Ghost Hunting

[Velocir_X]

I recently watched a show on Nova, Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on trial....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
(quite an interesting show, it would do good for all those religious freaks, and you can watch it right here online :wink: )
It's about the court case where it was decided whether ID was science or not, and why.

Now instead of having another ill-worn evolution, and in consequence religion, thread, I wanted to apply this concept further...

Let's take this same question What is science? and compare it to another subject... ...Ghost Hunting

Now this "science" has become more common recently,
with many shows of "investigators" searching for telltale sign of "ghosts"

So now I ask you opinion, just like in the Dover case, is Ghost Hunting, legitimate science, or total bogus, and why?

 

[Lune de la Cruor]

I think for ghost hunting to classify as true science it would need proven formulas and theories that are always applicable. It would need to have a foundation, a set of rules(at least one sentence I guess) that everybody has to follow when searching for ghosts, but as far as I know there isn't any such thing, so I would say it's not a science. Everybody can approach ghost hunting the way they want and bring arguments just as they like.
I think those two things are maybe too contradictory anyway to be compared, because when you belive in science you probably don't belive in ghosts, as it is something that does not apply to rules on earth and can only be explained when admitting forces beyond existance!?

 

[mawk]

ghost hunting relies too much on subjective experiences and dubiously effective research instruments to be considered anything but a sideshow. anyone can walk through an old house and say it is haunted because they felt cold and their EM detector began reacting. the fact is that these so-called "proofs" are wishful thinking and cliche which have just done a good job of propagating themselves. most houses without a functioning climate control system are not a uniform temperature throughout, and cold pockets are quite ordinary during the night, when certain areas will cool faster than others. the so-called equipment most ghost hunters use it all too sensitive to overhead power lines, or anything conducting electricity nearby.

as for personal experience, the placebo effect seems most likely. if you're walking through a dark, abandoned place, and have given a great deal of consideration to the possibility that the place may be haunted, of course you're going to unintentionally amplify any minor experience into something supernatural, or have your subconscious completely make something up (most commonly, "a feeling I'm not welcome here.")

even if ghosts are real, the people putting the theories forward are not being scientific, or even objective. bogus theories like "the cold feeling is the ghost sucking your life energy to manifest in this world" are common among ghost hunters. until three nobodies from Manhattan show up with a ghost in a small hazard-taped box, the ghost-hunting community just has no credibility.

as it stands, floating incorporeal personalities break just about every convention of physics ever. unless you're going to speculate on the existence of the noosphere, you can't have a scientific view of the world which includes ghosts.

 

[mawk]

anyone who extends any arguments in this thread to apply to god, or makes any other unnecessary comments in a religious context, will be banned or something. we have enough terrible religion threads.

 

[Velocir_X]

Thank you mawk I specifically said

Now instead of having another ill-worn evolution, and in consequence religion, thread, I wanted to apply this concept further...

 

[mawk]

it needed to be stated directly, violently, and in a font that's a multiple of 300.

 

[coyotecraft]

I guess it could be considered science if you are investigating or out to prove something. Making theories and putting them to the test.
But these ghost hunters aren't out to prove they exist. They look for stuff like orbs or colds spots like it's a proven fact ghosts exists.

I can't stand watching ghosthunters on SyFy and now there is a show on cartoon network with kids doing the "investigating". I guess if you believe in ghost the shows might seem creepy and entertaining.

 

[kaidus]

Surely the fact you even need to discuss whether something is science or not is a conclusion in itself? Science is fact, truth, irrefutable systems of knowledge based on a series of experimentation and observation. Ghost hunting full fills experimentation and observation, but at no point has anything arisen that is anything more than the convoluted hopes of lonely little men who's parents died causing them to conceptualise a theory of the afterlife to save themselves some grief.

Also god did it.

 

[Xaixis]

Meh, more of a Pseudo-Science to me. I mean sure they have the gagets and TV shows but it just all seems to fake to me.

 

[Stardust]

Wow I can't believe I missed this discussion. :crazy:

I think it depends. It depends on what's being done. There are certainly some instances where it's nothing but playing on pre-existing fears, but I think there are some instances where someone is legitimately doing "experiments". I like it when a team of investigators ends up explaining everything with non-spiritual explanations because it suggests that they're actually trying to investigate and not just scare the viewer. Basically, it can be a science if it follows the basic scientific procedure (experiment, attempt to explain, draw hypothesis, repeat), in my opinion. Just because a majority of the stuff out there is horrible doesn't mean the entire field should be dismissed.

Of course the chances of someone being able to repeat results when dealing with something supernatural is slim to none, which is why the people who are in the field are laughed at. Doesn't mean they can't try, though.

:boo:

 

[mawk]

Of course the chances of someone being able to repeat results when dealing with something supernatural is slim to none

says who? the metaphysical doesn't have to be inconsistent. you're taking a popular literary conclusion and applying it as a solid fact.

which is why the people who are in the field are laughed at

that is not the only reason

 

[Perihelion]

:boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo: :boo:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCHFVTQKqdQ&autoplay=1

:mawk:

That is so lovely Peri ~ Zeriab

 

[Stardust]

Of course the chances of someone being able to repeat results when dealing with something supernatural is slim to none

says who? the metaphysical doesn't have to be inconsistent. you're taking a popular literary conclusion and applying it as a solid fact.

It's actually my own conclusion based on the fact that it's still "supernatural". If results could be repeated, it could be "proven", to an extent. But since it hasn't been proven, I assume that it's not consistent. Of course it's just an assumption, but hell everything in this subject is an assumption at this point. :P

which is why the people who are in the field are laughed at

that is not the only reason

True, but they'd be laughed at less if they have some kind of consistent evidence. :wink:

 

[Velocir_X]

True, but they'd be laughed at less if they have some kind of consistent evidence.

Err... If I remember correctly "ghost hunters" consistently use the same king of evidence to prove their claims (cold spots, orbs, "strange sounds", etc.), doesn't make them any more valid, it's not lack of consistency that makes them less valid, its' the fact that they're explanation is broad, and unexplainable in nature.

As Dr. Ken Miller said from the dover trial:

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

 

[Stardust]

True, but they'd be laughed at less if they have some kind of consistent evidence.

Err... If I remember correctly "ghost hunters" consistently use the same king of evidence to prove their claims (cold spots, orbs, "strange sounds", etc.), doesn't make them any more valid, it's not lack of consistency that makes them less valid, its' the fact that they're explanation is broad, and unexplainable in nature.

But I don't consider that stuff "evidence" because it can't be repeated. You can see/hear unexplainable things sometimes, but they never get the same thing to happen more than once in the same situation. If, every time someone said, "Speak to me!" you picked up the same voice on EVP, then it's pretty good evidence. But I don't think I've ever seen a situation like that. It's almost always one-time things. If they could repeat those things, it would have more bearing, but because it's so spontaneous there can be a variety of natural things to cause the phenomenon.

I know it's a weak argument but it's the best I've got. :P

As Dr. Ken Miller said from the dover trial:

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

>>What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

That line can be interpreted as what I'm trying to say. We can't "analyze and interpret" because we can't repeat the results. If things were consistent we would start to get an understanding of them, but we can't when they're not consistent. Hell electricity was "supernatural", but we made it "natural" once we understood it. We could do the same with ghosts except they aren't consistent like electricity, or at least not with our current technology.

 

[Velocir_X]

but they never get the same thing to happen more than once in the same situation.

Actually no, there are many occurrences in supposed haunted houses up north whose owners claim to feel cold spots and see apparitions, in the same spot, over, and over, and over again, for periods of years.

The problem with ghosts is that they're not testable, especially under controlled conditions[/i]. You can't make a "ghost" to prove things, nor can you make a single statement about ghosts that can survive rigorous testing, so "ghosts" are only a proximate cause and thus not science.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

Science is the search for ultimate natural causes, if you, oh well its a ghost,ghosts exist end-of-story, you have a science-stopper.

Imagine if someone makes a well received statement and we all start believing in ghosts - viola ghosts are proved. But what if we had pursued it instead, and discovered some magnetic imbalance causes it, and we find a way to remove all scary feelings...

There is a difference between searching for proximate and ultimate causes, and if science ever accepts a proximate cause - weep for the advances forever lost to humankind.

That line can be interpreted as what I'm trying to say. We can't "analyze and interpret" because we can't repeat the results. If things were consistent we would start to get an understanding of them, but we can't when they're not consistent. Hell electricity was "supernatural", but we made it "natural" once we understood it. We could do the same with ghosts except they aren't consistent like electricity, or at least not with our current technology.

That's a bad analogy. As I said earlier "ghosts" are reproducible. the problem is that, unlike with electricity, you can't make testable statements about them, nor can you reproduce them under controlled conditions

 

[Stardust]

Actually no, there are many occurrences in supposed haunted houses up north whose owners claim to feel cold spots and see apparitions, in the same spot, over, and over, and over again, for periods of years.

Yes, but I'm going to have to say that probably half of those repeats are the imagination of the people experiencing them. If you want to believe that it's cold in one area of your house, it's probably going to feel cold in that area even if it isn't. Of course that's not true in every case but it's probably true for some of them. Also, if they're "up north" it's more than likely there's a crack or something in the house letting cold air in.

the problem is that, unlike with electricity, you can't make testable statements about them, nor can you reproduce them under controlled conditions

The "under controlled conditions" is the problem. You're assuming that we'll never be able to control it when there's a possibility that new technology will allow us to control paranormal activity. Until then, the repeating occurrences can't be used as evidence because they can't be tested.

Science is the search for ultimate natural causes, if you, oh well its a ghost,ghosts exist end-of-story, you have a science-stopper.

I'm not suggesting we stop looking for answers. In fact I think we should be doing the exact opposite - trying to figure out if anything has an effect on paranormal activity. I personally believe ghosts exist, but scientifically it's not possible to find evidence to prove that, so the search continues.


I think I'm being unclear in a few areas, which I apologize for. I've never been good at explaining myself and I'm sometimes thick-headed about certain things.

 

[RATED-RKOFRANKLIN]

ghost hunting relies too much on subjective experiences and dubiously effective research instruments to be considered anything but a sideshow. anyone can walk through an old house and say it is haunted because they felt cold and their EM detector began reacting. the fact is that these so-called "proofs" are wishful thinking and cliche which have just done a good job of propagating themselves. most houses without a functioning climate control system are not a uniform temperature throughout, and cold pockets are quite ordinary during the night, when certain areas will cool faster than others. the so-called equipment most ghost hunters use it all too sensitive to overhead power lines, or anything conducting electricity nearby.

as for personal experience, the placebo effect seems most likely. if you're walking through a dark, abandoned place, and have given a great deal of consideration to the possibility that the place may be haunted, of course you're going to unintentionally amplify any minor experience into something supernatural, or have your subconscious completely make something up (most commonly, "a feeling I'm not welcome here.")

even if ghosts are real, the people putting the theories forward are not being scientific, or even objective. bogus theories like "the cold feeling is the ghost sucking your life energy to manifest in this world" are common among ghost hunters. until three nobodies from Manhattan show up with a ghost in a small hazard-taped box, the ghost-hunting community just has no credibility.

as it stands, floating incorporeal personalities break just about every convention of physics ever. unless you're going to speculate on the existence of the noosphere, you can't have a scientific view of the world which includes ghosts.

I completely agree with you. People just go to far with the "supernatural". People are using this to make money. It's all about the money.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Man, if you guys want to ask "Is ghost hunting a science" the first thing you should do is define science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

As you can see, science is a way of systematically being able to yield predictable results. Therefore, ghost hunting is not a science.

If you look here, ghost hunting actually uses "junk science" a lot. Junk science, according to the above linked article, is when you use a valid conclusion or hypothesis and use it to defend a conclusion that is not otherwise proven true. For instance, some of them run around with the EMF detectors. They say:

"Oh, well if we detect an Electro-Magnetic Field, that means there is energy around." That is very true.

"Well, we don't see any batteries around, so that means it must be a ghost." ...what?

 

[Tindy]

I believe in ghosts, but not in ghost hunting.

I say that having lived in a "haunted" house for seven years - too much shit went down in there to just attribute it to cracks in the wall or whatever.

Ghost hunting, though - that's a whole 'nother ball game. You're trying to capture something that by definition is evanescent. We, thus far, are completely unable to define with even 80% accuracy what a ghost even is, and with the advent of Ghost Hunters and all those other TV shows it's just giving people something to look for that may or may not actually exist.