Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[Stormonu]

I used to believe (strongly) in ghosts up into about my 20's. I certainly experienced some strange things that could be accounted to some sort of supernatural phenomenon (the self-rocking chair at my friend's house being the big one I remember).

However, I now think tend to think there are some places that may have some sort of markers (chemical in nature) caused by strong emotions or actions that people may be sensitive to that may explain some of the odder sightings, and the physical events are something "natural" but something so subtle we've just not identified.

Though I still can't explain that rocking chair incident, short of some sort of draft (or minor quake - it was California, after all) that disturbed it...multiple times.

 

[The Firebird]

Sorry, didn't mean to derail.

I was just getting at that a PhD doesn't have to be in the sciences, and a non-PhD chemist has likely done more science than most PhDs in the humanities. And I'm leery of jumping to PhD > non-PhD in general. I've worked with some MS+lots who I didn't know weren't PhD holders until I was putting their vitas into the grant proposal. As another example, Jack Kilby only had an MS in Engineering from an extension campus, but he was pretty lauded).

Gotcha. I agree. Freeman Dyson is another good example. My PhD is in one of the natural sciences. And, that's the extent of what I want to say on this topic.

 

[Clint_L]

I think you are focusing on the wrong step. I am not convinced that a rigorous definition of "ghost" is needed to do science on them or that lack of such a definition is the problem in studying the phenomenon. The real issue is step 1 (observation). We cannot reliably observe ghosts. This is the biggest impediment to observing ghosts and similar phenomenon.
If we could observe them, we could at least gather some statistics and perhaps delimit some boundaries to the phenomenon.

Respectfully, I disagree. We can't reliably observe them because they haven't been defined in any measurable sense. You can't do science on something that has no recognized properties.

 

[Clint_L]

A priori one does not need to assume to know the nature of the thing to study it. We studied fire a lot before discerning its true nature.

This is one hell of a sentence to parse, let me take it backward and see if I get it right.
There is as far as I know no way to prove that a thing is not real thus failing to prove that a thing is not real is actually proving that a thing is real.
Proving that it is real, would be making the phenomenon observable to anyone with the correct methodology and apparatus. The precise nature of the thing could be ascertained later. Does not matter if it is a fairy, a UFO, a ghost or George.

No. Science does not prove anything, least of all reality. Experiments seek to discomfirm hypotheses, and if they fail to do so, then we consider the hypothesis stronger, but never proven. Trying to prove things is exactly how you get pseudo-science. And trying to prove things is why, prior to inventing the scientific method, learned folks decided that fire had to be made of something called phlogiston.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No. Science does not prove anything, least of all reality. Experiments seek to discomfirm hypotheses, and if they fail to do so, then we consider the hypothesis stronger, but never proven. Trying to prove things is exactly how you get pseudo-science. And trying to prove things is why, prior to inventing the scientific method, learned folks decided that fire had to be made of something called phlogiston.

Phlogiston, was a valid scientific theory, one that was proven false. Not all scientific endeavours are Popperian falsifying experiments. Many are a process of continuing observations to collect more data before any hypothesis can be proposed.
It was long observed that things fell down and even noted that the business of falling down was not mass dependant long before the theory of gravity was proposed.
When I was using proof above, in that particular case I was attempting to cover whatever science does to make a theory accepted.

 

[tomBitonti]

I guess I’m confused: Torsion experiments do prove something about gravity. Double slit experiments prove something about the character of light. Attaching two springs and comparing that to the individual springs proves something about springs. Would you not consider particle deflection experiments to prove the existence of atomic nuclei?

I’m thinking there is a mixing of “prove” as in everyday usage, and it’s non-use in science, where one instead would say something like “shows with a high confidence”. And there is a problem of mixing raw experimental results with the interpretation of the results.

As a layman, I thought a core scientific principle was the repeatability of rigorously defined experiments. Something not subject to repeatable experiments is not science.

In the absence of experimental evidence for ghosts — I presume a lot of experiments that try to detect “ghost” phenomena have been done, all with negative ghost detection — I am seeing these conclusions: That ghosts don’t exist, that they exist in a human only detectable fashion, or they exist but are beyond our current experimental detection capabilities.

The core question seems to be which of these three options one finds more likely.
TomB

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I guess I’m confused: Torsion experiments do prove something about gravity. Double slit experiments prove something about the character of light. Attaching two springs and comparing that to the individual springs proves something about springs. Would you not consider particle deflection experiments to prove the existence of atomic nuclei?

I’m thinking there is a mixing of “prove” as in everyday usage, and it’s non-use in science, where one instead would say something like “shows with a high confidence”. And there is a problem of mixing raw experimental results with the interpretation of the results.

As a layman, I thought a core scientific principle was the repeatability of rigorously defined experiments. Something not subject to repeatable experiments is not science.

In the absence of experimental evidence for ghosts — I presume a lot of experiments that try to detect “ghost” phenomena have been done, all with negative ghost detection — I am seeing these conclusions: That ghosts don’t exist, that they exist in a human only detectable fashion, or they exist but are beyond our current experimental detection capabilities.

The core question seems to be which of these three options one finds more likely.
TomB

Pretty much this, the colloquial definition of ghost is good enough to attempt some science, it is the lack of a reliable observation that is the show stopper.

 

[Morrus]

I’m thinking there is a mixing of “prove” as in everyday usage, and it’s non-use in science, where one instead would say something like “shows with a high confidence”.

The words 'law', 'theory', etc., are generally just thrown around incorrectly. Also see: "it's just a theory".

 

[James Gasik]

I didn't vote, but mostly because, while I have no evidence to suggest ghosts are real, I can't deny that they could be- it may be highly improbable, but I believe it's wrong-minded to say that something is flat-out impossible.

 

[CleverNickName]

I didn't vote, but mostly because, while I have no evidence to suggest ghosts are real, I can't deny that they could be- it may be highly improbable, but I believe it's wrong-minded to say that something is flat-out impossible.

But plenty of things are flat-out impossible. Why is it wrong-minded to acknowledge it?