My Ghost Story

[Daylightstar]

Nucular, do you have a suggestion as to why the floorboards kept on creaking?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I think maybe you could have asked Alferd what he meant by the term he used, rather than galloping off with your own very concrete usages.

lol. Yes, everyone should have their own definitions of words. Why, he could even have meant that extremely skeptical meant not skeptical at all!

Shaming isn't a logical argument.

The key claim that he was a building inspector who nearly had to flee for fear of building collapse - yet did not report it to the client paying him to inspect the building - is an obvious demonstration of exaggeration/embellishment.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The span is from side to side, not the long way down the hall. The hallway walls on the 4th floor below are load bearing walls so the floor joists run crosswise and the span is less than 20 feet.

Students of manipulation know that when someone is practicing selective attention, the most important questions are the ones being studiously ignored.

You claimed to leave the scene because you were so afraid about the possibility of structural failure, yet did not report so to the client who was paying you. A building safety inspector who does not report building safety concerns can be held criminally negligent in the event of structural failure.

I've repeatedly made this point and ignoring it so carefully demonstrates how important it is to evade it. Conjuring up that fear is an important embellishment - offered as evidence as to how incredible the creaking was.

Removing that embellishment removes the alleged fear. Removing fear makes it a ho-hum story about creaking floors.

When you have already demonstrated the proclivity for embellishment/exaggeration and manipulative tactics in answering questions, then we're just dealing with deception rather than what actually happened.

 

[Nucular]

Nucular, do you have a suggestion as to why the floorboards kept on creaking?

Not one that hasn't already been mentioned. By far the most likely explanation from where I/we sit on the other end of the Internet is, to me, the 'delayed floorboard pop-back' hypothesis, which was also my first thought having read the OP.

However, I'm not all that interested in a priori dismissal of other possible explanations for a phenomenon. If someone in good faith suggests ghosts as an alternative hypothesis - or aliens, or angels, or whatever - it seems to me to be a far better use of time to explore with that person ways of differentiating those hypotheses empirically, than it is to attempt to dismiss them based on our own preconceived ideas. Harder, too.

If Alferd doesn't return to that attic, we won't know (but we'll all, myself included, opt for what seems the most sensible explanation without any further data). But if he does return, and isn't sufficiently irritated by some posters' uncalled-for dismissal of his original thoughts to choose not to post it on this forum, hopefully we could at least see through a test of the sort of thing that, if not experienced by someone as thoughtful as Alferd, would likely result in an endlessly-repeated ghost story of a haunted school.

I'd also point out that as I type, this thread has 62 replies, but 1,232 views. Maybe those of us who've hung around these places for years and years can communicate in shorthand to one another and assume that we find supernatural explanations for things wanting; do all of those people share that? Or might some people read this thread and come away picturing 'real skepticism' as being the axiom that "I already know that supernatural stuff is bullsh*t, so there's no point looking beyond my clever appraisal or listening to anyone else"?

Every one of these genuine invitations to discussion as given by Alferd is an opportunity for us to put our methodology into practice, and let observers see the result. Personally, I always hope to come across some reason to think that my deeply sceptical world view (apply for details) could be revised - I'll never find it if I approach every suggestion of a mystery by first ruling out explanations I think are stupid.

 

[Nucular]

lol. Yes, everyone should have their own definitions of words. Why, he could even have meant that extremely skeptical meant not skeptical at all!

Seems unlikely, given the context of the rest of Alferd's posts on this thread - but regardless, your own stated definition of "the superman of skeptics" was going far beyond his own statements, whatever his own idiosyncratic definitions.

Shaming isn't a logical argument.

Agreed. Not sure if you meant your posts or mine though.

The key claim that he was a building inspector who nearly had to flee for fear of building collapse - yet did not report it to the client paying him to inspect the building - is an obvious demonstration of exaggeration/embellishment.

Or, maybe it's a demonstration of sticking to the remit of a job which didn't include inspection of the structural integrity of the attic floor. Maybe it's an example of a building inspector knowing the boundaries of his own expertise. Maybe it's an example of someone who had a weird feeling about something, and knew that professionally he had no leg to stand on. Maybe it's an example of an "extremely skeptical person" losing his cool and trying to figure out why after the fact (my money's on this one, and frankly I've done the same).

I simply don't know, and if you do, you're privy to information which is not on this thread.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

OK, to begin with, I am an extremely skeptical person. I do not believe in ghosts, EVPs, or any of that nonsense.

Nevertheless, I had an experience not to long ago, that I am struggling to come up with a rational explanation for.

I am a consultant by trade, I specialize in building inspections for environmental, Health and Safety issues. Last year, I had a project that involved an inspection and inventory of all the different ceilings in a large, high school building where portions of the buildings were built in various phases from the late 1800's on.

Even though it was summer, we had to do the work from 3:00 to 11:00 in the evening. With the exception of a few people in the admin wing, the building essentially emptied out at 5:00.

The first two nights, I had an assistant with me and we got about 90% of the work done. The third night I was by myself and trying to finish up some minor areas that we had trouble accessing the first two nights. My client contact had mentioned that the building could sometimes get creepy late at night, but I didn't really pay any attention to that. I'm used to how old masonry and wood framed buildings shift and creak as they cool down in the evening.

Back in the early 20th century it was common to build schools with an auditorium on the 1st and 2nd floor, and the gym on the third floor above the auditorium. This was a 4 story building so they even had a nice balcony on the gym accessible from the 4th floor. It was getting late, and I was on the fourth floor by the gym balcony when I noticed a set of stairs leading up.

Curious, I went up them to see if there was an accessible attic. there was. there was a large space that had at one time served as the school locker room. there was a long gallery with a tongue and groove wood floor and hard plaster walls about 18 feet wide running about 60 feet long with a shower room at the other end. The lights worked, so I went down across the room and inspected the showers, no issues for me to deal with. there was another set of stairs leading down from that end, and something about that area was making me a bit edgy.

Maybe it was just the thought that "If there is a rotted floorboard up here, and I get hurt, it's going to be a while before they find me."

I was planning to just head down the other set of stairs, but there was a problem, the light switches were at the end I came from

So, I reluctantly turned around and began walking back across the old locker room to the other stairwell so I could turn off the lights behind me.

Man that was one creaky floor. Funny, it didn't seem that noisy when I walked across it the first time. I get to the other end and at the top of the stairs and I stop to turn off the lights.

I stopped. However, the floorboards did not stop creaking. For about 6-7 seconds, the creaking sound came towards me as if someone was walking across the floor, following me.

I didn't run, but I got the hell out of there as fast as I could, thoroughly creeped out. Now logically I could attribute this simply to the old floors and joists settling back into place after I walked over them.

But I have never heard that happen that loudly or for that long after you stopped moving.

Structurally, the joists should have been running across the locker room from side to side, not lengthwise, so I doubt that me standing at one spot would have affected the floor 15 feet further down the room.

I found out later that the Engineer was very familiar with the "Ghost." According to him, he has heard footsteps in the building when he knows he is alone.

As for me, it was just plain creepy, and I keep telling myself that it was just a structural issue. . . .

Looks like the mind was hallucinating on you due to a lack of outside stimulus. You were in a strange building with nobody to interact off of, you were working on something which to my mind sounds involved. Your mind simply started playing tricks on you.

In second year of uni I stayed in my digs over christmas to get an extra two weeks of study in before the exams. By the end of it my mind was jumping over ever creak in the pipes, bumps of branches against windows, and any other non usual noise that I was carrying around a knife half in paranoia. All of these noises which normally I'd only hear at the edge of the normal noise and talking around the house had been massively magnified inside my own head simply because for a good part of each day they were the only things I was hearing, and they took on a huge, false, significance as a result.

 

[Axxman300]

However, I'm not all that interested in a priori dismissal of other possible explanations for a phenomenon. If someone in good faith suggests ghosts as an alternative hypothesis - or aliens, or angels, or whatever - it seems to me to be a far better use of time to explore with that person ways of differentiating those hypotheses empirically, than it is to attempt to dismiss them based on our own preconceived ideas. Harder, too.

Alfred gave an outstanding initial description of the event. My assessment was based on what was likely to have happened based on personal experience.

I'm going to say this out loud: I used to investigate hauntings.

I learned more about construction, heating, and plumbing than anything else.
I also learned about people, and how some wanted an honest answer while others needed their place to have a ghost.

I didn't investigate too many places because it was a huge waste of my time, but I learned a lot.

This said, I'm not sure what else you wanted to see here, even from a "ghosts might be real" perspective. He said it was weird, and I can testify that the phenomenon he described sounds exactly like someone walking on the floor. I'm not saying it is the only explanation but the other explanations are variants of the popping floor-board phenomenon. There is nothing fantastic in the story at all. A rare, weird event happened. That's it.

 

[Darwin123]

How would non corporeal consciousness depress floor boards?

Obviously there was no physical sound, as in a compressional wave. The ghost was impressing the sensation of hearing a sound in his brain.

Note that he said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10761147#post10761147

The fact that it was so loud despite his hearing deficiency suggests to me that there was no real 'sound' at all. The sensation probably didn't originate in his ears at all.

Now if I believed in ghosts, then I can't deny this as evidence. The sensation of hearing a creak had to originate somewhere. He claims that that he was wide awake and sober. So people in a wide awake, sober state would not hear an internal memory as an external creak. So if I believed in ghosts, then I would have to entertain the motion that some non corporeal consciousness projected the sensation of a creak in his brain.

I would have to ask why an inspector would leave his hearing aid home when inspecting a building. There be illegal squatters on the premises. He should be listening for them. There could be animals. Further, the floor may be really creaky. Listening may provide needed information on the state of the wood. Further, someone may have to communicate with him in case of an emergency. He should have all his facilities available.

In fact, why couldn't it be a squatter or a wild animal? These could provide a much more serious threat than ghosts, even provided ghosts exist. I doubt a real ghost could harm him. What evidence did he have that it was a harmful spirit, given that it was a spirit?

Or maybe he didn't go back because he really thought it was a squatter?

He should finish his inspection. If the only thing there is a few ghosts, then the house passes the inspection. I myself would pay extra house that a house that is haunted by bona fide ghosts. Especially ghosts that have never been known to harm anybody.

Some people want pets!

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Seems unlikely, given the context of the rest of Alferd's posts on this thread - but regardless, your own stated definition of "the superman of skeptics" was going far beyond his own statements, whatever his own idiosyncratic definitions.

Lol Evading his statement about being an "Extremely skeptical person", the excuse-making for him in doing it - while attacking me for exaggeration is pretty hypocritical.

This kind of statement at the beginning of a woo story is standard manipulative embellishment.

Or, maybe it's a demonstration of sticking to the remit of a job which didn't include inspection of the structural integrity of the attic floor.

Look how easy the excuse-making comes wherever you can find it for him, even though he has been asked multiple times on this point and continues to evade it.

I simply don't know, and if you do, you're privy to information which is not on this thread.

Oh that's cute - blame me for him not answering a direct question numerous times, and pretend that his evasion of that question isn't relevant.

What I know is manipulation. I've been in the construction trades for decades too, and don't you be telling me that a building inspector who sees a structural failure isn't going to mention it to his client. Don't be calling me stupid. That is why I am pressing him so hard on it, and his failure to answer is very telling.

What you are doing is playing dumb. "Oh dear, I just don't know and it seems reasonable to me that even if the building was going to collapse and kill school children there would be no reason to mention it as a building inspector..." lol.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I would have to ask why an inspector would leave his hearing aid home when inspecting a building.

That is a VERY good question. When I do bids on things like foundation or basement floor repair, we use rods and chains, listening to the sound it makes to determine whether there has been erosion underneath.

If he was concerned with plumbing, there's a number of reasons you want to be able to hear well.

Even if he wasn't an inspector - people who have hearing aids that are going to work wear them simply so they can hear people who are talking to them.

Another red flag.

 

[Daylightstar]

The op states that he was to inspect ceilings.

I wonder whether the op's anecdote is meant as an externally pointed excuse for one or other thing.

 

[Donn]

Can we speculate that ghosts might be an explanation in some rare cases?

Yes, but only if we are also able to fly one inch above the ground when we eat candyfloss through our belly buttons. You see, those are the specs that'll allow for ghosts to be as likely.

This is common where one person can see and hear spirits but others cannot. This means the sight and sounds ARE in the person’s brain, but it could be that this is due to the influence of a ghost.

What about fairies? You also dismiss the seventh dimension: a place where bacteria haunt mirrors that do not reflect anything. You have to include all the options.

A little more extreme are highly coincidental events whose sceptical explanation is the law of large numbers even if when the odds are astronomical. Either this is the case, or we live in a universe in the mind of an Intelligent Ultimate Reality (we live in a simulation of sorts).

That's more like it. When a door is closed and locked, there's a chance it will phase-into an atrium full of pillows with soda fountains of marshmallow fish.

Let's all heed the call to raise to the level of likelihood these abstruse alternatives. None can be dismissed, for every gnat that perches on a lever moves the world equally.

 

[Darwin123]

What about fairies? You also dismiss the seventh dimension: a place where bacteria haunt mirrors that do not reflect anything. You have to include all the options.

Ghost, elf, demon, fairy, and haunt are operationally interchangeable. Myths and folklore don't always make a clear distinction. The word 'dimension' is so poorly defined in colloquial use that it operationally means the same thing. The belief in 'supernatural impersonation' makes it even more to distinguish between them. If entities they existed, distinguishing between them would require lots more information than merely detecting them.

The 'building inspector' issue is more interesting. I didn't know building inspectors did their inspections at night. Or maybe it was during the day. So why was it dark? No windows, maybe? He didn't finish his inspection!

He said that was supposed to look at the ceiling. However, I have difficulty believing that an inspection would involve only the ceiling. I supposed the house had more than one floor and so more than one ceiling. Wouldn't he be required to walk on the floor above that ceiling? It doesn't answer the question of why he left his hearing aid at home.

Wait, I know what type of spirit it was. We are dealing with a Loki !!

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

By the way, a true skeptic wouldn't expect to get anyone on an online forum, who wasn't there with him, to provide any accurate explanation of what happened. We can only ask questions and provide with suggestions as to what may have happened, as well as suggestions on how to get an answer. But it would be dishonest from anyone here to claim to be able to explain what actually happened. We know woos use the "you weren't there" argument... but it's still factually true that we weren't there. So we don't know any better than he does.

I'm going to insist that the only useful way to dig deeper into what happened, is to go back to the building and perform some tests. Even that may not provide the answers, but it's the best way to get anything.

 

[Donn]

Ghost, elf, demon, fairy, and haunt are operationally interchangeable. Myths and folklore don't always make a clear distinction. The word 'dimension' is so poorly defined in colloquial use that it operationally means the same thing. The belief in 'supernatural impersonation' makes it even more to distinguish between them. If entities they existed, distinguishing between them would require lots more information than merely detecting them.

Surely, but they are options. When weighed against the choice of ghosts we can also fetch every infinite permutation of imaginings under the stars.

If they all be of a muchness, ghosts alike to whipped-cream sausages which sing toast, then something has been reached — a point of visible nonsense. The ghosts are nonsense by equality with other nonsense.

And how can nonsense be an option?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And how can nonsense be an option?

Well, not that I'm arguing for ghosts, but what does or does not seem like nonsense to any particular individual is not necessarily a good metric by which to judge reality. Time dilation at very high speeds seems like nonsense to many, yet it is true.

Just because something seems like nonsense to you doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option. Nonsense should always be an option, otherwise the argument for dismissing something essentially boils down to an argument from personal incredulity.

Again, for the record, I agree with what you're saying generally, but this particular question is one I take issue with.

 

[Daylightstar]

... but what does or does not seem like nonsense to any particular individual is not necessarily a good metric by which to judge reality. ...

^{Hilite by Daylighstar}But then again, it is not about what simply seems to be nonsense to any particular person.

 

[Daylightstar]

I'm still interested to hear from the op whether he thinks that what he called the most logical answer is also the most likely to be the correct answer.

 

[Donn]

Just because something seems like nonsense to you doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option. Nonsense should always be an option, otherwise the argument for dismissing something essentially boils down to an argument from personal incredulity.

I see what you're saying; it's an oft-versed theme around here. I'm seeking a way to draw an effective pale around these fractional options that are nominated, like ghosts.

Try this: Fhosts. A fhost is a future soul of a yet-to-be-born. Where you hear ghosts, argue for fhosts. Not to make it all nonsense, but to dramatise the dilution of their explanatory powers. Neither ghosts nor fhosts explain anything that you can't also ascribe to a nebulous "unknown".

I raise all this because people don't say ghosts without also seriously attaching all kinds of pop-cultural and personal meaning. Partskeptic really thinks actual ghosts are an actual option.

They're not. They change the balance like adding zero does.

What am I missing? Sure as heck I'm not certain of my ground, only trying to word my way around.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I raise all this because people don't say ghosts without also seriously attaching all kinds of pop-cultural and personal meaning. Partskeptic really thinks actual ghosts are an actual option.

They're not. They change the balance like adding zero does.

Well, I think they are an option, just not as described here. The first thing to do is to rule out mundane explanations (which we can't do over the internet, and may be impossible even by revisiting the site, due to things such as the potential for ambient differences which would stop the effect from happening on a revisit). Then we'd need to define exactly what relevant characteristics a "ghost" has, how we can distinguish one from the other potential non-mundane explanations you've mentioned (as well as the others that you haven't), to work out a way to empirically test for those characteristics, then perform those tests in a way which doesn't allow for human bias.

It'd be a lot of work, sure, but there's a million dollars for anybody who could, and it'd open up whole new branches of physics and fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. Worth the effort for anybody who genuinely believes in ghosts, I'd have thought.