why we need ghosts

no u

I believe is the appropriate response to that comment.

No its not because anyone considering context of 'unexplained' phenomena knows it cant be reported as hardcore news as we dont yet have the tools to prove. That still doesnt mean its all bs. That is just as much an assumption.

This is why its told anecdotally or often kept to oneself as you or others would not have hardcore answers either for all cases.

There are some experiences which cant be explained or easily dismissed. What it may imply is a window to speculate there may be more to what exists or is possible than we currently are aware of or have the ability to measure.
 
With all that knowledge (books and articles) of ghosts, has anyone ever put forth a mathematical model how and why it is possible for ghosts to exist? If there is ANY chance that a condition exists which allows for immaterial but sentient *entities*, it would seem strange that no serious science has been developed to investigate the possibility.

If not, then be have just another unprovable *belief* system, just like the existence of angels and demons and an omnipotent God who *speaks* to certain people who are in the business of collecting money for Him because this omnipotent God apparently is unable to manage his financial cash flow.
Scientific Investigation vs. Ghost Hunters
this comparison of cases shows, the approach of so-called “ghost hunters” is simply one of mystery mongering. Like claims for the paranormal in general, their assertions that certain places are haunted are based on the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: “We don’t know what caused such-and-such (a noise, say), so it must have been a ghost.” In fact, one cannot draw a conclusion from a lack of knowledge. The problem is exacerbated by the pseudoscientific use of scientific equipment and by the distinct possibility that ghost hunters are actually causing—even if unintentionally—some of the very phenomena they are experiencing!
In contrast is the scientific investigator’s approach: begin with the phenomenon in question, try to ascertain whether it in fact happened, develop hypotheses to explain it, and seek to find the most likely explanation—keeping in mind that one cannot explain one mystery by attributing it to another.
Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and "Investigative Files" Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/scientific_investigation_vs._ghost_hunters
 
Last edited:
With all that knowledge (books and articles) of ghosts, has anyone ever put forth a mathematical model how and why it is possible for ghosts to exist? If there is ANY chance that a condition exists which allows for immaterial but sentient *entities*, it would seem strange that no serious science has been developed to investigate the possibility.

Not at all. As you yourself demonstrate, parapsychology has a reputation for being a pseudoscience that has no evidence to back it up. Scientists are well aware that any research or interest in this field would result in condemnation by their peers and public ridicule. Scientists are like well-trained dogs--they jump thru the hoops that best pay them well. But this doesn't mean there isn't a scientific approach going on to this phenomenon. At present there are around 3500 paranormal research societies in the U.S. alone that investigate hauntings on a regular basis for free: http://www.paranormalsocieties.com/ The equipment they use and methods involved establish abundant evidence for ghosts, whatever they might be. The fact that there is no mathematical model for it is as irrelevant as there being no mathematical model for consciousness or other phenomena of nature. Mysteries abound abundantly in the universe. We go by the evidence long before we have a theory to explain it.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. As you yourself demonstrate, parapsychology has a reputation for being a pseudoscience that has no evidence to back it up. Scientists are well aware that any research or interest in this field would result in condemnation by their peers and public ridicule. Scientists are like well-trained dogs--they jump thru the hoops that best pay them well. But this doesn't mean there isn't a scientific approach going on to this phenomenon. At present there are around 3500 paranormal research societies in the U.S. alone that investigate hauntings on a regular basis for free: http://www.paranormalsocieties.com/ The equipment they use and methods involved establish abundant evidence for ghosts, whatever they might be. The fact that there is no mathematical model for it is as irrelevant as there being no mathematical model for consciousness or other phenomena of nature. Mysteries abound abundantly in the universe. We go by the evidence long before we have a theory to explain it.
What evidence that could lead to a serious investigation has ever been presented that can withstand scrutiny by Real scientists. Oh I forgot those real scientists are just dishonest players in the game of Science.

If there are 3500 paranormal researchers busy at work with the most sophisticated equipment and still no evidence which will lend itself to propositions by "real* theoretical scientists, such as Joe Nickel, PhD.

I'll take his sceptical viewpoint over every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a selfie showing a ghost in the background. But you are so ready to dismiss ( through the time tested use of ad hominem) my professional experience in photography, especially in B/W photography and development, in favor of a bunch of amateurs who have the same knowledge of physics than the people who invented gods and all the pomp and circumstance to prove a false notion.

But if you need ghosts in your life, hey, I'll be the last to try and psycho-analyze your mind and emotional needs. Have at it all you want, perhaps there may be a Nobel prize in it.
.
 
Last edited:
If there are 3500 paranormal researchers busy at work with the most sophisticated equipment and still no evidence

I already posted photo evidence and directed you to websites with further evidence of ghosts. I told you about libraries that have books on it. I posted 3500 paranormal websites with accounts of paranormal phenomena. Its up to you to examine it for yourself. I couldn't care less if you do so or not. Sounds like you've already made up your mind anyway without looking at any of the evidence. How scientific of you.
 
Last edited:
I already posted photo evidence and directed you to websites with further evidence of ghosts. I told you about libraries that have books on it. I posted 3500 paranormal websites with accounts of paranormal phenomena. Its up to you to examine it for yourself. I couldn't care less if you do so or not. Sounds like you've already made up your mind.

No, I have no agenda whatever, other than learning what we do know and can prove its existence. I just don't think that Twitter is a reliable source, ok?

I also posted photo evidence and asked you if they were ghosts or double ecposures. Apparently you cannot tell the difference, you still have not answered the question.
 
No, I have no agenda whatever, other than learning what we do know and can prove its existence. I just don't think that Twitter is a reliable source, ok?

I didn't post a thing from twitter. Lying doesn't suit you.

I also posted photo evidence and asked you if they were ghosts or double ecposures. Apparently you cannot tell the difference, you still have not answered the question.

You can post your double exposures all day long but as I pointed out that doesn't prove a thing about ghosts not existing. You'd have to prove the ghost photos are all faked, and that's not happening anytime soon. You'd have to prove all the thousands of eyewitness accounts are all made up, and that's not gonna happen. And you'd have to prove all the audio recordings of ghosts are fake, and that's not happening either. Why are you so scared of ghosts existing? Like I said, they really won't bother you either way. Life will go on for you, I promise.
 
Last edited:
Well thank you for that gratuitous reassurance that ghosts will not bother me. That means a lot to me, after all, you being the expert.

btw. Holland just credentialed the Church of FSM as a religious organization. I'm sure that the FSM won't bother me anytime soon either, although a plate of spaghetti unexplainably fell off the table into my lap once.

Must have been a ghost or perhaps the FSM took a personal interest in my disbelieef and ruined my dinner.

p.s. I never claimed that ghost photos are faked. I merely told you that as an ex-photographer there is no way of proving they are real. The burden of proof lies with the claimant that they are pictures of real ghosts.

But I have had enough fun with this and the subject is just getting boring. You just keep believing in ghosts, but beware, they are tricky and elusive creatures and that's probably why you have never seen a ghost either, so I'm sure they won't bother you either.
 
Last edited:
p.s. I never claimed that ghost photos are faked. I merely told you that as an ex-photographer there is no way of proving they are real.

Right...they're not fake but they're not real either. lol! Move along dearie. I think we're done here.
 
Well thank you for that gratuitous reassurance that ghosts will not bother me. That means a lot to me, after all, you being the expert.

There is no assurance of that either. Its just chance but unlikely, like getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery.
 
We have mountains of evidence for ghosts and paranormal phenomena.

There's a mountain of 'evidence' for the truth of Christianity too. No end of miracles, religious experiences, all kinds of stuff.

I'm not sure what intellectual criterion justifies accepting the one while rejecting the other.

My own view is that all of these kind of things need to be approached with considerable skepticism.
 
Joe Nickell said:
the approach of so called "ghost hunters" is simply one of mystery mongering. Like claims for the paranormal in general, their assertions that certain places are haunted are based on the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: "We don't know what caused such-and-such (a noise, say), so it must have been a ghost." In fact one cannot draw a conclusion from a lack of knowledge.

If people just say, "People often report weird and unusual experiences in (name a particular place), experiences that they find inexplicable.", Nickell's objection falls apart.

The problem Nickell refers to only occurs when people start drawing conclusions about what causes those experiences:

"The subjective feelings of uncanniness or strange lights or a sense of coldness are caused by ghosts. Ghosts are the disembodied spirits of dead human beings."

That interpretive step is where ghost-hunting kind of steps over the line into being an expression of popular mythology.

In contrast is the scientific investigator's approach: begin with the phenomenon in question

Initially describing "the phenomenon in question" is necessarily going to involve some interpretation. People say that such and such a place is "haunted". But 'haunted' is obviously a loaded term. The word itself kind of pre-assumes an interpretation of what's happening.

We see the same thing happening in conventional science. Theoretical physicists propose the existence of something called a "Higgs boson". What the hell does that mean? But any attempt at explaining what a 'Higgs boson' supposedly is will inevitably have to reference a huge body of physical theory that the proposal simply assumes. Any experimental attempt to verify its existence will do the same.

I guess that the difference is that people like Nickell and CSICOP are all on board with the presuppositions built into Higgs bosons, but reject the world-view in which beliefs in ghosts arise.

I would suggest that in the case of ghosts, it might be useful to try to 'bracket out' the controversial interpretive stuff and to try to describe the 'haunting' phenomenon in more neutral terms. Are any of the manifestations of hauntings visible to the senses? If so, then it should be possible to detect them and to record them. That can be done without prejudging the nature of whatever is causing what's being observed and without introducing a whole body of interpretive theory that would likely be inconsistent with CSICOP's preexisting worldview.

try to ascertain whether it in fact happened, develop hypotheses to explain it, and seek to find the most likely explanation - keeping in mind that one cannot explain one mystery by attributing it to another.

I think that last is very true. Explanations work by reducing the unknown to the known.

But it is very important to note that this is an epistemological principle, not a metaphysical one. It isn't telling us what can and can't exist. It isn't suggesting that things can't be happening around us that are inexplicable in terms of our current knowledge. I think that the reality of such phenomena is almost a certainty. It's just telling us that "explaining" a small mystery in terms of a bigger mystery doesn't advance our understanding and just leaves us with more questions than we had before.
 
Last edited:
If people just say, "People often report weird and unusual experiences in (name a particular place), experiences that they find inexplicable.", Nickell's objection falls apart.
The problem Nickell refers to only occurs when people start drawing conclusions about what causes those experiences: "The subjective feelings of uncanniness or strange lights or a sense of coldness are caused by ghosts. Ghosts are the disembodied spirits of dead human beings."

That interpretive step is where ghost-hunting kind of steps over the line into being an expression of popular mythology.

Initially describing "the phenomenon in question" is necessarily going to involve some interpretation. People say that such and such a place is "haunted". But 'haunted' is obviously a loaded term. The word itself kind of pre-assumes an interpretation of what's happening.

Ecactly, in the case of ghosts, we provide an answer, but it is wholly unsupported by testable facts. A broken vase on the floor can be from numerous causes, but we begin with assuming it is a ghost, before trying to analyze other conditions which might have caused the vase to slide off the table. I cited my spaghetti meal sliding off the table in a busy restaurant. Today I still don't know how this happened, but one thing have definitely ruled out is "a ghost did it*

We see the same thing happening in conventional science. Theoretical physicists propose the existence of something called a "Higgs boson". What the hell does that mean? But any attempt at explaining what a 'Higgs boson' supposedly is will inevitably have to reference a huge body of physical theory that the proposal simply assumes. Any experimental attempt to verify its existence will do the same.

I guess that the difference is that people like Nickell and CSICOP are all on board with the presuppositions built into Higgs bosons, but reject the world-view in which beliefs in ghosts arise.
The Higgs boson *was mathematically predicted* to exist and has *actually* been demonstrated (Cern) to exist as a real property of spacetime.
I would suggest that in the case of ghosts, it might be useful to try to 'bracket out' the controversial interpretive stuff and to try to describe the 'haunting' phenomenon in more neutral terms. Are any of the manifestations of hauntings visible to the senses? If so, then it should be possible to detect them and to record them. That can be done without prejudging the nature of whatever is causing what's being observed and without introducing a whole body of interpretive theory that would likely be inconsistent with CSICOP's preexisting worldview.
I think that last is very true. Explanations work by reducing the unknown to the known.

But it is very important to note that this is an epistemological principle, not a metaphysical one. It isn't telling us what can and can't exist. It isn't suggesting that things can't be happening around us that are inexplicable in terms of our current knowledge. I think that the reality of such phenomena is almost a certainty. It's just telling us that "explaining" a small mystery in terms of a bigger mystery doesn't advance our understanding and just leaves us with more questions than we had before.

I agree, but is still comes down to the question, if ghost are even theoretically possible. So far no scientist has formulated any such scenario, which can be tested and falsified.

Keeping in mind that it takes only one single "verifiable" occurrence of a ghost to prove they can and do exist, but there is not a single reliable account or evidence that it is physically possible, and evn more speculative is the assunption of "restless spirits", which leads to theology.
 
there is not a single reliable account or evidence that it is physically possible

Ofcourse it is possible, much as we have evidence of other transient phenomena such a ball lightning, rogue waves, and earthquake lights. Ghosts make vocal sounds, they move objects, they make banging sounds in empty buildings, they flash out light, they set off vibration and motion detectors, they affect electrical equipment, and they emit EMF fields and infrared signatures on cameras. The phenomena is better documented and witnessed than ball lightning, and yet science will not even look into it for fear it will lose its funding and credibility. All it will take is enough courageous people with the proper equipment and observational skills to spend time at mulitple haunted locations at night. And wadda ya know, that's exactly what paranormal teams by the thousands are doing.

"As Vice-President of the Ghost Club Society for the past 25 years I have looked into many cases of ghost sightings so when I read in the Mail yesterday that an eminent psychologist, Dr Richard Wiseman, has claimed that ghosts definitely do not exist, I knew he was talking nonsense - not least because I have actually talked to a ghost, as I shall describe later.






I never cease to be amazed by the gall of scientists who declare they have now proved the non-existence of spirits or the soul or second sight or telepathy when thousands of ordinary people can contradict them from their own experience.



In the British Journal Of Psychology, Dr Wiseman and his colleagues describe how they investigated two famous haunted sites - Hampton Court Palace and the South Bridge Vaults in Edinburgh - and noted that in the most 'spooky' areas there are strong magnetic fields.



Magnetism, they say, can influence the mind into thinking it is sensing the presence of a ghost. So can such conditions as cold and damp.





Their conclusion is that ghosts are all in the mind, that what you might think is a ghost is nothing more than the brain's reaction to tiny changes in light, temperature, smell or magnetic field.



What I find incredible is that these scientists - from Edinburgh and Hertfordshire Universities - have apparently failed to take a close look at the wealth of scientific research into ghosts that has been going on since 1882.



This was the year that a group of scientists and intellectuals decided to create a society for studying ghosts and hauntings under the strictest conditions. Within a few months, they had so much proof that not one of them had the slightest doubt that ghosts were real.



One of their best documented cases is that of an old chimney sweep, Samuel Bull, who died of 'sooty cancer', leaving a bedridden widow in a tiny cottage with eight other family members.



Nine months after his death, the six children became nervous, declaring that there was someone outside the door. Then one day, Samuel Bull, looking quite solid, walked into his widow's bedroom.



Everyone was terrified, but as these appearances continued over months, even the children got used to it. Samuel would stand by his widow's bed, his hand on her forehead - she said it felt firm but cold. One visit lasted more than an hour.



The Society For Psychical Research, who investigated the case, had no doubt it was genuine.



Samuel Bull was the most common type of ghost. He looked like a real person. But another type is so common that thousands of cases have been recorded - the poltergeist, or noisy ghost.





Poltergeists throw things, cause objects to fly around, and often make such a racket that they drive people to nervous breakdowns.



I have studied many cases, and have concluded that they are basically mischievous, empty-headed spirits with nothing better to do - the football hooligans of the spirit world.



In fact, there are so many poltergeists about that there is probably one within ten miles of where you live. I once tested this by asking around my local area of Cornwall. In no time at all I had located more than a dozen.





My most striking supernatural experience came in 1978 when I was invited to our local television station in Plymouth to meet a pretty nurse named Pauline McKay.



When placed in a hypnotic trance, Pauline would talk in a strong Devon accent and declare that her name was Kitty Jay, a milkmaid who had committed suicide in the late 18th century, and whose grave on Dartmoor is a tourist attraction.





But Pauline had never heard of her, nor did she know of the existence of Jay's Grave.





As Pauline lay in the studio with closed eyes, she told me how she had gone to Canna Farm, near Chagford, the most haunted village in England, looking for the labourer who had made her pregnant, and then hanged herself in the barn. Because she was a suicide, her body was buried at a crossroads on the edge of the moor, an attempt to confuse her spirit should it walk.



Pauline pronounced Chagford in the old way - Chagiford (it was spelt Chageford) - and the detailed manner in which she described Kitty's death left us all horrified and convinced.





Later, we took Pauline along to Canna Farm. She became obviously upset but, without prompting, led us into the farmyard, and turned left into the barn. There she showed us the beam on which Kitty hanged herself, and the farmer verified that she was correct.



Yet Pauline had never visited the West Country in her life.



So what is there about the little town of Chagford that makes it one of the most haunted places in England?



After extensive research, I have come to the conclusion that Chagford does indeed have more ghosts than any small town I have visited.



And I believe Dr Wiseman is at least partly right, in that the answer lies in magnetism - the magnetism of the Earth itself.



It is often connected with granite, like that on Dartmoor. Lines of this force can be traced by good dowsers, who call them 'ley lines'. The whole area around Chagford is surrounded by them.





For some reason, these lines seem to provide the ideal environment for ghosts. Again and again, I have found that haunted houses lie on the crossing point of ley lines.



And I am certain that in some odd way, these lines can record powerful, tragic emotions, like magnetic tapes.



Chagford is plainly a place that is full of such 'recordings', echoes of the past and there are many more scattered the length of Britain. Whatever, the psychologists say, I know what I've seen and heard. Ghosts do exist.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-181817/Ghosts-exist.html#ixzz42GNIElV6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Last edited:
If people just say, "People often report weird and unusual experiences in (name a particular place), experiences that they find inexplicable.", Nickell's objection falls apart.

The problem Nickell refers to only occurs when people start drawing conclusions about what causes those experiences:

"The subjective feelings of uncanniness or strange lights or a sense of coldness are caused by ghosts. Ghosts are the disembodied spirits of dead human beings."

That interpretive step is where ghost-hunting kind of steps over the line into being an expression of popular mythology.



Initially describing "the phenomenon in question" is necessarily going to involve some interpretation. People say that such and such a place is "haunted". But 'haunted' is obviously a loaded term. The word itself kind of pre-assumes an interpretation of what's happening.

We see the same thing happening in conventional science. Theoretical physicists propose the existence of something called a "Higgs boson". What the hell does that mean? But any attempt at explaining what a 'Higgs boson' supposedly is will inevitably have to reference a huge body of physical theory that the proposal simply assumes. Any experimental attempt to verify its existence will do the same.

I guess that the difference is that people like Nickell and CSICOP are all on board with the presuppositions built into Higgs bosons, but reject the world-view in which beliefs in ghosts arise.

I would suggest that in the case of ghosts, it might be useful to try to 'bracket out' the controversial interpretive stuff and to try to describe the 'haunting' phenomenon in more neutral terms. Are any of the manifestations of hauntings visible to the senses? If so, then it should be possible to detect them and to record them. That can be done without prejudging the nature of whatever is causing what's being observed and without introducing a whole body of interpretive theory that would likely be inconsistent with CSICOP's preexisting worldview.



I think that last is very true. Explanations work by reducing the unknown to the known.

But it is very important to note that this is an epistemological principle, not a metaphysical one. It isn't telling us what can and can't exist. It isn't suggesting that things can't be happening around us that are inexplicable in terms of our current knowledge. I think that the reality of such phenomena is almost a certainty. It's just telling us that "explaining" a small mystery in terms of a bigger mystery doesn't advance our understanding and just leaves us with more questions than we had before.

The thing about CSICOP is that this is an organization of a bunch of pretentious blowhards who make a living trying to debunk every mysterious phenomenon or event known to man.They've made quite a reputation and career out of being the naysayers on everything from ghosts to ufos to esp. I used to subscribe to their magazine back in the 80's. They are what I call dogmatic skeptics, always pushing a positivist agenda of reason and science over ignorant superstition. It is your basic scientistic crusade fueling so many online science blogs and forums now. But such skeptical fanaticism is neither scientific or objective, first making the assumption that the phenomenon isn't real and then spending all their time trying to prove that. Nobody could know that a given account of a poltergeist or an alien encounter or a bigfoot is automatically false without looking into it first. But then, when your career and ongoing subscriptions to your online magazine totally relies on this premise, you'd better make darn sure you can debunk everything that comes along. I wonder how well these guys sleep at night? lol!
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that in the case of ghosts, it might be useful to try to 'bracket out' the controversial interpretive stuff and to try to describe the 'haunting' phenomenon in more neutral terms. Are any of the manifestations of hauntings visible to the senses? If so, then it should be possible to detect them and to record them.


 
Last edited:
This is also anecdotal but i know of a haunted location where if i put anyone of you in there locked for 24 hours, you would most definitely come out at least wondering something is going on or what exists in there.

Part of why is in this case, it would put one so close with almost 100 percent chance of it interacting is for one, the room is small, the entity is somehow attached or cant leave that room (dont know why of that either) and its not averse to interacting with whoever is in there and it eventually will. Is it some famous location? Nope, just some unremarkable townhouse in a regular neighborhood. And this particular haunting is not even what you see but what you will actually feel as in a form with density and mass.

I know this but i cant prove it but i know with absolute certainty it would at least open up your ideas of whats possible or will definitely leaving with some questions even if kept to oneself. And i mean everybody including the most diehard skeptics.
 
Last edited:
This is also anecdotal but i know of a haunted location where if i put anyone of you in there locked for 24 hours, you would most definitely come out at least wondering something is going on or what exists in there.

Part of why is in this case, it would put one so close with almost 100 percent chance of it interacting is for one, the room is small, the entity is somehow attached or cant leave that room (dont know why of that either) and its not averse to interacting with whoever is in there and it eventually will. Is it some famous location? Nope, just some unremarkable townhouse in a regular neighborhood. And this particular haunting is not even what you see but what you will actually feel as in a form with density and mass.

I know this but i cant prove it but i know with absolute certainty it would at least open up your ideas of whats possible or will definitely leaving with some questions even if kept to oneself. And i mean everybody including the most diehard skeptics.

At our downtown library here in Portland it is well known that on certain nights after closing all the books from a particular shelf--the one dealing with ghosts and witchcraft and psychic phenomena--are knocked to the floor. Security personel never find anyone responsible. A most peculiar state affairs. We also have a hotel downtown with a well-known haunted room that guests experience all sorts of phenomena with. Anecdotal? Yes..and powerfully so!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top