• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Ghost Hunters" Revisited

I agree that a double-blind test wouldn't be possible. That's why I think Thomas's protocol would be the best possible; take the ghost-hunters to four or five locations, as closely matched in age and function as possible (five old houses, not barns or commercial buildings), one of which has shown paranormal activity, and the others haven't. The GH wouldn't be told which house was "haunted".

I understand that in those days deaths at home were common (hospitals being few and far between), so it would be difficult to disprove the GH contention on any property without doing some research. And even if public record showed no deaths at a property, they could still claim Native Americans or something. GH's are nothing if not resourceful.

I'm starting to think that maybe a satisfactory experiment can't be done, but I'd still be interested in having a GH come to my house and take a crack at telling me something I already know. :)
 
jhunter1163 said:
I'm starting to think that maybe a satisfactory experiment can't be done, but I'd still be interested in having a GH come to my house and take a crack at telling me something I already know. :)
Click to expand...
I think it's impossible to make a strict scientific protocol for your particular scenario; especially the missing double-blind part is critical. But I'm hereby bold enough to state that the claimants most likely would fail on the protocol I proposed. And then they would make up a myriad of woo excuses, and that would be good fun.

Let us know if you carry it out :)
 
I'm starting to think that maybe a satisfactory experiment can't be done
Click to expand...

Unless the OP wants to undertake significant expense and trouble, I think you may be right.

Part of the problem is, the Ghost Hunters themselves do not abide by conventional experimental protocols.

For example, a reputedly "haunted" site might be investigated by dozens of so-called legitimate ghost hunting groups over the course of a year. Each group and each visit produce wildly different 'evidence'. Some get results. Some don't. So there is no consistency of findings. Yet they all continue to believe the place is 'haunted'.
 
RemieV said:
By the way, I just read why some people use EMF detectors for ghost hunting at all. It's because some scientist says that human consciousness has an electromagnetic field. What I'm wondering is... wouldn't that mean the reading would be the same in the presence of a ghost as if you put the EMF detector to your forehead?
Click to expand...

Actually, I know three reasons. The first is the tired old woo that ghosts give off EM fields. The second is to do with the Persinger experiments, and the ghost hunters like to see if there are often high or random EMs in the location. The third is the one you just mentioned :D
 
RemieV said:
P.S. eSkeptic was kind enough to run an article I wrote on SAPS... It's terribly exciting :)
Click to expand...

I got my eSkeptic today and read your article. It was great. I plan to go back and read it again as my company's firewall wouldn't let me get to the TAPS site! :mad:

I watched the show tonight on SciFi and though they tried very hard to scare themselves silly, they found no "evidence" of a ghost, much to the disappointment of the Director of the library they were investigating.
 
Yes, that's a favourite on gaining trust from the audience - find nothing for a while, and then when you find something, it must be ghostly evidence.

Even now, I want to believe that the TAPS members are good guys who were horribly led astray. Isn't that completely silly? Yet for some reason I can't quite shake the thought. I feel like I've been brainwashed... :)

Good luck on their site, but watch out for the forum. It is extraordinarily believer-friendly.

Thanks for the kind words about the article. I think it's just wonderful that we're getting such a lovely response!
 
Re: my original post in this thread: I originally thought Randi might be interested in helping expose TAPS hokum, but since Remie and Shermer have picked up the torch and run with it, my work is done. :)
 
RemieV said:
Yes, that's a favourite on gaining trust from the audience - find nothing for a while, and then when you find something, it must be ghostly evidence.

Even now, I want to believe that the TAPS members are good guys who were horribly led astray. Isn't that completely silly? Yet for some reason I can't quite shake the thought. I feel like I've been brainwashed... :)

Good luck on their site, but watch out for the forum. It is extraordinarily believer-friendly.

Thanks for the kind words about the article. I think it's just wonderful that we're getting such a lovely response!
Click to expand...

Did you ever listen to the interview with one of the TAPS guys on Audiomartini? I think it was last year, but I am not sure?

I thought it was very uncritical. The host accepted at face value that their "scientific equipment" EMF detectors, digital audio recorders, thermal detectors and such were actually of any use. There was no discussion as how or why a disembodied "spirit" would generate electro-magnetic forces, audio, or heat and certainly did not ask for proof.

I have to go back and find the podcast as it has been quite some time since I listened to it but I think that was the gist.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
Did you ever listen to the interview with one of the TAPS guys on Audiomartini? I think it was last year, but I am not sure?

I thought it was very uncritical. The host accepted at face value that their "scientific equipment" EMF detectors, digital audio recorders, thermal detectors and such were actually of any use. There was no discussion as how or why a disembodied "spirit" would generate electro-magnetic forces, audio, or heat and certainly did not ask for proof.

I have to go back and find the podcast as it has been quite some time since I listened to it but I think that was the gist.
Click to expand...

Audiomartini is advertised on the TAPS website. That may help explain the "uncritical" review. :D
 
CLD said:
Despite the obvious profit motive, TAPS clings to its nonprofit status ("our purpose is to help people") and denies that anything on the show is staged.
Click to expand...

Maybe I don't watch the show enough, being as I hate it, but I've never seen anything that looked good enough to be staged. All I ever see is a bunch of idiots running around in the dark scaring themselves.
 
Maybe I don't watch the show enough, being as I hate it, but I've never seen anything that looked good enough to be staged. All I ever see is a bunch of idiots running around in the dark scaring themselves.
Click to expand...

That's true, I had been casually viewing the show with my mind in passive "entertainment" mode and it seemed like harmless harem-scarum. Only after I stumbled into their forums did I realize that a lot of people defend it as "science".
 
CLD said:
That's true, I had been casually viewing the show with my mind in passive "entertainment" mode and it seemed like harmless harem-scarum. Only after I stumbled into their forums did I realize that a lot of people defend it as "science".
Click to expand...

Oh, I never thought it was harmless, just stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom