Science Center conducts ghost hunts

Hellbound said:
Did anyone happen to notice the first letters of each line of Stereolab's post?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

D'oh!

:blush:

I didn't notice, but at least it got things going in here!


So any advice on how to approach the Science Center?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
So any advice on how to approach the Science Center?
Click to expand...

With a deep sense of futility? I've emailed them to ask where the science is in that program, because I couldn't see any in the online information pack, etc.

I'n not holding my breath for a useful response (seriously; my face is always this colour).
 
If anyone gets as far as page 28 in that pdf file (HAUNTEDinfo.pdf), make sure you are sitting on your hands when you read it, or you just might punch your monitor. The BS gets thicker and heavier as it goes. Then he defines the 8 types of ghosts. The first, Guardian Angels, (didn't know angels were ghosts, but whatev) he describes as "they're the little voice telling you not to take the usual route the day a huge pile-up happens on the freeway." Where were the guardian angels of the people who were involved in the huge pile-up? Why is that people who believe this crap also believe that they are important enough that they warrant supernatural protection from being inconvenienced by someone else's tragedy. :mad:
 
And did you see the stuff about how he wants to limit his ghost hunting to human ghosts because demons are better left alone? And that poltergeists are probably demons. . .

Even the long glossary is full of falsehoods. In the definition of "orbs" it says that they are "inexplicable". Again, on Science Center letterhead!
 
dlorde said:
With a deep sense of futility? I've emailed them to ask where the science is in that program, because I couldn't see any in the online information pack, etc.

I'n not holding my breath for a useful response (seriously; my face is always this colour).
Click to expand...

Thanks. Do let me know if you get any response at all. That comment e-mail, I think, goes to the head of the Science Center Travels program.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I only just learned that the St. Louis Science Center conducts ghost hunts.

http://www.slsctravel.com/ScienceAroundTown.html#haunted

You can download the slideshow (pdf) and background info to get an idea of what this is. It is not a skeptical or scientific approach.

You can also click to listen to the "EVP" recording from their last ghost hunt.

Our local skeptical and rationalist groups are probably going to do something about this. At least a letter writing campaign.

ETA: I'd be inclined to write a letter, and if they don't respond (by canceling this program) in a reasonable time, go to the press, but the next one is scheduled for Oct. 22-23, so there isn't much time at all.
Click to expand...

You are going write a letter to a science center that is looking for evidence of something?
 
Stereolab said:
There is a lot of scientific evidence that suggests that ghosts exist.
Rationalist and skeptic groups know this--why would they discourage ghost hunts?Over 1,000 ghosts were recorded and documented just last year.
Life is so much more fascinating than many of you care to admit.
Let me assure you, ghosts are real--I've seen several.
Click to expand...

This is the point I was trying to make in my post above. Looking for evidence of something is not unscientific. If they were fabricating evidence then I could understand the uproar.
 
cooperman said:
You are going write a letter to a science center that is looking for evidence of something?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of a letter that points out that this program is contrary to their mission and promotes pseudo-science and the misuse of technology.

Maybe mentioning that there is no result they can get from their measurement devices that would falsify a ghost "hypothesis" so it's not actually hypothesis testing. (Even their description of hypothesis testing is flawed.)

Maybe point out that they're misusing these measuring/recording devices by turning up the gain to max and essentially trying to make something out of fluctuations in noise.

Maybe also point out that lot of the material provided contains flat out falsehoods on Science Center letterhead. (For example, the definition of "orbs" claims that they are inexplicable.)

Ideally, I'd like to offer some alternative programming that members of the local skeptic/rationalist groups could help with. (To keep with the "orbs" example, I could easily come up with a testable hypothesis to explain how you could reproduce them under specific conditions, and simply using or not using the flash can make the orbs appear and disappear, or simply removing the specks of dust or water droplets or whatever near the lens will cause them to go away.)
 
cooperman said:
This is the point I was trying to make in my post above. Looking for evidence of something is not unscientific. If they were fabricating evidence then I could understand the uproar.
Click to expand...

Can you state any falsifiable ghost hypothesis that can be tested with the devices that are used in this ghost hunt?

It's pseudo science primarily because there is no falsifiable hypothesis. It's just a silly game dressed up to look like science.

In the materials is the assertion that ghosts are often shy and sometimes leave the room as soon as you enter, so it's important to start all the recording and measuring devices as soon as you arrive to catch fleeting changes.

Even the description of the scientific method has a big problem: this idea that you can partially prove the hypothesis. You have to operationalize everything so that when you take your measurements, there is no doubt whether or not you can reject the null hypothesis. (This reminds me of the "almost statistically significant" results that homeopathic supporters cite.)
 
Hellbound said:
Did anyone happen to notice the first letters of each line of Stereolab's post?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

Wat to go, Stereolab!

picture.php
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Can you state any falsifiable ghost hypothesis that can be tested with the devices that are used in this ghost hunt?

It's pseudo science primarily because there is no falsifiable hypothesis. It's just a silly game dressed up to look like science.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, I don't support your reasoning as stated. That argument could be thrown at somebody with a metal detector looking for meteorites (is there a way to falsify meteorites with a metal detector?). The difference between the two is that we have seen and examined meteorites, so we know what we're looking for. The problem with ghost hunting is that nobody has ever found one, so the "readings" have no scientific basis.
 
UncaYimmy said:
While I agree with you, I don't support your reasoning as stated. That argument could be thrown at somebody with a metal detector looking for meteorites (is there a way to falsify meteorites with a metal detector?). The difference between the two is that we have seen and examined meteorites, so we know what we're looking for. The problem with ghost hunting is that nobody has ever found one, so the "readings" have no scientific basis.
Click to expand...
There's a difference. In the case of meteorites the hypothesis "meteorites exist and can be found with a metal detector" has already been tested and we have solid evidence for it. Searching with a metal detector now amounts to testing the hypothesis "there are meteorites right here." In contrasts the hypothesis "ghosts exist and can be detected with these gadgets" has no evidence to support it whatsoever.
 
I think you both said the same thing, and it was really a restatement of what I said.


If there is no measurement these devices can make that would falsify the "ghost did it" hypothesis, it's not science.

And remember, that's my biggest complaint: this is being advertised as a scientific approach. Searching for meteorites with a metal detector isn't the same as testing a hypothesis. According to the materials with this ghost hunt, that's precisely what it purports to be.

ETA: FWIW, "meteorites exist and can be found with a metal detector" is also not a falsifiable hypothesis. If you go looking and don't find one, it doesn't prove that they don't exist or that they cannot be found with a metal detector. What they're doing on this ghost hunt is analogous to looking for meteorites, except that they have no reason to think that the devices they're using can do such a thing or that what they're looking for even exists. Even so, it's not hypothesis testing, which it purports to be.
 
Last edited:
Joe, if I thought I was restating what you said, I wouldn't have made the post. It sounds like you are asking them to prove a negative rather than calling them on the carpet for not having a solid foundation for any of their measurements.
 
I've just completed a study for a thesis project on paranormal investigation groups in the U.S. and how they do (or do not do) "science". The results, I think, can be extrapolated to what the American public thinks it means to do science. (Writing it up, now.)

Because they REALLY REALLY want to be taken seriously, they assume all the sciencey trappings. They totally get a rise out of saying they are affiliated with ANY institution that holds credibility with the public, even if it's only a community college. Watch out for those inflated egos at THIS event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom