However, to say that science hasn’t advanced to the point that we can detect or measure ghosts seems like a bit of a copout. Instead, paranormal phenomena is constantly redefined into something indefinable. You can always suggest that we don’t have the tools to find the supernatural, but then why do we even waste time trying to find it?

Take the various types of psychic phenomena. None of these have been proven to any conclusive degree. You might suggest that this doesn’t mean that psychic powers don’t exist. But it certainly is an overwhelming amount of evidence against it. All it would take to demonstrate telekinesis would be for one person to demonstrate it reliably. A psychic that can predict the future with even a moderate degree of success would go a long way.

Instead, we’re supposed to accept even the flimsiest “evidence” while ignore the mountains of expected non-evidence.

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t phenomena we can’t measure and have yet to discover. I’m just suggesting that if we can’t measure it, maybe we should stop jumping to conclusions.

Before microscopes, we didn’t know about germs. We had all manner of theories about how disease was spread. All of them were wrong. So why do we expect it to be any different than ghosts or psychic powers?

If there is indeed such a thing as the paranormal, then our attempts to understand it at this point are most likely as accurate and sensible as those who believed that medicine came down to the four humors. The humors theory, while well intentioned, was completely wrong.

Also, at one point, disease was thought to be the work of evil spirits. The supernatural explanation was incorrect. Just as I’m sure the bulk of bad feelings, EVP, and cold spots are not proof of the supernatural.

To turn it on its head, I have no proof that gravity isn’t the work of invisible leprechauns who keep everything from floating away. I can even suggest that we simply don’t have the tools to measure or detect these invisible leprechauns. There’s absolutely no way to prove me wrong. But just because you can’t prove me wrong, that doesn’t make me right, and to posit wildly to explain something doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Or even particularly well thought out. After all, we really don’t know how gravity works yet. So my invisible leprechaun theory is as valid as anything else anyone’s come up with.

And all ghostly phenomena is far less mysterious than gravity.

As for my major point, none of the many ghost hunting reality shows seem especially scientific. All of them make huge leaps of faith. All of them have startlingly low expectations when it comes to their evidence. And all of them are quick to label as paranormal even the smallest anomaly. This isn’t scientific. This isn’t even being open-minded. It’s just building upon a mountain of assumptions.

Or, to put it another way, just because we cannot see something, that doesn’t mean it’s there and not seen.

Tools are often used that helping provide and even interpret data used to present scientific ‘facts’.

Technology is one of the greatest methods of advancing science as prior to a given technology, the information wasn’t able to be seen or observed to contribute to a scientific discussion until that point.

Unlike you who refer to yourself as a skeptic on the genuineness of ghosts, I take a skeptical approach from the other side, up until now, science has not conclusively proven that ghosts do not exist. On the other hand, I deplore those people who ‘fake’ evidence as it hurts the entire process and makes the plausibility and serious pursuit of that type of information more difficult.

How long until science advances to the point that it has the tools to measure those phenomena and factors that show they are there, we just haven’t had the technology to measure them till that point? How long did it take the world to measure radioactivity?

Just because we cannot see it, does not mean it isn’t there.

B ig Bear

And really, how is reading tarot cards or following astrology to try to solve problems or predict the future any different from praying to a deity for help or guidance? If we judge people who believe in ghosts to be loony, at least in that particular area of their personality (which I have no problem with), then I think we should similarly judge those who believe that a god listens to them and directly answers their prayers.

It’s easier to attribute a weird feeling or unusual occurrence to something that is “other” than it is to evaluate and analyze ourselves and our surroundings. If I just say, “This place must be haunted – that’s why I feel weird here,” then I don’t have to THINK about it anymore. I get to go about my life and operate under the assumption that these strange occurrences are completely outside of my control. It frees me of a lot of responsibility and those pesky little things called analysis and thought.

With that out of the way, I agree with the whole idea of skepticism in science. If there were no skeptics in science, the earth would be flat and the sun would move around it. Thank goodness for skepticism. In the case of ghost hunters, until you’ve actually caught a ghost and subjected it to rigorous testing, there is no way to tell if your Kmeter is detecting a ghost or just bleeping to it’s own soundtrack.

Thanks for an enlightening read.

Of course I believe in germ theory, relativity, evolution, and astronomy. And I believe all these things are far more provable than ghosts, astrology, etc. But I still feel that science relies on skepticism, and I must be willing to discard these beliefs if compelling enough evidence showed itself. Such evidence doesn’t exist at this stage, and probably never will. But I have to at least be ready to accept it if it does suddenly show up.

There is a difference between the scientific method and gut feelings. But the problem is that many people don’t know that difference. The modern ghost hunter uses things like EVP and EMFs to find “ghosts” because it looks and feels scientific on the outside. Astrologists just “know” it works because of swapped stories. And there are still germ theory deniers, many who appear to be perfectly rational human beings in most ways.

The point is that most of these people believe these ideas are rational and proven. They think they’re logical and reasonable. And if someone can do that about astrology or EVP, then why can’t we do it about anything and everything?

Skepticism doesn’t have to mean you don’t trust anything. If you break your arm, you go to a doctor. If you get on an airplane, you know that it is going to fly and get you where you’re going (via some pretty damn amazing science). And you trust your cell phone will work because it continues to work.

The real difference between science and every crackpot theory you’ve ever heard of is that science admits it might be wrong. Whereas pseudoscience knows it’s right. So when I question (even only in theory) a commonly accepted truth of science, I’m just being a good scientific individual. Whereas if I just believe that ghosts are made up of electromagnetic fields, I’m not.

Not believing in astrology isn’t the same thing as believing in ghosts. You aren’t basing your “belief” on faith or a desire; there’s science to back it up. People have used the scientific method to prove germ theory and evolution. No one’s proven there’s anything to astrology. Plus it’s stupid (seriously, chunks of rocks and gas rotating around our sun light years away has something to do with your mood? That’s as dumb as saying you’d have bad luck from not sending on chain letters or breaking a mirror).

Not believing in something that can only be believed because you want to isn’t the same as accepting laws and theories scientists have put real work into formulating.