DOES anyone on this board believe in ghosts?

Put like that, I’m a 1, but I’m 99.999999+% sure ghosts don’t exist. I’m even more certain that ghosts don’t exist than I am that gods don’t.

As for the reasoning: if ghosts are as easy to detect as you’d think considering the number of “sightings”, we would have decent evidence of there being something there (as in something as of yet “unknown” or unexplained; not hallucinations, dreams, fakes, optical illusions etc). Where the reports of gods these days tend to be purely subjective “feelings” or put forward by obvious wackos/fraudsters.

I just don’t want them cutting back the budgets on important programs like vampire detection or zombie defense.

There is one issue here, and that issue has two mutually exclusive alternatives: there are “ghosts”; or there are not.

So the big question is: What evidence is there to support either alternative?

Since the most vocal is the “there are not” crowd, and they have been unable to substantiate any of their rants, I used the magic of Google to see what research has been done on the topic. I got thousands of hits.

I picked out the following at random; all of them are/were actively involved in scientific research into “ghosts” and related phenomena. Those interested can do their own Googling to get the details:

William James
Leonora Piper
University of Virginia
University of Arizona
The Australian Institute of Parapsychology Research:
The Consciousness Research Laboratory:
Near Death Experience Research Foundation
Society for Scientific Exploration:

So regarding supporting evidence and research performed, the score at the moment is:

Ghosts don’t exist: zero; zip; nada
Ghosts do exist: big number

This is totally incorrect. Whay you have is a claim – “ghosts exist.” the next step is to define what a ghost is, and to provide evidence that it exists. The burden of proof is completely on th person making this claim. The default presumption is that X does not exist unless and until some evdience is shown to prove otherwise.

The null hypothesis does not require evidence. You aren’t going to find conclusive studies proving that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist.

There is actually no evdience whatsoever that ghosts exist. Nothing on your list is a cite. No individual or organization on your list has provided evidence that ghosts exist. Zip, zero, nada. The null hypothesis remains confirmed.

your continued name-calling and frantic arm waving isn’t getting you anywhere. I’ll ask you a simple question. What kind of test can you propose that would falsify your (still completly undefined) hypothesis of ghosts? If you can’t propose a test, you can’t do research.

Uh-huh. And what, if anything, did they discover? I’m sure they studied the issue a lot, but did they come to any conclusions? Design any experiments that could be repeated elsewhere? Uncover any frauds or misconceptions?

Grateful-UnDead has given us another classic justification from the World of Woo: Lookit all the folks who’ve studied this subject! There must be something to it!!

Except there’s no valid reproducible evidence that ghosts exist, not even as a serious scientific minority view, much less a consensus.

Besides, weren’t you just tellilng us skepticism was unwarranted since no research had been conducted on the subject? Now you say there’s tons of it (though specifics are notably lacking).

There is zero/zip/nada proof that ghosts don’t exist, just as there is zero/zip/nada proof that galaxies far away are not composed of orbiting chunks of flaming blue cheese with embedded pistachios. The overwhelming likelihood is that there are not, and it’s up to proponents of such theories to back them up.

And you’ve obviously decided that there are.

So who needs research?

Which of these have provided evidence as to the existence of ghosts? Please provide a cite.
Edited to add: Any of these that have not provided evidence as to the existence of ghosts should go into the other column, don’t you think?

Let me put this very simply:

Any scientist who wished to perform a study to prove the nonexistence of ghosts would frame the study as one trying to prove the existence of ghosts. This is because to prove the nonexistence of ghosts you have to show that all attempts to find them fail. And also because “Nothing” doesn’t look too good in the “What are we trying to prove exists” column of the research proposal.

Of course, the skeptical scientist would be banking on all his attempts to find ghosts failing - but if he actually wanted to prove they didn’t exist, he’d have to make an honest-to-Thor genuine effort to prove they did. This is because half-assed efforts at disproof don’t count. Allow me to demonstrate:

Suppose you wanted to disprove the existence of elephants. How would you go about doing it? Here are your two options:

  1. Act like you want to prove they exist - go to africa and zoos, talk to purported experts in them, chase down claimed sightings of them, look for footprints, dung, tuskmarks on trees - chase down every lead possible as hard as you can. If you fail to find any elephants after doing an exhaustive search, and have examined all the supposed evidence claimed by others and can show that it does not actually point to the claimed conclusion, then you can in the end assert with some certainty that there are no elephants.

  2. Do…something else. What, I’m not sure. Maybe open your closet, look around, and say “Nope, no elephants here, I guess they don’t exist. Done!”?

Right. No. The presence of a study looking for something doesn’t prove that it exists - ever heard of cryptozoologists? These scientists (should that be in scare quotes) are doing active research on the yeti, loch ness, and the abominable snowman. And there are no scientists who specifically devote their career to disproving these fabled beasts. Do you think that that means that the cryptozoologists are right?

Regarding the links I found while Googling the subject: I have no idea what research they contain.

I haven’t read any of them yet, however in light of the fact that I am trying to learn about the subject, I do intend to read them.

I suggest that the true believers read them as well, that way when they post future rants they may claim to have at least some tenuous exposure to the subject.

Begbert2, your missive would have been more impressive if you had read the post that covers the came ground: please read post #120, and try again.

Yes, “bush league” certainly is the term that comes to mind.

I looked at #120 and it held no novel or useful information - you think you’re the first person to try to study this ghost junk? It’s been done, jack. Both by the true believers and the skeptics. The main difference between them is that the skeptics pay more attention to their results and stop earlier when nothing fruitful comes of it.

(bush league?)

Thank you for completely wasting our time. You assume without evidence that we haven’t seen these links before, admonish us for commenting without reading through them first, then you admit that you haven’t bothered to look through them yourself at all! Please explain, after this behavior, why we should bother responding to anything you post from here on in?

Interesting responses:

I have been accused of ignorance of the subject. Well yes, I admitted my ignorance in my very first post; it is a subject that I know next to nothing about, and that is why I joined this forum. I understood that the whole point here was to discuss the topic and dispel such ignorance through the exchange of substantive ideas.

Sadly, my expectations have proven to be somewhat naive, and not been met. Instead, I have been watching a torrent of uninformed opinion, laced with invective and rant.

Virtually all of this has come from one side of the argument, and it is very characteristic of people who are terrified that their cherished beliefs may be shown to be unfounded, so they attack and ridicule rather than reason.

There has been very little of substance presented in this discussion, and I use the word “discussion” very liberally.

In my attempt to introduce some degree of learning into the discussion, I put up a hypothetical proposal for a study into the subject. I made no claim that it was original, profound, definitive, or anything else. It was merely the approach I would use if I were to embark on a study of the subject.

According to “Begbert2”, who seems to have confused me with someone he knows named “Jack”, says this study has already been done. If so, where is the reference to it? I would like to read it, and it could preclude a lot of discussion.

In the absence of reference to previous work, I had expected that people would see the proposal as a means to structure the discussion and focus their ideas as to what the issues are, and how such a study should proceed.

In that this approach only led to more invective and uniformed rant, and there was a conspicuous lack of useful information forthcoming, I did a quick Google search of the topic. I hit on numerous references to work that has been done, or is in progress.

A quick scan of these numerous hits revealed that most of them seemed to support the contention that “ghosts”, whatever they may be, do exist.

Since I only came across these references yesterday, I have not had time to study them. Clearly this will take time. However, some of the true believers take this as a basis for more invective and rant: evidently their approach to research and learning is that you are obliged to have the answers first, then you proceed with the research after.

Clearly, this is the approach they have taken in their own approach to the subject: they have formulated their beliefs, without the inconvenience of reading any research, if it exists.

This is why they have been unable to support their rants with references. Also, not surprisingly, they immediately dismissed and ridiculed the studies that appear to contradict their beliefs.

In light of the fact that my repeated requests for references have gone unanswered, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption on my part that either the material doesn’t exist, or those posting their rants are equally unaware of it. This is consistent with their formulation of beliefs before reviewing the evidence.

What I have learned from this thread is that this is a topic that touches on visceral issues with deep emotional roots.

There is an undercurrent of fear and anger amongst the most vocal of the respondents; clearly, some of their fundamental beliefs are being challenged, and this has evoked a classic defensive response. They are afraid that reasoned discussion will show their beliefs to be unfounded, and they are deadly afraid of where that will lead.

So, in answer to the question posted: to date, few of the responses to my posts have had anything of substance or value to contribute to the topic; they have largely been a vehicle for scorn.

So, for those who just want a forum to air their cherished beliefs, and those that prefer rant to informed discussion, feel free to refrain from responding. To those that want to discuss the subject and learn from each other, please contribute and discuss.

Are you still pretending to be just a neutral observer?

There are no such things are ghosts.

If you think you see a ghost, it’s really a shape-shifting nature spirit pretending to be a ghost.

Well, Johan Sebastion Peddlethwyght, I vaguely recall hearing that there were critical investigations of mediums done back a century or two ago. More recently I believe that Randi has done a few as well, amongst (many) other things. And I believe that there are some relevent video documentaries that you might find to your speed, categorized under the collective title “What’s new, Scooby Doo.”
Okay, that last one wasn’t entirely serious (those videos depict certain inprobable circumstances that cast doubt on the authenticity of the whole, which in fact has never been verified by an impartial third party), but the first two were. Seriously man, the idea of studying these ghost things critically is old news. What makes you think you have anything new to bring to the subject, aside from your baseless and unresearched assumption that nobody else has thought of it?

That’s it??? That’s all you have???

Once upon a time, somebody, somewhere did something or other???

This is what you true believers have for the foundation of your belief?

This is what gives you not only absolute certainty, but the confidence to attack and denigrate anyone who raises a question?

Even the wildest religious cult has more to it than that; but I do see how your beliefs and those of the average cult are pretty much the same.

I withdraw my previous comment about “bush league”.

A more appropriate reference would have been to the lower end of the digestive tract, and the product thereof.

After I stop laughing, my sides stop aching, and the tears stop rolling down my cheeks, I will continue reading from the oracle of Google. It at least has a smidgen of credibility.

Nope. Not a chance in ghosts ever existing period.

I was just thinking about this subject while watching Drag Me To Hell. (Great flick!)

Here is a good example of things Diogenes and** Der Trihs** wrote. Alison Lohman is cursed by an oooooooold woman (always old, never hot) with a Lamia. A Lamia is (was) a Libyan queen who ate children from ancient Greek mythology. Some consider this demon as anything from a serpent to a normal woman with a distorted face. Some say she was daughter to King Belus (Egypt), some say she was granddaughter of Poseidon.

Now there are many more ways the Lamia is translated among civilizations, legends, religions, etc. After reading all of these conflicting ideas about a Lamia, I am QUITE sure no one on this board who even entertains the possibility of ghosts that a Lamia is real.

Why is this? In order to do so, you have to either accept all the conflicting legends, stories, customs and religions, or abandon what you know as a decent linear story line. As Dio mentioned, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIS STORY TO BE TRUE!

Drag Me To Hell doesn’t even mention the Greek references to the Lamia, but seeing it in a movie theater here in CA, I saw a few rosaries clenched in hands, unfortunately, by people who have their own version of a biblegod, an afterlife (also impossible), and a reason to believe that who they pray to has the audacity to let these creatures exist AND torture them supernaturally? Please. Another ghost story that’s impossible. :rolleyes:

With a single ghost story like this already convoluted into many, many versions that suit an era and custom, what is the difference between this and a story about playing with a dead person or seeing your best friend’s dead brother whom you’ve never met?

C’mon, if you’re going to base your contentions on Google links, at least take the time to skim through them. Even Jenny McCarthy, graduate of the University of Google does that.

By the way, if you search under “Illuminati” you get well over six million hits, lots and lots of them assuming the Illuminati are nefariously running things. Therefore it must be true - we haven’t disproved it! Besides, the Lady Gaga-Illuminati mind control theory is fascinating.

He’s Just Asking Questions.

And all we see is a lot of “questions”, with you handwaving away the answers and clumsily pretending that you aren’t taking a side. It was obvious to me where you stood from your first post, and pretty much everyone else figured it out when you continuously labeled those who followed the scientific process “true believers”.

I have never experienced ghosts, but I have talked to people to claimed to have, and they seemed to be honest about it.

Despite a scientific inquiry into the occult that has lasted for at least a century and half, there is no incontrovertible proof that ghosts exist. There is impressive evidence. Ghosts are difficult to study scientifically, because the events are rare and random. If scientists knew in advance when a ghost would appear, they could have measuring devices in place, along with cameras and recorders.

Hans Holzer made a name for himself as a ghost hunter, writing many books about his alleged experiences. There are professional skeptics. There is even a magazine devoted to skepticism. It would have been quite an achievement for a skeptic to expose Holzer as a fraud. To the best of my knowledge none have.