I’m finding it suspicious how Grateful’s posts are getting progressively more outrageous.
You can’t believe against something. I don’t believe in ghosts. It’s silly then to say that I believe in non-ghosts, or I believe in the lack of ghosts. It’s like saying I have an apple, and you ask what type of apple, and I say a non-apple, an apple that does not exist. A non existent apple is not a type of apple. A lack of belief in something is not itself a belief. If it were, I could then list an infinite number of “beliefs” you have, which are all based on the non-existence of random creatures that I made up right now. Do you believe that a goruakachaka does not exist? What about a floopoodeedoopoo? According to you, until a well-funded scientific study on floopoodeedoopoos is run, it is impossible to say that they don’t exist. You can think that all you want, but the rest of the world will move on, waiting for a good reason to spend any time on things people like me just made up.
You really think no one, in the history of science, has ever tried to objectively study ghosts? That every scientist in all the history of humankind was part of a hive overmind that was terrified at the possibility of revealing the true existence of ghosts? It may not be taken seriously now, but a couple hundred years ago, when science was younger, it was taken more seriously. Guess what, nothing was found. That’s why no one takes it seriously today. People didn’t just wake up one day and arbitrarily decide that ghosts were unworthy of study, while, say, electromagnetism was. Back in the day, there were tons of independent inventors and scientists who didn’t rely on grant money. If there were something to discover, someone would have.
That isn’t to say that evidence for ghosts could never be uncovered. It’s possible. If you want to spend time trying, good luck with that, but it’s no surprise that not many want to bother, because it’s been tried without success so many times in the past.
As a side note, although CIA and army experiments into psychic abilities are a laugh now, they probably did represent at least a halfway-decent study of the claims. Since we do not now have psychic spies or soldiers, I have to figure they found nothing.
Don’t be silly! Didn’t you see Men Who Stare at Goats?
Seems to me that I have missed something here: I have repeatedly made the point that I have no particular position on “ghosts” other than a curiosity in having the particular phenomenon explained.
To this end, I have presented upstream the framework for the epitome of a scientific study; and it addresses all of the points covered in your rant.
All you have to do is to read it; understanding it would help as well.
If, indeed the subject has been studied in the past, as some here have asserted, then the results must have been published.
Given the vehemence with which the “true believers” assert their position, I assume these studies were peer reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals?
So could you please provide some citations to these studies?
Well, right off the bat, I suggest finding some solid and as-yet unexplained evidence that there is a phenomenon, and not merely centuries of vague and evidence-free claims.
You’ve already said that you believe ghosts exist. And you’ve said you don’t believe in several real scientific ideas. So it appears evidence is not a factor in your beliefs.
So what would be the point in somebody citing scientific investigations that found no evidence that ghosts are real? You’d feel free to dismiss them because they’re not telling you what you want to hear.
I suggest you get your validation from cable TV shows - they’ll tell you that ghosts are real.
WHAT phenomenon? That’s the point. You haven’t established that there IS a phenomenon. You haven’t established that there’s anything that requires an explanation, nor have you define a coherent hypothesis by which to test it.
You clearly don’t know anything about scientific method, and the woo woo tactic of calling people “true believers” if they don’t take your Casper beliefs seriously is not going to fly here.
I read over Grateful-UnDead’s “framework for the epitome of a scientific study” of ghosts.
“Design and implement study methods and protocols” sounds really nifty, but what methods do you have in mind? And where is this ten million bucks that you propose for the “facility” and associated research costs going to come from?
What the scientific method would require is not a bunch of vague and ethereal suggestions (sorry) for getting studies off the ground, but concrete proposals for even a limited research study. As you may realize, money for all scientific studies is really tight these days, so the ghostly crowd would have to find sugar daddies willing to plow serious money into this. And while I can’t see Nature or Scientific American showing much interest in publishing the results, a really big breakthrough demonstrating Friendly Spirits would be something they couldn’t ignore. And there are more than a few fly-by-night journals that would love to be associated with this stuff (Medical Hypotheses comes to mind, assuming you could find a tie-in with health (ghostly beliefs relieve hypertension, perhaps?).
Diogenes has a point in calling your use of the term “true believers” to denigrate evidence-based posters “bush league”. Beyond that, I find it peculiar how commonly woo supporters try to attack critics by labeling them as “true believers” or “religious”, as if it was a deadly insult to suggest that others share their own style of thinking. 
Oh? Where did I say that ghosts exist?
And what scientific ideas have I said I don’t believe in?
And how have you come to the conclusion that “…evidence is not a factor…”. Seems to me that from my first post I have been asking for evidence from both sides of the argument. So far: nada.
Could you please cite the scientific investigations that you refer to so that I may be enlightened?
So far all I see is a lot of ranting, but no evidence.
Well, that was the whole point of my post and the proposed study. Too bad you missed it.
You’re the one that has the burden to provide evidence. So far, you still haven’t demonstarted that there’s even anything to explain, much less proposed a tetable hypothesis.
“In than over a considerable period of time a phenomenon, or collection of phenomena, collectively and commonly known as “ghosts” have been observed, it is proposed that these phenomena be examined and characterized with the view to determining and classifying their defining characteristics physical properties.
In that this is an apparently unexplored area of science, it is proposed that the study proceed in an iterative manner as data come to light, but broadly proceed along two fronts: the characterization of the phenomena; the examination, measurement, reproduction and exploitation of any or all their physical properties.”
Your “scientific” proposal skipped over the issue of whether ghosts exist. You start with the premise that ghosts have been observed and we should be studying them.
And that’s because - as we have repeatedly pointed out to you - there is no evidence that ghosts exist.
Out of curiosity, are you assuming the existence of ghosts to be a 50/50 proposition, i.e. lack of evidence for the existence of ghosts and lack of evidence for the nonexistence of ghosts should be given equal weight?
"Out of curiosity, are you assuming the existence of ghosts to be a 50/50 proposition, i.e. lack of evidence for the existence of ghosts and lack of evidence for the nonexistence of ghosts should be given equal weight? "
What I am saying is that I have no particular view regarding the existence of “ghosts”. However, I am aware of the fact that numerous people around the world do have a view, and these views have persisted for a historically long time. Some believe in “ghosts” and some don’t.
I am curious regarding both the concept of “ghosts”, and on what basis people either believe or don’t believe in them. The operative word here is “believe”.
Since “belief” is a concept that encompasses many components, including emotion, ideology, religion, prejudice, experience, etc, I have repeatedly requested anyone to provide citations to credible studies which either support, or dispute, either side of the argument.
In the absence of any such citations being provided by either side, I drafted a proposal for a hypothetical study which addresses the issue; with the null hypothesis being the existence of ghosts, as defined in common folk lore.
It had been my expectation that people would understand the concept, and contribute by refining the proposal. By this means we could collectively define the issues, we could all come to an appreciation of what would be involved in investigating the subject, and come to an understanding as to why it has apparently not been done. All of this, while furthering our knowledge of the subject. This is standard practice in any scientific investigation.
So far the primary response has been a diatribe of belief driven rant from one side with no supporting evidence; and with no apparent understanding of the proposed investigative approach. This is characteristic of people whose beliefs are based on emotion; as opposed as to those based on investigation and evaluation of factual evidence.
So, to answer your question: if somebody could cite credible, peer reviewed evidence published in a reputable scientific journal, for either the existence, or non existence of ghosts, that would be a good start. So far, no such studies have been cited; good thing I am not holding my breath.
There isn’t any “argument.” There are no “sides.” There is no “issue,” and the null hypothesis is that that are NOT any ghosts, just like the null hypothesis is that there are not any orcs or hobbits or unicorns. You can’t even define what a “ghost” is, much less provide any evidence for it.
Can you suggest a single falsifiable test for ghost? Do you even know what a falsifiable test is?
You totally believe in ghosts, by the way.
Still waiting for a single coherent research proposal and suggestions for sources for that $10 million in funding. From where is that money supposed to come? Out of existing budgets for basic research? Cancer studies? Is the federal government obliged to come across with the dough?
True, our government has already wasted tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars studying woo in the form of “alternative” medicine (via the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine), with nothing to show for it. It’s probably not too big a leap to have a National Center for Ghostly Apparitions Which Lots Of People Think Exist.
Write your congressman.
Well, to be fair, the null hypothesis could be that ghosts exist, but this is not an endorsement of the belief, it’s merely how the analysis can be formatted. The standards I was taught in statistical analysis is that the null hypothesis has the equality while the alternate hypothesis is the exact inverse (i.e. Null hypothesis: X = 5. Alternate hypothesis: X<> 5).
I’d suggest:
Null hypothesis (H[sub]0[/sub]): Ghosts exist
Alternate hypothesis (H[sub]A[/sub]): Ghosts do not exist
Then design a test of some sort, presumably something along the lines of releasing kittens at the site where (it is claimed) the ghost of a cat-hater resides and has been known to manifest visual and audio reactions to cats. If we get no reaction, we reject H[sub]0[/sub]. If we get a reaction (or at least get one some significant percentage of the time, such percentage to be arbitrarily chosen but typically at a high level of significance or the test is useless), we do not reject H[sub]0[/sub] (this is definitely not equivalent to accepting H[sub]0[/sub]. The null hypothesis has to stand up to multiple tests without being rejected to have any statistical significance.
Not that you need a stats lecture, of course, just that “null hypothesis” doesn’t mean “default hypothesis” or “best hypothesis”. I can imagine a null hypothesis being “The sun rises in the west” (versus an alternate of “The sun does not rise in the west”), and a simple test that would lead me to reject that null hypothesis. One could just as easily format the analysis as:
H[sub]0[/sub]: Ghosts = bullshit
H[sub]A[/sub]: Ghosts <> bullshit
I’m okay with H[sub]0[/sub] being that ghosts exist, but my test is that if H[sub]0[/sub] was true, some enterprising engineer would have found a way to harness ghost energy, at least for a demonstration project. None has, so I reject H[sub]0[/sub].
My citation is that every - every claimed example of repeatable interactions with ghosts that has been objectively examined has turned out to be error or, frequently, provably fraud. This is a subject that people leap to conclusions about, and which people lie about.
So. You want to organize a study. What, specifically, will we be studying? The ghost of Lincoln that supposedly walks the white house? The specks and blobs that sometimes appear in photographs? Some specific Medum’s claims? The variance in personal behaviors demonstrated by Casper between his Harveytunes animated and his theatrical 3-D rendered incarnations? What? You can’t just say “ghosts”, becuase that’s not specific enough to tell us where to look.
If you want to do an analysis on the psychology behind believing in ghosts, that’s completely different from determining if ghosts actually, physically, exist. That’s easy enough to explain. People fear the unknown. Death is the ultimate unknown. It is part of the universal human experience to ponder our own mortality. Every religion has some attempt to explain what happens to us after we die, because we, within our humble consciousness, find it difficult to reconcile that one day it will all end.
So, many cultures came up with the idea of a spirit, or a soul, or some remnant of a person that lives on after death. There was no scientific or logical basis for doing so, it was merely a way to make us feel better.
If you actually read up on ghosts or spirits in various cultures, you’ll find that they all have one thing in common, and it’s that they deal with death. That’s it. Other than that, they are all wildly different, and there’s no consistency across them. If there actually were something real about ghosts, you’d think that these ghosts that people were identifying would have characteristics that could be matched up. But, as it turns out, the much more likely explanation is that people are creative, and each culture can come up with its own unique fairy tale, and that’s all it is.