Scientific research into ghosts?

[Ashles]

True skeptics, like true scotsmen, don't actually exist. Self-identified skeptics, such as those that post on internet forums, are just as resistant to ideas that contradict their currently held beliefs as any other group of believers on any other subject.

Well what a sweeping generalisation. Beth I'm very disappointed.

 

[Beth]

Well what a sweeping generalisation. Beth I'm very disappointed.

You're surprised that I find skeptics as a group to be no more open-minded than any other group? Sorry to disappoint you, that's my opinion based on my observations. However, it's not really much a generalization. Most groups, particularly large groups, are pretty diverse and thus, don't vary all that much from other groups.

It's when people start claiming their group is different in some way (i.e. that skeptics are more-openminded than other groups) that I object. There's no evidence for such a claim and it runs contrary to my personal observations.

 

[Ashles]

It really is a generalisation, there's not much doubt about that.

 

[Grimoire]

True skeptics, like true scotsmen, don't actually exist. Self-identified skeptics, such as those that post on internet forums, are just as resistant to ideas that contradict their currently held beliefs as any other group of believers on any other subject.

So I'm not a true skeptic? You can cite an example where there existed strong evidence that contradicted a belief I hold and I did not change my mind? If so, please show me, and I will be happy to re-evaluate my position and provide reasons for my conclusions. If not, I suggest you retract your claim.

 

[Beth]

It really is a generalisation, there's not much doubt about that.

Yes It is a generalization. I just don't find it much of a generalization to generalize that large groups of people are basically the same in respect to openmindedness & closemindedness. Generally speaking, of course.

 

[Beth]

So I'm not a true skeptic? You can cite an example where there existed strong evidence that contradicted a belief I hold and I did not change my mind? If so, please show me, and I will be happy to re-evaluate my position and provide reasons for my conclusions. If not, I suggest you retract your claim.

Sir, I don't know you at all. However, the issue of "true skeptics" has come up repeatedly in this forum. The consensus has been that they don't actually exist. We are all simply human beings, striving to do better and failing to be perfect.

 

[Grimoire]

Sir, I don't know you at all. However, the issue of "true skeptics" has come up repeatedly in this forum. The consensus has been that they don't actually exist. We are all simply human beings, striving to do better and failing to be perfect.

I agree that we are simply human beings. But your definition of a true skeptic is not the same as mine. You use a definition that is extremely strict, and does not allow for any error. Your definition of true requires perfection, and that is not what being human or skeptical is about.

It may be that a true skeptic is more of an ideal, something to strive for, but never actually achieved. So, perhaps the use of true is not the best word. From now on, I will use the phrase "good skeptic" instead.

To me, a good skeptic is someone that strives towards an open mind, using all of the available evidence to reach an informed, rational decision. In that regard, I believe that I am a "good skeptic".

If you back and read the word "good" instead of "true" in my previous posts, then I think that will be closer to what I intended to say. I will refrain from editing the posts, as it will lose the context of the thread if I do.

Now, going back to the previous statement you made that skeptics are no more open minded than any other group. Could you expand on this? To me, it seems to violate what good skepticism is all about, and would imply that either my definition of skepticism is incorrect, or there are a great number of poor skeptics.

 

[Beth]

I agree that we are simply human beings. But your definition of a true skeptic is not the same as mine. You use a definition that is extremely strict, and does not allow for any error. Your definition of true requires perfection, and that is not what being human or skeptical is about.

It may be that a true skeptic is more of an ideal, something to strive for, but never actually achieved. So, perhaps the use of true is not the best word. From now on, I will use the phrase "good skeptic" instead.

To me, a good skeptic is someone that strives towards an open mind, using all of the available evidence to reach an informed, rational decision. In that regard, I believe that I am a "good skeptic".

If you back and read the word "good" instead of "true" in my previous posts, then I think that will be closer to what I intended to say. I will refrain from editing the posts, as it will lose the context of the thread if I do.

Now, going back to the previous statement you made that skeptics are no more open minded than any other group. Could you expand on this? To me, it seems to violate what good skepticism is all about, and would imply that either my definition of skepticism is incorrect, or there are a great number of poor skeptics.

It's simply my opinion based primarily on what I read in this forum - my main contact with those who self-identify as skeptics. I don't find that skeptics to be any more open-minded as a group than any other. In a similar vein, despite the fact the love of all humans is an ideal they strive for, I don't find Christians to be more loving towards all others than any other large group of diverse individuals.

Just as there are Christians that quite literally preach hate towards certain of their fellow humans, exemplifying the opposite of their claimed beliefs, there are skeptics who exemplify close-mindedness. I don't feel they are the majority in either case, but they do tarnish the image of the group and make it clear to me than simply because a group of people hold a similar set of values and ideals, they don't, as a group, seem to be any better at living those ideals on a day-to-day basis than the rest of us.

 

[Azrael 5]

Well looky here
http://www.ghostchasers.co.uk/equipment.htm

All the equipment you need.Obviously.
It makes you wonder why they haven't actually proven ghosts yet.

Actually ,it doesn't.

ETA: This quote from testimonials page

"We had a fantastic time at the NRM in York. We will definately be coming to more nights with yourselves as it is raw investigating, no mediums, no preconceptions, no nothing which is how it should be."
Mark and Louise, Cumbria​

 

[Grimoire]

I don't feel they are the majority in either case, but they do tarnish the image of the group and make it clear to me than simply because a group of people hold a similar set of values and ideals, they don't, as a group, seem to be any better at living those ideals on a day-to-day basis than the rest of us.

But what seems to be the case, and what actually is the case is not necessarily the same. One is perception, the other is fact. The outliers, the extremists that tarnish the group get more visibility, and therefor skew the perceived average the wrong way.

In a similar vein, despite the fact the love of all humans is an ideal they strive for, I don't find Christians to be more loving towards all others than any other large group of diverse individuals.

So we should not strive for open mindedness then? If we strive for it and fail at the same rate that people who do not strive for it, then what's the point? I believe your example is not an accurate representative of all ideals. You offer a straw man.

Many people strive to be more loving whether they are Christian or otherwise. This can not be said for open mindedness. Not in the strict definition of open minded^dict.

Now, I am not claiming that your statement about skeptics being no more open minded than any other groups is incorrect. I have no evidence to support that position. I can only point out that your statements are painting an entire group a certain colour, and your explanation to support your claim seems to be lacking evidence strong enough to support it. It would be interesting to see what a proper investigation would reveal.

If your claim is correct, than I would be most disappointed in those skeptics that are not open minded.

 

[Beth]

But what seems to be the case, and what actually is the case is not necessarily the same. One is perception, the other is fact. The outliers, the extremists that tarnish the group get more visibility, and therefor skew the perceived average the wrong way.

But in the absence of facts, we must rely on our perceptions. As you point out below, there is no solid evidence one way or the other, so I'll rely on my perception.

So we should not strive for open mindedness then?

Did I say that? No.

If we strive for it and fail at the same rate that people who do not strive for it, then what's the point?

I believe that striving towards an ideal makes one a better person, whether that ideal be open-mindedness or love for all humanity. Further, just because I don't see an apparent difference at the group level doesn't mean that individuals cannot be successful in their strivings.

I believe your example is not an accurate representative of all ideals. You offer a straw man.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make mine a straw man. I think you are using incorrect terminology here. I'm not reformulating someone else's argument, merely presenting my own opinion based on my own experiences. It may not be correct, but it isn't a straw man argument.

Many people strive to be more loving whether they are Christian or otherwise. This can not be said for open mindedness. Not in the strict definition of open minded^dict.

Now, I am not claiming that your statement about skeptics being no more open minded than any other groups is incorrect. I have no evidence to support that position. I can only point out that your statements are painting an entire group a certain colour, and your explanation to support your claim seems to be lacking evidence strong enough to support it.

I haven't made a claim, I've only articulated my personal impressions which are based primarily on reading and participating in this forum for the past couple of years. What evidence were you expecting?

It would be interesting to see what a proper investigation would reveal.

It would indeed. Until I see such evidence, I'll rely on my perceptions. I expect you'll do the same.

If your claim is correct, than I would be most disappointed in those skeptics that are not open minded.

As am I.

 

[Grimoire]

But in the absence of facts, we must rely on our perceptions.

We rely on our perceptions, but with the knowledge that our perceptions can deceive us. We must temper our perceptions with caution. I perceived your statement to lack such temperance.

As you point out below, there is no solid evidence one way or the other, so I'll rely on my perception.

To rely on something that is known to be faulty is dangerous. Perhaps you could withhold judgment until such solid evidence is presented.

So we should not strive for open mindedness then?

Did I say that? No.

No. Withdrawn.

I believe that striving towards an ideal makes one a better person, whether that ideal be open-mindedness or love for all humanity. Further, just because I don't see an apparent difference at the group level doesn't mean that individuals cannot be successful in their strivings.

I agree 100%.

I haven't made a claim, I've only articulated my personal impressions which are based primarily on reading and participating in this forum for the past couple of years. What evidence were you expecting?

What evidence? Well, some at least. I understand that you are only articulating a personal impression. I just expected more than "that's just what I think". Perhaps even some examples would have been nice to see.

It would indeed. Until I see such evidence, I'll rely on my perceptions. I expect you'll do the same.

I do not rely on my perceptions. I simply use them as I would any other tool. Reliance puts too much faith in them being right. Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic on my definition of rely though...feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth (or letters on your keyboard).

 

[Beth]

We rely on our perceptions, but with the knowledge that our perceptions can deceive us. We must temper our perceptions with caution. I perceived your statement to lack such temperance.

Postings get rather long and boring if one qualifies every generalization one makes.

To rely on something that is known to be faulty is dangerous. Perhaps you could withhold judgment until such solid evidence is presented.

I suppose I could, but frankly, I find the idea that I should withhold judgement based on the idea that my perceptions might be wrong to be rather unworkable. I prefer the strategy of revising my opinion if and when contradictory evidence appears.

What evidence? Well, some at least. I understand that you are only articulating a personal impression. I just expected more than "that's just what I think". Perhaps even some examples would have been nice to see.

Well, you could check out this thread - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66914 or this one http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65987 for some examples of skeptics who don't appear IMO to be openminded. That's just a couple that are currently at the top of this particular forum, but they are pretty representative of the type of postings I've based my opinion on. While the majority of people posting seem reasonable and open-minded, there are sufficient examples of those who are not for me to come to conclude that skeptics are not any more openminded than any other group of people.

I do not rely on my perceptions. I simply use them as I would any other tool. Reliance puts too much faith in them being right. Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic on my definition of rely though...feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth (or letters on your keyboard).

I think that perceptions are all any of have to judge things with. We rely not only our own perceptions, but also those of others. When other people have the same perception of things that we do, we can feel more confident that our own are correct. Is that what you are saying? If so, I quite agree.

On the other hand, if you are saying you rely on something other that perceptions, your own as well as others, to form your opinions, I would be most curious as to what that is. I aware of no accepted fact of any sort that isn't based, at bottom, on the human perception of reality. If I rate my own perceptions and judgement higher than you think I should, well, that's okay. You're entitled to your opinion based on your own perceptions.

 

[demonologist]

I think Beth is right. Looking at this forum and others, you find as many people unskeptically quoting arguments that others have made before them, as you do in believers forums.

For example, the common argument against EVP is that it is simply radio interference. While this may be true, the evidence for it is pretty weak. Almost as weak as the evidence that EVP is caused by ghosts. But people will still state that it's caused by radios in a matter of fact fashion. Because they didn't do any research themselves, they simply borrowed the arguments from others and assumed they were correct (because they agreed).

 

[RemieV]

Possibly. However, what IS true of EVP... if you have a roomful of people and don't allow them to communicate, they hear different things. If EVP is not an absolute, then why on earth would it be evidence of anything?

Also, the argument for EVP has nothing to do with radio interference... The argument is that people can hear anything in random noise.

 

[blutoski]

Just to restate in agreement with numerous posters here...

A definition of the physical characteristics of a ghost is needed,
before one can go off looking for ghosts.

Ghosthunters should just follow the normal scientific process,
or else provide lame excuses for not.

I would like to differ a bit with this, though: the normal scientific process often involves an exploratory phase. We didn't know how the body worked, so we opened one up to see what's inside. After enough observations in this new 'field' we were able to start constructing coherent theories. Gallileo didn't have to be conducting an experiment to be making valuable contributions by looking through a telescope.

What the paranormalists have done is what I call 'scientificish' in that they're trying to see if haunted locations have some measureable physical feature. If there's a correlation, we can build a theory of some sort. This is not unscientific.

The problem is that there's no good way to build a blinded baseline against which to know if their measurements mean anything more than background noise. That's where their investigations fall apart: there's no "known unhaunted" baseline location that is otherwise identical to a "known haunted" location.

The operation of the machines is based on question-begging: they know the machines record ghosts, because they recorded anomalies at the last haunted house. They know the house was haunted because the instruments recorded anomalies. The circle is complete.

OK: it's not that stupid... they believe they have an independent instrument for detecting hauntings - psychics and mediums. So, they are looking for a correlation between psychic detection and instrument detection. A positive correlation would be meaningful, and would be scientific evidence (not proof) that the instruments could detect ghosts.

The problem with the independent-medium approach is related to the abovementioned baseline problem: the investigators don't have a "known unhaunted" location to use to calibrate against. And even if they did, it would be difficult to blind them to whether they were at a haunting investigation or baseline calibration.

I'd like to add a comment to the suggestion that this can be done by deduction - that is, the technique of exhausting known explanations until you're left with just 'ghost'. This doesn't work, because if you take the same readings to a UFOlogist investigative team, they'd say that it's proof that you found aliens. The religious would say that it's proof of demonic possession. Or Jesus. Depends on who you ask. Everybody has their opinion about what an 'unexplained' instrument measurement means.

This is what's known as the logical positivist approach: you need evidence of something to sustain a theory of its existence, not a lack of counterargument.

 

[blutoski]

I think Beth is right. Looking at this forum and others, you find as many people unskeptically quoting arguments that others have made before them, as you do in believers forums.

For example, the common argument against EVP is that it is simply radio interference. While this may be true, the evidence for it is pretty weak. Almost as weak as the evidence that EVP is caused by ghosts. But people will still state that it's caused by radios in a matter of fact fashion. Because they didn't do any research themselves, they simply borrowed the arguments from others and assumed they were correct (because they agreed).

There are people who do this. They're called "skepdebunkers" or "pseudoskeptics".

However, there are legitemate skeptics and scientific ghost investigators, and their arguments are more persuasive to believers.

As RemieV pointed out: the most important critique of EVP is that the interpretation is highly subjective. The objectivity of the transcripts is rarely actually questioned, and when it is tested, there is a real dropoff of findings. Skeptics treat EVP interpretations the same way we treat inkblots, pictures in the clouds, or holy grilled cheese sandwiches: given enough background noise and a little imagination, somebody's going to think they heard something.

The way to test it is to say to your friend, "Here: listen to these two tapes (one of which you are certain has no messages in it) and tell me if you hear something." If your friend hears the same words at the same position in the same tape, then it's probably not your imagination, and you maybe have something to work with.

Maybe.

 

[chracatoa]

Talk about thread hijacking!

I also agree with Beth. Most of us skeptics are close minded. "A scalded cat is afraid of cold water". We are bombarded by pseudo-scientific studies of the paranormal all the time. Now, suppose one study actually proves something paranormal (which I do not believe is going to happen), it will take years - perhaps decades - until we accept it as true.

Old ideas die hard, even in the scientific community. We know that. We have lots of examples of close mindness in the sciences. Just the top of my head, the theory that dinosaurs extermination was the result of an asteroidal impact took more than a decade until it became mainstream. wiki . And they had hard evidence.

 

[PBTree]

Talk about thread hijacking!

I also agree with Beth. Most of us skeptics are close minded. "A scalded cat is afraid of cold water". We are bombarded by pseudo-scientific studies of the paranormal all the time. Now, suppose one study actually proves something paranormal (which I do not believe is going to happen), it will take years - perhaps decades - until we accept it as true.

Old ideas die hard, even in the scientific community. We know that. We have lots of examples of close mindness in the sciences. Just the top of my head, the theory that dinosaurs extermination was the result of an asteroidal impact took more than a decade until it became mainstream. wiki . And they had hard evidence.

Don't think that is right at all.

If someone is able to pass the JREF test, I will believe they can do it (whatever it is). That is what being a skeptic is. Show me, prove it to me and I will believe, until then, its hogwash.

I would have to think your part about the dinosaurs wasn't a good example, not because of the fact that it may not have happened but because it was so hard to prove it did. Lack of evidence during that time meant non believers could find holes everywhere. There are probably still some.

 

[Grimoire]

Don't think that is right at all.

If someone is able to pass the JREF test, I will believe they can do it (whatever it is). That is what being a skeptic is. Show me, prove it to me and I will believe, until then, its hogwash.

I believe that was my original point. This is being open minded. You are open to the possibility that you may have to change your mind. Unfortunately, some people call themselves skeptics when in fact they are cynics. This was what I was referring to when I mentioned "true" skeptics (revised to "good"). I was one of these cynics that thought I was being skeptical. I have since seen the light, and now rather than an automatic nay saying, I try and find the evidence for and against.

To me, if you aren't open minded, then you can't be a skeptic. Instead you are a cynic. However, as Beth mentioned, she was talking about people who self-identified as skeptics, some who are not being skeptical, rather they are being cynical. This is much like someone self-identifying as a Catholic, but not actually believing most of the Catholic dogma.

So yes, there are as many close minded individuals amongst those who call themselves skeptical. But while they claim to be skeptical, they are not practicing it.

PS: sorry for not responding earlier. It has been a very busy week at work.