The Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead

Everyone interested in the paranormal should have at least one book by Nickell. He quickly puts to rest all the ridiculous efforts of television ghost hunters, if we were gullible enough to believe them in the first place. This is a competent work, well documented. Anyone looking for sensationalism will be disappointed, Those looking for rational truth should be satisfied.

From the amount of repetition of terms and definitions, I assume this is a collection of articles slapped together to make a book, which I find a little annoying. The parenthetical notes at the end of sentence after sentence, listing sources, etc, are like speed bumps and a bit distracting. In spite of these few minor gripes, I still found the material itself quite interesting and engaging. The author states from the start that when he makes an investigation into a claim, he's going to go with the simplest explanations requiring the least amount of assumptions, (Occam's razor). Some see this as having the intent to debunk and dismiss, but in reality it's simply to find a solution to a mystery. Were the solution actual proof of the paranormal, so be it. But this has yet to be the case.One interesting thing brought up that I never really thought about myself- why exactly do ghosts wear clothing? Aren't they existing in a different plane of 'spiritual' existence? How then did non-spiritual, material items 'pass on' along with them?Other, probably even better scientifically based paranormal books exist, (I have two in mind to read), but this book I believe is the only one dealing solely with ghosts/spiritualism. Recommended if the interest in the subject is there.

The Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead  This book was written in such a Skeptical Manner as to be totally useless to anyone but a Total Skeptic.

Joe Nickell is what an investigator of the paranormal should be. He is open minded but not to the extent of a garbage can. He uses logic and science to investigate not high tech nonsense. I love his style and this book. If you want to learn something about ghost hunting then please turn off the "Ghost Hunters" and read this book. Read what a honest to goodness investigator does, not some true believing inept BS artist.As the Great Carl Sagan was found of saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You say you seen a ghost or a house that is haunted, then show me the evidence. Read this book and great insight into the way a real investigation is carried out.

The author begins with an air of objectivism."I have tried to avoid the approach of "believers" and "debunkers" who too often start with an answer and work backward to the evidence, looking just for that which seems to support their prior convictions, thus exhibiting what is termed 'conformational bias'. I have sought instead to discover the best evidence, and let it lead to the most likely solutions, following the precept known as Occam's razor, which holds that the simplest tenable explanation - the one requiring the fewest assumptions - is the most likely correct."Agreed that this is a valid approach, but was it truly followed? From the introduction:* Ghosts defined "most commonly" as " vampires, ghouls and zombies"* If non-solid, "typically viewed as a type of spirit ... angels and demons, elves, fairies, ... and some types of monsters"* Ghosts are, by definition then, allegedly paranormalAnd to define paranormal, ref: Wikipedia and various dictionary sources:* Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.* That indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure.* Pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.* Seemingly outside normal sensory channels.They do use the qualifiers 'seemingly' and 'purportedly' in some definitions, but in essence, they define paranormal as *non-real* phenomena. So since the author purports to present an objective analysis, 'paranormal' need be stated as tentative, with the zombies and vampires cast aside.The book is in four parts:Part 1, "The Haunting Impulse", which deals primarily with our 'predisposition' to 'want to believe' in the non-physical, due in many cases to religious tautologies, as well as the hope and desire for a hereafter. It also covers phenomenon not motivated accordingly, but since desires of that ilk are germane to alleged 'fantasies', I'll focus only on that.In this section, Nickell provides an interesting but brief history of man's penchant for supernatural belief, from the Old Testament and early Catholic Church onward, citing various mostly English writers who took opposing sides. From 'The discoverie of witchcraft' to 'The Certainty of the Worlds of spirits', where he dismisses alleged incidents as explainable as 'waking dreams', a present day attempt by science to explain away any and all spiritual encounters. The waking dream premise is cited throughout the book, but keep in mind that while this state of consciousness can occur, it is not disproof that an actual paranormal event can occur.Known contrived or delusional epics are revealed, but if a truly objective evaluation of NDE experiences was to be done, case histories of where there was strong evidence of validity due to unexplained data were NOT presented. Two examples are where during surgery, cardiac and brain function ceases, but the recovered patient has seen non-trangressed areas of the hospital, or heard words uttered by personnel during the bodily outage. Asking a tenured surgeon or nurse can be revealing, although they often shun interviews, and for good reason!The bulk of the book, Parts 2 & 3, cite case after case that were either debunked, or simply denied legitimacy by the author as either in violation of scientific evidence, and in some cases in violation of parsimony (Occam's Razor), which promotes the simplest explanation as the most viable, IOW anything involving the currently unknowable is therefore false, due to its unanswerable complexity. Occam's Razor is often employed as a subjective way of dismissing anything out-of-hand that may not fit a consensus paradigm, ergo physical matter is "all there is!"Part 4 covers the history of ghost hunting, which predates the middle ages, and has become popular today, due to films like 'Ghost Busters', 'Ghost' with Patrick Swayze, and the current 'Ghost Hunters' TV show. Rule it as entertainment only, but there is much current supportive data. I myself performed experiments over a two year period, 1961 to 1963 with non-corporeal contacts, some done double-blind, and with numerous mental exchanges. I neither then nor now had/ have any motives to contrive or deceive, only a penchant for investigative science. And to continue on after death, I could care less, although there is ample evidence of an ongoing existence. Either way, reality rather than 'wishful thinking' will rule the day.Simply due to known frauds, and various synaptical brain experiments, is methodological naturalism a hard established fact within bio systems? Current data from quantum theory observations overtly defy Newtonian and even aspects of Einsteinium physics. To attribute all life in the Cosmos to carbon based molecule constructs, and cognition to synaptic activity may be short sighted. A 'center' of consciousness has yet to be defined within the brain, simply an interface to sensory input and bodily functions.So is it rational to overtly rule all spiritual data as either fraud or delusion based on certain known instances? Many/ most of known cases where someone perceives a relative dying before the phone rings, or has a spiritual visitation is by one who has absolutely no desire to lie about the event, nor whom covets an a priori delusional mindset. Events such as these are ubiquitous in today's world AND throughout history, as are NDE occurences with supportive data.The author states up front that objectivity is his goal, "approach[ing] the subject with an open mind, convinced that paranormal claims should be carefully examined with the intent of explaining them." Or as I took it, explaining them away.While the book is engrossing and entertaining to a high degree, and while an inclusive chronicle of myths and falsehoods over the ages, it fails to chronicle confirmatory data where extant, a requirement of true rational thought. And rather than confirmatory bias in support of a priori notions by the public, I see the shoe on the other foot. It appears more probable that it is the science community and their Skeptic cohorts that are struggling with 'conformational bias'.

This book is described as taking neither a credulous or dismissive approach . However only a few pages in and it’s obvious the author wants to be seen as ‘the no nonsense , dismissive empiricist’ , very much in the same tired light as James Randi , Richard Wiseman and many others . In essence people are simply wrong if they believe in ghosts . The author makes reference to the principle of Occam's razor as if this is somehow the gold standard for scientific scrutiny. However my understanding is that Occam’s razor is more commonly used as a guiding heuristic whereas the author seem to view it as a principle for absolute truth.At one point the author states that reference to quantum theory is based on a ‘gross misunderstanding’ and that ‘the fact remains that once the brain is dead brain function ceases…’ . He never attempts to offer support for these sweeping statements nor does he attempt to provide a discussion of counter claims made by other respected scientists in these fields (and for those who don’t know there are plenty)!! Basically not worth the money , the author appears to be closed minded , ill informed and egotistical !

everything fine.

This is hardly "the science" of ghosts--the author basically goes around investigating ghost legends, doesn't find any ghosts and tells us repeatedly that people can easily imagine things that aren't there. In one case he even uses a witness's insistence on being awake as evidence that the witness was asleep. ("This insistence on being awake is [typical of a waking dream]"). Alright then. If we already know that someone can't have ever seen a ghost, I don't see what the point is in reading books about it.Sure, there's some value in doing that, and sure, there are a few interesting stories later in the book, but for the most part it's not a scientific investigation of ghost reports. The kind of people who believe legends from several hundred years ago without a basic investigation into their origin are unlikely to ever come within miles of a skeptical book anyway.Aside, the author is a little self-absorbed and seems to be starved for attention. There are some cringe-worthy passages and recurring themes in here, as he lets us know that he was "in town to receive an award" but decided to drop by for an investigation, etc. He also litters the book with his sketches, watercolours and photographs of the site locations, alternating them to make sure we recognize that he's multi-talented. I mean hey, there aren't any ghosts so we might as well get some insight into Joe's personal life.

Joe Nickells Vorgehen bei der Untersuchung von Spuk und anderen erzählten seltsamen Geschichten ist ebenso schlicht wie überzeugend:Die erste Frage muss sein: Ist es überhaupt wahr, was erzählt wird? Also, kann man wirklich Leute finden, die diese Phänomene selbst erlebt und als unerklärlich empfunden haben? Nicht solche Berichte wie: es soll man jemand dies und das erzählt haben, wobei die Person nicht einmal namentlich genannt werden kann. Und oft stellten sich angebliche Geistersichtungen als bloße Fantasieerzählungen heraus, die entweder von vorn herein gezielt erfunden wurden (also durch eine literarische Vorlage enstanden, wie z.B. die Engel von Mons) oder von Leuten aus Spaß in die Welt gesetzt wurden ("The Doctor's Tale", das heute sogar durch englische Schulbücher "geistert").Findet man tatsächlich jemanden, der von eigenen Erlebnissen spricht, stellt sich häufig heraus, dass derjenige eigentlich nicht sicher ist, dass es sich um Spuk handelte. Immer wieder schränken die Leute dann ein, dass sie nur Geräusche gehört hätten, deren Ursache ihnen unklar war. Oder meinten etwas gesehen zu haben, aber es könne auch eine Sinnestäuschung gewesen sein.Durch Nickels flotte Schreibe und seine humorvolle Darstellung (anders als James Randi wird er aber nie zynisch), eine spannende Lektüre, wenn auch (deshalb ein Punkt Abzug) manchmal auffällt, dass es sich hier größtenteils um Artikel aus dem "Skeptical Inquirer" handelt, weshalb einige Begriffe wie Simulacrum wiederholt erklärt werden, was bei einem durchgehenden Lesen etwas redundant wirkt.Es wäre schon interessant gewesen, wenn wenigstens ein paar Geschichten nicht völlig zerbröselt wären, sobald man einfach ernsthaft nachforscht. Doch im Endeffekt gilt, was Joe Nickell mehrfach dazu stellt: "Ja, es gibt Geister. Sie leben in der unendlichen Fantasie der Menschen."Und es ist schon sehr interessant, zu welcher Selbst-Suggestion der menschliche Geist fähig ist, dass man scheinbare Sinneswahrnehmungen oder sogar sehr reale Empfindungen, wie eben Furcht, ohne handfesten tatsächlichen Anlass hervorrufen kann.

this book looks like garbage worst book i have ever read