'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[jj]

Isn't that proving a negative?

Not at all.

I can't show how science is wrong -- that doesn't mean they're right, always. In context of the paranormal.

First, science is ALWAYS provisional.

Second, you certainly CAN show that some part of science is wrong, ALL you have to do is provide hard evidence that contradicts part of science.

That is all, repeat ALL you have to do. There is no argument to enumeration, exclusion, etc, going on here. All you have to do is show something that contradicts science and have HARD EVIDENCE.

I've seen ghosts -- prove me wrong! You have no way of knowing.

An absurd statement.

I will accept, 100%, that you believe that you have seen ghosts.

However, having studied human perception for going on 30 years or so, I am quite comfortable in saying that what you sincerely believe you saw is no evidence at all.

Hard evidence means that you have to be able to show others ghosts, in a form that is testable, verifiable, and reproducible.

In other words, you have to provide good evidence that it's a ghost, not something else, that there was anything happening, and you have to be able to repeat this, and OTHERS have to be able to repeat this with or without you, as well.

Then of course we can argue about what is "hard" evidence, and from what I've seen around here, no amount is ever satisfactory. Oh well. . .

Hard evidence can be tested, etc. The theory behind the evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable, etc.

"I saw a ghost" is not even evidence, let alone hard evidence. If I presume that you are exactly, precisely sincere, and that furthermore you are a sane, competent adult human being, that STILL is not evidence. If it's something you can repeat at will with others, do so, and start working on how to verify this under controlled, verifiable conditions.

Anecdotes present a problem when they can not be confirmed. For instance, a known provacateur accused me of lying when I said that my mom had a major argument with a person "assisting" her in filling out her absentee ballot. The provacteur claimed this was not evidence. The provacateur did not account for the fact that there were other witnesses, and that many people's perceptions could be brought to bear on my statement. Still, this is not hard evidence, even though many people saw, etc, the event. A recording would have been much better evidence. On the other hand, we can corroborate this with the experiences of others, who can relate the same tale. So there is still some level of verification. So this is something for which there is some evidence, even though the provacateur chose not to examine the evidence and, rather, persisted in making defamatory accusations. There are many, rather than one, people who share the experience, and both they and eyewitnesses can tell tales that share the features under discussion. Now, of course, there is nothing extraordinary about this claim, either, it involves simple, well-known human behaviors.

When we get to extraordinary claims, the leve of evidence cited above would simply be cause to investigate further.

On the other hand, "I saw a ghost once" is not verifiable, it is not repeatable, etc. It is not evidence at all. I will presume that you are saying exactly what you believe, this is not a question of veracity. I will furthermore not assume that you are hallucinating or something like that. I will simply point out that human perception is hideously, terribly fallable, and that single instances that can not be reproduced have no value in science. In my own area, I have often created "illusions" of whole sound, in fact, MP3 (something I'm one of the lead researchers and main inventors of) works by discarding what we can't hear from a signal (when it works right, that is). You can easily argue that the result is an "illusion" of the whole, even though it's generally quite convincing and so on. Just something like that, where 90% of the information in the signal is removed outright, shows how tricky human perception is.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Personally, I find it the height of arrogance for people to claim that they are smarter than the most brilliant minds in human history. If you truly are, go prove it. Get the training, take the classes and go prove you are "all that and a bag of chips" when it comes to brains...

I disagree - it doesn't require phenomenal intelligence to disprove science; we make clearer measurements and discover new evidence all the time. To disprove science all you need is ...uh... disproof.

 

[turtle]

You're really quite fun. [poke]

Thanks. So are you. (and I do hope you are not poking me, young man!)

So, you cannot demonstrate how I was in error, and you can not demonstrate the efficacy of your standards for evidence. This is correct?

That is incorrect.

 

[turtle]

Originally posted by jj [/B]

However, having studied human perception for going on 30 years or so, I am quite comfortable in saying that what you sincerely believe you saw is no evidence at all.

However, having studied the phenomena of ghosts/hauntings for more than 30 years, I am quite comfortable in saying that what is often perceived as "ghosts" are, indeed, ghosts, and there is no lack of evidence.

Hard evidence means that you have to be able to show others ghosts,

Done.

in a form that is testable, verifiable, and reproducible.

Done. Of course, ghosts being what they are (der, ghosts) you can't expect them to pop up simply because you want them to. I do hope your suggestion isn't that they appear inside a lab, lol.

In other words, you have to provide good evidence that it's a ghost, not something else, that there was anything happening, and you have to be able to repeat this, and OTHERS have to be able to repeat this with or without you, as well.

Done.

Hard evidence can be tested, etc. The theory behind the evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable, etc.

"I saw a ghost" is not even evidence, let alone hard evidence.

It's evidence.

If I presume that you are exactly, precisely sincere, and that furthermore you are a sane, competent adult human being, that STILL is not evidence.

Not evidence based on my personality, agreed. Evidence based on experience of said ghost, yes.

If it's something you can repeat at will with others, do so, and start working on how to verify this under controlled, verifiable conditions.

You cannot "repeat at will" many things, including ghosts. If only it were so. Then it'd be much neater wouldn't it?

Anecdotes present a problem when they can not be confirmed. For instance, a known provacateur accused me of lying when I said that my mom had a major argument with a person "assisting" her in filling out her absentee ballot. The provacteur claimed this was not evidence. The provacateur did not account for the fact that there were other witnesses, and that many people's perceptions could be brought to bear on my statement. Still, this is not hard evidence, even though many people saw, etc, the event. A recording would have been much better evidence. On the other hand, we can corroborate this with the experiences of others, who can relate the same tale. So there is still some level of verification. So this is something for which there is some evidence, even though the provacateur chose not to examine the evidence and, rather, persisted in making defamatory accusations. There are many, rather than one, people who share the experience, and both they and eyewitnesses can tell tales that share the features under discussion. Now, of course, there is nothing extraordinary about this claim, either, it involves simple, well-known human behaviors.

When we get to extraordinary claims, the leve of evidence cited above would simply be cause to investigate further.

On the other hand, "I saw a ghost once" is not verifiable, it is not repeatable, etc. It is not evidence at all.

Actually, I've seen ghosts more than once, but anyway.

It's evidence.

I will presume that you are saying exactly what you believe, this is not a question of veracity. I will furthermore not assume that you are hallucinating or something like that. I will simply point out that human perception is hideously, terribly fallable, and that single instances that can not be reproduced have no value in science. In my own area, I have often created "illusions" of whole sound, in fact, MP3 (something I'm one of the lead researchers and main inventors of) works by discarding what we can't hear from a signal (when it works right, that is). You can easily argue that the result is an "illusion" of the whole, even though it's generally quite convincing and so on. Just something like that, where 90% of the information in the signal is removed outright, shows how tricky human perception is.

I've thought I've seen things too that on second look realized it was just an illusion, etc. There is that. Certainly. And then, there are ghosts.

you know, if it walks like a duck, etc.

I suppose we need to define ghost, or spirit. Thinking you saw a weird shadow thingy that could be a ghost and then you realize it's just a weird shadow thingy because of the bad lighting in the room or whatever, and seeing a ghost, are two different things. When you say "ghost" just what do you mean?

 

[voodoochile]

I disagree - it doesn't require phenomenal intelligence to disprove science; we make clearer measurements and discover new evidence all the time. To disprove science all you need is ...uh... disproof.

Right, but that doesn't include random annecdotal evidence from people who already believe in a phenommenon. Sorry if I was unclear. That is why I said that people who honestly think they can set known science on its ear should go get the training and do the work to prove it so.

 

[H'ethetheth]

...Done.

Done. Of course, ghosts being what they are (der, ghosts) you can't expect them to pop up simply because you want them to. I do hope your suggestion isn't that they appear inside a lab, lol.

Done...

First of all , JJ, good post.

Now, turtle, I may have missed this while lurking, but could you repeat how or where I can see a ghost, and be certain I've seen a ghost, preferably in the presence of several people?
It doesn't have to be in a lab, just in a place where one is allowed to completely inspect the premises. Hence the controlled circumstances.
One needs to be able to see them often enough to be able to take all kinds of measuring equipment and conduct experiments. Other people should be able to obtain similar results doing similar experiments.
If there's any indication that something unknown to physics is going on, then this would constitute evidence. Your saying so, or even firmly believing so wouldn't.

 

[jj]

However, having studied the phenomena of ghosts/hauntings for more than 30 years, I am quite comfortable in saying that what is often perceived as "ghosts" are, indeed, ghosts, and there is no lack of evidence.

Debate does not consist of replacing one set of words in a statement with another.

My comment about perception is an expert perception, based on a career that has studied human perception for give or take 30 years, and for which I have recieved awards, etc, bow wow woof woof from several scientific organizations, various companies, and a couple of other organizations, all with a scientific basis.

Since you are now making a statement that appears to be "expert" can you please cite me the SCIENTIFIC basis for your studies, including the SCIENTIFIC evidence. Personal testamonials will not suffice.

I won't get into your being a 'ghost expert', I'm quite aware of what science has discussed and concluded on the subject, and I am not aware, presently, of a single 'ghost expert' who would qualify, scientifically, to authoritively make the statement that you make above. In the spirit of inquiry, you may be on to something new, and if you want, I can tell you how to proceed, and how to attempt to move your work on to more solid ground, of course, if you can provide the evidence necessary.

Bear in mind that what I do for a living, perceptual coding of audio signals, was once publically denounced in an AES meeting as sheer quackery by a noted authority. It's not impossible to change people's conclusions IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE. As it were, I had all the evidence anyone needed. Do you?

The evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, observable, verifiable, and repeatable.

Your testamony, alone, does not fly. Your belief and insistance, however sincere, do not make a ghost scientific. You need to make the subject testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and repeatable, at the very least. Externally observable would be a good thing, too, i.e. not just something from human perceptions.

What's more, to gather such evidence, you must be able to exclude mudane causes.

And more, but I'll settle for those for starters. Can you provide this evidence?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

Waiting for evidence of a person acutally thinking the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why? You know perfectly well the onus is on the claimant to show evidence for the claim, not for anyone else to disprove it.

Right, and since the talked about people believing the moon was made of green cheese first...

But since I am nothing but accomodating, I once told my son when he was 4 years old that the moon was made of green cheese - he believed me for about a week until he actually looked it up.

An adult, thanks. And something we can verify, not an anedcote "I once told ...".

Because it's a well known proverb.

So? If a person has never seriosuly held such a thing to be true, using it to "illustrate" some point illustrates nothing but a strawman.

 

[T'ai Chi]

C'mon, Claus, JZS is claiming the negative here.

Did he provide conclusive, complete evidence for his claim to negative exclusion, or is it just another extraordinary claim?

jj,

A person(s) has truly believed the moon to be made of green cheese.

Yes or no?

If Yes, can you actually name any?

Waiting.

 

[T'ai Chi]

........OK, I'm stupid.

...

 

[AOK Tiger]

Turtle,

I’ll try and paraphrase here.

What JJ and the others are saying is your assessment of what may have happened is not as valid as you think it is.

You just do not know enough about how the mind works and the failings of human memory and pattern recognition (neither do I BTW) to make a judgement that what you see hear and remember relates to reality.

In simple terms you are NOT qualified.

Of course you think you do.. of course you think what you see IS real.. that is just normal… BUT.. here is the problem we have.. if what you see goes against science and is logically impossible.. you SHOULD rethink.

You SHOULD say.. hmmm.. what other explanations could their be.. I sure thought I saw the future/ghost/whatever…

When countless other scientific and rational explanations DO exist we wonder why these are not sought out or later ignored by you.

EG (You know I love analogies).. If you saw a pink unicorn, you would immediately say.. well I can’t really trust what I saw.. so it must have been an hallucination etc..

But when you see the future.. you say.. well I just saw it.. that’s that !

 

[T'ai Chi]

Then when that's over, they spend the rest of their time sniping at people much like jzs does, trying to take things out of context,

What is the worth of the moon is made of green cheese thing if no one, anywhere, ever, has seriously believed that?

Speaking of claims, etc., head to SC to see some discussion of ones Claus has made: Girl6 created SC for skeptics to be uncivil, a letter from Randi is a fake, and several others. I'm sure you'll point these claims, which demand evidence, out to Claus, right? Right?

misrepresent what others say in an attempt to defame them,

Pointing out factual errors, for example, typos on SkepticReport, is not "defaming". You are, as you often are on here, being dramatic.

and in general be incivil, insulting pains in the butt,

"Jeff", over at the SC, whoever he is, was quite rude recently. I've never said anything even approaching that level. Nor have I called people fly excrement, for example, like another person here. But, you'll defend your buddies.. that's emotional human nature instead of dispassionate reasoning.

they hang around to insult others from time to time, I think just for form's sake.

Write me a haiku about it please.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

Aussie Thinker wrote:

Of course you think you do.. of course you think what you see IS real.. that is just normal… BUT.. here is the problem we have.. if what you see goes against science and is logically impossible.. you SHOULD rethink.

Turtle,

You are walking through the hot desert and in the distance you see a pool of water. Thirsty, you head towards it, as you approach, it is no longer there. What is the explanation for the disappearance of the pool of water?

1-There really was a pool of water there, but it all evaporated just before I could reach it.

2-It was the ghost of a pool of water and vanished before I could reach it.

3-You experienced a mirage, which is:
an optical effect that is sometimes seen at sea, in the desert, or over a hot pavement, that may have the appearance of a pool of water or a mirror in which distant objects are seen inverted, and that is caused by the bending or reflection of rays of light by a layer of heated air of varying density.

Which explanation is the most rational? Which explanation would a skeptic choose, and which do you think a believer would choose?

 

[Pragmatist]

An adult, thanks. And something we can verify, not an anedcote "I once told ...".

Moving the goal posts T'ai?

Why should any evidence be limited to an adult? Particularly when your claim is that you know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? I don't see anything in that statement limiting it to adults - perhaps you'd be kind enough to point out where it is so qualified?

Or did you forget what you claimed? Here it is:

On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

No one, ever, has seriously considered the moon to be made of green cheese.

That's really quite a claim, sorry, claims. Positively paranormal in fact. Someone on this forum, I forget who, made big fuss about someone (allegedly) extrapolating data from an (alleged) convenience sample of 7 to an (alleged) entire population. What do you think that person would make of a claim like yours? If such a person found the aforementioned claim so objectionable I'd guess he'd find your claim utterly outrageous. Don't you think?

Of course, you were responding to jj's statement. Here it is:

I may use my estimate of sincerity when I consider how to take a given person's statements, indeed, however, the fact that somebody sincerely thinks the moon is made of green cheese does not inspire me to build a new moon rocket and send it flying up there on behalf of the Planet X cheesemaker's guild.

Now, personally I can't see how anyone could possibly take jj's statement as anything other than a mere rhetorical device, but since you obviously feel so strongly about how it must be taken literally, I am somewhat surprised that you didn't ask for evidence of the existence of the Planet X cheesemaker's guild. Why is that? Do you intend to let such a claim (I don't think it's a claim, but you obviously do since you're making an issue of it) go unchallenged?

By the way, I don't understand something, perhaps you'd be kind enough to clarify. Why did you ask for evidence that someone had ever believed the moon to be made of green cheese? I mean, since you have already claimed to know absolutely what all people in the entire history of the universe have ever believed, I can't see why you would need to ask. So I can only conclude that either you are playing games or perhaps you don't know what you claimed to know. So perhaps it would be better to simply ask:

jzs, do you, or do you not, know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? Yes or no will do, thanks.

So? If a person has never seriosuly held such a thing to be true, using it to "illustrate" some point illustrates nothing but a strawman.

Really? If someone used it proverbially, as an illustration of something that it is highly improbable that most rational people would believe, that is a strawman? How so? Please feel free to explain.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Moving the goal posts T'ai?

*sigh* Anecdotes are always not evidence. If you believe presenting an anedote is evidence, you are mistaken.

Particularly when your claim is that you know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe?

Until evidence is present to the contrary... that is the default position. If you don't like it, just present evidence. Actual evidence, not your anecdote.

Someone on this forum, I forget who, made big fuss about someone (allegedly) extrapolating data from an (alleged) convenience sample of 7 to an (alleged) entire population.

"alleged" convenience sample? I'll take a sample from the 'books I have available'. That is a convenience sample.

Now, personally I can't see how anyone could possibly take jj's statement as anything other than a mere rhetorical device,

I agree! By not having any real life examples it is only a rhetorical advise, and a strawman at that, since no one actually believes the moon to be made of green cheese.

Why did you ask for evidence that someone had ever believed the moon to be made of green cheese?

I wanted to see if there was a point to even bringing up the people believe the moon is made of green cheese thing. There wasn't. And it wasn't the first time such a thing was used either.

jzs, do you, or do you not, know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? Yes or no will do, thanks.

Waiting for an verifiable example of a person who believes the moon is made of green cheese. No anedotes, please.

 

[Pragmatist]

*sigh* Anecdotes are always not evidence. If you believe presenting an anedote is evidence, you are mistaken.

If in doubt, move the goalposts yet again! No, I don't believe that presenting an anecdote (by the way that's how you spell anecdote) is evidence. I simply related a relevant anecdote that I was aware of and witnessed first hand. Now, would you care to address the point in hand which was that you are demanding evidence of adult belief when previously it was all people, ever, in the history of the universe?

Until evidence is present to the contrary... that is the default position. If you don't like it, just present evidence. Actual evidence, not your anecdote.

Excuse me!!??? The "default position" is that we should unconditionally accept that you know the actions and beliefs of all people, ever, in the entire history of the universe? Dude, go see a shrink! Better still, go see a whole load of 'em because that is one hell of a God complex!

"alleged" convenience sample? I'll take a sample from the 'books I have available'. That is a convenience sample.

Really? Firstly, please point out to me where someone said/did that. Evidence please. And even someone had said that (which I don't believe anyone did), wouldn't the number of books he had available be a factor? I presume you know precisely how many books he had available? Silly question, of course you do, being omniscient and all... Why don't you just tell me how many books that was?

And just to reiterate the point you obviously forgot to address, even if the above was true, isn't it exceptionally trivial in comparison to your own claim? Isn't an (alleged) population of astrologers somewhat smaller than the population of all people, ever, in the history of the universe? We have your allegation that a claim based on a sample size of 7 was extended to a population of all astrologers. Against that we have your claim (in which the sample size is not stated at all) extended to all people, ever, in the history of the universe. Which do you think is the more improbable? I await your explanation of how you obtained a meaningful sample that is representative of all people, ever, in the history of the universe...

I agree! By not having any real life examples it is only a rhetorical advise, and a strawman at that, since no one actually believes the moon to be made of green cheese.

Do all proverbs have to state real life examples in order to be meaningful?

I wanted to see if there was a point to even bringing up the people believe the moon is made of green cheese thing. There wasn't. And it wasn't the first time such a thing was used either.

It's a proverb. Are all proverbs pointless?

Waiting for an verifiable example of a person who believes the moon is made of green cheese. No anedotes, please.

Hey, I wouldn't move those goal posts too much, you'll wear them out! Remember, your claim was not about a person who believes in the present, but about anybody who believed, ever, in the entire history of the universe. Sorry to be so pedantic, but there are certain people on here who are obsessed with pedantry to the most extreme degree, and if you don't qualify every single word, check every single possible typo, they'll stalk you incessantly and make a quite ridiculous fuss about it. Hard to believe I know, but it's true. So I say this only to warn you of the kind of reception you might receive from some misguided individuals. By the way you spelled "anecdote" wrongly again...

Oh, by the way, my apologies but I missed your answer to my question, which was:

jzs, do you, or do you not, know the actions and beliefs of every person, ever, in the history of the universe? Yes or no will do, thanks.

 

[turtle]

Turtle,

I’ll try and paraphrase here.

What JJ and the others are saying is your assessment of what may have happened is not as valid as you think it is.

You just do not know enough about how the mind works and the failings of human memory and pattern recognition (neither do I BTW) to make a judgement that what you see hear and remember relates to reality.

In simple terms you are NOT qualified.

Of course you think you do.. of course you think what you see IS real.. that is just normal… BUT.. here is the problem we have.. if what you see goes against science and is logically impossible.. you SHOULD rethink.

You SHOULD say.. hmmm.. what other explanations could their be.. I sure thought I saw the future/ghost/whatever…

When countless other scientific and rational explanations DO exist we wonder why these are not sought out or later ignored by you.

EG (You know I love analogies).. If you saw a pink unicorn, you would immediately say.. well I can’t really trust what I saw.. so it must have been an hallucination etc..

But when you see the future.. you say.. well I just saw it.. that’s that !

What are you talking about? Ghosts? What?

 

[jj]

What are you talking about? Ghosts? What?

My offer to try to explain the process to you is still open, if you wish to take advantage of it. I may be AFK quite a bit in the near future (business), but if you PM me, I'll remember what this was about.

See my post above, referring to expert testamony, etc, and what evidence means in science for starters.

 

[turtle]

Debate does not consist of replacing one set of words in a statement with another.

Oh, this is a debate? Sorry.
Yes, I know that. I was being cheeky.

My comment about perception is an expert perception, based on a career that has studied human perception for give or take 30 years, and for which I have recieved awards, etc, bow wow woof woof from several scientific organizations, various companies, and a couple of other organizations, all with a scientific basis.

Wow. I bow to what you say you have. Can't believe it though, it's just anecdotal. Merely your say so. Prove it.

Since you are now making a statement that appears to be "expert" can you please cite me the SCIENTIFIC basis for your studies, including the SCIENTIFIC evidence. Personal testamonials will not suffice.

Dude, I don't work in a lab. I'm no scientist. I don't wear a white lab coat to work.

I won't get into your being a 'ghost expert',

I didn't say I was a ghost expert. I said I've studied the subject for a very long time, that, combined with my experiences, has shown me that "ghosts" exist. That doesn't mean that every time you're in a creaky house and hear a mouse scramble in the walls it's a ghost. I don't know how else to say all this, and in fact, I won't, since I've done so already.

Say, anyway, doesn't that contradict your statement about citing scientific evidence? If you won't accept the evidence (which is not proof, as I've said many times, oy, does anyone listen in here?) paranormal investigators have, then what are you going on about? It's such a neat little convenient Catch 22: no serious real scientist will go out and hunt ghosts, oh, maybe one or two, for yucks, but not seriously. So of course, there's no "evidence." Bah.

I'm quite aware of what science has discussed and concluded on the subject, and I am not aware, presently, of a single 'ghost expert' who would qualify, scientifically, to authoritively make the statement that you make above.

Ahem. Well, you're looking in the wrong places.

Maybe they didn't see nuttin', I don't know.

In the spirit of inquiry, you may be on to something new, and if you want, I can tell you how to proceed, and how to attempt to move your work on to more solid ground, of course, if you can provide the evidence necessary.

Thanks. I don't need to provide "evidence necessary" -- for what? Big whoop. Believe in ghosts, don't believe in ghosts. I'm just relating my experiences and opinions (based on more than knee jerk "there ain't no such thing" or some such) -- I'm not out to prove anything. I'll leave that to the ghost hunting plumbers on the Sci Fi channel.

Bear in mind that what I do for a living, perceptual coding of audio signals, was once publically denounced in an AES meeting as sheer quackery by a noted authority. It's not impossible to change people's conclusions IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE. As it were, I had all the evidence anyone needed. Do you?

See above.

The evidence has to be falsifiable, testable, observable, verifiable, and repeatable.

I do believe you're repeating yourself.

Your testamony, alone, does not fly. Your belief and insistance, however sincere, do not make a ghost scientific.

lol, I don't think ghosts much care if they're "scientific" or not. . .

You need to make the subject testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and repeatable, at the very least. Externally observable would be a good thing, too, i.e. not just something from human perceptions.

I don't "need" to do anything. Although, of course you're correct, in that things like outside cameras, etc. with no human around to mess with things, is a valid way to see what's going on.

What's more, to gather such evidence, you must be able to exclude mudane causes.

Well der. Sort of Basic Ghost Hunting 101.

And more, but I'll settle for those for starters. Can you provide this evidence?

Ah, sure. EVPs -- nothing but ambient sound, or hearing what you wanna hear. Photos, video? Nothing but dust, cigarette smoke, faulty furniture, incorrectly set up lights. The ghost didn't make it fall, vibrations did. Equipment failed 'cuz the batteries were weak. The apparitions were just wishful thinking. Anecdotal evidence, well, please, don't get me started on that! Worthless, you know.