Scientists Fake Ghosts

[jim360]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29939672

Hopefully people find this interesting... another demonstration that we can't really trust ourselves!

[Old_Geezer]

In common with many such claims, it is one thing to be able to recreate a particular experience, quite another to be able to show that is all it can be, and thus claim to have disproved other explanations. One would expect a particular feeling to be the result of something happening in the individual's brain. Eventually finding a way to create it should come as no surprise. But as such, the stated conclusion seems more an attempt to push a pre-formed personal belief, than make folk aware of a genuine emergent truth.

[pixie373]

That's interesting, but surprised it's ever been in doubt. The most obvious explanation is usually the correct one.

[jim360]

Hmm...

I make no secret of my scepticism about the existence of ghosts and the paranormal, and obviously from my point of view this experiment just serves to reinforce that. Obviously there are caveats and I am already aware of many of those, really, such as:

- this experiment only relates to a specific instance of the supposedly "paranormal"*, so hardly can be used to rule out all other such instances;
- Showing that something can be fake(d) doesn't mean that it definitely has been;
- We've seen on this site that belief in one form of the "paranormal"* doesn't automatically mean belief in all such forms, so I would hardly expect this to sway anyone's opinion.

In the end it's just one experiment but it's part of a general, undeniable pattern that shows that our minds play tricks on us quite a lot of the time. I don't think that pointing this out is "pushing a pre-formed personal belief". Hopefully this makes people at least a bit more sceptical of anything that relies heavily on personal accounts, or helps explain why people might be sceptical in that way. It's certainly not meant to be conclusive.

*It's been said that the paranormal is really just normal that's not been discovered yet, so apologies for using this word but it's the best I've got.

[pixie373]

I think it's up to others to prove "paranormal" exists. Somebody should be able to by now. Until then, I'll go with "blindingly obvious".

[Zacs-Master]

I'd love to see Naomi's take on this.

[jim360]

Yes, agreed that the burden of proof is on those who believe in the paranormal. I think this experiment ought to be fascinating in its own right because it serves to illustrate just how much we still don't know about ourselves. In so many ways, how things really are has been found to be far more incredible than anything we could have imagined.

[jomifl]

Up until the development of scientific thinking the human brain itself was the only reference point that it had. This resulted in a kind of logical bootstrapping which led to the acceptance of many kinds of irrational notions. The phrase ' I know it was there because I saw it' is on eof the commonest justifications for believing the unbelievable. The idea of failure of the mental processes is never entertained yet the flaws in the human brain's ability to process scanty information from unreliable sensors has been demonstrated time and time again. Add to this the ability to see what we want to see by involuntary reprogramming of the retina and ghosts are queuing up to infiltrate our 'reality'.. But of course once you have seen a ghost you know that they exist.

[Old_Geezer]

If proof is required then it falls on the person making a claim to supply it.

[atalanta]

"ghosts" are usually the result of drink, night-time and owls.
Ghosts are supposed to be white and fluttery and likely to go "wooooo". So are owls.
It's the drink which makes a person unable to distinguish the two.

[EDDIE51]

I once thought I saw a headless ghost in my parents bedroom. Turned out to be my Dad taking his shirt off!