The science of Ghosts and Souls

[peeyush_ali]

People all over the Earth have to come across the term "ghost" at some point of their life (probably). Generally it has become a culture that any ordinary layman would believe in ghosts and any scientist would say that "there is no such thing as ghost..and it is a stupid superstition.."
Then there arises a question- who among the two is correct? we cannot deny the "eye-witnessed" responses of a layman who believe in religion and all the mythology.. at the same time, we can't deny the words of knowledge of a scientist.
If you think that what all the mythology has said about the god and devil is true then, there is a flaw in my above statement..!
Is the knowledge acquired by the scientist sufficient to say the ghosts as superstitious beliefs?
Is there enough knowledge to study about the ghosts by the way? Ghost and soul phenomenon can have some link with "QUANTUM PHYSICS" (which we have understood not even to an appreciable level) ..or could be any other branch of physics or even a "separate branch" ?

 

[Wallace]

What leads you to suspect that 'qauntum physics' could have any relevance to 'ghosts and souls'??

Ghosts and souls fall under the same category as religion. You can't do an experiment to prove their existence one way or the other so believeing in them is a personal choice, not a question of science.

If you know of an experiment could (or has) been done that could allow the existence of ghosts or souls to be examined scientifically then please share the information, otherwise there is not much to talk about here.

 

[peeyush_ali]

Do you watch the notable discovery channel <which respects the "personal interests" of people who experience such phenomenon> . I don't exactly know the name of the show but i have seen it many times on discovery. they even try to explain it scientifically.
I could remember that show, where they predicted an existence of some thing in bare air in a room far away from roofs and walls a "potential difference" and even ultraviolet radiations using thermocameras..

 

[CEL]

Do you watch the notable discovery channel <which respects the "personal interests" of people who experience such phenomenon> . I don't exactly know the name of the show but i have seen it many times on discovery. they even try to explain it scientifically.
I could remember that show, where they predicted an existence of some thing in bare air in a room far away from roofs and walls a "potential difference" and even ultraviolet radiations using thermocameras..

Even if ghosts exist, we don't know what they are and how they manifest themselves. How can we devise an instrument to detect them?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

A "potential difference" is a voltage and thermo cameras pick up infrared sprectrum not ultraviolet (other end). I can't imagine why people would think these two things would in any way suggest a ghost. If you're detecting an abnormal "potential difference" in a room you're probably standing next to some poor wiring, not a ghost. If you're picking up a cold section of wall it probably has a water pipe behind it. I suppose if they use a voltmeter instead of a divining rod people must think 'I don't know what that device does this must be scientific' which is kinda embrassing for scientists. Even if one did believe in ghosts these shows like 'ghost busters' are just down right silly from a scientific perspective. Personally I think they serve more to mock the beliefs of those who believe in ghosts then support it (if one could ever do such a thing).

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Other than religious fervour I've never understood why people believe in the supernatural (I guess they would just like to believe it's true because they think it makes the world more interesting). If one completely disregards the science and simply considers logic it still makes no sense. If there were really people who were telepathic of telekinetic or there were disembodied intelligent spirits capable of making contact with our world... it would be really obvious. And by considering the sheer number of people in the world and the number of death's it would be very common. It wouldn't be about debating whether a smudge on some grainy video camera footage was your dead mother or whatever or if some russian psychic could really bend metal when it is done as a show with her own props and potentially a magnet under the table. It'd be everywhere, someone with legit telekinetic power would just go on TV and just walk through a crowd of millions of people in plain site bending things around them willy nilly. There would be ghosts EVERYWHERE and they'd be really obvious. Anywho, that's just my humble opinion

 

[junglebeast]

I think it's a minority of people that believe in ghosts.

I have never heard of anyone that had any eyewitness account or evidence of a ghost. I've only heard of people who reported feeling cold air and the like, which has nothing to do with ghosts. These people believe in ghosts because of their faith, not because they saw something ghost-like.

 

[Stratosphere]

I think it's a minority of people that believe in ghosts.

I have never heard of anyone that had any eyewitness account or evidence of a ghost. I've only heard of people who reported feeling cold air and the like, which has nothing to do with ghosts. These people believe in ghosts because of their faith, not because they saw something ghost-like.

I know several really smart people who DO believe in ghosts. They claim to have seen old relatives at their funeral. I am not saying I personally believe in ghosts but you can not disprove the anecdotal evidence.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Were these old relatives perhaps their living relatives who were attending the funeral?

 

[Stratosphere]

Were these old relatives perhaps their living relatives who were attending the funeral?

I meant to put that they were the relatives who died, if that was a sarcastic comment I am not amused. However I take it as a serious question since I did make a mistake by omitting that bit of key information.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Your lack of a sense of humour has been noted.

 

[math_04]

Is the knowledge acquired by the scientist sufficient to say the ghosts as superstitious beliefs?

Keep in mind that the the onus is on the believer or witness to show evidence that he came into contact with a 'ghost'. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If he or she cannot provide evidence, the scientist cannot analyze it and the whole process becomes unscientific and since 'ghosts' are classified as unproven or even untrue by the scientific community, we can safely assume that the evidence for such a phenomenon is less than a grain of salt.

Ghost and soul phenomenon can have some link with "QUANTUM PHYSICS"

What exactly does quantum physics have to do with it? :uhh: Quantum Physics has been used an innumerable amount of times by different individuals who have no understanding of what it attempts to explain or have at least have wholly misunderstood its meaning. You should go read an introductory book on quantum physics, it would do you a world of good.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

What exactly does quantum physics have to do with it? :uhh: Quantum Physics has been used an innumerable amount of times by different individuals who have no understanding of what it attempts to explain or have at least have wholly misunderstood its meaning. You should go read an introductory book on quantum physics, it would do you a world of good.

Anyone remember 'What the BLEEP do we know?'? That movie gave me a lot of grief

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Keep in mind that the the onus is on the believer or witness to show evidence that he came into contact with a 'ghost'. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If he or she cannot provide evidence, the scientist cannot analyze it and the whole process becomes unscientific and since 'ghosts' are classified as unproven or even untrue by the scientific community, we can safely assume that the evidence for such a phenomenon is less than a grain of salt.

However, a witness is only required to tell the truth. Simply observing something in no way implies there is a burden of proof. In this case it means that there is no way to test the claim, so it can only be taken as anecdotal evidence. That, however, is not generally the fault of the witness. He or she may have no control over the claimed phenomenon or the conditions under which it occurred. And, if the witness is telling the truth, then it would be dishonest to deny that the events were indeed witnessed. There is also the clear distinction between claimed observations, and interpretations of those observations. For example, even if we assume for a moment that people really do see apparitions of dead people, in no way does this prove that they are the souls of the dead.

In a similar vein, many people incorrectly and automatically associate UFO claims with ET claims. It may well be that people do occasionally see some unusual and unrecognized phenomena that gets lumped right in with Roswell and alien abductions due to entirely unjustifed assumptions. In my experience, this happens with both believers and skeptics. Once you tag "UFO" to the claim, the wall of assumptions goes right up. This is especially true if the claim is at all interesting!

 

[math_04]

That, however, is not generally the fault of the witness. He or she may have no control over the claimed phenomenon or the conditions under which it occurred. And, if the witness is telling the truth, then it would be dishonest to deny that the events were indeed witnessed.

Yes, but like you said, they may have had no control over the claimed phenomenon or conditions under which it occurred. There are people out there who genuinely believe that they saw a 'ghost' but it could have been anything but that. There are explanations out there for what they saw and unless those explanations cannot withstand evidence for the contrary, there is no need to resort to every small mystery as some supernatural occurrence. No one blames the witness, but they should at least first attempt to explain it as a natural phenomenon rather than supernatural. So again, the witness, if convinced of what he or she saw, needs to provide strong evidence that can overturn possible scientific explanations for what was seen.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Yes, but I believe the OP is enquiring about the existence of ghosts. Not the existence of unexplained visual phenomena

 

[negitron]

In a similar vein, many people incorrectly and automatically associate UFO claims with ET claims.

No, this is a correct assumption. UFO used to mean "unidentified flying object" but through repeated usage (or misuage, if you prefer) it now means "alien spacecraft ." Langauge evolves; it is the fault of the witness for using the terminology incorrectly if he or she means a a literal unidentified flying object, rather than an ET.

 

[junglebeast]

To get back to the original topic:

There is no science of ghosts or souls, because there has never been any experiment which showed anything unusual or unpredictable related to souls/ghosts.

The only "evidence" of ghosts is anecdotal evidence by people who claimed to have seen something, to have heard something, or to have felt something. Because these claims have never been verified and there is nothing to actually measure or test, there is no science of ghosts.

You will find people who claim that ghosts can be detected by magnetic or electric fields, but there is absolutely no evidence for this, so they are crackpots.

 

[negitron]

You will find people who claim that ghosts can be detected by magnetic or electric fields, but there is absolutely no evidence for this, so they are crackpots.

No, they're crackpots because despite the near-total lack of evidence that ghosts can be detected electromagnetically, they persist in beliving otherwise. There's nothing wrong with putting forth the testable and falsifiable hypothesis that these phenomena can be detected with electrical or magnetic means and testing it; it's when you ignore the repeated failures (or worse, start faking results) that you begin to wander into crackpot territory.

 

[junglebeast]

No, they're crackpots because despite the near-total lack of evidence that ghosts can be detected electromagnetically, they persist in beliving otherwise. There's nothing wrong with putting forth the testable and falsifiable hypothesis that these phenomena can be detected with electrical or magnetic means and testing it; it's when you ignore the repeated failures (or worse, start faking results) that you begin to wander into crackpot territory.

That is what I said.

 

[Dembadon]

No, this is a correct assumption. UFO used to mean "unidentified flying object" but through repeated usage (or misuage, if you prefer) it now means "alien spacecraft ." Langauge evolves; it is the fault of the witness for using the terminology incorrectly if he or she means a a literal unidentified flying object, rather than an ET.

Actually, I believe both parties should be held responsible. The witness must be held accountable for what he/she claims. One does not have the right to redefine what UFO means. UFO still means "unidentified flying object" (regardless of what the general population thinks it means). It is the duty of the person analyzing the claim to be/become educated on the subject and not make any assumptions supporting the incorrect usage of any word/term.

-Robert

 

[ghostanime2001]

I believe !

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, I believe both parties should be held responsible. The witness must be held accountable for what he/she claims. One does not have the right to redefine what UFO means. UFO still means "unidentified flying object" (regardless of what the general population thinks it means). It is the duty of the person analyzing the claim to be/become educated on the subject and not make any assumptions supporting the incorrect usage of any word/term.

-Robert

Likewise, when people say "ghost", what they usually mean is an apparition, wispy images or vapors, moving blocks of cold air, objects that seem to move inexplicably, unexplained sounds, and/or sensations of various sorts, but with rare exception do even the claims rise to the level of anecdotal evidence that anyone has contacted the soul or souls of the dead.

From time to time one does encounter stories where, for example, a father claims to have sat on the bed and had a half-hour conversation with the "ghost" or likeness of his dead son. But those sorts of stories are rare even in the world of ghosties.

 

[math_04]

Out of curiosity, has there ever been any scientific research or papers written on the topic of 'ghosts' or whatever you want to call them?

There is an organization, The Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP), that investigates such phenomenon. So in case you want to know more about such phenomenon, here is a good article;

http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Ghosts.html

Ghosts and hauntings

Because research cannot start by assuming what it will find, here is a basic working definition of a ghost:

* a ghost (or apparition) is a human (sometimes animal) figure, witnessed by someone, which cannot be physically present

Similarly, a basic definition of a haunting is:

* a haunting is a series on unexplained experiences generally associated with a particular physical location**

An in-depth discussion of these definitions of ghost and haunting appears here. To decide if you've seen a ghost, see here.

What are ghosts really like?

When: Ghosts appear at any time of day and any time of year. There is certainly no bias towards Halloween or Christmas, as some people assume.

Where: Ghosts have been reported in many different places, but particularly where people live and work. This may simply be because potential witnesses spend most of their time in such places. Ghosts are not, contrary to popular belief, reported more frequently in graveyards.

Appearance: Ghosts usually appear as clothed figures. They are not usually surrounded or accompanied by any background scenery. Most ghosts look like normal people - not transparent, or glowing* like their fictional representations (which brings into question dark vigils). You could walk past one in the street and not notice them. Ghosts do, however, often vanish spontaneously. Though apparitions are sometimes seen in 'period' costume, as if from an earlier era, this only started being reported at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before that they were normally reported only in contemporary dress.

People sometimes report areas of dense mist as ghosts. However, solid figures are not reported turning into mist, or vice versa. Nor do such mists behave like humans. Therefore, there seems to be no real evidence to support the idea that such areas of mist are ghosts.

Communication: In the vast majority of cases of apparitions witnessed as part of a haunting, they appear not to interact (or communicate) with witnesses or even their physical surroundings. Some apparent communication has occurred very rarely, through answers to knocks, but that may be part of the haunting phenomenon rather than anything to do with the ghost. For this reason, the popular idea that ghosts are 'spirits' does not seem to be supported by the available evidence. Indeed, the idea of ghosts as 'spirits', though popular (particularly with the media), appears to owe more to tradition and fiction than paranormal research.

Identification: Few ghosts are readily identifiable to a real individual. Where they are it is often on flimsy evidence (eg. 'a woman who committed suicide in the building') rather than by use of photographs, for instance, or other more reliable methods. Most examples of readily identifiable historical figures as ghosts are from a long time ago. It is possible that the reports of such ghosts have been exaggerated over time. There seems little in the available evidence to support the popular notion that ghosts are people once associated with the haunted location.

Haunted graveyard?Effects: Ghosts appear not to affect their surroundings, apart from being visible to witnesses. Though object movement is a common symptom of hauntings, ghosts are not observed actually moving anything. There are recent suggestions that ghosts emit electromagnetic fields (so that EMF meters could act as 'ghost detectors') and/or increase the number of negative ions in the atmosphere by their appearance. However, there does not appear to be any empirical evidence to support such ideas. Indeed, it would be difficult to collect any since someone would probably need to be taking readings with an EMF meter while watching a ghost! It is doubtful that this has happened once, never mind enough times for a statistically meaningful sample.

Photos: The evidence that ghosts can be photographed appears thin to non-existent. Though many photos exist that it is claimed show ghosts, in almost all cases no apparition was seen at the time of exposure. It is therefore doubtful that such figures are the same as those witnessed by ghost percipients. Also, in many cases the alleged ghost in the photograph is transparent whereas real life ghosts are usually reported to look perfectly solid. Most such photos are likely to be the result of long exposures.

Witnesses: An intriguing aspect of ghosts concerns who witnesses them. Many people can spend their entire life never seeing a ghost even if, like many paranormal investigators, they try very hard. Others may see several ghosts in their lifetime as well as often reporting other kinds of paranormal experience (and, in some cases, even seeing UFOs). Most ghosts are seen by a single witness. Where there are multiple witnesses present, some may see the ghost and others not. Rarely do all the witnesses see exactly the same thing.

Many ghosts are not recognised as such at the time they are witnessed. For instance, someone might see a human figure in an office and think nothing of it until later, when they realize they were actually alone in a locked building. Then they start to think it was a ghost. It is only the 'impossibility' of the sighting that makes it apparently paranormal (see here).

Types of ghost: Various people have tried to classify ghosts, generally based on what they thought ghosts were. For the purposes of research, given that we are assuming nothing to start with, this doesn't appear useful. One distinct kind of ghost, however, is the crisis apparition. These are unusual because they are living (usually), identifiable people. However, they seem to be quite different to the traditional apparition associated with hauntings that we are considering here.

Haunting: The traditional idea is, of course, that a haunting is what a ghost does. Given that many ghost sightings are part of on-going hauntings, that might seem reasonable. However, given that ghosts tend to appear indifferent to their surroundings, there is no obvious evidence that these figures are orchestrating the haunt phenomena. What appears more likely, from the evidence, is that they are just one possible symptom of the wider mystery that is hauntings. Indeed, most hauntings do not include any sightings of apparitions. Therefore, contrary to popular opinion, it is entirely possible, based on the evidence, that ghosts are not an essential symptom of hauntings (whatever the dictionaries may say), far less a cause. Another common theory is that ghosts are some sort of 'recording' etched into the surroundings and replayed in certain conditions to certain people. There are, however, objections to this 'stone tape' theory of ghosts.

Haunted houseWhat are hauntings?

To understand ghosts it is necessary to learn about hauntings. The two central most significant aspect of hauntings are that

* they are tied to a specific location
* they produce repeated reports, from periods of a few days to several decades

Where: Most hauntings take place in buildings, particularly homes and workplaces, though some occur out of doors. Older buildings are more commonly haunted than newer ones, though this may reflect the expectations of witnesses (older buildings look 'spookier'). Activity can occur at anytime, day or night, though the afternoon is probably the most popular time.

Usually the haunt phenomena are not distributed equally throughout a building. Activity will typically be reported only from certain rooms or areas within the building (hot spots) with nothing happening elsewhere. Indeed, it is very often even more specific than that. Certain locations within a haunted building will often always produce repeated reports of the same kind of activity. So footsteps may always be heard in one room, scratching sounds in another and an apparitions might only be seen in a hall. Cold spots, often associated with hauntings, are generally restricted to one very specific place and do not move about (though they may appear and disappear). This way in which specific haunting activities are tied to specific places does not really support the idea of a ghost actively haunting a whole building.

On the other hand, specific phenomena tied to specific locations within a building does tend to suggest that some cases could be explained by the misperception of natural phenomena. For instance, the way a shadow falls on a wall, a door that opens or closes on its own, an unexplained cold spot in part of a room, a floorboard that creaks noisily, central heating that causes odd knocking sounds when it cools down, the wind producing a moaning in a roof, etc. Such natural causes of apparently weird phenomena may be experienced by some or all passing witnesses, some of whom may interpret them as paranormal. Once a place gets a reputation for being haunted, other natural phenomena in the area may start to be interpreted in the same way. In some cases, haunting phenomena are only witnessed by one or two people. Indeed, haunting cases may start with just one witness but then others may start to notice things once they know to expect them.

Why: Hauntings almost invariably show no obvious purpose. There is no evidence of any intelligence behind them. Haunting phenomena will appear unpredictably and the form they take shows no obvious logic. The phenomena may increase or fade over time, for no obvious reason (though witnesses' reaction to the events may change how they are viewed). Oddly, phenomena often decrease when they are intensively studied, either by their usual witnesses or investigators. This lack of any 'point' is another reason why the idea of hauntings being the result of spirit activity is not supported.

Single witnesses: Where just one person experiences haunting phenomena this might be explained by subjective hallucination. Hallucinations are by no means restricted to people suffering mental disorders. Most people will experience at least one hallucination in their lives. There are a number of perfectly normal conditions that can give rise to such hallucinations, such as sleep paralysis, old hag, absorption, etc. Many of these are described here and here. There are also some medical conditions, like epilepsy, that can produce hallucinations.

Multiple witnesses: In the case where multiple witnesses report haunting phenomena, suggestion can be part of the explanation. One possible source of suggestion is previous reports of hauntings. If a witness is aware that a place is said to be haunted, they are more likely to misinterpret normal noises and sights as paranormal. In addition, research suggests that certain physical characteristics of a location lead to more reports of haunting phenomena there. Essentially, if the place looks 'spooky' then some people may report haunting phenomena there. So, if a place is unusually cool, damp, poorly lit, old, etc. it is likely to generate more reports of hauntings than other places nearby.

Another cause of haunting phenomena reports might be induced hallucinations. The best known example of this is low frequency magnetic fields. Laboratory experiments have suggested that certain people may suffer ghostly hallucinations when subject to weak, low frequency, complex magnetic fields (EIFs). These could be produced by various magnetic objects and electrical appliances often found in a domestic situation. Other factors that might induce hallucinations that could give rise to haunting reports include infrasound and carbon monoxide poisoning.

Many cases of haunting are found, on investigation, to be the result of misperception, hallucination or suggestion. The remaining cases are still a mystery though, in some cases, this may simply be because we don't have enough information. Even with the hauntings that remain unresolved, there is little evidence to point towards their being the actions of ghosts. It is certainly a mystery well worth investigating.

How to test if somewhere is haunted

There are many places that are allegedly haunted, particularly since the arrival of the 'ghost hunting' reality TV programmes. In some cases their reputation seems to rely on slim evidence. So how can you tell if somewhere is really haunted?

Ideally, you need multiple, independent witnesses reporting the same, or very similar, haunting-type phenomena at the same location. These witnesses must not be aware beforehand that a location is allegedly haunted. They must also not have been deliberately seeking ghosts. People who are desperate to see something paranormal sometimes do by the power of suggestion alone!

The mere fact that a vigil has taken place at a location is not a reliable indication that it is haunted. A scientific vigil should be designed to verify and test the reports of prior witnesses. However, many contemporary vigils are more like 'ghost hunting expeditions' where, due to the methods used, suggestion is a serious problem.

What IS a ghost?

The characteristics of apparitions, as outlined above, suggest that they are not the causes of, or even essential to, hauntings. It is possible that when people suspect they have a haunting, many normal phenomena are re-interpreted as paranormal (see New House Effect). Since many people believe that hauntings are 'what ghosts do', they may see ghosts because they are expecting to. Even so, the comparative rarity of ghosts in hauntings suggests that such full hallucinations are difficult even for suggestion to produce on its own. It may well take some other factor in addition, like sleep paralysis or EIFs, to trigger such hallucinations.

Are there any ghosts that are not hallucinations or misperception? There are certainly a small number of cases that don't fit into the generalised pattern outlined above. It is therefore possible that some haunting and apparition experiences may be caused by other, as yet unknown, factors. More research is clearly needed, though we must sift through a lot of xenonormal stuff before we can find the possible nuggets of paranormal gold.

What we DON'T know about ghosts!

The description of ghosts given above is based on first-hand accounts and credible detailed investigations into hauntings. There is also a lot of 'ghost lore' about, based on FOAFs (friend of a friend stories), uninvestigated (and poorly investigated) cases, legends, folklore, tourist brochure stories, speculation and fiction. So, for instance reports of headless horseman, ghostly coaches, well-known historical figures as ghosts, clanking chains, talking ghosts and so on, though part of the popular image of ghosts, are not reliably supported by the available evidence.

Many of these ghost lore reports may well have originated with real ghost sightings that have subsequently been attached to pre-existing legends or exaggerated over time. Others may represent legends and ghost stories that typically accumulate around spooky-looking old buildings, even in the absence of any credible reports of sightings. Usually it is very difficult, or impossible, to find any witnesses to such reports. This is either because they date back a long time (decades or centuries) or because the reports are exaggerated or plain wrong.

Real ghost cases and hauntings primarily contain the elements described in preceding sections and are quite different to ghost lore which is routinely used as the basis for horror movies and ghost stories. Ghost lore probably represents the more extreme effects of the fictional representations of ghosts on real life cases. It is important that such ghost lore should not be included in any overall theory of ghosts unless there is new, credible evidence in its favour.

Conclusions

Haunted nightWe know more about ghosts than many people imagine but much of this information is today ignored in favour of assumption-led investigation. Such methods tend simply, by a process of circular logic, to reinforce their own assumptions, without discovering anything new about ghosts themselves. To learn more about ghosts we need to talk more to people who have actually witnessed them, rather than stumbling around in the dark in places where they were once seen. Above all, we need to investigate without preconceptions about the nature of ghosts and hauntings.

It is interesting to note that many of the cases that suggest that ghosts might be spirits, such as those where the ghost was positively identified with a dead person or apparently interacted with the witness, all happened a long time ago. It is likely that these cases were not investigated satisfactorily, if at all, at the time and the 'facts' were exaggerated over time. Indeed, many such old cases appear to be no more than legend, with no readily identifiable witnesses, dates or details.

When contemporary ghost cases are investigated properly (with witnesses interviewed soon after the events), the picture that emerges is both strikingly different to the traditional idea of a ghost but also remarkably consistent. Hauntings rarely involve ghosts but, when they do, the apparitions do not interact with witnesses. Haunting phenomena appear purposeless and many are tied to quite specific small areas within buildings, where they are frequently shown to be misperceptions of localised natural phenomena. None of these facts obviously support the traditional idea of a ghost as a 'spirit' actively haunting a location.

Most hauntings, and the ghosts that a few exhibit, can be explained by misperception, hallucination and errors in reporting. However, there are some cases that remain unexplained despite careful examination. This may be because we don't have enough information to explain them. Or it may be that, contrary to popular opinion, there are some ghosts that simply remain a mystery!

* There are a very small number of ghosts seen to glow in the dark and some are even accompanied by their own surrounding background. They are very rare and may be hallucinations.
** Typical haunting phenomena (sometimes called 'paranormal activity') typically include:apparitions, odd sounds (such as unexplained footsteps, bangs, scratching, moans, screams, music, whispering), odd sights (like flashes of light, shadows, floating lights, things seen in the 'corner' of the eye), odd smells (often unpleasant, sometimes sweet), odd feelings (headaches, static build-up, cold areas, touches by unseen things), object movement (doors, taps and light switches found open/on, objects lost and sometimes recovered, objects falling)
*** Sources include the SPR's Census of Hallucinations, reliable case reports and surveys by respected paranormal researchers and, of course, investigations by ASSAP and similar organisations

© Maurice Townsend 2009

 

[LawrenceM]

Yes, but I believe the OP is enquiring about the existence of ghosts. Not the existence of unexplained visual phenomena

how? It’s the existence of unexplained phenomena that has always been attributed as evidence to the existence of ghosts. The only rebuttal is to challenge the phenomenon that was cited as evidence of paranormal activity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, but like you said, they may have had no control over the claimed phenomenon or conditions under which it occurred. There are people out there who genuinely believe that they saw a 'ghost' but it could have been anything but that. There are explanations out there for what they saw and unless those explanations cannot withstand evidence for the contrary, there is no need to resort to every small mystery as some supernatural occurrence. No one blames the witness, but they should at least first attempt to explain it as a natural phenomenon rather than supernatural. So again, the witness, if convinced of what he or she saw, needs to provide strong evidence that can overturn possible scientific explanations for what was seen.

If most witnesses were scientist they would probably be more objective. But the fact is that people tend to interpret unusual events according to their expectations and beliefs. That however is not evidence against the claim that something unusual occurred. The real problem comes when the claims themselves [void of interpretations] suggest that there were real events that we don't know how to explain. The skeptic then demands evidence for the supernatural. Did I say supernatural? How about this one: Perhaps that are real phenomena associated with ghost reports [and "hauntings"] that we don't know how to explain that are not supernatural? While on the face of things we expect all observed events to be consistent with known physics, this does not seem to be consistent with the interesting reports and cases. We could say that the witnesses are all lying, but that would be an assumption and proves nothing. Also, just because something would seem to violate the science we understand, it is not beyond imagination that we might discover an unrecognized phenomenon that IS consistent with known physics, that we just weren't smart enough to understand in advance. Ball lightning now occupies that space. While ball lightning was once treated like ET claims, it is generally agreed upon that ball lightning exists but we don't know what it is. It may be explained by conventional science, but so far, no luck. The best that people have managed to produce only vaguely resembles ball lightning.

Ultimately the point is while anecdotal reports prove nothing, coincidental observations do not impose the burden of proof on the observer. Why? You know as well as I do that in most cases proof is not possible [I have never been able to figure out what would constitute solid evidence for many of these claims], so the demand for proof is an insincere dodge when someone is simply relaying what they claim as a personal experience. You can choose to not believe such stories, or you can pick and choose what you want to believe and not, but in either case, or if one chooses to believe the story, it is a leap of faith.

As for whether ghosts exist or not, that question is beyond the scope of this forum. We are only interested in phenomena and any related evidence. Whether people call these alleged phenomena ghosts, ghouls, or the souls of the dead, is irrelevant.

 

[LawrenceM]

Skeptics don't demand evidence for the supernatural, they demand evidence to back up a claim of the supernatural. Skeptics are willing to accept: "I'm not sure what that was, but here are some things I think it might have been [insert natural and/or supernatural phenomenon here]…". Skeptics are not willing to accept "That was a ghost." Coming to any absolute conclusion without evidence (be it for or against) will absolutely draw scrutiny from skeptics.

 

[peeyush_ali]

ghost can be any scientific phenomenon rather than a tragic rumor which is still undiscovered. Probably after few decades there could be a branch of science that will explain "how ghosts work"..

 

[ZapperZ]

ghost can be any scientific phenomenon rather than a tragic rumor which is still undiscovered. Probably after few decades there could be a branch of science that will explain "how ghosts work"..

A few decades?

Considering that "ghosts" have been around for centuries, and yet, over such a long period of time, we have no solid scientific evidence to show its existence, should tell you something right away. A few decades is not going to change anything.

Look at ALL of what we know to be valid evidence. There is a discovery phase, where the phenomenon may or may not have been detected. Then as time progress and our knowledge and technology improve, we make better and more convincing detection of it. But not just that, we also improve our understanding of it. In other words, there is a progression of knowledge of that phenomenon beyond just trying to show it exists. That is the sign of a valid phenomenon.

Ghosts and other paranormal claims still can't make it out of first base after all these years. They are nothing new. Yet, after centuries of claims of their existence, we still are at the "discovery" phase. Draw your own conclusion.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

No, this is a correct assumption. UFO used to mean "unidentified flying object" but through repeated usage (or misuage, if you prefer) it now means "alien spacecraft ." Langauge evolves; it is the fault of the witness for using the terminology incorrectly if he or she means a a literal unidentified flying object, rather than an ET.

I wouldn't even split that hair about language evolving: the term was coined specifically as a broad generalization in an alien spacecraft investigation. It was coined by the Air Force for Project Blue Book which was to investigate flying saucer sightings.

There is no hairsplitting: "UFO research" is a search for alien spacecraft on earth. The Air Force applied more scientific rigor than average for "UFO research" but they still had that goal and focus.

I know that's a little big of an OT aside, but it is related to ghosts in the way you imply: people see things that look like what people think ghosts should look like and they assume they are ghosts. Ghost hunters are ghost hunters - they aren't looking for explanations of odd things people have seen, they are looking for ghosts. That's a built-in bias that taints so-called "ghost research" just like flying saucers taint "UFO research".

 

[waht]

Here is the way I see it. You can hypothesize the existence of a tea cup in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. You can't prove this claim because you don't have the means, but it doesn't mean there is a 50% chance for this to be true or false. You can narrow this down based on analyzing what would it take to put the tea cup in orbit, check the facts, interview NASA engineers that built Pioneer space probe to find out if someone hid a tea cup in the power distribution unit. Then you arrive at a probability of 0.00000000001 that a tea cup might be in orbit. There is still a chance that the military could have launched a secret mission to Mars putting the tea cup in orbit, but can't prove it. Having arrived at such low portability, you can assume this claim to be false.

It is the same with the hypothesized existence of ghosts. The motivation for this hypothesis comes from anecdotal evidence which in (*most cases) is unique. Since no physical evidence has been offered, the only remaining subject to study is the person itself. Psychology, sociology, and neurology enlighten us with tantalizing clues of how our minds really work. For example, it has been found that people are influenced by the height of ceiling in a room, the color of the walls, and its geometry. People see faces in clouds, and hear voices in noise.

Taking this into consideration, the probability for the existence of ghosts is low, as the evidence is showing humans are flawed. I can safely assume they don't exist at all until there is real evidence, just like the tea in orbit, or a fairy placing a quarter under my pillow made by the US Mint.