# 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:** 9
### Author:  [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/161 "2004-10-03T02:38:50Z")
Oops, I double-quoted in the previous post. Bad Fish!
**Snakespirit** , I have to point out that very little of the “ghost photo” evidence is consistent with my definition. A bunch of glowy floaty strands doesn’t meet the standard of my definition, nor does an abnormal rise in radiation with **Wesley** ’s geiger counter.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/162 "2004-10-03T02:44:00Z")
**Fish’s** definition of “ghosts”
> [@](#):
>
> A Ghost is (according to me) a phenomenon of unknown origin and composition consistent with the observation, sensation or perception of, or the interaction with, a living being, but which cannot be positively demonstrated to be the agency of any living being or to be the agency of non-conscious applications of known principles of physics.
Fish has already said that this definition was produced under duress and I feel compelled to aver that it’s completely unacceptable from a scientific standpoint. You cannot define something as being “of unknown composition” first of all. Lots of things are of unknown composition.
This definition tells us nothing. It does not tell us what a ghost _is_ or what it is _not_. At best, it provides a place holder name for a particular experience, but it offers no falsifiable predictions and is too broad to really mean what most people think it means.
“cannot be positively demonstrated” does not equal “is not.”
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/163 "2004-10-03T03:25:37Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#):
>
> 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? .
Very easily. The versions of the detection devices that are usually used for these alleged ‘fluctuations’ are often oversensitive. A very commonly used EMF meter that ghost hunters seem to love (and don’t doubt me, I’ve sold plenty of them to them) has a sensitive mode where just bringing it a foot closer to a light bulb can make it spike the needle. Its like having a smoke detector that goes off from a pair of smelly shoes being taken off.
As for temperature, I’ve seen this in action. Most often it is another over-sensitve piece of equipment (digital thermometer calibrated to a .1 of a degree F) that is swept around from one part of the room to the next. (Sweep) “look! Its colder over here! (Sweep) oh my colder over here! (Brings back to original point) buts its still warm over here!”. And that doesn’t even start with the siple fact that any room is going to have temperature fluctuations from one part tot he next!
The other examples given I won’t say much except to note that most people using them don’t know what they are doing. Also, many of these devices are home-built devices out of books like the “Groom Lake FIshing Guide” which is filled with nifty projects for detection, but are often oversensitive for anything resembling regular use.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/164 "2004-10-03T05:54:52Z")
> [@Fish](#):
>
> Oops, I double-quoted in the previous post. Bad Fish!
>
> **Snakespirit** , I have to point out that very little of the “ghost photo” evidence is consistent with my definition. A bunch of glowy floaty strands doesn’t meet the standard of my definition, nor does an abnormal rise in radiation with **Wesley** ’s geiger counter.
Roger that, Fish, agreed. No argument.
When someone begs “ghost photos,” though, you direct said person to "ghost photos, as they are.
Personally, I can only approach said photos with skepticism. Like I said, the only photos which can be said to be ‘proof’ are those taken under rigerous scientific controls. And I have a fleeting recall of a series of photos which were taken under such strictures, about what?, 30 years ago? I’ll have to research it; there was no “web” then, which were subject to some great controversy…
That;'s a problem with getting old; memory fails.
Anyway, I’ve never been convinced by any photos. Nor do I believe anyone else will.
I like your definition, Fish, it’s workable, concrete, and exclusive. Even if you want to abandon iot, I’m sticking with it.
🙂 If you want to sign over the copyrights to me, I’d be most gracious, and route 10% of any profits back to you… 🆒 (Just sign on the line, dude!)
SnakeS
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/165 "2004-10-03T06:14:27Z")
> [@Fish](#):
>
> **SnakeSpirit** … would you care to look at a website?
Shit, Fish. Don’t you think I’ve already looked at that website and thousands of others similar in nature?
READ my posts. Don’t just ‘Czarcasm-skim’ them, READ them. Try to understand what I’m saying.
Yeah, I believe that there are occurrances that we can’t explain, that lend themselves to a “ghost” definition (by our agreed-upon definition). I’m still open enough to consider any logical explanation of what these experiences are. Others are so closed that they will only accept a narrow band of disproved explanations.
Which is working toward combatting ignorance?
Do ghosts exist? I don’t know. I do know that there are phenomenon which people describe as ghosts which are inexplicable through other fora.
That, for me, is enough reason to keep on researching. If we do not exist to help uncover the unknown, then what do we exist for? Whether it’s QM or PP (Paranormal Phenomenon), we are exploratory beings. And the only reason I can see to dampen exploration into any field, is fear.
Detractors: Of what are you afraid?
SnakeSp-
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/166 "2004-10-03T06:17:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> **Fish’s** definition of “ghosts”
>
> Fish has already said that this definition was produced under duress and I feel compelled to aver that it’s completely unacceptable from a scientific standpoint. You cannot define something as being “of unknown composition” first of all. Lots of things are of unknown composition.
>
> This definition tells us nothing. It does not tell us what a ghost _is_ or what it is _not_. At best, it provides a place holder name for a particular experience, but it offers no falsifiable predictions and is too broad to really mean what most people think it means.
>
> “cannot be positively demonstrated” does not equal “is not.”
Sooooo…
You got a better definition? Or are you just taking pot-shots?
Your devoted fans await…
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/167 "2004-10-03T08:37:36Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#):
>
> Very easily. The versions of the detection devices that are usually used for these alleged ‘fluctuations’ are often oversensitive. A very commonly used EMF meter that ghost hunters seem to love (and don’t doubt me, I’ve sold plenty of them to them) has a sensitive mode where just bringing it a foot closer to a light bulb can make it spike the needle. Its like having a smoke detector that goes off from a pair of smelly shoes being taken off.
>
> As for temperature, I’ve seen this in action. Most often it is another over-sensitve piece of equipment (digital thermometer calibrated to a .1 of a degree F) that is swept around from one part of the room to the next. (Sweep) “look! Its colder over here! (Sweep) oh my colder over here! (Brings back to original point) buts its still warm over here!”. And that doesn’t even start with the siple fact that any room is going to have temperature fluctuations from one part tot he next!
>
> The other examples given I won’t say much except to note that most people using them don’t know what they are doing. Also, many of these devices are home-built devices out of books like the “Groom Lake FIshing Guide” which is filled with nifty projects for detection, but are often oversensitive for anything resembling regular use.
Fish- No I didn’t read the text I was just looking at the five devices taht are used by ghost hunters.
Mr. Miskatonic - Your points don’t really prove anything. Anyone can point a geiger counter at a lightbulb or walk around until the temperature is 0.1F higher. However to say that this is the basis for all readings is completely untrue. I was watching something on the discovery channel about a battleship that was supposedly haunted. All the electronics were turned off but when a woman who claims to be psychic walked into a room that used to be a makeshift hospital she says she felt the presence of ghosts, the electromagnetic readings also jumped wildly. To just assume that becuase its possible that this was due to a cellphone or putting it near a lightbulb doesn’t prove that that is the reason, just that that is a potential explanation.
As far as temperature, I’m trying to dig up something plausible but all I can find are articles about the temperature fluctuating by 10 degrees at most. 10 degrees could be due to other things and isn’t really abnormal enough to count as proof.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/168 "2004-10-03T09:09:53Z")
No, we can’t “prove” ghosts exist. I think it’s a conceit of the skeptics that when something is “proved” it just sits there, emitting light so bright that no one can call it dark. In regard to ghosts, no such sun has yet been produced; hence, by modus tollens, ghosts do not exist.
Proof is half science, half sociology. People have agendas and worldviews that must be altered and overcome. All Copernicus, Galileo, etc., had were some theories and observations. If you didn’t want to look through the telescope, as many church leaders didn’t, no one could force you. The next day the cock would crow, you’d get up, and the world would be the same. No new sun.
So it is with ghosts. I (and perhaps Snake) are on one side of a wall, the skeptics here on another. Most of the people I know believe in ghosts, have seen them, understand and agree with the basic theory behind them, have studied cases in books and on-line, and feel that the proof is now at the no-brainer level. The skeptics, on the other hand, deny that any evidence exists whatsoever, some even stating that no ghost photograph has ever been taken.
As a New Ager, I believe that one’s thoughts influences one’s reality. You literally create a world for yourself. So I have no problem understanding why the skeptics don’t believe in ghosts and find it absurd that others do.
And why not just leave it at that? The gap is too wide to be spanned at this point.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/169 "2004-10-03T13:36:46Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#):
>
> Mr. Miskatonic - Your points don’t really prove anything. Anyone can point a geiger counter at a lightbulb or walk around until the temperature is 0.1F higher. However to say that this is the basis for all readings is completely untrue. I was watching something on the discovery channel about a battleship that was supposedly haunted. All the electronics were turned off but when a woman who claims to be psychic walked into a room that used to be a makeshift hospital she says she felt the presence of ghosts, the electromagnetic readings also jumped wildly. To just assume that becuase its possible that this was due to a cellphone or putting it near a lightbulb doesn’t prove that that is the reason, just that that is a potential explanation.
That sound you hear is Occam’s razor being used like a ginsu on this kind of claim.
Oversensitve meters don’t prove a damn thing.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/170 "2004-10-03T13:52:47Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> READ my posts. Don’t just ‘Czarcasm-skim’ them, READ them. Try to understand what I’m saying.
‘Czarcasm-skim’ Real cute.
The OP asks for evidence. You provided links. It is pointed out that, as evidence goes, easily doctored photos don’t really cut it. You say that you are not presenting these as evidence, you are presenting them as photos. As far as I can see, this means that, if the photos are accepted as evidence here you get to claim that you provided evidence, and if the photos are rejected as evidence you can claim that you _never_ intended them to be used that way in the first place.
Let’s see if we can “clarify” what you are saying, **SnakeSpirit**. Do you believe that there is good evidence that ghosts exist, and if so, what specifically _is_ this evidence?
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/171 "2004-10-03T14:15:59Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Sooooo…
>
> You got a better definition? Or are you just taking pot-shots?
>
> Your devoted fans await…
I’m not the one claiming any such thing exists. The word is meaningless to me.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/172 "2004-10-03T14:34:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#):
>
> Proof is half science, half sociology. People have agendas and worldviews that must be altered and overcome. All Copernicus, Galileo, etc., had were some theories and observations.
Oh, ghod, where do even begin? “Proof is half science, half sociology.”? Leaving out the fact that Sociology _is_ a science, this seems to say that, if you don’t have enough scientific evidence on your side, you can fill in the gaps with societal beliefs. The truth is, _real_ science shouldn’t concern itself with the beliefs of society at all. Societal beliefs belong in the realm of religion and philosophy, and have no place whatsoever in determining the validity of facts presented.
The third sentence is clearly not true. _All_ they had were theories and observations? Do you truly believe this, or is this some sort of attempt to associate your beliefs with the years of dedicated and varifiable study done by these great men?
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/173 "2004-10-03T15:48:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Oh, ghod, where do even begin?
Start with reading my post while trying to understand it, instead of trying to build a scarecrow with it.
> [@](#):
>
> Leaving out the fact that Sociology _is_ a science, this seems to say that, if you don’t have enough scientific evidence on your side, you can fill in the gaps with societal beliefs.
How odd of you to come up with this. I was saying (do I have to explain the obvious–hell, I’ve already done so) that proof is not something that sits there, self-obvious. It requires the participation of _people_. That is what I meant by “sociology.”
> [@](#):
>
> The truth is, _real_ science shouldn’t concern itself with the beliefs of society at all. Societal beliefs belong in the realm of religion and philosophy, and have no place whatsoever in determining the validity of facts presented.
But scientists themselves compose a society, with taboos and mores, etc.
> [@](#):
>
> _All_ they had were theories and observations? Do you truly believe this, or is this some sort of attempt to associate your beliefs with the years of dedicated and varifiable study done by these great men?
Oh, such study as Copernicus drawing up horoscopes, or Newton spending years theorizing on Judeo-Christian myths (and crackpot ones at that)? You’ve got a bit of nerve appropriating these “great men” as automatic allies in your cause, whose belief systems would have clashed with yours like plaid on paisley.
Yes, all they had were their theories and observations–that’s what science _is_ in case you hadn’t noticed. They were right, and the socieities of their times–scientists and laymen alike–in varying degrees told them to take a hike.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/174 "2004-10-03T16:46:56Z")
And this is how all the other threads have turned out. Definitions, definitions _of_ definitions, references and allusions to ancient scientists and philosophers that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, and claims of persecution on the part of closed-minded scientists who aparrently are quivering in fear at the mere sight of “T_H_E T_R_U_T_H”.
Look, if you have some credible evidence, show it to us. Please don’t give us a bunch of links to sites unless you think they show credible evidence, because _that is what is being sought in this thread._
And could we _please_ not have any more “I have credible evidence, but I’m not going to show it to you ‘scientists’ because you would just dismiss it anyway!” posts. They are insulting to our intelligence and your credibility.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/175 "2004-10-03T17:06:15Z")
Hey Czar, who are you yakking to there? Is it me, Snakespirit, or some other person on our side of the debate? I haven’t noticed any others. How about quoting people accurately? How about not straw-manning people’s posts?
Here’s what I say:
\*The people who believe in ghosts are _not_ persecuted. They’re the majority of the population. The include many scientists as well.
\*It’s impossible to prove anything in GD. No debate has _ever_ been settled here. All people have are links to sites. We _know_ that this doesn’t convince anyone of anything. And you know as well as I that this forum is just not set up for the credible presentation of evidence. So let’s stop pretending that it is, mm’kay? Because it’s a silly, annoying conceit.
Czarcasm, really. Both sides of this debate have been quite civil and cool to each other this time around. But you’ve blown it, buddy, with your typical nastiness and failure to take your opponent’s words and ideas seriously. Your posts here have not been up to the snuff of the other skeptic participants, and maybe you ought to think about that. Maybe you have some learning to do before you bounce in next time, blithely assuming you have socially and intellectually what it takes to debate here, as I just don’t see it.
---
### Author:  [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/176 "2004-10-03T17:18:37Z")
I apologize in advance for restating things other posters have already said. I know I’m going to wind up doing it, but in a thread this long and that’s already strayed a bit from the OP I hope some redundancy can be forgiven.
And now, back to the OP:
> [@Kythereia](#):
>
> I have a lamp on my bedside table. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that while I’m typing this, my lamp is lifted into the air and hurtled across the room, in such a way that it could only have been thrown by an invisible presence (i.e. it didn’t fall off by itself).
>
> After gibbering and cowering and hiding in the closet for a minute or two, how could I prove–scientifically, concretely, absolutely, 100% beyond a doubt–that I have a ghost in my room throwing a lamp?
In a scenario like the one described, you absolutely should not set out looking to prove that you have a ghost in your room. That would be a bit like saying, “Someone stole my wallet. How can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Frank?” You’ve got an observable phenomenon. The data should point you towards an explanation, not the other way around. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with developing a hypothesis and testing it. You just have to remember that the goal isn’t “prove this hypothesis to be true”, it’s “find out what really happened”.
If the incident with the lamp never occurs again, you may never be able to find out what really happened. From your description I take it we’re to imagine a situation where there is no natural phenomenon that could explain why the lamp suddenly went flying through the air. It couldn’t have been due to a small earthquake or some weirdo magnetic fluctuation or something – the lamp was moved in a way that clearly indicates that a sentient being was responsible. As this is a hypothetical scenario I’m willing to grant that your report of what you hypothetically saw is completely accurate, although I would not do this in a real-life case. But could someone have been tricking you?
I believe that most cases of “the unexplained” can actually be explained by observer error of some kind, or lies/trickery on the part of the observer or a third party. What seems more likely, that there’s a ghost in your room, or that someone wishes to make it _seem_ like there’s a ghost in your room? We’ve got solid evidence that paranormal hoaxes occur, and no such compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts in general or in your room in particular. So, once you’ve recovered from your shock and settled down a bit, I think your first hypothesis should be, “Someone wishes to make it appear that my lamp has been thrown across the room by supernatural means.”
It would take a lot to safely rule out the possibility of outside trickery. However, it could be done if the flying-lamp incident repeats itself numerous times. I don’t even want to think about what kind of extensive safeguards would have to be set up to prevent outside interference, let’s just say that you manage to set them up and your lamp keeps being tossed across the room by forces unknown. Eliminating natural phenomenon, observer error, and trickery leaves us with. . .something else.
At this point you’ll have produced some pretty compelling evidence for the existence of the supernatural, but is there actually a _ghost_ responsible? I mean, you could define “ghost” as “force that causes my lamp to move around in this freaky way”, but you could have done that from the beginning and saved yourself a lot of trouble. No, if you insist upon using the word “ghost” I think you’re going to have to go with a definition closer to what that word is commonly understood to mean: the disembodied spirit, soul, or mind of a dead person or animal, or possibly the spirit/soul/mind of a purely non-physical being (like a poltergeist or demon).
It could be that there exists some force or creature that does not fit my above definition, but that possesses other characteristics commonly associated with ghosts. Perhaps this mysterious thing is responsible for your flying lamp. Perhaps it is even responsible for tales of ghosts throughout human history. However, although such a force or creature might fit the definition **Fish** has offered, I can’t see calling it a “ghost”. That would be like calling a rhinoceros a unicorn. It’s true in a certain sense, but also hugely misleading. You tell people you’ve proven that ghosts exist and they’re going to want to start communicating with dead relatives.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/177 "2004-10-03T17:35:13Z")
She has a point there. Given the proposition that your hypothetical, as you state it, is true, the most that can be said is that something caused the lamp to fly across the room. If it is also given that all possible rational and scientific explanations have been eliminated, that absolute most that can be said about the situation is that you don’t know what caused the lamp to fly across the room. Even throwing Occam’s Razor out the window and allowing in all sorts of paranormal theories, the list of what _could_ be the cause is almost infinitely long.
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/178 "2004-10-03T23:31:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> ‘Czarcasm-skim’ Real cute.
I apologise. That was rude of me. Guess I was a bit irritated by your repeated misinterpretation of my posts (that I attributed to you not carefully reading them).
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> The OP asks for evidence. You provided links. It is pointed out that, as evidence goes, easily doctored photos don’t really cut it. You say that you are not presenting these as evidence, you are presenting them as photos. As far as I can see, this means that, if the photos are accepted as evidence here you get to claim that you provided evidence, and if the photos are rejected as evidence you can claim that you _never_ intended them to be used that way in the first place.
_Sigh_
One more time: \*\*ralph \*\* asked for photos, I directed him to photos. End of story.
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Let’s see if we can “clarify” what you are saying, **SnakeSpirit**. Do you believe that there is good evidence that ghosts exist, and if so, what specifically _is_ this evidence?
Do you promise to listen? Cause I’m really getting tired of repeating myself over and over for you.
Well, I’ll assume you will (but then we know what happens when we ‘assume’ things, don’t we?) – I’ll take the chance. Hmmm. I’d better enhance it somehow, so I’ll be sure you don’t miss it this time.
I _do not_ believe that there is good scientific evidence that ghosts exist. If there were, that I knew about, I would post it with bells and arrows, and I would ensure that there was no mistake about what I was saying. I would say, **in bold,** that ‘here is uncontrovertable, scientific evidence for the existance of ghosts.’
I do personally believe that there is a phenomenon that exists that people have come to label “ghosts.” I don’t know what it is, what causes it, but I have experienced it and don’t deny my experience.
In fact, earlier in this thread I was going to post that currently ghosts cannot be scientifically proven to exist, but by the time I got here 2 - 3 people had beat me to it, and I didn’t want it to look like I was trying to “pad my post count.”
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2004, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/179 "2004-10-04T08:41:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I do personally believe that there is a phenomenon that exists that people have come to label “ghosts.” I don’t know what it is, what causes it, but I have experienced it and don’t deny my experience.
Just to be clear, **Snake** : You are positing that these phenomenon are _physical, external_ events rather than hallucinations, mistaken identity, dreams, misremembered events or any other _internal but convincing_ experience? Do you have any reason to propose that these experiences _couldn’t have_ been explained by the above?
---
### Author:  [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917/180 "2004-10-04T17:10:22Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Just to be clear, **Snake** : You are positing that these phenomenon are _physical, external_ events rather than hallucinations, mistaken identity, dreams, misremembered events or any other _internal but convincing_ experience? Do you have any reason to propose that these experiences _couldn’t have_ been explained by the above?
Several, but I don’t think is’t appropriate for this forum or this thread.
My experience with these phenomenon has already been explained in detail on this message board. I don’t have the link handy, but if you’re interested enough it shouldn’t be too hard to find.
If you’re only interested in putting me down, well, you do the work.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ghosts-be-scientifically-proved-to-exist/266917.md?page=10)