That is indeed the general consensus, because whenever someone says "I saw a ghost", "I saw an alien spaceship", "I saw the yeti", "I can talk to the dead" or "the Virgin Mary appeared to me", scientists usually go "where's the evidence" and "there are simpler explanations to what you report". Like scientists are constantly trying to rain on everyone's parade. But what the general public is probably not aware of is that scientists rain on other scientists' parade all the time too, and not because of jealousy or professional interests. They do it because it is the job of a scientist to try to disprove any hypothesis. The principle on which science is built is that there is some kind of objective reality out there, and because no amount of challenges can change that reality, the more we criticize ideas, the more trust we can put in the ones that survive the ordeal.



Yes, I agree. And that is a very reasonable way to act, too, because current scientific theories were arrived at after decades and sometimes centuries of work that was controlled, criticized, repeated independently, with experiments and measurements that anyone can arrive at, irrespective of their beliefs, cultural bias or preconceived ideas. For example, after thousands of years of observing that people fell ill and sometimes died, and after thousands of years of trying to explain disease by models that were not substantiated by the scientific method, we had made zero progress in health care. We still believed that diseases were caused by spirits, by curses, by God's will, by an imbalance between "humours", by a misalignment of invisible energy fields and other colourful but misguided principles. Then came the scientific method which, I hasten to say, did challenge the preconceived ideas of the most learned people of the day: and it generated the principle that disease was caused not by maledictions, but by extremely tiny life forms that could spread by contact. And because that theory was tested and shown to be true, it was rapidly adopted by all honest practitioners of medicine, and accordingly our life expectancy more than doubled and we no longer die of the plague, smallpox or syphilis.

So when a TV actor shows up and peddles wristlets made of hazelwood and claims they can cure cancer, yes, scientists tend to say "that's nonsense" (to put it politely) before even checking if the claim is true. Not because they're close-minded, but because in that huge edifice of knowledge that was built by generations of people checking and double-checking facts and theories, there is no room for some surprise effect of hazelwood wristlets on cancer. This hostile reaction on the scientists' part does not need be the end of the story: if the hazelwood peddler can show that his trinkets do have an effect that can be measured, scientists will take notice. (They even study acupuncture seriously at the NIH, now). But for the peddler to defend his beliefs by simply saying "well, my hazelwood has helped me and these three other persons too so it works" just does not cut it. The burden of proof is on him, because his claim is hard to reconcile with everything else we know.



"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"? I agree. There is doubtless a near infinity of things we do not understand about the universe, that we may never understand, and that we may not even be capable of understanding. Any scientist knows that. That is however no reason to accept at face value any argument made for the existence of something that is unverifiable; that way does not lie discovery, it is simply an invitation to error.

Scientist No. 1 might offer a theory that 'ghosts' are simply optical illusions.

No. 2 might offer another, that 'ghosts' are simply hallucinations.

No. 3 might go a step further and insist 'ghosts are really ball lightning.

No. 4 might conclude they are really a trick of light and shadow.

No. 5 might conclude they are really limits of human perception.

These conclusions would have all been arrived at logically of course, and yet they are divided when it comes to opinions.

In the meantime, the unknown quantities known as 'ghosts' remain the enigma that they are.

Proof of absolutely nothing, of course, & for that matter pretty typical of any number of accounts over the years, but I mentioned a few minutes ago in my "Just aboslutely bizarre" thread that my FB post about my initial home intruder & his/her ensuing mischief inspired a couple of my friends to share allegedly ghost-related experiences --

I, too, had a ghost problem at my prior residence. Kept seeing the guy standing next to the bed staring out the window. I described him to my husband, who never saw him, but he was an older gentleman who wore a fedora type hat - it was like a cross between a fedora and a cowboy hat. So, after being there for 6 years, the very day we were moving, this guy around in his 40's comes to the house. He lived in a town north of there. It turns out he just decided to get out that day and drive past. His grandfather had built the house in the 50's and had passed away in his chair in the living room. He brought a big ole 8x10 photo of said grandfather, Ethol. It was him... the guy I'd seen almost every night for the whole 6 years. He had a comforting "vibe" to him. Oh, I told the grandson about him looking out that window and he told me that there used to be a little country store across the street (we were on a corner lot), and that he and his cousins would cross the street to purchase candy from the store and "Grandpa" would watch them from the bedroom window.



Re the ghost at the house where I lived: It was a very big old farmhouse dating to the turn of the century (1900). The rooms were enormous, including a very large kitchen. When I moved in and was unpacking stuff in the kitchen, I'd be standing at the kitchen sink (with a window that faced the back yard) and suddenly be aware that someone was behind me. I'd spin around and, in the doorway from the kitchen to the dining room, there was this guy, just standing there looking at me. I'd say he was about 5'6" or 5'7'; a solid build, but not fat by any means; fairly muscular, with a very pleasant face and very thick, brown hair (think Robert Redford's hair) that fell down in bangs on his forehead and was parted on the left side of his head. He was wearing nondescript work clothes--not denim, but the kind of thing guys wore to just work around the farm or home a long time ago. So I'd spin around, he'd be there, and then he just wasn't there anymore--like when you have a floater in your eye, you blink and it's gone. He appeared probably 20 times in the first four days I was in the house, and then he wasn't around again until I married my husband...then he showed up to check out my new husband, who was of course new to the house. I saw the guy one more time, standing at the front door watching me mow on a hot summer day, and never saw him again after that. When I first encountered him, I'd usually scream when I saw him (the first 10 times or so), and when I met my new neighbors, I said to them, "I imagine you wonder why there's so much screaming coming from house." The wife, who had actually grown up in that same house, just smiled and said, "No, it doesn't surprise us"--so I gather the guy had been a long-time presence in that house.

Respected by who, though? In woo circles, possibly, but objectively by anyone who rigorously tests their claims - I think not. Here is a quote from skepticblog about them:

The whole thing can be seen here: www.skepticblog.org/2009/06/22/hunting-the-ghost-hunters/

Their wiki entry describes Ed W as "... a self-taught, self-proclaimed expert demonologist, author, and lecturer..." and Lorraine W as "a professed clairvoyant and a light trance medium who worked closely with her husband."

I'm sorry but "respected researcher" does not belong anywhere near people professing to be "demonologist", "clairvoyant" or "medium"

Their website at www.warrens.net/Warrens-Bio.html makes this claim:
My emphasis there. Now, I would assert that all the unemphasised part is just complete nonsense, but I suppose can be subject to differing interpretations depending on your point of view and whether you accept the supernatural "explanation" for whatever was being talked about. However, for that last sentence, I'm calling complete bull - I would truly love to see their evidence for "spirits" visibly tearing a house apart, because I categorically don't believe that has ever happened or that whatever claims they are making will come anywhere near standing up to even the most superficial examination.