What would constitute proof of a ghost?

Have to see it, in an environment that has been cleared of/from any possiblility of tricks, devices, etc and have full authority to attack it with any weapons I choose - including gas/vapor, shotgun, etc.
 
Many ghosts are claimed to appear on schedule, eg on the anniversary of their death. If this was the case and the ghost was real then it would be trivially easy to prove their existance as the location could be secured to eliminate fakery and monitoring equipment and witnesses shipped in as required. The experiment would be repeatable and predictive (on x date at x time at x place witnesses will report seeing [description of ghost] change any one of these variables and no sighting will be reported). Anyone who wanted to see a ghost for themselves could do so.
 
As has been said before, ghosts are commonly defined as the "Souls" or "Spirits" of the dead that linger on in the physical world because of "Unfinished buisness".

First, we would need to establish the properties of what a "Soul" is and how it is part of your body and how we could detect it. Excluding any metaphorical uses of the word "soul" of course.

Second, we would need to establish why and how a "soul" retains it's self within the human body and why it only releases after death. Why is it physicaly capable of escaping the body if it can walk through splid objects?

Third, what forces and sort of "unfinished buisness" would cause said soul to not "Cross over". We would need to find what properties physicly disable the soul from crossing over and where it crosses over too.

Fourth, we would need to identify what properties and/or processes the soul goes through to make it only visible in low light or specific situations, and why younger teenagers seem to be effected by them the most.

All this would need to be testable, repeatable and falsafiable with a null hypothosis as well as seeing what other more well known factors could easily explain such events. And this is all simply for the base defanition of a ghost, not counting the variations such as angry poltergiests or crisis aperitions.
 
Nightmare060 said:
First, we would need to establish the properties of what a "Soul" is and how it is part of your body and how we could detect it.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Given we don't know what a 'ghost' might actually be, it would be sufficient to establish that an objectively verifyable phenomina existed in 'haunted' sites. As per my example a couple of posts ago.

Once a phenomina had been established we would then worry about the exact mechanism.

So if ghosts could be proved to be caused by a 'magnetic recording in the stones of haunted places', it would still be valid although they're not the souls of the dead.

However, since no-one has ever proved the phenomina......:)
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I disagree.

Given we don't know what a 'ghost' might actually be, it would be sufficient to establish that an objectively verifyable phenomina existed in 'haunted' sites. As per my example a couple of posts ago.

Once a phenomina had been established we would then worry about the exact mechanism.

So if ghosts could be proved to be caused by a 'magnetic recording in the stones of haunted places', it would still be valid although they're not the souls of the dead.

However, since no-one has ever proved the phenomina......:)
Click to expand...

I understand this approach, but strictly speaking it doesn't answer the OP's question. You could establish that there is something unexplained going on, but without defining the term ghost, you wouldn't have evidence that there is a ghost.

I remember reading in some of these bleever books something like getting coherent answers via a Ouija board, for example, could be the result of telekinesis or other PSI powers and not the presence of a ghost or spirit.* Similarly, with what you describe we'd only have evidence of something we can't explain, but not necessarily evidence of a ghost.

Before we can answer the OP's question, they'd have to define the term.

The question the OP asks is different from asking what it would take to win the MDC with a ghost apparition under controlled circumstances. What you describe would certainly be sufficient for the MDC, which is not concerned about the theory behind any paranormal thing. The question in the OP is about the theory--it just fails to define the term.

*ETA: In the real world, you're absolutely right. They'd have to have evidence that there is something in need of explanation before worrying about an explanation. The question is hypothetical--"What would constitute proof of a ghost?" It's a contrary to fact subjunctive. You could easily add on "if ghosts existed" without changing the meaning of the question.
 
Last edited:
I emailed Mr. Randy a few weeks ago to tell him of my experiences.. Part of my story to him involved a painting that had been in my attic for a few years.. I photographed and sent it to him... . That night. i was kept awake by loud banging in the attic and all around my house.. I was scared.. It didnt occur to me it was a ghost til the next day.. the sounds were so loud and real I thought it was a person outside .. but it was late. between 12 and 3.. I spent those three hours.. tip toeing around my house.. peering thru the blinds.. with a cap gun in my hand.. there was nobody outside. and i have electic motion sensitive lights that go on in the yard.. ... the noises were real and loud.. my german shepherd was barking at them.. and confused... ... furthermore.. the next day.. A white dove appeared at my studio... my grandfather was a friend of James Randy, and kept doves at his home for a while for his magic act.... the dove lingered at my studio for two days... then.. one on the third day.. i woke up early and saw the dove outside my house.. well across town... standing in my yard....
 
Nursedan said:
This is a spinoff of another thread concerning a picture of a "ghost". I realized that while no one responding in that thread really believed that a ghost had been seen, the responses centered around how the picture was probably faked. It got me thinking, what is proof of a ghost? What do people who believe in ghosts point to as proof? Pictures? Is that really enough? It's either a picture of "something" they saw or anecdotal evidence.

If ghosts exist, how would one prove it? Since we know pictures and fables aren't cutting it.

If my premise isn't clear enough, I can elaborate.
Click to expand...

I have not seen anyone post this data yet, so here goes ...

If there were real ghosts, then it would be quite easy for them to provide evidence of their existence by having the ghost tell something that no one living would know, but could be readily verified by a living person.

For example:
what was their secret cookie recipe?
Where is the murder weapon?
What is their PIN?
And so on.

Or, one could even pre-arrange some sort of post-death signal.

However, since none of these sorts of things have occurred, then I seriously doubt that there are such things as ghosts.
 
ya know.. we live in a small sliver of reality... foolish to think. that you can understand everything.. ghosts dont have to play by the rules..
 
Crossbow said:
I have not seen anyone post this data yet, so here goes ...

If there were real ghosts, then it would be quite easy for them to provide evidence of their existence by having the ghost tell something that no one living would know, but could be readily verified by a living person.

For example:
what was their secret cookie recipe?
Where is the murder weapon?
What is their PIN?
And so on.

Or, one could even pre-arrange some sort of post-death signal.

However, since none of these sorts of things have occurred, then I seriously doubt that there are such things as ghosts.
Click to expand...

Again, the same point I was making in response to P.J. Denyer: for the purposes of a MDC application, what you describe would be fine. It would be evidence of something inexplicable (usually called "paranormal") but it would not necessarily be evidence of a ghost. To do that, you have to define the term.
 
Jeff C said:
ya know.. we live in a small sliver of reality... foolish to think. that you can understand everything.. ghosts dont have to play by the rules..
Click to expand...

Very good point, and welcome to the forum.

Randi has made this point many times. Any failed demonstration of a MDC applicant is not proof that their claim is fault. The theoretical basis for their claims allow for things working sometimes but not others (like when someone's looking).

That's why you have to give a valid logical or operational definition of the term ghost. If the definition looks the same as a non-ghost, then it's not valid (either for deductive or inductive proof).

This is Occam's Razor, basically. If you can't operationally define ghost in some way that measured outcomes don't look any different than you'd expect if ghosts don't exist, it's foolish to create these unnecessary entities.

ETA: I think "ghosts don't have to play by the rules" is the same as saying, "the term ghost is not defined". It's pointless to discuss the existence of an undefined concept. As I said earlier in the thread, it's the same as asking, "What would constitute proof of a gerzulflimp?"
 
Last edited:
thanks Joe.. My first post... Glad this place is more than just obstinate disbelief.. I realize that.. everyone who is here..is searching.. and seeking... that simple action is proof that something is going on. as why would they be so curious if they were Sure.
 
Sorry to pile on, but this
Jeff C said:
foolish to think. that you can understand everything..
Click to expand...

seems to be an expression of an argument from ignorance. Our ignorance doesn't argue in favor of the existence of anything.

The topic isn't some agnostic approach to the existence of ghosts, but what would constitute proof of their existence. Ignorance cannot prove anything except ignorance.
 
Jeff C said:
I realize that.. everyone who is here..is searching.. and seeking... that simple action is proof that something is going on.
Click to expand...

This also doesn't follow logically.

If it were so, hypothesis testing wouldn't be necessary. It would be enough to come up with a theoretical question and then use that question as proof of some particular outcome. It doesn't work that way.

For example, I might conjecture that some chemical might be an effective treatment for a disease. The fact that I make that supposition is not proof that anything is going on. After testing the chemical, I might find out that nothing is going on.

Searching and seeking is only evidence of searching and seeking, not of any particular conclusion.

Considering the question to be proof is the premature satisfaction of curiosity.
 
i am coming from a strong personal system.. I must expect resistance.. particularly here.. Im gonna try not to take it personally... Critical logical examination is important...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Again, the same point I was making in response to P.J. Denyer: for the purposes of a MDC application, what you describe would be fine. It would be evidence of something inexplicable (usually called "paranormal") but it would not necessarily be evidence of a ghost. To do that, you have to define the term.
Click to expand...

Indeed!

I have been following your comments, and I do believe that you are quite correct in pointing out that since no one has even defined what a ghost is, then it is difficult (to say the least) to proove that ghosts do exist.

However, if there was some sort of being that could tell us living people things that only dead people would know, then that would be quite remarkable; but such a being would still not be able to define just what a ghost is or proove the existence of ghosts.
 
Crossbow said:
However, if there was some sort of being that could tell us living people things that only dead people would know, then that would be quite remarkable; but such a being would still not be able to define just what a ghost is or proove the existence of ghosts.
Click to expand...

I agree. And it would doubtless win the MDC!

The only practical problem I see is how could you verify something that only a dead person could know? If no one living knows, then how can we determine whether it's correct? If someone living does know, then there's the problem of information leakage (by normal means).
 
well.. also.. joe.. just cause some are ignorant does not make everyone ignorant... HAH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom