Thanks.
But don’t we change our theories about those laws in order to explain newly-observed phenomena? And if so, how is this practice not applicable in this case?
“Finding something” clearly means something supernatural or paranormal. Simply finding something they aren’t educated or intelligent enough or imaginative enough to explain is not really “finding” anything, it just means they aren’t bright enough to understand all their own data and are not educated enough to know that “magic” is not a legitimate hypothesis for that which they don’t understand.
They’re doing it for a TV show and there is little risk they can be exosed as frauds since there is nothing falsifiable about anything they claim. as long as they don’t get caught on tape admitting they’re full of crap, they always have the plausible deniability that they actually believe their own nonsense.
Plus the people who would hire ghostbusters aren’t not going to be the sharpest knives in the drawer.
It might be because far too frequently when someone opens a thread around here to talk about ghosts – even if it’s just “spooky” experiences you’ve had, with not a hint of ZOMG!ghostsarereal! – another poster pops in with a dismissive and superior attitude. Related to that resentment is the discussion of whatever the topic is – in this case a TV show – can’t happen because of a couple factions engaging in circular arguments. What starts out as “ghosts don’t exist” turns into a thread hijack that never ends.
In this case, I think it’s because people want to talk about the TV show, not whether or not ghosts actually exist. It would be possible to discuss the show civilly, without descending to an intelligentsia wank over the existence of ghosts. This argument has happened over and over again, and as far as I know, neither side has ever changed their minds.
Basically, what Zebra said (Oslo too, on preview). Popping into a thread about a certain TV show with “Of course they aren’t going to find anything, because there is no such thing as a ghost.” without offering anything more substantive to the discussion is akin to going to a thread about Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and saying, “There’s no such thing as a vampire, guys. Why do you waste your time?” Let me engage in some flights of fancy while I fold my socks and underwear, and then maybe talk about it on the internet.
[sub]I know, I know. Buffy is fictional; Ghosthunters is shot documentary style. But they’re both there for entertainment purposes. It’s not exactly a peer-reviewed publication or anything.[/sub]
Not really, no. The laws themselves are fixed. We do not have “theories about laws.” Laws are simply observed. They are not theoretical.
Since nobody has answered the OP, let me say that yes, they seem to “find” things a good deal of the time.
Or perhaps they manufacture things. No quotes needed.
Check out the Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal Society page for their side of the story.
Wiki also notes that:
Hmm. And hmmm.
But realistically, hotflungwok nailed it right away. They have absolutely no idea what to look for or what equipment to use or what readings would prove anything. It simply doesn’t matter what they do. They can’t come up with a positive any more than using a crystal ball would. They would have to announce ahead of time what evidence would be meaningful and they would have to have that evidence checked and replicated by an objective third party, which they refuse to do. They are running a perfect scam. Their followers will believe anything they say even though none of it has any meaning whatsoever.
Why do they do this? Money. Everything about TAPS is designed to pull in money from the suckers.
And the money that comes from the Sci-Fi Channel’s highest rated show must be considerable.
No wonder they lost their non-profit status.
What is your definition of the word “exist”? If there is no measurable evidence for a thing, how can it be said to exist? You want us to “prove” that words have definitions?
First, do you know for a fact that they spent that much money, or did they just say they did? Second, even if they did spend 6 figures, you don’t think they stand to make a lot more than that? Let’s say they are paid $5,000 for one show (I imagine it’s much more, but just for the sake of argument). 20 shows, and they’re already into 6 figures. And that would be an impossibly low budget for a television show; it’s most likely far more than that. It doesn’t take a math genius to realize that this type of fraud is a profitable venture. As for “being exposed”, that’s already a fait accompli. Nobody in the legitimate scientific community takes this sort of nonsense seriously. It’s already well known that these people are hucksters. There is nothing to “expose”.
Honestly folks - has it occurred to any of you “believers” that these charlatans are simply lying? I saw one of these shows once. This “team” had gone into a supposedly haunted house and made audio recordings. When they played them back, they heard eerie whispering voices on them. As the shows producers busily talked about explanations for these voices, nobody brought up the obvious explanation that the the person making the recording, who was standing there at the time, made the sounds. Are people really gullible enough to believe this garbage?
If you have watched the show you should know. TAPS is the name of the company of ghost hunters. However there have been several ‘ghost hunter type’ shows of various names. This particular one is pretty long lived.
Maybe Lowbrass missed my question.
Have you ever watched the show this thread is about?
Yes. Absolutely. By the millions.
Even here on the Dope.
So, is the show called “TAPS”? What channel is it on? I can’t find a listing on imdb.com.
ETA: The only currently produced show on the subject that I’ve seen is called “Ghost Hunters”, and is aired on the SciFi Channel; it’s insultingly stupid, but I’d be interested in seeing a more thoughtful take on the whole thing, if that’s what this “TAPS” deal is.
“Ghost Hunters” is the name of the show. TAPS is the name of their [del]scam operation[/del] “company.”
Thanks for clearing it up. So we’ve been talking about the show “Ghost Hunters” this whole time? Yeah, I’ve seen that show. It’s stupid.
If we lack the means to detect a thing, the thing does not exist? Is that correct? If so, there must have been a lot fewer celestial objects in the universe before 1900 than after.
No, who said that?
Here?
It’s not an issue of technological means. The point is that if a hypothetical phenomenon cannot interact in any physical way with the universe – meaning that it cannot even be theoretically observed or inferred, not just that we lack the technology – then it’s not only empirically null but ontologically null as well.
And if, TAPS shows us evidence of an interaction, by ‘something’ and they take the time to rule out other physical causes, then what?
Other physical causes than what? Do you mean any physical causes? If they can prove that a given phenomenon has no possible natural explanation then they will have made the biggest scientific discovery in history and they will win fame, fortune and Nobel Prizes. The same will happen if they invent a time machine or a perpetual motion machine or discover Narnia.
I watched a marathon one day while I was sick. I’ve been hooked ever since (and for the record, I watch Battlestar Galactica, too; it doesn’t mean I believe Lucy Lawless can resurrect via spacecraft).
Anyway, not being one to resist a paranormal thread on the SDMB, the short answer is: they almost never find anything really interesting. It’s what I’d call a very poor signal-to-noise ratio. Most of the stuff they can’t debunk falls under the heading of “odd but completely explicable.” They seldom catch video evidence.
In terms of really freaky stuff (that certainly impressed me), only three instances come to mind, the first one being the thing with the chair that Zebra mentions. Another was a rumored-to-be-haunted room in the Stanley Hotel in Colorado; one of them spent the night and, while he’s sleeping, the camera catches a closet door open, then close, and catches the sound of a drinking glass on the nightstand cracking. The third is the only (apparent) apparition they’ve caught on video, at Moon River Brewing Co. here in Savannah, pretty freaky.
In terms of scientific evidence, the answer is that they’ve never found anything and almost certainly never will without substantial improvement in their methods (not to mention an actual testable hypothesis). They pride themselves on their debunking, and they do a fair job of finding ordinary explanations, but they only spend a few hours at each place, and they never go back to try to reproduce or have others reproduce any interesting results they do find (now if they could go back and catch the same apparition again, that might start to become interesting). Even then, in the end, all they can ever hope to do is debunk anything they find.
In terms of being a scam, I’m of the opinion that their intentions, at least, are genuine. It’s not that these couldn’t have been faked, and certainly most other shows like this one are obvious fakes (see: Most Haunted). But my feeling is that there’s a kernel of integrity at the heart of it. Still, they’re just not very…smart about it. They insist on always turning the lights off, only recording at the dead of night. They’re always talking over the voices they catch on tape. The show’s production qualities are complete shite. I find it frustrating to watch, which might be why I can’t stop.
Meh. Someone point me to the *John From Cincinatti *thread.
I’m sorry but i just don’t get it. Making a chair move on camera is about the most trivial thing possible, i could make that happen and i have absolutely no film training. The things you are describing are in no way “freaky”, they are the simplest tricks known to man and have been done on film practically from its inception.