Response to "no scientific evidence" of ghost

[sinewave]

I also watch out for when an alleged researcher cannot explain his tools, which kind of nudges up against your second point. If a ghost hunter tells me his EMF reader detects ghosts, and I ask him why, I expect a better answer than "Ghosts emit EMF signals".

And 9/10 you will be considered hostile for asking that question.

[SHaYap]

ghosts are not what is commonly believed to be ~ that's why there is only 'no evidence' ~ science and spirituality is mutually exclusive anyways ...

just a thought :

dark matter and dark energy ... its not just what is out there in the universe and we are part of the whole equation ... aren't we all a part of that dark matter and dark energy equation too ?

and no ... please ... I don't mean 'dark' as in 'evil' or the devil ... just 'unknown' as science means it ...

~

[sinewave]

ghosts are not what is commonly believed to be ~ that's why there is only 'no evidence' ~ science and spirituality is mutually exclusive anyways ...

just a thought :

dark matter and dark energy ... its not just what is out there in the universe and we are part of the whole equation ... aren't we all a part of that dark matter and dark energy equation too ?

and no ... please ... I don't mean 'dark' as in 'evil' or the devil ... just 'unknown' as science means it ...

~

Yes, dark matter is all around us and dark energy is accelerating us through the Universe. Neither is understood very well though.

[Nenaraz]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/10/lux-dark-matter/

404

[Frank Merton]

What that tells us is that whatever dark matter is, it isn't what this experiment was designed to look for.

[Nenaraz]

It tells me that they won't stop searching. It also tells me that if one experiment fails to find the alleged substance (which was called "fantasy" not so long ago) it means exactly that the experiment wasn't done with a proper method.

Without a method there's no evidence. Same goes for anything in science.

Just because we don't see anything in the first run doesn't mean we won't see anything in the second; said Richard Gaitskell, a professor of physics at Brown University and a spokesman for an international collaboration that operates the experiment known as LUX, for the Large Underground Xenon dark matter experiment.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Nenaraz

[Occult1]

I've just found found an interesting article related to this topic.

http://oxfordstudent...ecome-dogmatic/

''These dogmas are ‘off limits’ in the scientific community, he explains with authority, yet they lack any substantial evidence and have arisen from conclusions without research.''

'' What is surprising is the reliance modern science seems to have on opinions and dogmas, and how certain beliefs in science appear to be immune from scrutiny or inquiry. Sheldrake may indeed be a taboo figure now, but his criticisms of science may prove popular in years to come.''

I may not agree with all of Dr Ruper Sheldrake's ideas but he has a point. Dogmas whether it is religious or scientific is dangerous. A concept should not be accepted without solid evidence but the lack of proper research and ressources in various fields, such as the paranormal for instance, let the stage wide open for the charlatans, ghost hunters, and the media who shape it as they want. Therefore what may possibly be legitimate is lost in the interpretations and easily condemened.

Edited November 29, 2013 by sam_comm

[sinewave]

It tells me that they won't stop searching. It also tells me that if one experiment fails to find the alleged substance (which was called "fantasy" not so long ago) it means exactly that the experiment wasn't done with a proper method.

Without a method there's no evidence. Same goes for anything in science.

The hypothesis was challenged just like all should be and it turned out to be a real and measurable phenomenon. I don't believe anyone ever called the initial observation of gravitational lensing fantasy though.

Edited November 29, 2013 by sinewave

[sinewave]

I've just found found an interesting article related to this topic.

http://oxfordstudent...ecome-dogmatic/

''These dogmas are ‘off limits’ in the scientific community, he explains with authority, yet they lack any substantial evidence and have arisen from conclusions without research.''

'' What is surprising is the reliance modern science seems to have on opinions and dogmas, and how certain beliefs in science appear to be immune from scrutiny or inquiry. Sheldrake may indeed be a taboo figure now, but his criticisms of science may prove popular in years to come.''

I may not agree with all of Dr Ruper Sheldrake's ideas but he has a point. Dogmas whether it is religious or scientific is dangerous. A concept should not be accepted without solid evidence but the lack of proper research and ressources in various fields, such as the paranormal for instance, let the stage wide open for the charlatans, ghost hunters, and the media who shape it as they want. Therefore what may possibly be legitimate is lost in the interpretations and easily condemened.

Good post Sam. His point is exactly why all hypotheses and even theories should be challenged.

Edited November 29, 2013 by sinewave

[Avallaine]

I've just found found an interesting article related to this topic.

http://oxfordstudent...ecome-dogmatic/

''These dogmas are ‘off limits’ in the scientific community, he explains with authority, yet they lack any substantial evidence and have arisen from conclusions without research.''

Massive yes.

Dogma (and related logical errors, like confirmation bias) is a problem endemic to ANY large organization or long-established field of knowledge. I've always thought that skepticism should properly be aimed in all directions--including (perhaps especially) backwards at the "established principles" we think we are certain of.

[Nenaraz]

Not only that, but the scientific dogma exist in terms of people who "believe" in whatever has the name "scientists have discovered". Exactly the media syndrome such as

"Scientists have discovered that people will believe in anything that scientists have discovered".

I find it hilarious how some people accept some superficial info from media as correct simply because "some scientist" wrote/said so. That's the actual belief in the knowledge of the scientist, but more so in the reputation of the scientist.

I remember what a boom was when someone stated that there're 13 zodiac signs. People on Y answers started "I have to change my tattoo now, w t f". The news was older than U.S.A, yet people freaked out because their dogmatic perspective was shaken. Luckily, Zodiac signs are not constellations so the situation came to a closure after a week or two.

I don't don't believe anyone ever called initial observation of gravitational lensing fantasy though.

Heh, they did in final fantasy.

Joke aside, even when there's a high expectation for the experiment to show evidence that's not always the case, especially not with elusive things. The same thing was used for Neutrinos not so long ago (10 years, was it?) and there were strong implications that there're after all 6 of them, but only three were substantial.

The hypothesis was challenged just like all should be and it turned out to be a real and measurable phenomenon

Based purely on a mathematical calculation by using the deduction and finding "something extra" in the long run.

Yet, the methods used now for hunting ghosts are not good enough. The hypothesis already does exist.

The question is just to what degree would something constitute an evidence for ghost "existence" since there're some forms of physical data in terms of pictures, films which correspond to things which people have seen (experienced).

Even if you get one true undisputable evidence for the ghost existence, yet the onus can't be proved by any scientific method, it would still require another one for comparison and ten more for some statistical report.

But even after that it still wouldn't be taken into consideration by skeptics.

There's a certain amount of people who will simply deny the possibility that something may exist because of the current understanding of the universe and science as it is. Tangible rejection for the purpose of rejecting, characterizing certain methods as pseudoscience because the person who is experimenting something doesn't portray the knowledge of hard science which isn't important for the experiment, at all, or is using unorthodox methods for the evidence portrayal such as symbolism, metaphors or basis on a personal investigation and documentation.

As such, scientific methods fail to give a proper method and people who try to do something in the field with things which do provide SOME evidence (albeit not hard one) are considered charlatans because they can't repeat the procedure which often was a lucky coincidence. Been there, seen that, it's a huge pile of crap mockery at work. And it potentially can discourage people from further investigation.

Same like they did with Galileo, for instance. Such attitude is not part of true science imho.

"My dear Kepler' date='[/left']

I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

Galileo Galilei

And now thing that thousands of years before that Sumerians knew for the Solar system. Hmmmm...

[Avallaine]

If there is more to it, where it is it? I keep hearing about it but like a ghost, it never seems to show up. I started looking into this long before anyone knew what the Internet and ghost shows are and I still have not found anything compelling.

Can you give me a few examples of what data you have encountered, and from where?

Ball lightning has been documented to some degree. Physicists and meteorologists still don't know the formation mechanism but generally agree it happens.

Ball lightning got lucky. A physicist had a good sighting and reported it.

Ball lightning also lacks the centuries of mythic coagulation that gives ghost evidence its scarlet letter of mysticism.

Examples of adding noise to the data:

1. Working in the dark

2. Cheap audio recorders prone to RF ingress and CODEC noise. Some ghost busters use compression and gain techniques to amplify this noise.

3. Random and rapid RF scanning (ghost box et al)

4. White noise and TV static used as transmission medium. Some methods use the old TVs tuned between stations.

5. Automatic writing

6. Mediums parlor tricks

7. Using the miligauss range on EMF detectors (makes tiny changes seem much bigger)

8. Looking for meaning in the CODEC artifacts seen in low light and night vision videos.

There are others but you get the idea.

All those are methods largely utilized by those in the entertainment business, and should be treated with the seriousness they deserve. That is, very little.

So many times here people have said that science is inadequate when it comes to explaining ghosts. Ghosts somehow exist outside of science and science it to blame for not seeing the obvious.

No, no, and no. First off, what is science? Science is both a body of knowledge and a method for discovering more. To say that science doesn't have all the information in the universe yet is not saying it is "inadequate," it's just stating a fact. We don't know everything yet. If science already had all the facts, what would be the point of research?

And no one (well, no one who advocates scientific investigation into ghost phenomena, anyway) is saying that ghosts exist "outside of science." If they did, what would be the point of science even bothering? And what does that even mean—"outside of science?" I've never said any such thing. I've said that ghosts may exist outside of our current technological means to detect them; all that means is there is more for us to discover. Furthermore, it's based on good precedent: new technology is always providing new data, which leads to theories being re-arranged and re-thought. Ideas that once seemed to "fly in the face of science" (like merrily drifting continents) encounter new data (from sonar seafloor mapping) and a new model is formed—plate tectonics—which most certainly does not "disprove science," but adds to it and creates new areas of research.

People say they can see, hear, feel, and even smell ghosts but science is somehow not equipped to detect them.

Yet, sinewave; yet. "Science" isn't some kind of magic, infallible religion with all the answers; it's a constantly evolving body of knowledge and a way to acquire more...and that sort of assumes, by definition, that there's still more to learn.

And yet, you're bothered by the fact that people see/hear/feel/smell ghosts? Well, humans are actually fairly perceptive in the right circumstances; if we weren't, our species would never have survived this long. Just because nowadays most of us grow up in safe environments that don't require hyper-awareness doesn't mean we can't have moments of acute perception every now and then. Besides, we don't have to know what something is to be affected by it. There was a time before we had microscopes or a germ theory, but people could still detect the presence of diseases in their bodies (via fever, coughs, pain, etc). We could be struck by lightning and get static shocks long before we had the tools to figure out what electricity was.

Unless of course, the person doing the detecting is carrying a $25 EMF meter.

*shrug* There's always someone trying to make money off of something.

Most importantly, there is no connection between the ghost hypothesis and any established science.

I already told you, forget the popular theories. "the ghost hypothesis" is just the sum total of the most popular of the current myths that have built up around this group of unexplained phenomena.

I can now add, after samm_comm's helpful linking post, remember that not even established science should be immune to skepticism. Dogma is a threat to true understanding that has to be fought against constantly...in every field of knowledge and in everyone's inner thoughts.

The fact that the ghost hypothesis challenges established scientific thinking is not a reason to reject it. Established scientific thinking needs to be challenged now and then, to make sure it's still fit and healthy.

Unverified assumptions such as:

1. Ghosts are said to be electromagnetic in nature.

2. Ghosts can somehow change the electrical values in the tuner in a Frank's box.

3. The inventor of the Frank's box received the design psychically from the spirit world.

4. Ghost are said to draw energy from their surroundings.

5. Ghosts are said to create cold spots.

6. Ghosts are said to be more active at night / in the dark.

7. Ghosts are said to be able to drain batteries.

8. Ghosts are said to be rooted to a location.

9. Ghosts are said to be the result of stress, tragedy, violent death.

10. Some ghosts are said to be playbacks of past events.

There is no reason to believe any of these things are true but are frequently cited in evidence.

Here's where we get to the meat of my response. I'll have to skip #'s 2 and 3, since I know nothing about this fellow Frank or his box, but I'll do my best to answer the others as best I can.

1. Ghosts are said to be electromagnetic in nature.

7. Ghosts are said to be able to drain batteries.

(These two, I think, are related.) This is because electromagnetic effects and battery-draining are often witnessed in the presence of ghost phenomena. Lights dim; electronic devices begin acting anomalously; shorts occur. And, of course, batteries seem to lose energy uncommonly quickly in areas with paranormal activity.

My take: the phenomenon we call "ghosts" appears to cause some effects that register in the electromagnetic spectrum. This doesn't mean ghosts ARE electromagnetic (any more than a mirror that reflects light is made out of light), but it seems there is some interaction with electromagnetism going on.

Someone should really start testing this in a scientific manner.

4. Ghost are said to draw energy from their surroundings.

5. Ghosts are said to create cold spots.

These two are also related, and not entirely removed from the two above.

This is because cold spots are often observed in "haunted locations," and drops in temperature (real or apparent) are often observed just before "ghost activity." Because of this, and because even amateur unscientific ghost investigators know enough about physics to realize that energy has to come from somewhere, someone at some point put the cold spot thing and the battery-draining thing together, and theorized that ghosts must be getting the energy to make noise or move objects by pulling ambient energy from the environment (like heat energy and batteries).

My take: this actually isn't a bad "working theory" as to how ghosts are able to cause physical effects. Of course, it's completely unverified; but as I said, in the absence of real answers, laypersons tend to make up their own explanations. It may or may not turn out true, but it's a good place to start an investigation into the nature of ghost phenomena.

6. Ghosts are said to be more active at night / in the dark.

This is because night is when people notice more ghost activity.

My take: my guess is that this is a perceptual illusion. Human beings notice more ghost activity at night because there's less "background noise" to cover it up. Things are quieter at night, so noises are more easily heard; lights are dimmer at night, so faint things are more easily seen. And most of all, people are less active at night, so they are less distracted, and therefore more able to perceive things going on around them.

8. Ghosts are said to be rooted to a location.

This is because ghosts are often observed in particular locations, and not (often) outside them.

My take: this, while often encountered in ghost reports, is not nearly so universal as common wisdom holds. There are plenty of "ghosts" who seem to stick to one place, yes; but there are other reports of ghosts following people, or shifting between several locations.

I think this idea is popular because it is comforting to people. Ghosts are so very frightening—we don't understand them, and our usual defenses (walls, doors with locks, weapons) are useless against them; it's a relief to think that, if you're in a haunted house, you can get away from the ghost by simply leaving the house. While this is not always the case in haunting reports, it's true often enough that people have latched onto it because it gives ghosts, who seem limitlessly powerful, a limit that we can understand (and exploit).

9. Ghosts are said to be the result of stress, tragedy, violent death.

This is because ghost activity is often observed in cases where sudden or tragic death has occurred.

My take: while there does seem to be some correlation, this is also not as universally true in ghost reports as most people think. I think this is another notion that lets us think we know something about this very unpredictable phenomenon, and reassures us that the unknown is at least partially understood. It's an ancient idea—the thought that there must be some reason that some ghosts "hang around" and others do not—and every historical period has had its own theory of the "why" of ghosts. The Greeks and Romans assumed a ghost must have a social reason (an unpaid debt or familial obligation); in the middle ages, they assumed spiritual reasons (to warn living people about hell, or ask for prayers to speed their way through purgatory); after the Protestant reformation, people assumed ghosts had to be demons masquerading as once-living souls (since purgatory didn't exist, and souls obviously went right to heaven or hell); and in modern times, after the birth of psychology as a science, we tend to assume an emotional reason (the spirit has an unhealthy attachment to life, or fear of moving on).

People like knowing why things happen; and if there's no way to know really, they'll make up their own reasons. This is just another case of myth-building, and no more important to the actual scientific investigation of ghosts than any other "folk" theory.

10. Some ghosts are said to be playbacks of past events.

This is because some ghost activity acts like a playback of past events. The same sounds are repeated, in the same sequence, night after night. An apparition goes through the same motions every time it is seen, and never seems to notice the observer. Some ghosts appear to "wade" through floors that have been raised since their time, or through the ground itself, seemingly on the same level as a long-buried old road or track.

My take: again, not a bad hypothesis for some observed phenomena. No doubt when we invented recording devices, someone made the connection and assumed that some hauntings must be "psychic recordings" made on the fabric of the universe, scratched there by violence or stress, even as sounds could be scratched into wax by a needle. I believe this was the first distinction made between "types" of hauntings.

There may be something to it, or there may not; someone really ought to look into it from a scientific perspective.

Steadfastly clinging to the belief despite the lack of evidence is fantasy.

Of course...if you really have no evidence. A lot of believers have evidence of a personal nature; many of those will turn out to be mistakes or illusions, of course; but some have experienced things that seem impossible to have been mistakes. In that case it becomes, not fantasy, but merely an incorrect explanation for a genuinely puzzling event.

Opponent? Interesting choice of words. Getting emotional about it indicates an attachment to the idea that transcends reason. That is called belief.

When you discuss a subject with someone you disagree with, you are on opposing sides of the issue; and, so, literally you are opponents. I briefly considered a couple of other terms..."opposite" (same root, but its colloquial meanings make it too open to misinterpretation); "rival" (not technically as accurate; a discussion is not a competition where only one side can "win"); "adversary" (a little too quaintly old-fashioned, and implies a little too much enmity); "counterpart" (said C-3P0 of R2-D2). I almost googled a few more synonyms, but didn't want to stress too much over a single word. What term would you have chosen...?

And "getting emotional" about a subject indicates one has strong feelings about it; but strong feelings do not necessarily mean anyone has transcended their reason. You obviously have strong feelings about science and seem quite passionate about defending it, but that doesn't mean you're automatically going to be unreasonable about it, does it?

And peer review which includes challenging the hypothesis.

Can you give me an example of a peer review where one researcher called the entire subject of someone's study "synonymous with fantasy?" I'd be very interested to see it (and to see the response to it).

Show that it is not. Let the facts speak for themselves.

That's going to take some time. I'll have to essentially hit the books and work up a kind of research paper/essay thing. Can you give me some time to collect the data and get back to you?

It is not a charged issue to me. I have no attachment to it. There is no frustration or anger on my part. I just want the truth.

A truly detached and dispassionate seeker of truth has no need to overstate his case with hyperbole. I'm sorry, but your style of writing seems very emotional to me...and if that impression were entirely accidental, why would defend your word choice in this instance so (pardon) fiercely?

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject; the only thing "wrong" is when you let your emotions lead you to logical fallacies or demeaning language. And even that is only "wrong" in the sense that it's discourteous. Certainly, there are a great many faults worse than lack of courtesy; but if you're going to engage in it, be resigned to people sometimes objecting, or at least calling you out on it.

[sinewave]

Not only that, but the scientific dogma exist in terms of people who "believe" in whatever has the name "scientists have discovered". Exactly the media syndrome such as

"Scientists have discovered that people will believe in anything that scientists have discovered".

I find it hilarious how some people accept some superficial info from media as correct simply because "some scientist" wrote/said so. That's the actual belief in the knowledge of the scientist, but more so in the reputation of the scientist.

I remember what a boom was when someone stated that there're 13 zodiac signs. People on Y answers started "I have to change my tattoo now, w t f". The news was older than U.S.A, yet people freaked out because their dogmatic perspective was shaken. Luckily, Zodiac signs are not constellations so the situation came to a closure after a week or two.

Unfortunately things like that happen. Look at the cold fusion debacle. There was legitimate physics work being done to determine a discrepancy in the amount of energy yielded by a reaction, when the university hosting the work decided to get a jump on the math, subsequent trials, and peer review and issued a sensational press release stating fusion had been achieved at room temperature. Neither of the physicists involved requested nor endorsed the press release that eventually damaged their careers. There are also cases of researcher misconduct such as the one that lead the world to believe certain childhood vaccines would cause autism. Fortunately, science is constructed to trap such things but lots of damage can be done in the meantime (Jenny Mccarthy). Sharp practice and corruption are far from the norm, fortunately. Lots of good science is being done and advancements are being made.

Heh, they did in final fantasy.

Joke aside, even when there's a high expectation for the experiment to show evidence that's not always the case, especially not with elusive things. The same thing was used for Neutrinos not so long ago (10 years, was it?) and there were strong implications that there're after all 6 of them, but only three were substantial.

Yeah, I think 6 types is correct. I think there are presently 3 neutrinos and 3 anti-neutrinos (left-hand spin) known. Initial tests showed the sun produced only about a third of the neutrinos expected by the standard model. It turned out the standard model was correct, only one type of neutrino was being detected at the time.

Based purely on a mathematical calculation by using the deduction and finding "something extra" in the long run.

Yet, the methods used now for hunting ghosts are not good enough. The hypothesis already does exist.

The question is just to what degree would something constitute an evidence for ghost "existence" since there're some forms of physical data in terms of pictures, films which correspond to things which people have seen (experienced).

Someone would have to demonstrate that consciousness is more than electrochemical processes and that it can survive the death of the physical body. Attempts have been made to do so but the methods were questionable at best. Plus, there is plenty of empirical evidence to show that both consciousness and intellect can be profoundly affected by damage to the brain. If consciousness is separate from the physical body shouldn't we expect it to be unaffected by damage to brain tissue?

Even if you get one true undisputable evidence for the ghost existence, yet the onus can't be proved by any scientific method, it would still require another one for comparison and ten more for some statistical report.

But even after that it still wouldn't be taken into consideration by skeptics.

There's a certain amount of people who will simply deny the possibility that something may exist because of the current understanding of the universe and science as it is. Tangible rejection for the purpose of rejecting, characterizing certain methods as pseudoscience because the person who is experimenting something doesn't portray the knowledge of hard science which isn't important for the experiment, at all, or is using unorthodox methods for the evidence portrayal such as symbolism, metaphors or basis on a personal investigation and documentation.

As such, scientific methods fail to give a proper method and people who try to do something in the field with things which do provide SOME evidence (albeit not hard one) are considered charlatans because they can't repeat the procedure which often was a lucky coincidence. Been there, seen that, it's a huge pile of crap mockery at work. And it potentially can discourage people from further investigation.

Same like they did with Galileo, for instance. Such attitude is not part of true science imho.

If it is in fact indisputable evidence then by definition science would apply. As you pointed out quite correctly earlier, one result from one scientist does not constitute science. No single result is enough to be indisputable evidence.

There is a difference between denying something exists and merely challenging its existence. You may be putting those two concepts together as one. As for pseudoscience, the concept of ghost hunting is loaded with it. Using gadgets in any discipline without the necessary scientific controls will yield useless results. If those results are submitted as evidence you have pseudoscience. Suitable controls and "proper methods" are predicated on two things. First, knowing exactly what you are trying to measure and how it relates to the phenomenon you are studying. Second, knowing exactly how a given testing device works and what factors will affect the accuracy of the results. No ghost hunter I have ever encountered has even started down the road to real science.

[Nenaraz]

Someone would have to demonstrate that consciousness is more than electrochemical processes and that it can survive the death of the physical body.

In other topic I tried to allude that by pointing to the discoveries by Tesla. I think it is possible, having it experienced myself in astral projection.

[sinewave]

In other topic I tried to allude that by pointing to the discoveries by Tesla. I think it is possible, having it experienced myself in astral projection.

Funny thing about Tesla, he was brilliant but not everything he believed made sense and not everything attributed to him is actually his work. His name has been attached to all kinds of fringe ideas over the years, most notably zero point energy. He believed one of his experiments caused the Tunguska event. Something which has been all but verified as having been an air burst of a non-metallic meteorite.

Edited November 29, 2013 by sinewave

[Avallaine]

Funny thing about Tesla, he was brilliant but not everything he believed made sense and not everything attributed to him is actually his work. His name has been attached to all kinds of fringe ideas over the years, most notably zero point energy. He believed one of his experiments caused the Tunguska event. Something which has been all but verified as having been an air burst of a non-metallic meteorite.

And Isaac Newton was an alchemist and astrologer. Many brilliant thinkers have had some...odd...interests and beliefs; this doesn't make them any less brilliant, or their discoveries any less important. It just means that human beings are odd and quirky creatures with myriad facets to their personalities.

[sinewave]

And Isaac Newton was an alchemist and astrologer. Many brilliant thinkers have had some...odd...interests and beliefs; this doesn't make them any less brilliant, or their discoveries any less important. It just means that human beings are odd and quirky creatures with myriad facets to their personalities.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Nenaraz]

but not everything he believed made sense

...unless you do proper investigation.

The "weird" things he did was the obsession with the number 3. The Tesla waves are currently under scrupulous scientific investigation at his homeland. The current process, as I'm aware of, is data collecting for statistical comparison.

I wasn't aware that Newton used astrology, though. Anyway, I wouldn't call the given "practices" and "claims" any less tangible than proper fields of research on the basis of current (popular) characterisation in terms of pseudoscience. For me, astrology's a very real thing which I'm still investigating. As for Tesla claims, I'm really not aware of anything which he stated and that it wasn't true.

For instance the wireless electricity. In the video the sign isn't connected to a terminal.

http://therev67.tripod.com/tesla/wireless.mpg

Anyway, I'm quite sure that claims made by Tesla are possible to do. After all we're still using his AC by a person who was into wireless before there were any proper wires implemented.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm

[sinewave]

Can you give me a few examples of what data you have encountered, and from where?

In addition to reading the stories and the common explanations I spent a fair amount of time learning about human cognition and perception preferring authoritative journals as sources. I have always had a fascination with optical illusions and why they work. There is more to the equation than just the alleged phenomena.

Ball lightning got lucky. A physicist had a good sighting and reported it.

Ball lightning also lacks the centuries of mythic coagulation that gives ghost evidence its scarlet letter of mysticism.

Not really luck. One observation does not constitute science. There are references to phenomena similar to ball lightning going back to ancient times.

And no one (well, no one who advocates scientific investigation into ghost phenomena, anyway) is saying that ghosts exist "outside of science." If they did, what would be the point of science even bothering? And what does that even mean—"outside of science?" I've never said any such thing. I've said that ghosts may exist outside of our current technological means to detect them; all that means is there is more for us to discover. Furthermore, it's based on good precedent: new technology is always providing new data, which leads to theories being re-arranged and re-thought. Ideas that once seemed to "fly in the face of science" (like merrily drifting continents) encounter new data (from sonar seafloor mapping) and a new model is formed—plate tectonics—which most certainly does not "disprove science," but adds to it and creates new areas of research.

Many people here and elsewhere assert the absence of evidence is due to the fact science cannot detect ghosts. That puts ghosts outside of science.

Yet, sinewave; yet. "Science" isn't some kind of magic, infallible religion with all the answers; it's a constantly evolving body of knowledge and a way to acquire more...and that sort of assumes, by definition, that there's still more to learn.

And yet, you're bothered by the fact that people see/hear/feel/smell ghosts? Well, humans are actually fairly perceptive in the right circumstances; if we weren't, our species would never have survived this long. Just because nowadays most of us grow up in safe environments that don't require hyper-awareness doesn't mean we can't have moments of acute perception every now and then. Besides, we don't have to know what something is to be affected by it. There was a time before we had microscopes or a germ theory, but people could still detect the presence of diseases in their bodies (via fever, coughs, pain, etc). We could be struck by lightning and get static shocks long before we had the tools to figure out what electricity was.

Bothered? No. Have I ever given the impression I felt science was some kind of magic? It is quite simple. People claim to experience ghosts with their unaided senses so it follows they are also detectable by properly applied technology. Ghosts tend to run and hide when science arrives.

I already told you, forget the popular theories. "the ghost hypothesis" is just the sum total of the most popular of the current myths that have built up around this group of unexplained phenomena.

I can now add, after samm_comm's helpful linking post, remember that not even established science should be immune to skepticism. Dogma is a threat to true understanding that has to be fought against constantly...in every field of knowledge and in everyone's inner thoughts.

The fact that the ghost hypothesis challenges established scientific thinking is not a reason to reject it. Established scientific thinking needs to be challenged now and then, to make sure it's still fit and healthy.

That is what is presented as evidence so I can't really ignore it. There is some dogma in older accepted science that adds a certain amount of inertia but it does not prevent theories from being challenged. Belief. on the other hand is 100% dogma. The challenging of beliefs is seldom tolerated.

Here's where we get to the meat of my response. I'll have to skip #'s 2 and 3, since I know nothing about this fellow Frank or his box, but I'll do my best to answer the others as best I can.

I was not really looking for your take on these things. I am more interested in the authoritative sources that established them as fact. They are still apparently just things people made up to give the appearance of substance.

Can you give me an example of a peer review where one researcher called the entire subject of someone's study "synonymous with fantasy?" I'd be very interested to see it (and to see the response to it).

Give me an example of research that only has anecdotes and pseudoscience as evidence and is still called research.

That's going to take some time. I'll have to essentially hit the books and work up a kind of research paper/essay thing. Can you give me some time to collect the data and get back to you?

Many here have asserted there has been serious work done on this subject so I would think there was already something in place.

A truly detached and dispassionate seeker of truth has no need to overstate his case with hyperbole. I'm sorry, but your style of writing seems very emotional to me...and if that impression were entirely accidental, why would defend your word choice in this instance so (pardon) fiercely?

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject; the only thing "wrong" is when you let your emotions lead you to logical fallacies or demeaning language. And even that is only "wrong" in the sense that it's discourteous. Certainly, there are a great many faults worse than lack of courtesy; but if you're going to engage in it, be resigned to people sometimes objecting, or at least calling you out on it.

Again, the topic is scientific evidence. Presenting beliefs as evidence is probably going to hurt once in a while.

Edited November 30, 2013 by sinewave

[sinewave]

...unless you do proper investigation.

It depends on where you are doing your research. He explored the possibility of using the natural charge of the atmosphere for power and believed he could until his death. The fact is, there is simply not enough energy density to be useful. Wireless electrical delivery was not terribly practical or efficient and was one of his pet projects. More energy would be lost overcoming the permittivity of air than would actually be delivered. Then figure in the inverse square rule, doing it over any distance would be incredibly wasteful. Did I mention the Tunguska event?

The "weird" things he did was the obsession with the number 3. The Tesla waves are currently under scrupulous scientific investigation at his homeland. The current process, as I'm aware of, is data collecting for statistical comparison.

Again, Tesla was brilliant. I have nothing but respect for his contributions but he was not always right.

I wasn't aware that Newton used astrology, though. Anyway, I wouldn't call the given "practices" and "claims" any less tangible than proper fields of research on the basis of current (popular) characterisation in terms of pseudoscience. For me, astrology's a very real thing which I'm still investigating. As for Tesla claims, I'm really not aware of anything which he stated and that it wasn't true.

Yeah but Newton gave stuff like that up pretty quickly. It was the prevailing wisdom of the day so he started there.

Edited November 30, 2013 by sinewave

[Frank Merton]

I've just found found an interesting article related to this topic.

http://oxfordstudent...ecome-dogmatic/

''These dogmas are ‘off limits’ in the scientific community, he explains with authority, yet they lack any substantial evidence and have arisen from conclusions without research.''

'' What is surprising is the reliance modern science seems to have on opinions and dogmas, and how certain beliefs in science appear to be immune from scrutiny or inquiry. Sheldrake may indeed be a taboo figure now, but his criticisms of science may prove popular in years to come.''

I may not agree with all of Dr Ruper Sheldrake's ideas but he has a point. Dogmas whether it is religious or scientific is dangerous. A concept should not be accepted without solid evidence but the lack of proper research and ressources in various fields, such as the paranormal for instance, let the stage wide open for the charlatans, ghost hunters, and the media who shape it as they want. Therefore what may possibly be legitimate is lost in the interpretations and easily condemened.

I'm sorry but this is just stupid and has no reality to it. Science has only one "dogma," and that is stick with what you can show is true. All the rest of this is invented by those who would make science something unscientific.

[Nenaraz]

It depends on where you are doing your research.

Not just that. That's simple. It depends on what priority you give to the experiment as well as what you expect to be the data.

When I stated "proper research" I meant "Don't be so sure". I imply that this

Yeah but Newton gave stuff like that up pretty quickly.

isn't really examined properly, therefore there's no proper hard evidence to support the claim that Newton really did so or was the proper practitioner of either astrology or alchemy.

On a side note...

It's always funny to me how easily you accept the superficial info about something which isn't properly investigated just because it supplements your personal view. That's hardly scientific of you. I'd imagine that you'd offer more criticism for such claims and even go into some analytical nature to (dis)approve his work.

I wrote this since I wonder will I see something more of the unbiased outlook on things which also don't cope up with scrupulous scientific routine or are based on several words on a parchment :]

I still say that proper investigation is needed. That's why logical approach is solely needed, instead of biased skepticism.

Edit :

Science has only one "dogma," and that is stick with what you can show is true

... as long as it's in the boundaries of the current knowledge and can be tested hundreds of times with different methods and approaches.

Yeah, evidences don't necessarily need to pass such routine in order to be taken genuinely as a subject of educated opinions. And frankly, such methods in science can easily be obsolete and even clog the technological progress until all the parameters are satisfied. When I say "parameters" it really is just some old people who don't like to change what's written in the books for whatever reason. That's why you don't see "The theory of Big Bang can be wrong, too" or "The science isn't really the absolute knowledge or truth" in the books for elementary school. You get "That's a fact". But after 30 up to 150 years you're going to get "People considered that to be a fact because they were inferior to our current understanding of science". Etc, so that's the problem with scientific dogmatics.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Nenaraz

[aquatus1]

I'm sorry, I'm late to the discussion.

Is there an actual "Ghost Hypothesis", or is that what we are in the process of trying to put together?

[sinewave]

Not just that. That's simple. It depends on what priority you give to the experiment as well as what you expect to be the data.

When I stated "proper research" I meant "Don't be so sure". I imply that this

isn't really examined properly, therefore there's no proper hard evidence to support the claim that Newton really did so or was the proper practitioner of either astrology or alchemy.

Actually yes, Newton dabbled in alchemy early on but I don't know anything about an occult connection.

On a side note...

It's always funny to me how easily you accept the superficial info about something which isn't properly investigated just because it supplements your personal view. That's hardly scientific of you. I'd imagine that you'd offer more criticism for such claims and even go into some analytical nature to (dis)approve his work.

I wrote this since I wonder will I see something more of the unbiased outlook on things which also don't cope up with scrupulous scientific routine or are based on several words on a parchment :]

I still say that proper investigation is needed. That's why logical approach is solely needed, instead of biased skepticism.

What are you talking about?

[sinewave]

I'm sorry, I'm late to the discussion.

Is there an actual "Ghost Hypothesis", or is that what we are in the process of trying to put together?

Probably not. There are lots of wild and conflicting beliefs but the lines form between believers and skeptics regardless.