I see what you're saying, but I think I'll take my chances that discussing science, debunking, and rational means of investigating the sources of strange phenomena--even if it doesn't change their perceptions much--does less harm than outright ridicule of my friends and family because "I'm right and they're wrong." I actually expect to be able to explain away at least some of the things they're calling weird, and if that somehow causes them to walk away slightly more convinced than they had been before, I'm not sure how much actual "harm" that causes. On the other hand I know for an absolute fact that flat-out dismissals or ridicule would cause harm, on some level or another, and I firmly believe that part of the role is science is to provide constructive education rather than resorting to a somewhat irrational "I can't be so I won't talk about it."
Those are fair points, rahvin.Though in this case one of the reported "symptoms" of the haunting involves the owner of the house waking up to find a ghost woman sitting at the foot of her bed. I'm not sure there's a component of the house that could be broken enough to explain that one.
Yes, I know, the obvious answer around here is is "her head" is the broken component. And clearly we've got to address issues of the reliability of the observation, and also the trustworthiness of the source. In this case I've got a lot of sources and don't think they're all inclined to lie. But I also don't think I can really believe anyone else's experience, which is why I want to go and check it out myself.
Thanks for sharing. These are the kinds of stories that leave me scratching my head. I don't know you personally, you could be making it up, who can tell over the internet, but I've talked to a lot of people who have one or two stories like this. It's possible that every single one of them is either deluded or lying, but after a point it seems unrealistic that every single one of them is made up. But on the other hand I've never had anything remotely like any of those stories happen to me, and when there's doubt there's nothing like one's own experiences to put things to the test.
Thank you, Bodrius. That's almost exactly how I'm approaching the matter. I use "ghost" because that's what's already been applied to the house, but my real aim is to go exploring and find out the source of "all that weird stuff," whatever it may be.
If you're serious, invest in a decent digital audio recorder.... "EVP"
I think of all the weird phenomena you see on TV, EVP is one of the least convincing for me. Everything they show is always unintelligible, and doesn't sound anything like what they try to interpret it as. Still, it's one of many ways to play around.
And if you don't find any ghosts, you've still got a really cool little handheld digital audio recorder that has an SD slot and a pair of condenser mics and really, really good sound....
Yes, exactly! I like the way you think. And this is why this is a slashdot question, and wasn't posed on one of the ghost hunting sites.
Sometimes when I'm startled by a sound the room seems to flash/brighten. I've concluded that it's an effect of my pupils dilating quickly as part of my reaction. Any chance that might explain what you experienced?
I think you're having a misplaced cynicism attack here. I'm out to debunk far more than I'm out to encourage superstition. Debunking is a great scientific endeavor. But part of that process having a conversation about the superstition first, in order to better be able to explain things away.
And since when is any question that involves acquiring a handful of curious gadgets inappropriate for slashdot?
Definitely an interesting take. I'm not sure I'm ready to set up psychological experiments yet, but it's worth considering at some point. While getting started I'd worry that my planted evidence might just push people in the wrong direction and they wouldn't believe me later when I explained the tricks I'd played.
Thank you for the suggestions. A lot of what you mention definitely falls into the "measuring a baseline" that I was asking about. You want to be able to familiarize yourself with what's normal behavior--either of your equipment, or of the environment. Simply walking in without doing any of that research and then jumping at every little thing might be entertaining, but isn't very informative. Part of my goal would be to debunk things like "strange noises" by identifying the source, and that comes from putting the environment to the test.
I find that show entertaining, but frustrating and scientifically very unsatisfying. That's part of what prompted the question. They seem to ham it up at every noise, have mysterious devices with minimal explanation of what they're doing, but we're all supposed to jump with excitement when the device goes off (most of their toys could be random noise/light generators for all I can tell), and the EVP data that's a staple of every show is thoroughly unconvincing. I can't tell them that, but I can do my own tests and determine what's just typical late-night abandoned house kind of observations, and what's truly weird (and thus worth investigating, to determine the source, which could easily still be natural).
Thanks, that's definitely the sort of spirit of adventure I'm approaching this with. I fully expect the extent of my adventures to be some unexplained sounds, the discovery of some old pipes nobody knew were embedded in a wall, and that kind of thing. I think a dismissive, "meh, it's not possible so everything's boring and straightforward" would be a disappointing way to approach life. Having something mysterious happen and debunking it would be satisfying; experiencing something mysterious and not being able to explain it is a fun challenge, and a good story. That's all I'm looking for.
Sure. And I'd be the first to admit that a weird experience doesn't necessarily mean the soul of a deceased human being. I'd settle for being able to conclude "this house has really weird magnetic readings, and I'm either going to find out why or appreciate the mystery." I used the word ghost in the summary as a sort of catch-all for any of these unexplained phenomena that people might label as a haunting, but I'm not too attached to the label. And that's part of why I asked what to measure -- I'm not quite sure what kinds of tests might end up with interesting results, of whatever origin.
Heh, funny. But that's also the sort of thing a baseline test would demonstrate as normal pretty quickly. Get some blips in the lab, claim it's haunted. Get blips everywhere you go, then you've raised the bar for the kind signal required to become interesting. (Not even a ghost, of course, just interesting because it's something out of the ordinary but likely still explicable.) Part of what bothers me about the ghost shows is there's no sense of scale in any of their readings. If there's a blip, it's "a ghost." I want to know what a normal, simple, environmental blip is, versus what's an unusual reading.
Now you two have me curious what you're talking about. I used "ghosts" as kind of a catch-all for "things that go bump in the night" without really meaning to imply human origins. I'm guessing you're talking about other things of non-human origin that might possess/affect people. I'm of course just as skeptical of that sort of thing, but I do enjoy hearing about what others have experienced. Not going to push if you don't want to talk about it in a public forum, though.
One of my favorite books, actually. It's actually kind of why I want to do something like this, to debunk the "weird stuff" that other people talk about ends up being explainable. I know you can't prove a negative, but if you spend enough time searching for a positive and all you find are things that seem unusual at first but are explainable after some research, I think you're providing a genuinely good scientific service.
Thanks! That's a good suggestion, and the kind of thing I'm looking for. Things you can detect which are pretty normal phenomena, but which might cause apparently unexplained reactions/events in the world around you.
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim..
Sure. Mostly, I'm playing devil's advocate. "If you think they exist, go ahead and prove it, and I'll even organize an expedition to help you try to prove it." It's still fun for me.
Maybe you don't have the proper equipment to detect one.
Hence my question. I'm playing along enough I'd like to give everyone else the best chances of making their point, even if I don't think it'll happen.
I'm aware you can't prove a negative. My best hope is maybe I get to spend some time identifying some "weird" effects and then figuring out what causes them. Even if it's a temperature dip that turns out to be a draft from an unexpected location, or surprise radiation from an old family heirloom plate painted with uranium paint, or who knows what. It'd be fun to first locate and then try to solve some mysteries, small or insignificant as they might be. And if I run into something that I can't explain, that's fun, too. Honestly not sure even then I'd call it a "ghost" (because you're right to say nobody really knows what one is) but I'd settle for "this house seems to have unexplained magnetic fields, and that's interesting."
It's not that crazy to go along with your family's quirks, is it? Tell me you only argue with them when they're wrong, and never go along with anything they think, but they always think everything YOU think is correct? I'd rather have a little fun with them, especially in a scientific fashion, than pick a fight.
One of the reasons I don't throw the idea of ghosts (or whatever) out entirely is the sheer number of otherwise rational, sensible people I know who claim direct, personal experience with something inexplicable. I still try to argue, debunk, and look for holes in their stories, but generally they're adamant about what they experienced. Figure I might as well have some fun exploring with them.
Honestly, I thought it sounded like a fun way to spend a night with some friends, and figured I should do something more than sit in the dark asking "What's that noise?" every few seconds. I'm a geek at heart, so why not take some readings, record some data, and find out what kinds of things (weird temperature pockets, magnetic fields) are all around us that we just don't notice most of the time?
I wrote up entire, multiple-page analyses of why certain classes were getting ignored by the player base...
I sympathize a lot with most of your post, but that particular line made me shudder a little. When you're a developer with streams of input coming in from all sides, sometimes a massive analysis is too daunting--or exhausting--to properly appreciate or deal with. It's definitely possible to get too much feedback, particularly all at once, and especially if it comes across as argumentative or boils down to "you're going to have to scrap everything to make me happy." (Not accusing you of doing that, but I've certainly received that kind of missive.)
As an example, I had one player who sent me a lengthy message explaining why all of my character classes were ridiculous after only playing my superhero RPG for a couple of days. Half of his suggestions were a list of skills that were already in the game (apparently he hadn't noticed), a quarter of the suggestions was for a mentalist class nearly identical to the already-existing psion, and the other quarter was a description of a new class that was basically a copy of his favorite comic book superhero, and completely unsuited for a whole class of skills. I'll admit I tried to read the wall of text once, skimmed a few sections a second time to confirm his suggestions were 90% trash and 10% distant maybes, and at that point dropped the whole thing.
If instead he'd sent a short, simple, few-sentence list of really good suggestions rather than swamping me with mostly trash, his suggestions might have gotten more consideration. Again, not saying that's what you did, just giving you a peek into how it feels on the other side. When I'm getting dozens of little bits of feedback on the forums, and through the bug report system, and through in-game chat, and in-game messages, plus working on my own development plans... it's easier to snap off quick fixes to short problems than contemplate redesigning large chunks of the game based on someone else's vision.
Funny. For the RPG I run, players regularly make suggestions. I rarely take them exactly as described, but I have often incorporate aspects of those suggestions into the game. Players are always *thrilled* when I do, because they all want their ideas in the game -- that's why they suggested them in the first place! It may be different because it's a small game with a generous community, rather than a fan looking at what they perceive as a "rich and successful" author, but I can't think of any way in which suggestions on a forum could be taken as anything but suggestions for things to use.
*shrug* Maybe it'll get me in trouble someday, but I just can't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying, but I think I'll take my chances that discussing science, debunking, and rational means of investigating the sources of strange phenomena--even if it doesn't change their perceptions much--does less harm than outright ridicule of my friends and family because "I'm right and they're wrong." I actually expect to be able to explain away at least some of the things they're calling weird, and if that somehow causes them to walk away slightly more convinced than they had been before, I'm not sure how much actual "harm" that causes. On the other hand I know for an absolute fact that flat-out dismissals or ridicule would cause harm, on some level or another, and I firmly believe that part of the role is science is to provide constructive education rather than resorting to a somewhat irrational "I can't be so I won't talk about it."
Those are fair points, rahvin.Though in this case one of the reported "symptoms" of the haunting involves the owner of the house waking up to find a ghost woman sitting at the foot of her bed. I'm not sure there's a component of the house that could be broken enough to explain that one.
Yes, I know, the obvious answer around here is is "her head" is the broken component. And clearly we've got to address issues of the reliability of the observation, and also the trustworthiness of the source. In this case I've got a lot of sources and don't think they're all inclined to lie. But I also don't think I can really believe anyone else's experience, which is why I want to go and check it out myself.
Thanks for sharing. These are the kinds of stories that leave me scratching my head. I don't know you personally, you could be making it up, who can tell over the internet, but I've talked to a lot of people who have one or two stories like this. It's possible that every single one of them is either deluded or lying, but after a point it seems unrealistic that every single one of them is made up. But on the other hand I've never had anything remotely like any of those stories happen to me, and when there's doubt there's nothing like one's own experiences to put things to the test.
Thanks! I will check those out.
Thanks for the offer, Syberz. Sadly I'm deep in the American southwest. I appreciate the spirit and the suggestions, though.
Thank you, Bodrius. That's almost exactly how I'm approaching the matter. I use "ghost" because that's what's already been applied to the house, but my real aim is to go exploring and find out the source of "all that weird stuff," whatever it may be.
If you're serious, invest in a decent digital audio recorder. ... "EVP"
I think of all the weird phenomena you see on TV, EVP is one of the least convincing for me. Everything they show is always unintelligible, and doesn't sound anything like what they try to interpret it as. Still, it's one of many ways to play around.
And if you don't find any ghosts, you've still got a really cool little handheld digital audio recorder that has an SD slot and a pair of condenser mics and really, really good sound. ...
Yes, exactly! I like the way you think. And this is why this is a slashdot question, and wasn't posed on one of the ghost hunting sites.
Sometimes when I'm startled by a sound the room seems to flash/brighten. I've concluded that it's an effect of my pupils dilating quickly as part of my reaction. Any chance that might explain what you experienced?
And since when is any question that involves acquiring a handful of curious gadgets inappropriate for slashdot?
Definitely an interesting take. I'm not sure I'm ready to set up psychological experiments yet, but it's worth considering at some point. While getting started I'd worry that my planted evidence might just push people in the wrong direction and they wouldn't believe me later when I explained the tricks I'd played.
Thank you for the suggestions. A lot of what you mention definitely falls into the "measuring a baseline" that I was asking about. You want to be able to familiarize yourself with what's normal behavior--either of your equipment, or of the environment. Simply walking in without doing any of that research and then jumping at every little thing might be entertaining, but isn't very informative. Part of my goal would be to debunk things like "strange noises" by identifying the source, and that comes from putting the environment to the test.
I find that show entertaining, but frustrating and scientifically very unsatisfying. That's part of what prompted the question. They seem to ham it up at every noise, have mysterious devices with minimal explanation of what they're doing, but we're all supposed to jump with excitement when the device goes off (most of their toys could be random noise/light generators for all I can tell), and the EVP data that's a staple of every show is thoroughly unconvincing. I can't tell them that, but I can do my own tests and determine what's just typical late-night abandoned house kind of observations, and what's truly weird (and thus worth investigating, to determine the source, which could easily still be natural).
Thanks, that's definitely the sort of spirit of adventure I'm approaching this with. I fully expect the extent of my adventures to be some unexplained sounds, the discovery of some old pipes nobody knew were embedded in a wall, and that kind of thing. I think a dismissive, "meh, it's not possible so everything's boring and straightforward" would be a disappointing way to approach life. Having something mysterious happen and debunking it would be satisfying; experiencing something mysterious and not being able to explain it is a fun challenge, and a good story. That's all I'm looking for.
Sure. And I'd be the first to admit that a weird experience doesn't necessarily mean the soul of a deceased human being. I'd settle for being able to conclude "this house has really weird magnetic readings, and I'm either going to find out why or appreciate the mystery." I used the word ghost in the summary as a sort of catch-all for any of these unexplained phenomena that people might label as a haunting, but I'm not too attached to the label. And that's part of why I asked what to measure -- I'm not quite sure what kinds of tests might end up with interesting results, of whatever origin.
Heh, funny. But that's also the sort of thing a baseline test would demonstrate as normal pretty quickly. Get some blips in the lab, claim it's haunted. Get blips everywhere you go, then you've raised the bar for the kind signal required to become interesting. (Not even a ghost, of course, just interesting because it's something out of the ordinary but likely still explicable.) Part of what bothers me about the ghost shows is there's no sense of scale in any of their readings. If there's a blip, it's "a ghost." I want to know what a normal, simple, environmental blip is, versus what's an unusual reading.
Now you two have me curious what you're talking about. I used "ghosts" as kind of a catch-all for "things that go bump in the night" without really meaning to imply human origins. I'm guessing you're talking about other things of non-human origin that might possess/affect people. I'm of course just as skeptical of that sort of thing, but I do enjoy hearing about what others have experienced. Not going to push if you don't want to talk about it in a public forum, though.
One of my favorite books, actually. It's actually kind of why I want to do something like this, to debunk the "weird stuff" that other people talk about ends up being explainable. I know you can't prove a negative, but if you spend enough time searching for a positive and all you find are things that seem unusual at first but are explainable after some research, I think you're providing a genuinely good scientific service.
Thanks! That's a good suggestion, and the kind of thing I'm looking for. Things you can detect which are pretty normal phenomena, but which might cause apparently unexplained reactions/events in the world around you.
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. .
Sure. Mostly, I'm playing devil's advocate. "If you think they exist, go ahead and prove it, and I'll even organize an expedition to help you try to prove it." It's still fun for me.
Maybe you don't have the proper equipment to detect one.
Hence my question. I'm playing along enough I'd like to give everyone else the best chances of making their point, even if I don't think it'll happen.
I'm aware you can't prove a negative. My best hope is maybe I get to spend some time identifying some "weird" effects and then figuring out what causes them. Even if it's a temperature dip that turns out to be a draft from an unexpected location, or surprise radiation from an old family heirloom plate painted with uranium paint, or who knows what. It'd be fun to first locate and then try to solve some mysteries, small or insignificant as they might be. And if I run into something that I can't explain, that's fun, too. Honestly not sure even then I'd call it a "ghost" (because you're right to say nobody really knows what one is) but I'd settle for "this house seems to have unexplained magnetic fields, and that's interesting."
One of the reasons I don't throw the idea of ghosts (or whatever) out entirely is the sheer number of otherwise rational, sensible people I know who claim direct, personal experience with something inexplicable. I still try to argue, debunk, and look for holes in their stories, but generally they're adamant about what they experienced. Figure I might as well have some fun exploring with them.
- Less of a nut job than you think
True, but sometimes you do get some thoughtful 2's, 3's, and 4's, right?
I wrote up entire, multiple-page analyses of why certain classes were getting ignored by the player base ...
I sympathize a lot with most of your post, but that particular line made me shudder a little. When you're a developer with streams of input coming in from all sides, sometimes a massive analysis is too daunting--or exhausting--to properly appreciate or deal with. It's definitely possible to get too much feedback, particularly all at once, and especially if it comes across as argumentative or boils down to "you're going to have to scrap everything to make me happy." (Not accusing you of doing that, but I've certainly received that kind of missive.)
As an example, I had one player who sent me a lengthy message explaining why all of my character classes were ridiculous after only playing my superhero RPG for a couple of days. Half of his suggestions were a list of skills that were already in the game (apparently he hadn't noticed), a quarter of the suggestions was for a mentalist class nearly identical to the already-existing psion, and the other quarter was a description of a new class that was basically a copy of his favorite comic book superhero, and completely unsuited for a whole class of skills. I'll admit I tried to read the wall of text once, skimmed a few sections a second time to confirm his suggestions were 90% trash and 10% distant maybes, and at that point dropped the whole thing.
If instead he'd sent a short, simple, few-sentence list of really good suggestions rather than swamping me with mostly trash, his suggestions might have gotten more consideration. Again, not saying that's what you did, just giving you a peek into how it feels on the other side. When I'm getting dozens of little bits of feedback on the forums, and through the bug report system, and through in-game chat, and in-game messages, plus working on my own development plans ... it's easier to snap off quick fixes to short problems than contemplate redesigning large chunks of the game based on someone else's vision.
*shrug* Maybe it'll get me in trouble someday, but I just can't see it.