Talk:Ghost/Archive 3

Get rid of huge quotes
The huge quotes in the article need to be converted and paraphrased. This article has far too many quotations and we don't want most of the text of a section to be a huge quotation from someone.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Better Definition
Would the following definition be more accurate? It is the definition of ghost from How to Hunt Ghosts by Joshua P. Warren.


 * "...we can loosely define a ghost as some paranormal aspect of the physical form and/or mental presence that appears to exist apart from the original physical form."

The word appears is important to the above definition, for most encounters are perceived by the five senses alone, creating a subjective experience. Therefore, most information about ghosts is subjective.

And to Wikidudeman, I apologize if it is too long. brickdude  ^ _  ^  18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, that the current definition is tautologic. 89.236.214.174 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

32% of Americans believe in ghosts?
I highly doubt that 32% of Americans believe in ghosts. I'd say the percentage is much smaller. 207.69.139.140 (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that it's so small (compared to the UK) but I think a lot of Americans have theological objections to ghosts considered as disembodied spirits of the dead and prefer the demon theory. Colin4C (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised it's so small as well. I'm reasonably sure that it depends on how the data is collected.  If someone's trying to look "highly educated" to the poll-taker, they'll say they don't believe in ghosts if they're insecure.  How could they be blamed?  Every time a survey comes out that a good number of Americans believe in ghosts/spirits/hauntings you have some guy on the news channel ranting that it shows America's educational system has failed.  Personally, i think the percentage is much higher than 32%, and it's easy to prove.  Take any 10 people and throw them into Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia for a night, and set up hidden cameras to see how many aren't as relaxed as one disbelieving in hauntings should be.  Regardless, since this is one the facts actually cited in the article, we can all doubt it as much as we want but another study would have to be found and cited to responsibly replace it.EagleScout316 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere that the UK percentage who believe in ghosts is about 60%. I think I'm right in saying that more people in the UK believe in ghosts than in God and in the USA it's the reverse (i.e. in the USA more people believe in God than in ghosts). This is to do with theology rather than 'rationality' methinks...or maybe that Britain has more old ruined spooky castles per square mile...Every locality in England has its ghost. Where I came from (the village of Old Basing) we had, inter alia, the ghost of Oliver Cromwell who was often spotted crossing the Common of a night and the ghost of a Cavalier on the road to Hook. To see the latter, however, was an omen of death, so I always kept my eyes shut on the bus at night in case I saw him riding by... Colin4C (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
At the bottom of the "Historical Background" section, there's a reference to the movie "The Frighteners". I'm wondering if this observation should be placed in the "Popular Culture" section. 206.191.173.159 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)anonymous

This article reads like ghosts are real
At least until the "skeptics" section. Something should be added to the first paragraph as clarification that it's all a load of sh*t. 86.135.242.68 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof that ghosts don't exist? Of course you don't. People such as yourself are "scared". That is the issue here. You are too scared to face up to the fact that there are many things out there in our universe that you know nothing about. Your 7th Grade brain needs to wake up a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DockWinston (talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A "load of sh*t", eh? Lucky you managed to put us all straight on that.  So what you're demanding is that Wikipedia abandon its NPOV stance because this is a subject you personally have particularly strong feelings about.  Which is unconvincing enough at the best of times, but if you can't even be bothered to identify yourself... - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first observation. Subjects such as Werewolves, Vampires and Zombies all start with the mention that these are "mythological and/or folkloric" - as this subject should. A NPOV stance does not exclude logic, reason and evidence - Counterpoint : Ghosts are not real, but are an important part of folktales and mythology. (Lordkuz (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

I lived in a haunted house for nearly ten years. The different events, their variety and their regularity, convinced me of the existence of ghosts, and I am a sane, rational person (I think). Unfortunately, the rules of Wikipedia are stacked against the paranormal, because, by their very nature, things like ghosts are non-verifiable and the subject of personal observation, and so I don't think Wikipedia can claim a neutral point of view on the subject. Just because we can't prove that something exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that we can't prove it. How about a disclaimer somewhere in the article to the effect that Wikipedia cannot take a neutral point of view on the paranormal because of the way Wikipedia works? Rayhol 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to pronounce definitively whether ghosts are "real"; it's the job of an encyclopedia to describe the phenomenon of ghosts and explain why it's significant to humanity. A good article will summarize the differing modern viewpoints expressed on this page and provide information on how beliefs have varied through history and continue to vary across cultures and among individuals. It will seek neither to bolster the weight of anyone's anecdotal evidence nor to throw the authority of science at the superstitious. "Ghost, according to tradition, is a spirit of a dead person that visits the living. Most people do not believe in ghosts, but some do." So begins the World Book article on ghosts. I don't have much use for the World Book, but I think they more or less get it right in this case. As long as beliefs are described as beliefs and not facts, NPOV really shouldn't be much of an issue here. Rivertorch 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The evolution article reads like a fact, too. It's not proven, just widely accepted. But the theory that the earth is round was unproven and widely accepted, too. If that can be read like its true, why not the ghost article? Because less people believe in ghosts. I'm not saying that either is real or unreal, but both articles are biased in one way, or the other. What we need to do is remove this, not argue about iwether ghosts (or evolution, for that matter) are real. --S'luki 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalukiGirl (talk • contribs)
 * Remove what? A little specificity would be helpful. I'm not entirely clear on the rest of your point, but without getting into a highly technical discussion of what constitutes proof, I think what's at issue here is a question of fact vs. belief, not "proven" vs. "unproven". Belief must be identified as such in an encyclopedia article, while fact may simply be stated without qualification. In any case, whether something can legitimately be considered factual has little or nothing to do with how many people accept it as true. (Incidentally, I'd guess that fewer people believe in evolution than in ghosts, not the reverse.) There has long been consensus in the scientific community that evolution is a fact, and to date no credible evidence has arisen to challenge its principal tenets. The existence of ghosts has no such consensus, and much of the evidence for it is questionable, to put it mildly. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding once again as though I'm in Usenet mode (sorry, Rivertorch), I've got to pick up on this, if only to reiterate what's already been said. It matters, because the assertion that evolution is not fact, while no doubt made innocently and for fair purpose in this case, still gives ammunition to those whose agenda requires that it be discredited.  Evolution is a fact - that's not open to question.  What can be said is that our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution is not complete - but that doesn't negate the concept as a whole, which has been observed and exploited (albeit without formal definition) by animal breeders and horticulturalists for centuries.
 * As far as the main question here goes, personally I don't think there's any question that this article presents the subject in a pretty suitable way, overall. There's a (relatively) large section devoted to 'skeptical analysis', and the remainder of the article doesn't make any assertions as to the reality or otherwise of ghosts.  For example, it specifically says that the evidence is anecdotal, but (rightly) adds that belief in ghosts has been consistent throughout history.  Such comments clearly indicate that reality in this case is questionable. I genuinely can't see why people are having such a problem with the item as it stands. Is it simply that it doesn't say "this is a load of rubbish" at the top, as the anonymous contributor above suggested? - Shrivenzale (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that evolution is fact is called "opinion". The "fact" is, evolutionary researchers agree that the theory falls short but have no other model at this time. Many scientific "facts" through the centuries have been revised when unforseeable information was discovered. Claims of "fact" were equally incorrect then as now. Each period in human history has believed that its science was "finally correct". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets all remember the Greek Gods for a minute here, all the Greeks were completely sure of their existence because of things that were caused by nature. Ghosts are the same, the ignorant man's explanation on things he doesn't want to look into. I swear, I find old used rags in the back of my laundry room smarter than 83.385% of ghost believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.150.132 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare?
Hi I would just like to know if anyone knows of, or has experienced a ghost pinning them down and not being able to move? Because this morning I woke up at about 5am but I didn't bother checking the time because for some reason lately I've been waking up at that exact time alot. So I just rolled over and tried to go to sleep, which was weird because it felt like I got to sleep straight away. Then when I think I was changing positions, all of a sudden I couldn't move, and I was in a uncomfortable position but I was just stuck. I could only move my eyes and maybe head slightly, and as I was all paralysed I could see a weird round light skim across the roof of my bedroom. It was like a bright blueish-white colour and from my position looked about the size of a tennis ball. So in this time of me trying to move I could see it skimming to directly accross my head, but as soon as I breathed out a help, I felt a release and I could move again and I was awake. This was really weird for me and scary as I could remember every vivid detail and it did not even felt like I had gone to sleep, and when I woke I figured out that this would have happenned in no less than 10 minutes of me waking the 1st time. Also the way I tried crying out for help felt like I was being choked, which I could tell from the sound of my own voice. And I also remember conciously thinking at the time as soon as I saw the light of aliens or ghosts, which made it feel like I was awake. I'm still not sure wether I was awake or asleep during this experience. I don't have alot of nightmares, I can't even remember the last time I did and I didn't watch any scary movies the night before. Can anyone help? TeePee-20.7 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

first of all you probably had a hang over and didn't want to move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.194.106 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this is the best place to ask for help on specific experiences. This is an encyclopaedia rather than a discussion forum - but if you look there are probably a good number of web forums and Usenet groups available who'd be interested in hearing about it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just read that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis It might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.106.109 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an acid trip gone bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.54.14 (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In some dreams, especially nightmares, people have reported slowed movement or being unable to move. A personal example of mine was in a nightmare I began running from some unseen force but my movement got slower and slower until I stopped completely then I woke up. Maybe speech is sometimes altered in a similar way in dreams. In the movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," which is based on a true story, the character Emily Rose experienced a force that pinned her down in her bed. I don't remember what the explanations were given as possibilites for this claim but maybe you could find more there. Feral Mind (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ghost Pictures" Section
I've removed the section called "Ghost Pictures: Are They Real?" since it didn't have any actual content. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist quote
"As the savage commonly explains the processes of inanimate nature by supposing that they are produced by living beings working in or behind the phenomena, so he explains the phenomena of life itself. If an animal lives and moves, it can only be, he thinks, because there is a little animal inside which moves it. If a man lives and moves, it can only be because he has a little man or animal inside, who moves him. The animal inside the animal, the man inside the man, is the soul. And as the activity of an animal or man is explained by the presence of the soul, so the repose of sleep or death is explained by its absence; sleep or trance being the temporary, death being the permanent absence of the soul... "[6]

This quote right in the beginning of the article is racist because it uses the word "savages" to represent large portions of humanity who have a particular belief. How would it look like if we start to call white skinned people as "criminals" for carrying out mass murders and stealing people's lands? 59.178.45.155 (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken, although it is a very old quotation and Frazer seems to have thought of it as a neutral term. Do you want just that word taken out ("tribal person"), or a replacement quote? Xanthoxyl (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I sense a chip on someone's shoulder here. If the anonymous contributor objected to the word being quoted then s/he was entirely free to edit the article either to remove the quotation entirely or to trim it down to exclude that particular word.  I wonder why s/he chose not to do so.  I have now amended the quote myself to remove the 'offensive' word, though it seems somewhat irrational to attempt to impose modern standards of political correctness on earlier writers.


 * It is also significant that the quote as originally shown did not make any reference to race or skin colour whatsoever: such association was assumed and expressed only by 59.178.45.155 here. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote probably wasn't that valuable to the article in the first place and perhaps is better removed entirely. Otherwise, I'm tempted to revert because now it makes less sense with the first part gone. At any rate, censoring a quote from The Golden Bough because someone objects to the word "savage" really seems a bit absurd. I refuse not to assume good faith on the part of the complainer, and I don't blame him or her for raising the matter here instead of simply doing the edit, but I think that he or she should consider carefully the fact that encyclopedias often quote old material, and this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I refuse not to assume good faith on the part of the complainer"
 * Fair point. Sorry - I'm afraid I sometimes forget this isn't Usenet. - Shrivenzale (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you forget that, too? Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy deletion of this well-researched and thoroughly cited article and removed the associated tag. If someone has a problem with the world-view of this article that would possibly prompt its deletion, discussing it here would be a good first step. Accounting4Taste: talk 06:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how the quote is racist? It mentions no race - the word used is 'savage' which by definition does not represent a race but is applicable, in this context, to all humanity. The user who complained though spoke about "whites" which suggests they believe colour is mentioned in the quote - it isn't though. The user acutally contradicts themself at the start by identifying the definition they are complaining about as "large portions of humanity who have a particular belief" - notice no mention of colour there, then they say "white skinned people". If we are to assume good faith let us hope the writer can understand why their statement is incorrect and, one could argue, racist itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerbmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the term "Savages" is only racist when you describe a people, i.e. as American Indians were described by the Europeans / Early Americans. By describing a religion as savage, is not Racist. Religion has nothing to do with Race. Prejudice, yes. Racist, no. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to Haunted Places
I've taken out a newly-added link to Chillingham Castle, a supposedly haunted location in the UK. For the same reason I've removed the existing link re haunting of Niagara Falls: the reason being that there are probably millions of locations in the world that claim some sort of haunting, and it seems impractical to list them all. Unless a location has some specific relevance, and itself serves to define what a ghost is (which is the purpose of this article), adding these links can only really serve to advertise the location in question. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting note on the story of King Saul and the Witch of Endor-According to the passage in question, she was not trying to call forth Samuel but a demon to pretend to be Samuel. She became afraid when the real Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for going to a Witch. The traditional Judeo/Christian view is that ghosts are demons that pretend to be the dear departed to deceive the living. It might be worth mentioning in the article.Just-unsigned (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer
Hi,

I just thought it was funny that a page about Ghosts, which talks about pop culture/tv shows does not reference The Ghost Whisperer on CBS. It's going into its 4th season, has a huge audience and is all about nothing but ghosts.

Just think it should be mentioned.

Croweincali (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Croweincali 05/06/2008


 * Could be a good idea but I get the impression that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a bit of a "timeless" quality about them. Will anybody remember that show in 5 years time? I don't know. To be honest I've never heard of it but then I live in the UK and we don't get CBS. Maybe somebody who's seen the show can comment? --RadioElectric (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Page Protected?
Isn't it usually "the done thing" to put an explanation on an article's talk page when you protect it to say why you did it?--RadioElectric (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not always. The reason is provided in the history, the protection log, and the protection template at the top of the article. This page has been subject to high levels of vandalism recently, and needed some protection to cool things down. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
I tried to make the introduction read a little better but we could really do with some sources for those first few lines. They'd probably help us come up with something that reads a lot nicer.--RadioElectric (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ghost?
i dont acctually see the point of ghost i mean its a completly mythical legend the creativity though is amazing for the thought and effort buuuut i dont know i just dont see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaihn52 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is bookmans haunted?
Transferring post, from  Cena rium  (talk)  23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Bookmans Haunted?

Nat E. de Wulf

Jesus & Ghosts
Jesus appears to acknowledge ghosts in Luke 24:39. 12.198.115.130 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Evidence
Where it says that 32% of Americans believe in ghosts, is it really necessary to say "despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence for their existance". I didn't see anything about the existance of scientific evidence being mentioned in the question, and there are alot of things people believe in without scientific evidence. I don't think scientific evidence should be held as the absolute standard of whether someone should believe in something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.255.178 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article says there is no scientific evidence when that simply isn't true(scientific means its real, not edited). There are videos, pictures, recordings etc. Many of which there hasn't been proof of it being a hoax (would you want to look at thousands of false pieces of evidence to show the parts that make it show its fake? No). Of course that's only SOME. But to say that there is absolutely no "scientific evidence" is pure bullshit(well, it will have evidence when someone DOESN'T edit pictures and videos of ghosts, but, you must also believe in the toothfairy). If science proves anything it is that nature has no limits(lol, yes it does.).96.51.21.229 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you might want to investigate the difference between anecdotal evidence and science. They are not the same thing. Gwernol 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I would say this: ghosts didn't have much evidence before you could edit things digitally. ...................... ......................
 * Also worth noting that there are several conflicting scientific explanations which can't all be true. I.e. 'Explaining away' should be distinguished from 'explaining'. There have been many materialistic explanations for ghosts in the past 300 years which are just as bizarre (salt residues etc) as the spiritualist explanations. Explanations are fine, but which ones are true? They can't all be. 'Science' covers a multitude of sins. In the past meteorites were an affront to scientists who could not give credence to notions of thunderbolts, so explained them away as lightning hitting rocks and making them explode into the air. Anybody who held the bizarre notion that rocks fall from the sky was dismissed as a deluded charlatan. We don't know everything. Even wikipedia editors are not infallible guides to absolute truth...As for evidence, there are many kinds of evidence, such as legal or historical evidence which are taken as true on the wikipedia and elsewhere, even if they are not 'scientific'. To write about George Bush, you don't need a scientific theory about him (bad example, I know.....). Colin4C (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But what IS the point of saying that 32% of Americans believe in ghosts? Why is this more significant than the number of Chinese or Indians? Or Germans or Congolese? This statistic should be wholly scrapped. AmericanEnglish (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

SK1993
How was what I added an "unverified claim"? Did you notice that there was a source referenced for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioElectric (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghost in a Shell?
What does Ghost in a Shell, a Japanese manga/police-thriller have to do with actual ghosts? And why is it listed in the 'See Also' section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.134.188 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly biased
There's only a historical section (where ghosts are treated as pure myth), and then a skeptics section. This is too one-sided. If there's a skeptics section, there should be one for supporters' views. If there was more of a consensus then the one-sided perspective would be fine, but that's clearly not the case. Furthermore, it would be beneficial for completeness for some short sections on various ghost-experiences with links to main articles embedded, but that is less important than the current bias being fixed.

On a side note, since the article's locked down i can't add this but it needs citations for claims that geomagnetic fields have been tested as possible causes of ghost perception. Making claims to three separate phenomenon used to help debunk hauntings without citing a source backing said claims it strong evidence of falsifications and/or hearsay.

EagleScout316 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The late Bernard Levin's remarked that his question "If the paranormal does exist, and acts upon us without our knowing how the effect is made, what would be so dreadful about it?" reduced disbelievers in the paranormal to "shaking rage". This article demonstrates that the skeptical fundamentalists are still terrified to open their mind about this question. They have an 'inner conviction' that they are right based on faith rather than evidence and even a ghost appearing at their bedside tonight would not convince them otherwise. Colin4C (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct, if an image of a dead being appeared at my bed side, I would not believe it was a ghost; yet I wouldn't neccesarily doubt the appearance of such an image. Why? The image of a dead being is not neccesarily evidence for ghosts. The term ghost carries extra metaphysical baggage with it; like souls, afterlife, etc. Thus, seeing as we can't even define a soul it any reasonable terms, it would be rather hard to cite any ghost-like thing as evidence for ghosts; again, as this entails that not only was it a ghost-like thing, but also a soul. Finally, diesmbodied souls require a conception of afterlife, since ghosts require afterlives, but not conversely, afterlives need be demonstrated hitherto; thus, even if youi produced a ghost-like thing that said it was a disembodied soul etc, this would still be insufficent; unless, of course, it could show us the afterlife. The point of this rant: any evidence people might cite for ghosts, even if 100% credible, would still only, at best, establish some type of wispy beings claiming to be dead souls; yet, failing to establish thzat they are actually disembodied souls. Phoenix1177 (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet the original point remains the same. If you say that no significant evidence can be brought up in support of ghosts because of the metaphysical nature of the beast, there's no reason to think that the things cited in the Skeptical Analysis section can gallop in to save the day and settle the matter. There are plenty of people with experiences of ghosts, EVP, etc., and while it doesn't prove that ghosts are the disembodied spirits of the deceased, there is more than enough reason for a section to complement the skeptics' analysis. Not everyone believing in ghosts thinks they're really spirits; not knowing what ghosts ARE does not rule out their existence. If i hear a scratching noise in my wall, i can be reasonably sure something's in there without busting a hole in the drywall, i don't have to question the noise's existence without confirming the true nature of it.

EagleScout316 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not quite what I was getting at; my main point was that without saying ghosts are disembodied souls, we no longer have a defined entity to cite evidence of. instead, we have evidence of a phenomenon; this is not nearly as worthwhile. Why? Consider that noise in your wall, generally we would use "noise in the wall" as evidence of "something is in my wall", aside from using the occurance to conclude something, it is rather useless. In otherwords, the most you can say is that evp devices pick up something. I don't debate this, but until you define ghost, this is all you have; in otherwords, you have that some electromagnetic occurance is about, but this doesn't mean ghost (until you've actually defined ghost). To stress the point, once you allow ghost to be anything that causes evp events you have done nothing but start calling alot of things ghosts; you have not demonstrated supernatural beings, only extended a word. Finally, without a solid definition, you have no theory that connects evp events, floating chairs, noises at night, or other such to the same causal entity; who knows, maybe evp is caused by wizards and wispy apparitions are simply cloud elves...my point, without ghosts being metaphysical you are left with no basis to deal with them in an evidentiary way...(p.s. it is late, please excuse any grammatical problems.) Phoenix1177 (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More clearly, let's start with how evidence works through experiments. When you perform an experiment you

generate evidence. Evidence determines which theories are possible as true, they do not determine which is true. Hence, with a given set of evidence, the most that can be said is that such and such theory confirms it; this doesn't imply that the theory is true, only that it works with our data. Usually, we apply occam's razor and take the simplest theory that is asmissible, and treat it as true in a prima facie sense. So, what happens when we have two theories, neither more attractive, both confirming known data? We devise an experiment that one will satisfy and the other not.

Given all of that, this is my objection to ghosts; a little more clearly.

1.) You cannot admit ghosts into your ontology unless you have a theory	of ghosts. You cannot justifiably admit them unless this theory is congruent	with known data, but not congruent with all possible sets of data.	2.) If ghosts are not metaphysical, they are physical. 3.) You must have evidence that differentiates ghosts from other	theories that fit the evidence; or demonstrate that ghosts have	more explanatory power, are simpler, etc.	4.) Ghosts must be establishable as the cause of each piece of evidence by some reasonable method.

From 1.), you must specify what a ghost is before you can argue that it exists. It has been shown that a metaphysical ghost cannot be established, so it must be physical, by 2.). There are physical theories that are congruent with the evidence thus far presented. However, ghosts do not provide any greater explanatory power, they are not ontologically simpler(as sceptic theories are using already known things), thus, by 3.) we have no good reason for them. Finally, I threw in 4.) because, again no one has given any reason to believe that the same thing appearing by bedsides is indeed the same thing invovled in evp, is the same thing involved in moving chairs, is the same thing involved in cold pockets of air in old houses. Hence, even without other objections, you would still need to demonstrate this.Phoenix1177 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a much long paragraph all typed out, but i realized i could simplify it to the following: You have to start somewhere. Researchers looking into gravity can't tell you what gravity *IS* on the most fundamental level, but they can scale back and look at things and explain what it does. By your criteria, particularly number 1, they should be told to stop right where they are and fully explain everything before experimenting. With regards to 2, ghosts as metaphysical objects does not cast aside their physical affects in this world. Do you not believe that thoughts exist? While thoughts can be viewed as electrical impulses in the brain, there is still a metaphysical aspect to them. In number 3, you're saying a competing theory will never be valid in the face of an existing one. Rather, i view it instead as they are equivalent theories. I should hope that in science, with all other things being equal, the valid theory isn't determined by "i got here first." Finally, 4 just restates the definition of a theory. Yet for all you've said, there hasn't been a good reason given for why a scientific skeptical analysis is permitted in this article, but not a scientific support section. If you can't scientifically test the validity of a metaphysical theory, i fail to see why you feel that one can test the invalidity scientifically. If you'd like to say that metaphysical concepts are outside of the bounds of science, the skeptical analysis section needs to be taken down. What it comes down to is that i'd like to see it be an unbiased article, YOU seem to prefer it continues to support YOUR position on the issue.

EagleScout316 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's begin with the difference between what I said and what you think I said, then about the "scientific" support section.


 * You claim that 1 requires that researchers should know everything before they begin experimenting. This is not quite what 1 means, however. It is talking about admittance into your ontology; in other words, it says that you need a theory of the object; not that you need to know the theory that the object will be taking place in. In simpler terms, you would need to actually define a ghost. For example, we cannot claim that gravity is what enables planets to orbit a sun, until we have actually defined gravity as being an attractive force between two masses. The point of bringing this up is that after I argued that a metaphysical ghost wouldn't work, you said that it needn't be metaphysical. My point, you can;t scientifically argue for something that isn't clearly defined.


 * 2 said if a ghost isn't metaphysical, it is physical. I argued that metaphysical ghosts require so much extra baggage to be proven that we might aswell assume them physical, in effect, since it would be impossible to make this extra baggage seem plausible. In the same vein, if a ghost acts physically, then a ghost is effectively a physical thing. In other words, it would be nonsensical to claim that ghosts are metaphysical and outside of the scope of science, aswell as able to act physically. Else, if ghosts existed and moved chairs scientists would have to pretend not to see it...


 * The whole point of 3 is that science requires more than chosing the theory that came first, or any other such specious nonsense. 3 says that if you have two theories T and T' and that there is no proposition P so that P is in T and ~P in T', then you should chose the theory that either is most powerful, or ontologically simple. My point was that sceptical arguments cover ghostly events and require no additional hypotheisis. Also, postualting an active entity called a ghost only explains ghostly events, it is a thoery of the gaps; physical theories on the other hand explain a wide degree of events in addition to those that ghosts explain.


 * I'm not sure how you think that 4 is simply a restatement of what a theory is. 4 says that it is not enough to have a bunch of events that aren't covered by sceptical theories and, then, claim it was ghosts. In other words, even if sceptical theories didn't already explain evp and apparitions, it still wouldn't imply ghosts. Why? Because you would need to show that the postulated entity is responsible for both. Just to be clear: 4 says that chairs moving about and evp sounding like voices is not sufficent to prove ghosts, since ghosts may not be the cause of both; it could be poltergeists and cloud elves.


 * As for the article, the whole point of my rant was this: if you want to put up a support section, then please cover these points...or point out how they interfere. In otherwords, I am against simply pointing out evp and apparitions; please show how these are linked to the same underlying entity. Also, please demonstrate some propositions covered by ghosts and not by current science. Finally, could you also put something in about the mechanism that allows ghosts to act physically if they are nonphysical(a point you seem to jump back and forth between)


 * P.S.The vast majority of researchers in AI, neuroscience, and the philosophy of the mind don't think thoughts have a metaphysical component; so it seems slightly underhanded to paint me as an idiot on the basis that I might agree with all of those brilliant people (because, obviously, you must believe in ghosts if you want to believe in thoughts...) Also, please expect someone to argue you if you talk about sceptics not believing in ghosts even if one appeared by their bedside, etc.
 * Also, you can demonstrate that a theory is false, whether or not it falls under the purview of science. For example, an accurate model of the brain that is purely physical would discredit platonic idealism though it is clearly not scientific. Finally, don't tell me my point of view, perhaps I believe in things very similiar and have good reasons; but I just happen to think what you've presented is rather shoddy; or, maybe I don't believe, in the end you just don't know.Phoenix1177 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the person who said the bit about ghosts by the bedside isn't the same person that I've been debating with; hence, I apologize for the snarky comment about not expecting an argument. Noetheless, I still stand by the rest of what I've said. Phoenix1177 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The late scientist, engineer and science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said these interesting words in his intro to "Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange of Powers" (a book about ghosts and the paranormal written by John Fairley and Simon Welfare): "At a generous assessment, approximately half this book is nonsense. Unfortunately I don't know which half; and neither, despite all claims to the contrary, does anyone else." That includes wikipedia editors.... Colin4C (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! What a reasoned response to all that sciency logic I presented above, I mean, I see your point; you've humbled me with such a potent quotation. Seriously? Oh, if your wondering at the sarcasm, it has nothing to do with your beliefs; I can respect someone who disagrees with me, provided they are reasonable. See, your point actually works against you. Why? If half of what we state about ghosts is nonsense and we don't know which half, then neither half has place in an encyclopedia. On a final note, if you are unable to sift the nonsense from the sense, then you probably lack the qualification to speculate on their proportion. Phoenix1177 (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have a tad more to say. Just noticed your comment about "...that includes wikipedia editors." Which is kind of funny. How do you know I don't have five doctorates and a Fields Medal? John Baez edits wikipedia, but I guess even he would be forced to bow your implied accusations of pomposity. Phoenix1177 (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sciency" as in resembles, but actually isn't, science. For starters, you say that ghosts can't be defined.  Look around.  We're talking about the subject of a wikipedia article, and when you say "ghost" to someone, they all seem to know what it is.  If stating that gravity is the attraction of two objects of mass to one another is good enough, i'm pretty sure you can get your definition of a ghost with minimal effort.  You're attempting to pigeonhole this idea that you don't like into being indefensible from a scientific standpoint.  You simultaneously want to demand that science define a ghost in terms you can agree with, but you would also immediately reject that very definition as unscientific.  It's a catch-22.  You want the sheet-and-chains ghost to be the definition, and nothing else is acceptable to you as the definition.  Since the only possible definition in your eyes is unscientific, you'll win every time.


 * Your only other so called ontologically simple theories (which i'm assuming you support the ones on this article) are both uncited and too simplistic. John Doe says that he saw his dead mother in the night, and you think that the theory that spirits can interact with the physical world carries more baggage than the theory that it was a trick of his peripheral vision?  Jim Smith sees an object lift into the air and levitate across the room, smashing a mirror, and your theory with minimal baggage is a shift in the geomagnetic field toyed with his temporal lobes?


 * To you, unified field theory is bust. They can't show in advance that the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are unified at their source, that's the point of the research!  You're saying you can't suspect two things are linked, but all that's all science is.  You notice two things seem to be related, and you show how they are through your research.  You want the theory proved before the research is done to prove it.  I hope i never have to write the NSF grant proposal that says "i'd like funding to research the relation between A and B...A and B are related this way."  They'd respond to me with "so there's no real need to research that, you just proved it."  For now, the link between EVP and apparitions can't be shown because science-crusaders (and i can't help but think you're not an actual scientist) want the link proven before the research.  You want to be at the destination before you start the car.  I'm not even going to go near the "vast majority of AI, etc, researchers" agreeing with you, since they can say whatever they want, i have firsthand knowledge that they haven't made an intelligent computer program.


 * In spite of all this, the existence and nature of ghosts is hotly debated. While it's hotly debated, this article should be unbiased.  Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, not a place to put a stake in the ground for your position.  To you, the debate is over, even if you want me to believe you secretly believe in ghosts but have a higher purpose.  That doesn't mean in reality the debate is over.EagleScout316 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It may even be true that 50% of your edits are not complete nonsense...Who knows...stranger things have happened on the wikipedia...Sometimes wikipedia editors who parade their dogmas and prejudices as the absolute truth and ram them home by insults are actually right...Its a weird world...Maybe we should try and get in touch with Arthur on the other side...and find out what his current thoughts are on the subject... Colin4C (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To begin, I never said that "the debate is over". Second, I never said that I beleive in ghosts; I was saying that you don't know if I do, or not, so don't assume my point of view. Also, I never said that I am a scientist, I'm actually involved with mathematics. Also, I never said that I accept the sceptical position 100%. As for john and his mirror that's anecdotal evidence, it doesn't need countered as it does not count as evidence in the first place; not to say that such things aren't a good reason to consider starting to research the topic in the first place. Looking at the definition in the lead and the apparitional experience page, it would seem that we are working with a metaphysical definition of ghost; so no, I wasn't picking a definition that agrees with me, but one given. Also, the whole reason I brought definitions was bin response to your saying ghost's need not be metaphysical; which given that they are usually taken as such, it seemed to me that you redefining the issue to counter what I said. When I mentioned that you would need to show that ghosts are the underlying cause of each piece of evidence, I was not putting forward an impossible condition. For example, the whole problem with developing a unified field theory is demonstrating the underlying source, so it must not be an impossible condition to meet; else I'm sure scientists wouldn't be working towards it. Also, I never said that researchers made an intelligent machine, therefore, listen to them; I meant that they spend a great deal of their time researching it, thus, you can't just dismiss their perspective out of hand. Actually, the whole reason I brought them up was because you seemed to tacitly assume that thought must have a metaphysical nature, and therefore I must be wrong. Furhter, my objection to metaphysical ghosts was that you'd have to demonstrate the metaphysical basis of them, not just assume it; this makes the problem much more complicated, indeed, showing a soul scientifically seems impossible; defining ghosts in a physical sense and then proceeding seems much simpler. I have a bunch more to say in response, however, I'm going to stop here.


 * Collin4C, 50% of my wikipedia edits have nothing to do with this. Also, the burden of proof is on believers, therefore sceptical arguments, at best, demonstrate that ghosts aren't proven. In other words, there is no dogma that I believe in, I simply think that no one has, as of yet, given satisfactory reason to believe in ghosts; nor do I think that the subject has been critically investigated to the point that it has a sufficently powerful underlying framework from which it could be demonstrated. So, if your not getting this, I have no dogma to believe; my objections are more in line with saying that sceptical hypothesis are the best we have at the moment. In fact, if people want to research the subject and develop a theory of ghosts that had merit, I think that would be great; in other words, I would have no objection to someone putting forward a clear definition of ghosts with no ambigous terms, and then esting that theory. Finally, you don't seem to be responding to anything I'm saying, Eaglescout316 is. My point, if all you have to say is that I'm some closed minded idiot, please don't bother; I'll just asume, hence forth, that you think so, thus, obviating the need for you to do so.


 * With that said, I am being somewhat of an ass by forgetting that the whole point of this ought be getting work done on the page. So this is my proposal:
 * 1.) We make a section suppotive of ghosts. However, we don't name it "scientific support", instead we call it someting like "supporting arguments", etc. We can also rename the sceptical analysis section, to something along similair lines, throwing out the word "sceptical". This way neither title would seem to imply anything beyond its contents.
 * 2.) The current section against ghosts doesn't seem overly harsh in terms of contents; so leaving it asis shouldn't be objectionable.
 * 3.) Somewhere in the support section we point out that the reasons given are not conclusive, as of yet, nor is there a widespread scientific consensus that ghosts exist. However, we don't do this in such a way so as to imply that ghosts don't exist; but, instead, that current research has at best shown that the subject deserves more detailed research, and is, perhaps, plausible.
 * 4.) Sicne, again, the sceptical section stands to argue that we do not have enough evidence to accept ghosts, but does not argue that they are impossible; I'm not sure that something similair to 3.) could be added to it. Perhaps, we could point out that the reasons given are sufficent to demonstrate that ghosts currently lack sufficent proof to justify beleif in them in a scientific sense, and that more detailed research would be needed. However, this would have to be done in a way so as not imply that there is a wide spread belief that such research is going to pan out; only that we can't know until it is done.


 * Finally, you are correct that I don't work in science, I work with mathematics and philosophy. And, for the record, I take issue with certain aspects of scientific methodology, aswell; especially some of the meta-assumptions involved in quantum field theory; not that I disagree with the thoery itself 100%. I mention this, mainly, in response to the "not a scientist" comment and the spouting dogma comment. Anyways, let me know what you think; obviously, things will require some tweaking; perhaps it would be best to work out the details on the talk page first. Phoenix1177 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. it is late, please disregard any grammatical blunders. Phoenix1177 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * EagleScout316: are you arguing that there is sufficent evidence to warrant belief in ghosts or that there is sufficent evidence to justify further research? It just occured to me that some of your comments seem to be more in line with the latter. I take no issue with the second; my argument is that there is not currently sufficent evidence to justify ghosts. If your curious, I view science as a system that determines those propositions that we are justified in believing, to within our knowledge; not as a methodology for determining the truth. In other words, science determines what assumptions we ought work under, not what is true; thus, the only way something could be viewed false via science is if it made predictions that it failed to fulfil; aka "The Earth is flat" fails because we have seen it is round. At any rate, are we disagreeing about seperate issues? Phoenix1177 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is sufficient evidence to warrant further research. It's a cross-cultural experience that has a fairly uniform cultural explanation, and saying it was the brain making order out of randomness, or a trick of the peripheral vision, is a pretty weak explanation.  Just like when an airliner pilot says a bright UFO (not necessarily aliens) was buzzing his jet and he's told "well, Venus was very bright that night."  A scientific explain-away should be strong enough that it can't be scoffed at by its nature, i think we can agree on that.  It is not science's role to say what we should believe, certainly not with regards to things science itself calls metaphysical.  That is where the clashing between religion and science appears.  Anyhow, your proposal looks good.  A section for believers, skeptics, and be sure to point out clearly in the article that the issue is not decided upon.  Also, anything in both sections cited as actual evidence needs to be cited.  Particularly, the last paragraph in the current skeptic section only cites that the work is controversial, but needs citations for every claim of scientific results. EagleScout316 (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced and meaningless
I deleted this sentence as it is unreferenced, not relevent to the subject of this article and practically meaningless:

"The idea was rehabilitated in the 20th century by Martin Heidegger under the new name Sein, as in his famous work Sein und Zeit (Being and Time)." Which idea was rehabilitated under the name "Sein" and why is it relevent to an article on ghosts? Please explain....


 * I appreciate your asking the question and resisting the revert instinct. I do not have my copy of Being and time in front of me right now, but I will provide the page number as soon as I have the book.  Namely, the "Being" Heidegger refers to is closely related to the idea of a soul, as he himself writes in his introduction.  Thus the "primitive animism" in a way became respectable philosophically in the twentieth century, through the work of this great philosopher.  Katzmik (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And why is this unreferenced bizarre bit of mixed metaphors relevent to the intro on an article about ghosts? Does it convey indispensible info on the subject?: "Their ubiquity is attested to by their apparition even in the unlikely area of Mathematics, when Bishop Berkeley sought to exorcise the Ghosts of departed quantities of Isaac Newton's new science." Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is well taken. Let's see what other editors have to say about it. There was at least one who did not object and in fact added two links to the protagonists involved. Katzmik (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the Heidegger reference, as long as a page number is eventually added. Also, a bit of clarification in the article, like that provided above (i.e., "Namely, the 'Being' Heidegger refers to is closely related to the idea of a soul...") could help. The Berkeley/Newton bit is a bit tangential, but it's interesting, and I don't see what harm it can do to such a short article. But Colin4C may be right about the intro not being the best place for it. Although infinitesimal calculus isn't exactly part of "popular culture," the best fit may actually be after the first two sentences of the "Popular culture" section, which could now read something like, "Ghosts are prominent in the popular cultures of various nations. The ghost story is ubiquitous across all cultures from oral folktales to works of literature. Their ubiquity in Western society is attested to by their apparition even in the unlikely area of Mathematics, when Bishop Berkeley sought to exorcise the Ghosts of departed quantities of Isaac Newton's new science" (note that I added "in Western society"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can find neither "in western society" nor your note. Where are your edits exactly?  If you get a chance please add a footnote to the Heidegger sentence (I am not too good technically) with this additional information, and I will look up the page number in the English edition. Katzmik (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sorry, I got it. My only problem with your proposed edit is placing it in "popular culture", which is not exactly where science belongs.  Katzmik (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not too strongly in favour of moving it to "Popular culture," but the question is, if the intro isn't the best place for it, then what is the best place? Perhaps "Popular culture" could just be renamed to "Culture" or "Sociocultural aspects" or something along those lines, and then the line could be moved there? Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Cultural references"? On the other hand, if it does not bother either of us to keep it in the lead, we can wait for input from other editors: "don't fix it if it ain't broke". Katzmik (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree--I'm not too bothered by its presence in the lead, but if others are, then I'd go along with changing "Popular culture" to "Cultural references" and then sticking it in there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Given the number of people who visit this page every hour, I find it remarkable that only three people have commented so far.  Katzmik (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)  P.S. As a professional mathematician, I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that Ghost is visited once every 20 seconds, by my calculations :) Katzmik (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Still only three of us...so I've asked for some input from WikiProject Paranormal here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what was said at WikiProject Paranormal, I am a mathematician that just stumbled onto this page. but the material about "Ghosts of departed quantities" would seem more relevant in Cultural references section. As it is written it sounds to me like it is speaking about american's beliefe (since it follows a sentance on this and speaks broadly about "The ubiquity of this belief."  At the ubiquity of this belief perhaps in the 1650's (Though it seems to me the term Ghost was chosen to ridicule Newton, so maybe it doesn't even speak about belief back then.)  Anyways it is a simply a reference to ghosts at best, and should be in a more appropriate section. Thenub314 (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)