# Has a GHOST Ever HARMED a Person? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 22, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489 "2002-06-22T20:16:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/81 "2002-06-26T01:12:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JoshMoses \* > \*\*This is simple: It’s not up to the skeptics, because logically it’s impossible to prove that something does _not_ exist. Unless you’re God. But you’d have to prove that. I mean, take anything. I say, “I have a million dollars.” Is the burden on the bank to prove that I don’t? For every place they check, there will be an infinite number they haven’t. The burden is not on the skeptic. The burden is on me to prove that I’ve got the million somewhere. > > Josh \*\* No, the burden of proof _isn’t_ on the bank, because you made the statement and they did not. Thus the burden of proof is on you. If the bank, on the other hand, has said that you _don’t_ have a million dollars, then the burden of proof is on them. As you’ve pointed out, there is no way for them to prove you don’t have that million stashed away somewhere they haven’t looked (or aren’t able to), and therefore they cannot prove their claim. Ergo, they should not be making it. The burden of proof should be on the person that makes the claim. Being unable to prove your claim in no way absolves you of the responsibility for doing so, IMO, nor does it make the claim automatically valid. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/82 "2002-06-26T01:38:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RJKUgly \* > \*\* Not much of a double standard, however. > > To simply say it can’t be proved either way makes it sound as if the two views are on equal footing because neither one has been definitively proven true or false. This is obviously silly.\*\* Well, neither view has been definitively proven, so they _are_ on equal footing from that standpoint. True, there’s no arguing that the evidence points overwhelmingly in favor of one over the other. Still, until our grasp of the facts is total, there must be room allowed for error. To believe that an incomplete dataset is sufficient to produce complete understanding seems to me to be presumptuous. > [@](#): > > \*\* The available data points 99.99% to one conclusion, that there are no ghosts. This degree of certainty is enough (at least in the US) to get you sentenced to death for certain crimes.\*\* But not enough to enforce [_Caveat Emptor_](http://www.csicop.org/sb/9506/haunted.html) 🙂 > [@](#): > > **So to say in ordinary conversation (or even in the slightly rarified air of the GQ forum) that there are no ghosts isn’t very much of an error at all. And if you say “based on the available evidence, there are no ghosts” I think you’re clearly on the safe side of the line.** Well, I, too, think that “based on the available evidence” is a safe position, and one which I would take myself. But to state conclusively that there aren’t any is making a factually absolute statement, which seems to imply “based on _all_ evidence, current and forevermore” which is not a stance we are in a position to take, even if it looks like a safe bet. This board is usually quite a stickler for insisting on the distinction between opinion (even educated) and hard, established fact. It’s interesting how on topics like this the difference between the two becomes a negligeble detail. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/83 "2002-06-26T02:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > \*\ ***Dijon** > Please give us your definition of "proof.’ \*\* Twice the percentage of alcohol by volume? I don’t think I’ve got some bizarre, unique definition of the term, as this question might imply. It’s simply that “This looks true, according to all the information we have” and “This Is True, Period.” are two different statements to me. One is provisional, based on the information at hand, requiring only evidence to validate; one is absolute, regardless of what new information may come down the pike (i.e.: we’ve already made up our minds and nothing you can show us will change them), and requires proof to validate. If people see them as equivalent, then like I said before, milages vary. To me, they are very different; and on this board, people don’t usually get away with substituting the latter (absolute statement _sans_ proof) for the former (provisional statement _cum_ evidence). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/84 "2002-06-26T04:58:58Z")
**Dijon** : One could say that we don’t know whether ghosts exist or not. We could also say, using similar logic, that we don’t know whether the tooth fairy exists or not. **jsc1953** : I gave 2 examples of ghostly folklore on page 1. So Team C should be satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/85 "2002-06-26T05:57:57Z")
A scientific fact is not absolute certainty, but simply a theory that has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I believe the quote is from the late Steven J Gould. I think this would apply to ghosts, as it does to Creation Science, the Tooth Fairy, and the World Champion Chigaco Cubs, all in the negative. ---
**Author:** ![Eternal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@Eternal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eternal)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/86 "2002-06-26T06:11:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > \*\ ***Dijon** : One could say that we don’t know whether ghosts exist or not. We could also say, using similar logic, that we don’t know whether the tooth fairy exists or not. Very astute. We don’t know whether the tooth fairy exists or not. Or at least, _I’m_ not aware of any scientific proof of non-existence. ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/87 "2002-06-26T06:36:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > **Dijon: One could say that we don’t know whether ghosts exist or not. We could also say, using similar logic, that we don’t know whether the tooth fairy exists or not.** True. And? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Telemark \* > **A scientific fact is not absolute certainty, but simply a theory that has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.** So long as that consent is provisional, I have no quibble with it. It’s when an unprovably assertion is stated as an absolute certainty that I feel it’s overstepped its bounds, and becomes a factually unsupportable statement. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/88 "2002-06-26T06:58:02Z")
Tooth fairies? I’m still worried about that troop of howler monkeys in the attic. > [@](#): > > \*\* “This looks true, according to all the information we have” and “This Is True, Period.” are two different statements to me. One is provisional, based on the information at hand, requiring only evidence to validate; one is absolute, regardless of what new information may come down the pike (i.e.: we’ve already made up our minds and nothing you can show us will change them. \*\* But nothing, outside of certain theorems in mathematics, ever falls into your second category. You fundamentally misunderstand how “proof” and evidence relate to the process of inquiry. When something has been “proven” it doesn’t mean that you will always ignore any contrary evidence, no matter how strong. It simply means that when trying to analyze contrary evidence, you will consider other explanations that don’t require you to abandon your theory before you chuck it out. Let’s suppose, for example, you were touched on the butt and your mother’s picture was thrown into the trash. Because, despite valiant efforts to produce it, there is _ **no** _ evidence that ghosts exist, the first hypothesis you generate to explain this event would not be, “It must have been a ghost!” You would first investigate any other possible explanation to determine whether you could maintain your hypothesis that ghosts don’t exist. The more evidence you have that ghosts don’t exist – or, in this case, the greater lack of evidence you have that ghosts _do_ exist – the harder you should look for explanations that don’t involve ghosts. Anyway, we should probably knock this off, otherwise we’ll get sent to GD. The scientific answer is, No, ghosts have not ever harmed anyone. The folkloric answer is Yes, there are traditions that depict ghosts harming the living. ---
**Author:** ![fallom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@fallom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fallom)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/89 "2002-06-26T07:10:58Z")
A bit of a hijack: Poltergeists. Let’s assume that there have been events where stuff was thrown around and dropped, with no observable cause. Inclines wouldnt propel an object across a room. If poltergeists don’t exist, then what causes this phenomenon? Is this evidence of extraordinary mental capabilities caused by extreme stress of teenagers? ---
**Author:** ![safetygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@safetygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/safetygirl)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/90 "2002-06-26T14:03:05Z")
The things my ghost were boring. There was no cat in the house. There were no other people in the house. There was no reason to suspect the presence of tooth fairies or invisible unicorns, pink or otherewise. There was, however, reason to suspect that there might be a ghost in the house. And the motive was there: I had been mucking around with the ghost’s things; in particular, her parent’s pictures. Circumstantial evidence, motive, and lack of any other suspects leads me to believe it was a ghost. I suppose I would be the only other suspect, but I was nowhere near the garbage can in the short amount of time between when I last saw the picture, and when I found it in the trash. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/91 "2002-06-26T15:46:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > \*\* > > **jsc1953** : I gave 2 examples of ghostly folklore on page 1. So Team C should be satisfied. \*\* A bazillion “absence of proof/proof of absence” posts, of the kind normally found on Great Debates, and 2 that address the OP. Swell. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/92 "2002-06-26T16:08:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dijon Warlock \* > \*\*True. And?So long as that consent is provisional, I have no quibble with it. It’s when an unprovably assertion is stated as an absolute certainty that I feel it’s overstepped its bounds, and becomes a factually unsupportable statement. \*\* But what in science _isn’t_ a provisional? Let’s just say that it would be just as perverse to believe in ghosts as it would be to believe in the Tooth Fairy. Presented like that, how much time do you expect someone to spend considering the possibility that there are ghosts? Both the Tooth Fairy and ghosts have the exact same amount of supporting data, ie, none. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/93 "2002-06-26T19:39:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dijon Warlock \* > Well, neither view has been definitively proven, so they _are_ on equal footing from that standpoint. True, there’s no arguing that the evidence points overwhelmingly in favor of one over the other. Still, until our grasp of the facts is total, there must be room allowed for error. The problem I have with your whole line of argument is that it should be completely trivial to prove ghosts exist. Pop ‘haunted house’ into a search engine, and you can spend the rest of your life reading about them. I know where ‘the most haunted house in the UK’ is, for example. So scientists can easily investigate for ghostly evidence. And they have (universities seem especially keen to use their measuring equipment). And they found absolutely nothing. Every time. Now by contrast, the theory that there is another planet millions of miles away is more difficult to test. You need a good telescope. Scientists built one. They looked and found Pluto. First time.\* You seem to be arguing that these two investigations show that ghosts and Pluto are sort of ‘equally likely’, or that there is some correlation between the two. Well to me the fact that **every single ghost investigation has come up blank** is good enough evidence that there are no ghosts on Earth. What else would you expect - if ghosts don’t actually exist, then there would be no evidence of them, right? You seem to be saying that no evidence means we need to keep looking forever. Perhaps there are ghosts on Pluto. 🆒 We can’t investigate that properly yet. In any case, why should anyone think there are ghosts? They don’t fit into our physical models of the Universe. I would add that your approach to proof means that you can **never** prove anything false. So your thinking puts Ghosts, the Tooth Fairy, Father Xmas (plus all his reindeer) into a category of ‘might exist’. Perhaps I could suggest that there is an agile mime artist following you around all the time. He has full ESP so dodges every time you look around. He also has perfect charisma, so whenever anyone else sees him, they don’t want to give the game away to you. He can teleport through doors etc. Would you say there is **no proof** that this person doesn’t exist? (If so, look behind you! :eek: ) - I don’t know if they did spot Pluto first time, but I was going for a dramatic effect… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/94 "2002-06-26T20:44:34Z")
I once remember reading some book on the occult and it claimed a ghost had killed at least one person, nailing one of two sailors that had sought shelter in a haunted house on a winter’s night. The book claimed the house was on or near Berkeley Square in London, but, in the fashion of those occult writers, failed to provide the exact address. Has anyone read a similar account and does Berkeley Square even exist? Incidentally, I do not believe in ghosts even though I grew up in a house that was supposedly haunted. I never saw anthing supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/95 "2002-06-26T21:27:04Z")
**glee** , your mime example is thoroughly disturbing. Given the choice, I’d opt for ghosts (or howler monkeys) any day. It also raises a point I alluded to earlier. Occam’s Razor (loosely, “The simplest explanation is the correct explanation.” tells us that we assume your mime does not exist until we can make some observation to the contrary. If the mime, by definition, can never be observed, then, as far as we are concerned, it doesn’t exist because the mime hypothesis isn’t necessary to explain anything. In other words, “a difference that makes no difference is no difference.” Ditto with ghosts, tooth faries. etc. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/96 "2002-06-26T22:33:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Peyote Coyote \* > \*\*I once remember reading some book on the occult and it claimed a ghost had killed at least one person, nailing one of two sailors that had sought shelter in a haunted house on a winter’s night. The book claimed the house was on or near Berkeley Square in London, but, in the fashion of those occult writers, failed to provide the exact address. Has anyone read a similar account and does Berkeley Square even exist? Dear Coyote, I am shocked :eek: shocked, I tell you! How your education has not included the fine song, whose chorus is: That certain night, The night we met, There was magic abroad in the air. There were angels dining at the Ritz And a nightingale sang in Berk’ley Square I simply cannot imagine. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/97 "2002-06-26T22:49:59Z")
What can I say, glee? I’m just a barbarian. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489/98 "2002-06-27T07:20:40Z")
May I call you Peyote? You’re much too polite to be a barbarian! 😉 Berkeley Square is in Mayfair (as per the English Monopoly board, it’s an incredibly expensive area of Central London). This is **not** , however, proof of ghosts. Going back to Pluto. Astronomers knew that other planets existed. Therefore there was a basis for assuming another one might also be there. Since no form of ghost, whether poltergeist, seance spirit, vampire or spectre, has ever been scientifically observed, it really is hard to see why people even think they might exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-a-ghost-ever-harmed-a-person/115489.md?page=4)