# Post your ghost stories here, and I will debunk them **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674 "2010-06-18T14:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/241 "2010-06-19T03:11:28Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I said that art can appear to have non-material origins. That it seems to arise out of nothing. You cried foul, and in your attempts to prove me wrong, you have twice stated that it doesn’t come from anywhere. It \*doesn’t “come from” anywher. It is constructed from existing materials. I don’t know how many times I can say it. > [@](#): > > What do you mean by this? If I paint a picture on a canvas, it doesn’t exist until we “label” it? It only exists as “art” because we say it does. It’s real existence is just the sum of its materials. > [@](#): > > No, it was a direct quote from you. I was quoting you. You keep asking where art “comes fropm?” It doesn’t “come from” anything. The question makes no sense. “Art” is the craft of arranging already existing materials to create an aesthetic effect. > [@](#): > > I don’t think neurological science is as advanced or has conclusions as concrete as you think. they’ve located memory very precisely. > [@](#): > > So you are clearly-- in your own words-- saying it exists, which is in direct contradiction to your own argument. Huh? How does it do that? The word exists as a word, but that’s ALL it is. What’s the confusion? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/242 "2010-06-19T03:15:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well we know enough about aerodynamics to know that you can’t fly by flapping your arms. We know that perpetual motion machines require the absolute elimination of friction which we can prove is impossible. We know that ghost (the disemodied essence of a once living human being) cannot exist because…? You have to define your terms first. What the hell does “disembodied essence” mean? Where does this “essence” reside in the body and what is it made of? We know that consciousness cannot continue to exist when the brain is dead because we know for a fact (as certainly as we know aerodynamics) that consciousness is _caused_ be the brain and is dependent on it and is part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/243 "2010-06-19T03:26:45Z")
> [@starryspice](#): > > I’m addressing the consciousness=brain issue, this post has nothing to do with ghost stories. > > I don’t have time right now to read the rest of the thread, but I think that you’re misunderstanding the question, Diogenes. I could be wrong, but I think Cisco is asking, where does the _concept_ of art come from? Yes, from a bunch of raw materials, you can make a painting. But where did you get the idea for that painting? Your response will no doubt be along the lines of, synapses fired in your brain. But the point here is why did those synapses fire the way they did? Where does the inspiration for an artistic/musical/scientific idea come from? From a complex combination of external input, analysis and emotion. It’s still all brain chemistry. Artistic ideas don’t really spring full form, by the way. They are worked out in the medium. Trial and error is involved. > [@](#): > > I think the answer is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Individual synapses fire, sure, but their firing is organized somehow on a higher level. What does “higher level” mean? Why isn’t synapses good enough? What can’t they do that requires magic as an explanation? > [@](#): > > Meditators often say that they “watch” their thoughts, which implies that there is something in our consciousness or soul or whatever that is not just the mind. I would agree with you that the mind is purely in the brain, and it is perfectly possible for the mind to go away. But the watcher? I’m not so sure the watcher goes away. I’m quite familiar with this stuff, and I assure you, the “watcher” goes away. The “watcher” is still the brain. I have a lot of experience with Zen mediation and I am familiar with the phenomemon of the “ego” seeming to drop away and the sensation of an impassive “observer” lying above the ego. It’s still just the brain. All it means is that the “ego” part of the brain does not comprise the whole of coinsciousness. When the brain dies, the “watcher” dies with it. > [@](#): > > By the way, while it is perfectly possible that some of the “ghost stories” are imagined or made up, I really don’t find “you imagined it” to be a convincing debunking of a story. Not if we use debunking as it is defined in the dictionary. That is exactly the way debunking is defined in the dictionary. If you disprove the alleged “supernatural” part, you have debunked it. If you can posit any way at all, no matter how seemingly unlikely, that something can be explained by natural process, then you have debunked the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/244 "2010-06-19T03:31:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Don’t the Hindu’s believe we are all part of Vishnu’s dream Brahma’s dream. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/245 "2010-06-19T03:35:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s a coincidence too. Your daughter had probably seen her grandfather with the cat a lot of times (and the cat was apparently old) and she was thinking about death. Like I said in the other thread, I have real problems with the idea of ghosts despite my experiences. But is “coincidence” any more scientific or provable than ghosts in cases like the one related? The daughter probably saw Grandfather with plenty of things; possibly more often than the cat. I am not saying you are wrong but how could you possibly prove yourself any more than someone who attributes it to the supernatural? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/246 "2010-06-19T03:41:09Z")
It’s simple. The difference is that one thing is physically possible and the other is not. The flatly impossible is never a legitimate hypothesis for anything. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/247 "2010-06-19T03:58:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s simple. The difference is that one thing is physically possible and the other is not. The flatly impossible is never a legitimate hypothesis for anything. I’m still curious about what **Marley** has to say but I like getting your read on this all as well. Prove “coincidence” to my satisfaction; and be warned I may decide to use the same standards you do with the supernatural. Also be warned that I haven’t personally experienced this thing you call “coincidence:” and consider it flatly impossible. So your standard of proof is going to have to be fairly high. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/248 "2010-06-19T04:01:21Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > I’m still curious about what **Marley** has to say but I like getting your read on this all as well. > > Prove “coincidence” to my satisfaction; and be warned I may decide to use the same standards you do with the supernatural. Also be warned that I haven’t personally experienced this thing you call “coincidence:” and consider it flatly impossible. So your standard of proof is going to have to be fairly high. I have no idea what you’re asking for. ---
**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 19, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/249 "2010-06-19T04:09:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Post whatever ridiculous story you have about smelling your late grandma’s perfume or seeing a plate fall off a shelf on your late Aunt Madge’s birthday, and I will patiently explain the various kinds of perfectly natural explanations that are all vastly more likely than a g-g-g-ghost!. I’ve come across voluminous evidence for the existence of ghosts. I. Friend: [In a bar] "I don’t know MFM, _there’s some pretty weird shit in the world_. Me: “Well, you have a point (hic).” II. I once sat next to a folklorist who specialized in ghosts. Apparently ghost reports in ancient times consisted of animated bones, while in the 19th century amorphous sheets were the preferred spooking mechanism. In the late 20th century, ghosts preferred the “Strangely cold spot in the room” treatment. Explain _that_ smart guy! III. Over at [about.com](http://about.com), they’ve collected [26 images of ghosts](http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/). Now I’ll concede that some of them are fakes and some naive interpretations. But what are the odds that all 26 are something other than ghosts? I can’t discuss all of them, but here are some highlights: 1. [The Brown Lady](http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/The-Brown-Lady.htm%7Bhttp://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/The-Brown-Lady.htm), taken in 1936, “…is arguably the most famous and well-regarded ghost photograph ever taken.” It’s a double-exposure. 2. [Lord Combermere](http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Lord-Combermere.-04z.htm) (1891). Looks like another double exposure. But it was taken during the good Lord’s funeral! It’s uncanny! Sorry Brown Lady, but I’m afraid that you are soundly defeated by this exercise in poor taste. 3. [Freddy Jackson](http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Freddy-Jackson.htm): This appears to have been constructed in the darkroom. "The photo is a group portrait of Goddard’s squadron, which had served in World War I at the HMS Daedalus training facility. An extra ghostly face appears in the photo… Members of the squadron easily recognized the face as Jackson’s. It has been suggested that Jackson, unaware of his death, decided to show up for the group photo. " 4. Ok, this one was just lame. #5 appears to be a pretty cool shot of a reflection on glass. Well, if those won’t persuade you nothing will. Seriously though, these shots are _way_ more diverting than the UFO photos I’ve viewed. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/250 "2010-06-19T04:20:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I have no idea what you’re asking for. I thought I was pretty clear. I am close to asking for the impossible - just as those who ask for irrefutable proof _of_ the supernatural are. On a certain level, you can debunk a ghost with “coincidence” and someone else can come back and debunk a coincidence with something like “ghosts”. How can either of you prove, to a neutral third party, that you and only you are right? You said: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s simple. The difference is that one thing is physically possible and the other is not. The flatly impossible is never a legitimate hypothesis for anything. To me “coincidence” is flatly (and physically maybe?) impossible. I know the textbook definition but I’ve never experienced it (to the best of my knowledge) or explained anything by it. I don’t know that it has ever been replicated or duplicated in a scientific setting; it seems all the evidence is anecdotal. So how can it be, to me, a legitimate explanation of anything? It is just as impossible as ghosts. Unless you can prove otherwise, right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/251 "2010-06-19T04:24:23Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > I thought I was pretty clear. I am close to asking for the impossible - just as those who ask for irrefutable proof _of_ the supernatural are. > > On a certain level, you can debunk a ghost with “coincidence” and someone else can come back and debunk a coincidence with something like “ghosts”. How can either of you prove, to a neutral third party, that you and only you are right? Easy. Coincidences are physically possible and ghosts are not. Duh. That was easy. > [@](#): > > To me “coincidence” is flatly (and physically maybe?) impossible. I know the textbook definition but I’ve never experienced it (to the best of my knowledge) or explained anything by it. I don’t know that it has ever been replicated or duplicated in a scientific setting; it seems all the evidence is anecdotal. So how can it be, to me, a legitimate explanation of anything? It is just as impossible as ghosts. Unless you can prove otherwise, right? Experience or lack thereof is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is or is not permitted by the laws of physics. There isn’t any “textbook definition” of a ghost, by the way, so why try to build that into your (extremely lame) analogy? ---
**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 19, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/252 "2010-06-19T04:28:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > #5 appears to be a pretty cool shot of a reflection on glass. …but more likely it was inserted in the darkroom. The back window should be visible behind Mr. Chinnery, but instead there is the ghost wearing shades. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/253 "2010-06-19T04:38:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Easy. Coincidences are physically possible and ghosts are not. Duh. That was easy. Prove it if its so easy. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Experience or lack thereof is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is or is not permitted by the laws of physics. What law of physics proves or permits a particular coincidence over and above “ghosts”? What’s the exact math on that? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There isn’t any “textbook definition” of a ghost, by the way, so why try to build that into your (extremely lame) analogy? Lame, like beauty, if often in the eye of the beholder and judging by the textbooks I see offered at the Pitt Bookstore (no comment as towards their quality of that University) I’m betting I could find a definition of “ghost” without too much effort. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/254 "2010-06-19T04:44:34Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > On a certain level, you can debunk a ghost with “coincidence” and someone else can come back and debunk a coincidence with something like “ghosts”. Dude, you gonna pass that, or what? ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/255 "2010-06-19T04:47:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And two, if it was a prank and someone told the brother where the dog was, why did the psychic tell them to look in the wrong place? If they had not decided, unbidden, to look on a second road, they would have returned home empty-handed. Or else the brother would have had to direct them to the rock-not-dirt road. Unless the brother knew where to go, and the mention of a dirt road was a misdirection. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/256 "2010-06-19T04:54:33Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Dude, you gonna pass that, or what? Dude, if you knew how much I miss _that_ you wouldn’t even bring the subject up. Damn these random tests at work! 😃 Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with debunking. James Randi was and is a personal hero of mine. But if your goal is debunking, even in the constraints of a message board, I don’t see where “coincidence” is all that great of an explanation. The answer usually supplied is either “because I say so” or “isn’t it obvious”. Well, I don’t know that it is all that obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/257 "2010-06-19T05:07:39Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > Prove it if its so easy. > > What law of physics proves or permits a particular coincidence over and above “ghosts”? What’s the exact math on that? The question is what PREVENTS it. You are the one with the burden to prove that physical laws would PREVENT it. That’s how it works. The definition of “coincidence” is two things happening at the same time. Please explain what physical law or laws prevents two things from happening at the same time. You have the burden here, not me. I can prove ghosts are impossible. You not only can’t prove coincidences are impossible, I can point to examples of them happening. We are posting on this board at the same time. What a coincidence! > [@](#): > > Lame, like beauty, if often in the eye of the beholder and judging by the textbooks I see offered at the Pitt Bookstore (no comment as towards their quality of that University) I’m betting I could find a definition of “ghost” without too much effort. 🙂 No you can’t – not a scientific or “textbook” definition. Not really even a good popular definition. The word is empirically meaningless. There isn’t any “textbook” about them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/258 "2010-06-19T05:10:25Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > Dude, if you knew how much I miss _that_ you wouldn’t even bring the subject up. Damn these random tests at work! 😃 > Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with debunking. James Randi was and is a personal hero of mine. But if your goal is debunking, even in the constraints of a message board, I don’t see where “coincidence” is all that great of an explanation It doesn’t have to be a great explanation. It just has to better than an impossible one. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/259 "2010-06-19T05:22:01Z")
Maybe this would help _vis a vis_ coincidence: saying something is a coincidence does not explain how it occurred. It’s a way of saying there is no relationship between two events, like a man dying and his cat dying of unrelated causes on the same day. They didn’t happen at the same time for any reason. People and cats die every day. It only appears meaningful to us because of how the way our own psychology works. When the options for ‘explaining’ how a man and his cat can drop dead the same day, it’s worth pointing out that coincidence is more plausible than positing a spiritual connection. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674/260 "2010-06-19T05:24:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It doesn’t have to be a great explanation. It just has to better than an impossible one. And we come back full circle - debunking the impossible with the impossible. Unless you do indeed have that math handy? I guess I’m more a skeptic than a cynic but - Ah, the joy of Great Debates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-your-ghost-stories-here-and-i-will-debunk-them/543674.md?page=14)