There is no scientific proof that ghosts are real, and there never will be.
When I say that, some people seem outraged, as if I’m betraying them. I’m supposed to be a real ghost researcher, right…?
Well, if we’re talking about scientific proof, you need to know this: That phrase — in popular use among paranormal researchers — is technically an oxymoron. There is no such thing as scientific proof… for anything.
I’ve used the word “proof” in many of my articles and podcasts. Generally, I mean that there’s compelling evidence to suggest that ghosts are real, or that we’ve just encountered one, or… well, whatever the discussion is about. Most people understand that.
When I’ve used the phrase “scientific proof,” I’ve been talking about using scientific methods and devices to present sufficient evidence to convince most people that something — so far, unexplained — is going on at haunted sites.
And, in most cases, it’s reasonable to think that ghosts might be an explanation for that unexplained (or paranormal) activity.
I believe we can combine personal experiences with scientific methods and tools, and achieve more consistent research results.
Eventually, I’d like to be able to say with confidence, “On this date, at this time, something unexplained and dramatic is going to happen at this location.” Then, I’d like 50 researchers there, each with cameras and measuring devices, to compile enough evidence to say, “This is paranormal and beyond coincidence or error.”
We’re not there yet.
Many of us — including me — are certain that spirits are among us. Many people are equally certain that orbs, unexplained EMF spikes, EVP, and other measurable phenomena provide compelling evidence that ghosts are real.
However, the phrase “scientific proof” isn’t accurate, and — so you aren’t tripped up by skeptics harping on semantics — I decided to state that clearly.