Using a lot of scientific terms doesn’t make it science.
There is no “observational evidence” for any of that and you still haven’t said exactly what it is you propose to study or what this “data” supposedly is. There IS no data. Anecdotes are not evidence and people thinking they saw a g-g-g-ghost is not a phenomenon which requires any explanation beyond the most mundane. There’s nothing to study, no data to examine, no coherent hypothesis to explain it.
What do you mean vampires don’t exist? 
Like I said, when it comes to ghosts, I’m an agnostic. I don’t believe or disbelieve. I just like ghost stories.
If you want ghostology to ever be taken seriously as a science, you need to start getting some non-anecdotal date.
Quit asking people to tell you about the ghost they saw last week. Find somebody who can produce a ghost on demand. Find a haunted house where the ghost of the old sea captain appears at the stroke of midnight every full moon. Go there at midnight on a full moon. See what appears and start collecting date.
No, really, I’ve gotten date! She’s, uh, Canadian. You wouldn’t know her…
Really? Man, I guess I know nothing about where to pick up girls.
Seriously though, asking what proof would be sufficient to prove the existence of ghosts is a loaded question, since “ghost” can mean any number of things. A floating lamp is simply a floating lamp. It may lead to the existence of some physical phenomenon that is currently unknown, but it’s a huge leap of logic to say it’s evidence of life after death. I’d be quicker to believe that Harry Potter is hiding in my closet causing the lamp to hover than that a ghost is responsible.
In fact I find it very difficult to come up with anything that could only be explained by life after death. Any weird poltergeist type activity could be hallucinations, mind control, or simple technological magic tricks. Even if I approached someone on their death bed and say “When you become a ghost, come to my room and engrave on my wall this 20 digit number” right before they die, and then that happens, it could mean that someone listened in on the conversation. Suppose I were talking to my dying wife and told her to send me a message that only she and I knew, and then something happens afterward that appears like she did so, well maybe it turns out that someone else (currently alive) actually knew our secret and is trying to con me. Just like arguing God or aliens, they’re such outrageous concepts that there are multiple mundane hurdles to overcome before we can get anywhere near “proof” of these things.
Of course, but then it’s very rare (never?) that you can ever say “the only possible explanation for this is <X>”.
Followers of woo often ask what a skeptic would need to see to be a believer. They miss the point in two ways.
Firstly, skeptics will never be believers (except of things trivially true), because there should always be doubt. It’s merely our confidence in the likelihood or utility of a hypothesis being true that should be malleable.
And secondly, it’s less about observations, it’s about predictions. Seeing, with my own eyes, a terrifying, vivid ghost, is in many ways worse “proof” than a fleeting wisp of light that appears regularly.
Good points. I had a friend who believed in UFO’s and said he had seen one himself. I asked him what exactly it was he had seen. He described it was a bright point of light in the sky that moved around in a way that no aircraft could.
I asked him why he concluded it was an alien spaceship. From his description of it, it could have equally well have been a dragon or an angel or Johnny Storm the Human Torch. He said those explanations were ridiculous.
But my point was that the evidence he had could support any of those conclusions as well as the one he had made. Deciding that aliens are a reasonable explanation and angels and dragons and superheroes are not is just a personal preference.
Unfortunately, your responses fall more into the realm of “the true believer” than those of an informed and open minded scientist.
I can perform “levitation on demand” in the lab at any time. As a matter of fact, I have seen “executive toys” on sale at K-Mart that demonstrate “levitation”: $9.95 and you can have one too.
So, your response that: “A lamp would not levitate in midair. That’s the answer to the question. It’s impossible.” is both uninformed and anti-scientific.
As a further example of “true believers” clinging to belief rather science is the “SETI Project”, referred to upstream.
A simple application of the inverse square law clearly demonstrates the total absurdity of the project; yet every year, millions of dollars are squandered on this anti-scientific project, staffed by true believers who happen to have science degrees.
So, it is not too much of a stretch to see why the study of “ghosts” and related phenomena is not being pursued by mainstream science, and why the “true believers” dismiss the concept out of hand.
Belief trumps science every time.
You’ve definitely proven that.
I’m a 1. I don’t believe in ghosts that are the spirits of the dead who can or what to interact with the living. But residual ghosts? Sure, people might really see those. Electromagnetism or some other scientific explanation will probably explain why so many people see ghosts of people, animals, and things like ships, trains and runaway horse carts going through the same motions over and over again like a bit of video playback. I actually kind of hope to see the Isadore for myself someday.
I agree it’s a bit odd to be searching for radio signals, but it’s not right to characterise it as a belief system.
SETI have said many times that they (as an organisation) do not assert that alien intelligence exists; they’re looking with an open mind.
We know that there is at least one sentient species in the universe, and looking for others is more akin to field work than, say, a ghost hunt.
I agree with your other point though.
It annoys me to hear my fellow skeptics use the line “I can’t say what I’d do in that hypothetical; it’s impossible”.
You’re right to call them here on the fact that it is not impossible, but even if it were, that doesn’t mean they can’t respond to the “what if”?
Yes it is too impossible, and it makes no sense to hypothesize on the impossible.
I don’t characterize ghosts as impossible. I characterize them as something of which there is no real evidence.
Nu-uh.
As Grateful-UnDead pointed out, there are technological means by which we could make a lamp levitate.
And seeing any phenomenon is not impossible in the strict sense; you could be hallucinating, we could all be in the matrix, etc.
But in any case, what I’m trying to say is that even if it were strictly impossible, you can still respond to the hypothetical.
If I watch Dawn of the Dead with a friend, and they ask “What would you do in that scenario?”, I don’t have to believe the scenario is possible, or even self-consistent, to answer.
To dodge the hypothetical here makes it look like you don’t want to admit that nothing could ever convince you of the existence of ghosts, no matter what far-fetched scenario.
There are technological means by which you could suspend a lamp or make it appear to levitate. It not actually possible for the law of gravity to be suspended.
Sure it’s possible to hallucinate it, but then I wouldn’t really be seeing it.
I’m not dodging the hypothetical. I’m saying some hypotheticals can’t happen, so there’s no point in pondering them. The laws of physics cannot be violated. It’s like postulating a square circle. It’s logical nonsense.
If I saw anything that appeared to be violating the laws of physics, then I would know that it was either an illusion or a hallucination.
I believe in ghosts. My house is haunted. No, really.
I am sitting here wiping my eyes after having a good belly laugh. I find “true believers” an endless source of amusement, regardless of whether they are religious fanatics or pretend scientists.
In the current context, watching them twist themselves into pretzels in order to argue the nonsensical, reminds me a lot of Saddam’s PR guy in Iraq as the bombs were falling all around him and the tanks were cruising past behind him.
Regardless of this I have presented, upstream, a program of study which outlines a process which should lead to the definitive answer to many of the questions that are being raised here.
It specifies a method, and it brings an overview to what would be involved.
In format and content it is pretty much that of most research proposals; it specifies the issue, and then proposes a method to follow in order to resolve that issue.
Very conspicuously, the “true believers” have not responded to that. I had expected that if they were truly interested in exploring this issue, in an objective and scientific manner, they would have made suggestions for improvement or modification to the proposal.
In doing so, the contribution from both the “true believers” and anyone else interested, would have defined the issues, and defined what would be considered “success” or “failure”.
Ie: anyone interested could provide input which would result in an outcome that is both credible and satisfactory to them.
However, nada: just more uninformed anti-scientific rants.
Evidently it is much safer, and emotionally more satisfying, to cling to the security blanket of belief; this, as opposed to defining the issues and then subjecting them to objective scrutiny.
Clearly, the “true believers” are deathly afraid that objective, scientific examination of the issues may reveal that their beliefs are both unfounded and bogus.
To a “true believer”, this is really scary.
You’ve outlined nothing but gibberish and have declined to answer any relevant questions. You have yet to explain what exactly you think you’re going to study or describe your hypothesis. You should really try to learn the difference between a question and a belief. You should also try to learn the definitions of terms like “evidence,” “data,” Science" and “study.” Trying to handwave people outlining the requirements of scientific method as “true believers” is bush league woo.