Ghost Adventures
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: Ghost Adventures
I love Ghost Adventures, it's good entertainment, not great documentary/TV but the team is funny at times and they know how to set a mood for their "adventures".

I never felt particularly challenged by these ghost-hunting shows. I've had experiences with what could be called paranormal events, have seen and heard things I could not explain or rationalize (not that rationalizing should be encouraged). And at the end of the day if I was asked if I believed if ghosts/demons or other supernatural entities existed, I would say "Possibly."

For as long as we don't have all the knowledge and all the tools to validate the existence of the paranormal, as a skeptic I can't claim to know better. Keeping an open mind is also one of the perks of being scientific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Ghost Adventures
Quote:The problem is that they appear to be scientific, yes, but they don't approach their findings in a scientific manner. They have a presupposition that ghosts exist, and that they'll be finding evidence of them. Then, when things happen, they immediately attribute it to the supernatural. Granted, when Zak narrates, he likes to submit the supernatural explanations in the form of a question - "We felt a sudden gust of cold air when there were no windows open. Could this be the spirit of whoeverthefuck trying to communicate with us?" - but he's really just making a positive assertion in disguise. What's more, he seems to look down on "skeptics".

Scientists don't begin with the conclusion. Scientists are inherantly skeptical. I've only seen the guys admit a handful of mistakes or "debunks" since I began watching the show 2 or 3 years ago. It's a fun show, but there is far too much pseudoscience to take it seriously.
We are on the same page. They do not present their evidence well, but all I am merely stating is that they find good evidence. And yes, they assign a conclusion to things a bit prematurely, but scientists will often create a conclusion (a skeptical conclusion based off of anything) called a hypothesis that is tested, and may be rejected and remodeled according to the findings. And then tested as many more times until it is refined.

Ghost Adventures, and many ghost hunters, follows a logic that is "I am hunting ghosts. This is evidence of something, and thus evidence of ghosts."
I think more along the lines of "Well they are hunting for ghosts, and they found evidence of something. But what is it evidence of?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: