Do we know ghosts don't exist

[darkwinter]

If you define a 'ghost' as someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for (ie. that person should not be present because they are physically elsewhere, dead or don't actually exist) then I think we can emphatically say that ghosts DO exist! There are many such experiences recorded with many different causes (misperception and hallucination being prominent ones).

It's a possibility, but I don't think that's the definition that immediately springs to mind when people hear "ghost"; normally it seems to refer to an entity of some kind, rather than an experience. The word "haunting" seems to fit the above definition more, and under that definition it would be hard to deny that there have been hauntings recorded in the past.

[Mulder]

I am drawing my definition from practical experience rather than popular mythology and fiction.

[Mongrel]

The common definition disagrees, haunting seems to fit your explanation better.

[Mulder]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

[darkwinter]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

Perhaps what the semantic debate can do for us is simply motivate a reframing of the question. The original "Do we know ghosts don't exist?" is misleading in a way (as we have seen), and if we simply try instead to answer the question "How do we explain 'haunting' experiences?" we can get to the interesting part of the discussion without the detour into defining a metaphysical phenomenon.

I've not done nearly enough research on the matter to be able to weigh in on this question myself, though - and I know there are a few on this forum who have, so I think I'll just sit back and read with interest.

[Mike Hall]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

Is that definition really practical or useful when discussing ghosts? I would have thought that the majority of people would have the understanding that by 'ghost' one means 'spirit of the dead'. To redefine 'ghost' in the way you have will only lead to equivocation problems further down the line. I could easily imagine a newspaper editor running astory - "Skeptics claim evidence shows ghosts DO exist!" - but where we would be talking about evidence for ghosts as you define them, the majority of readers would have the understanding that we were discussing "spirits of the dead".

Surely better to come up with a new term, say "ghostoid", to refer to "the experience of a human or animal presence which cannot be immediately physically accounted for". Possible causes of ghostoid experiences could include an encounter with the spirit of a dead person (for which we would require extraordinary evidence), or simply hallucination, waking dream, mistake, deliberate hoax, etc.

[darkwinter]

Surely better to come up with a new term, say "ghostoid", to refer to "the experience of a human or animal presence which cannot be immediately physically accounted for". Possible causes of ghostoid experiences could include an encounter with the spirit of a dead person (for which we would require extraordinary evidence), or simply hallucination, waking dream, mistake, deliberate hoax, etc.

Not sure we need a new word where we already have one. "Haunting". Reframe the question as per my previous post and the semantic debate dissolves.

[Mike Hall]

Not sure we need a new word where we already have one. "Haunting". Reframe the question as per my previous post and the semantic debate dissolves.

Well, the word itself is unimportant. What is important is that we have a term to refer to ghost-like experiences that won't be mistaken by other people as implying that the spirits of dead people can come back from the afterlife.

Do you not think that "haunting" suffers from the same problem as "ghost"? In that it is generally used to refer to a returned spirit which is tied to a particular location, item or person?

"Skeptics claim evidence shows house is haunted"

[Mulder]

"Skeptics claim evidence shows ghosts DO exist!"

I have no problem with that! Ghosts, as a reported experience, certainly exist. The problem of the definition of the word ghost is actually central to the whole skewed public perception of ghosts. The common definition is fine for fiction and tabloid journalists but it simply doesn't agree with reality.

If I see the figure of a human standing motionless and expressionless outside my window and it suddenly vanishes, I would be entitled to call it a ghost. However, I have no right to say it is a spirit as I have no evidence that it is.

The ghost of the movies interacts freely with their environment and human observers. It behaves as if it were a spirit - something still 'alive' in some sense. Fictional ghosts exhibit character, personality and motivations. Real ghosts generally (except in a few cases which are probably entirely hallucinatory) do not exhibit any of these. They are simply there and then they are gone (not always vanishing - sometimes just walking away). They generally do not interact with observers or show any awareness of them. They recall much more a hallucination or misperception than a spirit.

[darkwinter]

Well, the word itself is unimportant. What is important is that we have a term to refer to ghost-like experiences that won't be mistaken by other people as implying that the spirits of dead people can come back from the afterlife.

Do you not think that "haunting" suffers from the same problem as "ghost"? In that it is generally used to refer to a returned spirit which is tied to a particular location, item or person?

"Skeptics claim evidence shows house is haunted"

Do you not think they might do the same with "ghostoid"? The problem is in the public perception of the phenomenon. Whatever word is used it seems likely that the media would report it in the same fashion.

[Mike Hall]

I have no problem with that! Ghosts, as a reported experience, certainly exist. The problem of the definition of the word ghost is actually central to the whole skewed public perception of ghosts. The common definition is fine for fiction and tabloid journalists but it simply doesn't agree with reality.

I won't disagree that ghosts, as a reported experience, exist. What I'm trying to say is that a "ghost" is an explanation, not a problem. Someone encounters something they can't explain and claims it was a ghost. "Ghost", surely, is their explanation for the experience, not their description of it?

[darkwinter]

So much for avoiding the semantic debate.

We can agree that these experiences, whatever name you want to attach to them, do happen. Surely the more worthwhile question is to ask what causes them, not which name should be used to refer to them.

[Mike Hall]

Do you not think they might do the same with "ghostoid"? The problem is in the public perception of the phenomenon. Whatever word is used it seems likely that the media would report it in the same fashion.

Perhaps. I think there is an understanding that the -oid postfix means something which bears a resemblance but is not actually the same as. Popularised through science fiction, of course, where humanoid doesn't mean human. Dawkins attempted for a while to popularise the term 'designoid' to refer to objects which appear to be designed but which are in fact products of nature.

Whatever -- as I say the word itself is not be important. What I think is important is that we have a term to describe the phenomena of ghost-like experiences which cannot be misunderstood as an implicit endorsement of the existence of spirits of the dead.

Actually, even "ghost-like experiences" would do! :)

[Mike Hall]

So much for avoiding the semantic debate.

We can agree that these experiences, whatever name you want to attach to them, do happen. Surely the more worthwhile question is to ask what causes them, not which name should be used to refer to them.

Yes, I think we can agree on that - but the question wasn't about the experiences, was it?

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"

That could be answered as "do we know that spirits of the dead don't exist" (answer: there is insufficient evidence to support that) or "do we know that people do not experience ghost-like events" (answer: We agree that ghost-like events do happen).

We need to be sure we answer the right question so that a) our answer is not misconstrued and used to misrepresent our position and b) we aren't misrepresenting the person asking the question by answering something they didn't ask us. :)

[Dr B]

Is now a good time to point out that science is probabilisitc and not deterministic and that the question itself is loaded and flawed - because it begs a specific perverse answer in the first instance.