That level of thinking actually makes my head hurt. Seriously? So supposing someone is having a problem and is frightened, it is better to ignore documented evidence, and don’t look for a natural explanation because it will only encourage them? THAT is what perpetuates woo, not the reverse. “Well they can’t explain it and won’t listen or look at it, so I’m going with ghosts.” :smack: That is how people get killed when it turns out their basement pipes aren’t grounded right and are floating intermittently. Maybe all they knew about it was that they were experiencing weird feelings in that room and couldn’t explain it. Ground the pipes and the woo goes away and everyone is safe. Do nothing and it only continues.
Ignore what documented evidence? Documented evidence of what?
It isn’t possible to investigate the cause of every single ghost claim on earth and it isn’t profitable to try. Ghosts are not something can be disproven, no matter how many settling walls or mice under the floorboards that you find, it doesn’t prove that other noise wasn’t a ghost. It’s a waste of time looking for a natural explanations because they won’t accept them anyway, and no matter how may you find, there’s always an endless number of claims you haven’t investigated. The skeptics have no burden of proof here. It’s those who wish to assert the existence of the paranormal who must make a specific claim and set up specific falsifiable tests.
That is why [I believe I have posted it previously] wanted to set up a situation where I pick a previously uninvestigated haunted location, and 2 other similar properties in a random town. The people are not told what the apparent haunting involves nor which of the 3 properties it is in. They get locked in each property in turn to do their thing, and only after they are finished in each property and they have finished the analysis are they told which property it was and what the hauntings supposedly were.
“One of the sites was actually haunted, but those devious skeptics used deceit and trickery to make us believe the other sites were haunted too. Shows how much you can trust them”
My first step in determining if a place is haunted or not would be to demolish the house. Too much variables in some random house somewhere to account for everything
Rebuild in the same spot, use metal, not wood, to prevent excessive creaking. Take it from there
This is basically what I was going to suggest, only using more houses and controlling as well as possible for similar age, construction and air of “spookiness”. The investigators (who could be a mix of “paranormalists” and skeptics) have no idea which (if any) of the properties are supposed to be haunted.
One drawback is that the reported results could very well indicate something spook-tacular in one or more of the “control” homes, and the paranormalists’ explanation would be that gee, the people living there were just too insensitive to pick up on it. And a negative result for the “real” haunted house would be explained away by the investigators being too noisy, too skeptical, eating junk food and scaring away holistic ghosts and so on.
As always, it should be pointed out that claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to skeptics to find an ironclad reason why someone heard ghostly footsteps. It’s nice if they can find logical reasons, but it’s really up to the footstep hearer to provide evidence that ooooOOOOOooooo was responsible.
And who’s going to pay for all this elaborate research anyway? T. Boone Pickens? George Soros? Jesse Ventura? 
Who are you quoting? Name the people that said that. Or are you just making it up, again?
The use of quoitation marks was obviously facetious, and the content of the quotes are common sorts of protests to failed tests.
Here’s one easily found exponent of the belief that science is an invalid means of testing paranormal woo, at least the “personal” kind:
“Science has its place in the paranormal field however you cannot judge someones personal experiences by scientific method… As far as personal experiences go whether someone believes another’s report of a personal experience isn’t really that important. The person that had the experience has received the answer.”
Close enough, Peter?
This person sounds very much as if they’d jump to accept an unexplained reading on a device as evidence of the paranormal. Insistence that one provide evidence to back up a tale of ghostly apparitions would be met with indifference or hostility.
You misspelled “dishonest”
cite? Name specific individuals that have said things like this. Give exact quotes, and state your sources.
I won’t accept hearsay. Certain people are in the habit of making up quotes. A lot of them are just works of fiction. You must cite a primary source.
Let’s see the quote, shall we.
No, since he says the exact opposite of what you claim.
And which of Czarcazm’s made up quotes do you think it supports, anyway?
Cherry-picking a bit, are we? As should be abundantly clear, the quoted individual believes that “personal experience” of the paranormal cannot be tested by science.
It is extremely common in the World O’ Woo for believers to say various versions of “Your science can’t measure my woo.” I’ve heard this dodge applied to alternative medicine but it’s common enough in other fields. Here’s another devotee of the paranormal:
“One cannot explain UFOs and paranormal phenomena with our current means of investigation, nor even with the present interpretation which we have of the universe which surrounds us.”
And yet another fan of the paranormal,“Crazywulf”:
“Science is incapable at this time to prove the spiritual, so why lover ourselves (sic) unto a scientific plane, when plainly, they are incapable of seeing beyond their 5 senses…”
There’s tons of this sort of denialism out there, Peter. Check it out for yourself - have an open mind. 
Not at all. He said the exact opposite of what you think he said.
And you still haven’t answered the question, which of Czarcasm’s made up quotes do you think it supports?
If you want to attack my honesty and integrity, please do it in the proper forum. I’m not here to be your Randi-substitute, and I will not respond to this harassment.
You are the one going on about Randi, not me. You are obsessed with the man.
And who were you quoting? Or did you just make it up, again?
This only eliminates the question of there being a ghost at that particular location. To find out if ghosts exist at all using your idea we would have to tear down all such buildings, and new claims would pop up faster then the old buildings could be destroyed and rebuilt.
When it comes to disproving the existence of ghosts, unless a test can be designed that takes place instantly the world over, it will be deemed a failure by all those not cursed by the reality gene. The ghost will always be elsewhere.
Here is a list of people being tested for the paranormal by just one group dedicated to just this purpose. It should show you both the difficulty in designing a “universal test” and the difficulty in getting the claimants to agree to fair testing at all.
Acid Lamp, you forgot one important ingredient in your post #11 list: to employ a professional magician to look for loopholes in the protocol that could fool gullible humans.
There is this. Trickery may be a factor, and a person well trained in the art would be handy to have around to guide those who think that all data coming in is legit.