Sue Darroch and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

Posted by Matthew Didier

It's all lies... absolute nonsense! Right?

I mean, silly ghost stories! You've got to be 100% silly to buy into that nonsense! Right?

Well... no, you don't.

In fact, I submit this challenge for some of the commentators here... Go to any REAL scientist (not a CSICOPian or CFI-ian as they are corrupt targets) and ask this question...

"Do you think there is no such thing as ghosts and it's all bunk?"

Now, I've heard many people say, "You can't prove a negative." which is absolute and utter hogwash... but by the same token, without good data and evidence, you cannot prove something that, so far, has resisted the ability to capture that data. The evidence is "heresay".

Granted, that "heresay" is coming from some pretty solid sources in certain situations, but it's still "Witness Testimony vs. Actual Fact".

To state that something like this is bad data would mean discounting many things we take very much for granted... Science and exploration depend on hypothesis and "theory" for much... so although one CAN say that "Ghosts = Myths", they could very well be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In my opinion, and probably the opinion of any REAL person of science, ghosts MIGHT exist... and people do experience ghostly phenomena... the question is, what is the CAUSATION of that phenomena.

So far, there's no good answer.

To assume that "Ghosts = Dead Person" is not accurate... it's a possibility based on some observation, but I don't see it as a given...

Some think "Ghostly Activity = Temporal Lobe Hallucinations"... perhaps, but their data is currently in question through the efforts of a couple of universities.

Other's (I have heard this) think that "Ghostly Activity = The Witnesses Brain Damage"... This is easily discounted by reports witnessed by multiple witnesses.

Are ghosts all "bunk"? To make that statement and refute a lot of excellent witness testimony, you must bring evidence to the table... and make sure it's good enough to cover all cases.

...and what spurred this post... Are ghost stories legitimate "historical data".

Ready...

I don't believe so.

BUT...

They are folklore and oral tradition... and they are fine ways of conveying the stories of a place when in the right story-teller's hands.

As I said in my last post, "The best ghost stories END with the words ...and to this day, his/her ghost is still seen..." which means you CAN impart the history with a place's folkloric traditions.

This is not to say you MUST "fabricate" a ghost story for every site... just those site's that already have a "reputation".

Not only is this an affective tool in promoting the REAL story (by using the folklore as a backdrop), but it removes the stigma of "coolness" for the thrill seekers who might assume "breaking in" after hours is the only way to experience these things... now they will know they can go during business hours and they can ask, talk, and look around WITHOUT fear of being told to "Be Quiet!" as they are ruining the "real" history of a site.

Of course, this is my opinion... based on examples and studies of my own... and the fact that I've taught MORE people the history of my province through ghosts than I've honestly done as a re-enactor.

One last thing before I sign off... Please, if commenting by e-mail or whatever, don't call yourself a "sceptic" (or the American spelling, skeptic,) if you don't believe... that is not scepticism... that is non-belief. True scepticism is to doubt, not deny... to want better evidence before passing judgement, not having a judgement in place and shooing away any inconvenient facts or data without benefit of neutral examination.

Science is not solely the proclamation of what is known, science is also the exploration of what might be... and we will never progress from any points without at least entertaining a glance at possible hypothesis and theorem even if it does make us question our sacred beliefs... or non-beliefs.