asking for. I’m not going to do h legwork for h.
Your claim:
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> The trouble is, you seem to think that hundreds(or even thousands) of pieces of bad evidence are somehow the equivalent of one piece of good evidence,
Is manufactured, prejudiced and incitive. It’s also BS.
But, I’m told how hard you Moderators work. It’s difficult to always be accurate and aware. Maybe a break from the monitor and a cup of coffee would help.
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/152 "2004-10-03T01:05:57Z")
**SnakeSpirit** … would you care to look at a website?
It’s at … well, it’s at the same place where your “ghost photos” came from: [http://www.ghoststudy.com](http://www.ghoststudy.com). Right [here](http://www.ghoststudy.com/main/fakepage.html), in fact.
It’s an easy-to-follow set of instructions of how to produce faked ghost photos. The top of the site says
> [@](#):
>
> In order for us at Ghoststudy to detect a fake or fraudulent ghost photo, we have to understand how they are produced.
But the top of the site also has a link that reads
> [@](#):
>
> Send us your fake ghostly creations
which leads to [fakes@ghoststudy.com](mailto:fakes@ghoststudy.com).
Color me suspicious, but are you _sure_ that all of the photographs that appear on the website are from real people? I know that the photos have captions that say “I swear this is real and I didn’t fake this picture in any way. Signed, the Person Who Took The Picture” or words to that effect. But are you _sure_?
I’m not suggesting that all the photos on the Internet are faked, no. But since I turned up that link by googling _how to fake a ghost photo_ and it popped up second in the list… well, let’s just say it wasn’t hard to find. Anybody who was seriously interested in making a fake could find tips, hints, and even a place to submit their work.
Given that humankind has already created 40 Shrouds of Turin and 2 Cardiff Giants and one Piltdown Man, I’m not sure how much longer I can give this mass of evidence the benefit of the doubt.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/153 "2004-10-03T01:06:00Z")
Sure, I understand.
You are linking to these photographs, and refering to thousands of others for…for…waitaminute, if you’re not providing these examples as evidence, why exactly _are_ you providing them? If they shouldn’t be used as evidence(as you claim to be claiming), are you saying that they are totally worthless?
Please, do enlighten us.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/154 "2004-10-03T01:47:23Z")
Still no definition of “ghosts,” I see.
Spooky photographs don’t really mean anything unless you can articulate precisely what phenomenon you think they prove, and you can do it in such a way which makes falsifiable predictions.
Even if just for sake of argument or to alleviate the boredom we were to grant a lack of fraud in the photographs, we are still left with an infinite number of hypothetical explanations which are just as plausible as undefined “ghosts.”
How do you know it’s not aliens, or psychic interference, or demons, or psychic, alien demons? How do you know it’s not God, or Thor or Yoda?
You really have to be specific about what you’re alleging. Right now there is nothing to debate. There is no data and there is no clearly articulated hypothesis.
I’m sorry to keep bogging down on the definition thing but without it there is nothing to analyze.
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/155 "2004-10-03T02:09:35Z")
> [@Fish](#):
>
> **SnakeSpirit** … would you care to look at a website?
>
> It’s at … well, it’s at the same place where your “ghost photos” came from: [http://www.ghoststudy.com](http://www.ghoststudy.com). Right [here](http://www.ghoststudy.com/main/fakepage.html), in fact.
>
> It’s an easy-to-follow set of instructions of how to produce faked ghost photos. The top of the site says
>
> But the top of the site also has a link that reads
>
> which leads to [fakes@ghoststudy.com](mailto:fakes@ghoststudy.com).
>
> Color me suspicious, but are you _sure_ that all of the photographs that appear on the website are from real people? I know that the photos have captions that say “I swear this is real and I didn’t fake this picture in any way. Signed, the Person Who Took The Picture” or words to that effect. But are you _sure_?
>
> I’m not suggesting that all the photos on the Internet are faked, no. But since I turned up that link by googling _how to fake a ghost photo_ and it popped up second in the list… well, let’s just say it wasn’t hard to find. Anybody who was seriously interested in making a fake could find tips, hints, and even a place to submit their work.
>
> Given that humankind has already created 40 Shrouds of Turin and 2 Cardiff Giants and one Piltdown Man, I’m not sure how much longer I can give this mass of evidence the benefit of the doubt.
Ok, yes you can fake ghost info. You can fake an audio recording, a picture, a medium can just be a good guesser or a cheat. But how do you explain the magnetometer fluctuations or temperature fluctuations that are supposedly seen when people think ghosts are present? I assume its possible that geological disturbances could affect the human mind as well as affect radiation readings, temperature readings, Electromagnetic readings, digital and magnetic readings, temperature readings & radiation readings but still where do you draw the line? Is every piece of info that makes ghosts seem more realistic or faked or a coincidence or due to something else? if there were 12 different things that predisposed the idea that a ghost exists would they all just be coincidental or due to the same phenomena?
here is a list of ghost detecting equpitment
> **[Ghosts](https://www.liveabout.com/ghosts-4687957)**
>
> Whether you believe in them or not, learn all about ghosts and spirits with articles about sightings, hauntings, and theories, plus what to do if you become one yourself.
EMF Detectors
Electrostatic Charge Meters
Motion Detectors
Geiger Counters
Infrared Thermal Scanner
What if all 5 are giving abnormal readings, audio and video show something, and a psychic can come up with info that it would be very improbable for anyone to come up with just by good guessing?
I can’t offhand point to an example where all 8 of these things happened at once but it wouldn’t suprise me if there have been instances where all 8 did occur.
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/156 "2004-10-03T02:13:54Z")
I’d like to point out something else about that How To Make A Fake Ghost Photo that really bothered me. It is a glaring, seven-league logical leap, and it is tbe flip side of the coin from the post by **Diogenes**.
That website purports to show how to make a “fake” ghost photo. That is, how to make a photo that replicates the effect of a real ghost photo.
Who decides what a real ghost photo is, for purposes of comparison? The website author seems to know what real ghosts look like on film. From [this page:](http://www.ghoststudy.com/created_orbs.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Orbs can appear in photos because of conditions at the time of the picture taking process. I deliberately created the circumstances necessary to obtain this fake orb photo. The photo featured here is difficult to tell from the real thing except for the fact that orbs aren’t normally bunched up so tightly. Not all orbs have substance or guts but the ones that have substance are more apt to be real.
How does he know that? It seems to me, call me silly, that he has established the standard for “realness” himself. I don’t recall any ghost story where ghosts manifested as gloobilly flobs of frogs eggs wafting across the landscape. I’m curious as to precisely _how_ has he decided that some orbs, yes, _those_ are ghosts, but these orbs are just spots of water.
I take it that you just sort of take it on… trust?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/157 "2004-10-03T02:17:08Z")
> [@Fish](#):
>
> Color me suspicious, but are you _sure_ that all of the photographs that appear on the website are from real people?
No, I’m sure they’re not, and said as much. I’m more suspicious than even you! And I’m wondering what you’re doing even making this post…
hey, what are you guys doing with those lassoos, and why are you encircling me with your horses…
Uh, oh…
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/158 "2004-10-03T02:32:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Sure, I understand.
> You are linking to these photographs, and refering to thousands of others for…for…waitaminute, if you’re not providing these examples as evidence, why exactly _are_ you providing them? If they shouldn’t be used as evidence(as you claim to be claiming), are you saying that they are totally worthless?
>
> Please, do enlighten us.
Your speed-reading class should give you a refund.
**Once again** (this is the second or third time), **ralph** , said
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> Why is it that after 150+ years of photography, and 40+ years of cheap videotape recorders, we have yet to see a photo of a ghost?
> Heck, England is full of haunted castles, houses, graveyards…damn it, JUST show me a picture!!
So I went on Google, googled “Ghost photo” and told Ralph about it. Notice, I also said I didn’t attest to their authenticity.
I was nice enough to give ralph what he wanted.
No good deed goes unpunished.
If you still don’t get it, I’m going to have to start questioning your motives, or your rationality.
[ol]
[li]Ralph says "how come there’s no pictures of ghosts?[/li][li]SnakeSpirit says, “Have you tried google? I did and look what I found. I don’t attest to their authenticity, however.”[/li][/ol]
What does it take to get through to you?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/159 "2004-10-03T02:34:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> Still no definition of “ghosts,” I see.
We referenced a mutually accepted definition of ghosts, by Fish, earlier in this thread.
---
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/160 "2004-10-03T02:35:52Z")
**Wesley** , did you read that page?
> [@the caption by the diagram](#):
>
> An apparatus is set forth to provide a toy to enhance the imagination and entertainment of children simulating ghost detection and capture.
> [@](#):
>
> The real truth behind ghost detectors is that there are no dedicated ghost detectors and the United States has never issued a patent for any invention that claimed to detect ghosts.
So who decided that ghosts are proven to manifest in the EM spectrum, as “spot cold,” radiation, and all that? From the site:
> [@](#):
>
> The real truth behind ghost detectors is that there are no dedicated ghost detectors and the United States has never issued a patent for any invention that claimed to detect ghosts.
The credentials of the equipment you list has been established. Next, it says:
> [@](#):
>
> Ultrasonic and microwave motion detectors use reflected waves to monitor an area for movement, even the movement of ghosts. …
> Radiation has been detected in the area of hauntings. …
> Infrared thermal scanners detect “cold spots” or drops in temperature that indicates ghost activity. These cold spots may be from 25 degrees to 60 degrees colder than the surrounding ambient air temperature.
Exactly who is it that decided that you can detect ghosts this way, that “real” ghosts cause fluctuations in these readings? I understand that in order to find ghosts, we have to find ways to detect them, but… why these things in particular? How is it that they have become the standard? To make some of those devices fluctuate, it doesn’t take a geologic disturbance; for some of them I’ll bet a cellphone would work just fine.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=9)