3.6 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghost hunting | 4/7 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_hunting | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:20:17.382938+00:00 | kb-cron |
== Skepticism == Critics question ghost hunting's methodology, particularly its use of instrumentation, as there is no scientifically proven link between the existence of ghosts and cold spots or electromagnetic fields. According to skeptical investigator Joe Nickell, the typical ghost hunter is practicing pseudoscience. Nickell says that ghost hunters often arm themselves with EMF meters, thermometers that can identify cold spots, and wireless microphones that eliminate background noise, pointing out the equipment being used to try to detect ghosts is not designed for the job. "The least likely explanation for any given reading is it is a ghost," maintains Nickell. Orbs of light that show up on photos, he says, are often particles of dust or moisture. "Voices" picked up by tape recorders can be radio signals or noise from the recorder, EMF detectors can be set off by faulty wiring, microwave towers, iron, recording equipment, or cell phones, and heat sensors can pick up reflections off of mirrors or other metal surfaces. Nickell has also criticized the practice of searching only in the dark, saying that since some ghosts are described as "shadows or dark entities," he conducts searches in lighted rather than darkened conditions. According to investigator Benjamin Radford, most ghost-hunting groups, including The Atlantic Paranormal Society, make many methodological mistakes. According to Radford, "[a]fter watching episodes of Ghost Hunters and other similar programs, it quickly becomes clear to anyone with a background in science that the methods used are both illogical and unscientific". Anyone can be a ghost investigator, "failing to consider alternative explanations for anomalous… phenomena", considering emotions and feelings as "evidence of ghostly encounters". "Improper and unscientific investigation methods" for example "using unproven tools and equipment", "sampling errors", "ineffectively using recording devices" and "focusing on the history of the location... and not the phenomena". In his article for Skeptical Inquirer Radford concludes that ghost hunters should care about doing a truly scientific investigation: "I believe that if ghosts exist, they are important and deserve to be taken seriously. Most of the efforts to investigate ghosts so far have been badly flawed and unscientific – and, not surprisingly, fruitless." Although the majority of ghost hunters believe orbs are paranormal / supernatural, skeptic Brian Dunning says that they are usually particles of dust that are reflected by light when a picture is taken. In other cases, they may be bugs or water droplets. He contends that "there are no plausible hypotheses that describe the mechanism by which a person who dies will become a hovering ball of light that appears on film but is invisible to the eye." He does not believe there is any science behind these beliefs; if there were, then there would be some kind of discussion of who, what and why this can happen. In his investigations he can not find any "plausible hypothesis" that orbs are anything paranormal. Science writer Sharon Hill reviewed over 1,000 "amateur research and investigation groups" (ARIGs), writing that "879 identified with the category of 'ghosts'". Hill reports that many groups used the terms "science" or "scientific" when describing themselves; however they overwhelmingly display neither understanding of nor adherence to scientific norms. Hill writes: