In "Sixth Sense", the little boy says that when a ghost is near, it gets cold. This fact has been present in many accounts of paranormal activity. I think it's because when a ghost needs to create change, either as a residue or "energy stamp" ghost making a sound or as a "walking" ghost of a person interacting with people, they must pull energy from the air around them.
They can't pull chemical, potential, or kinetic energy out of thin air. Electrical energy would be improbable without a storm going on, though maybe that is why the lights flicker when a ghost is nearby. The easiest route would be to take in thermal energy, and so the area around a ghost becomes cold.
NOTE: For all those who regard this forum as the funnies page of the Mythbusters site and who check your critical thinking at the door, please do not reply to this myth. I don't belive in ghosts that just show up magically; I am trying to keep my post within scientific limits and you should do the same. I'd appreciate it if those who do not want to add something constructive would simply not reply.

If you wanted something with scientific limits, why did you bring up ghosts? Check my critical thinking at the door?
"Look inside yourself, Grasshopper"

OK, see, this is what I was talking about. You could have just not responded. This adds nothing to the thread. I am trying to look at ghosts as leftover energy, an explanation within the realm of science. See what I mean? That way it can be discussed scientifically.
When I say that some people check their critical thinking at the door, here is what I mean: Instead of responding to a myth on here with calm, solid reasoning that will help either prove or disprove the myth, they want to make it a big joke. Most of the people I have read posts from on here are civil and normal on all the other forums. They want to make something seem silly when others want to discuss it rationally, just because they do not believe it and I take offense to that.
I am sorry if I have offended you or any other posters who do not think like this, but I felt the words I used necessary given the other posts here that I have read.

There have been attempts to investigate ghost "phenomena". The Skeptical Inquirer has published several reports, as has one of their researchers, Joe Nickel.
Invariably, investigation (by actual researchers instead of entertainment-oriented "ghosthunters" results in finding perfectly mundane explanations for the various noises, "cold areas" and so forth.

It's very difficult to research such things in a satisfying way. Such phenomenon are ephemeral; that is, they don't happen with any regularity or even the same way to different people.
They are also obviously strongly colored by the individual's mindset and perceptions.
To date, the best that can be said is that so-called ghost phenomena are either psychological in nature or misperceptions of normal occurences.

Unfortunately, bikewer is right. Although I do believe that some things cannot be explained by science as we know it, people claiming that they have 'proof' of such phenomena are usually proved to be fraudulent.

DCC - I feel inclined to point out that heat energy is technically kinetic energy, which you said in the OP was not something that ghosts could make use of.

No offence, I do realise what you were getting at. Its just that I'm a pedagogue.

if you ever seen ghost hunter you know plumbers by day gjost hunters by night they take a scientific view on ghost hunting and has taken ghost hunting as close as it can possibly get to a scientific study. but you are right ghosts do draw the energy around them to try an materilize because mainly on thbe level they are on after we die it all consists of energy. Energy is a way they need to almost survive in the spirit world they draw in our energy which is why it gets cold. Or with electrical lights the batteries drain or flicker.

Bikewer-- I see what you mean--it is very hard to draw quantifiable results from such phenomena and such accounts are definitely somewhat dependant on the people who experience them. I wonder if someone not exposed to popular media (or any media) would have a totally different experience.
Is there a website that explains the findings on cold spots? They are seemingly the best example of this myth, and I'd at least like to know what was found.
DownUnderAviator-- I get what you mean, the kinetic energy of the particles, but when you break it down to the energy of the individual particles then I'd guess it would be easier for a ghost to "metabolize" and then use to cause change. Kind of like the baby formula you see that advertises "comfort proteins".
Sharkgoddess--Is that why the batteries of cars are supposed to die on certain raliroad tracks? That's something I'd like to see tested, since it would be at least something solid. (The battery was new, the tank was full, and still the car stopped.)
Sorry about the OP. I wasn't having a good day.

[quote]it is very hard to draw quantifiable results from such phenomena[/quote]

No, it is not "hard." Up to now, at least, it is IMPOSSIBLE! There is not one, single, solitary shred of quantifiable, verifiable, repeatable, scientific evidence that ghosts exist. Let alone any evidence about how they manifest themselves, or what it is like when they are around. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Not even the teeniest, tiniest, little bit.

I really don't wish to offend you, but because of this complete lack of real evidence a fundamental requirement of believing in ghosts is that you "check your critical thinking at the door." Given the scientific evidence available today (lack thereof, actually!) it is not possible to exercise critical thinking and also believe in ghosts. Sorry, but there is just no way around that.

I know that's not the answer you want to hear, but it is the real and true answer to this issue, and it is the answer that other people reading this thread NEED to hear.

[quote]When I say that some people check their critical thinking at the door, here is what I mean: Instead of responding to a myth on here with calm, solid reasoning that will help either prove or disprove the myth, they want to make it a big joke. Most of the people I have read posts from on here are civil and normal on all the other forums. They want to make something seem silly when others want to discuss it rationally, just because they do not believe it and I take offense to that.[/quote]


I agree with you. Quite often, mother's golden rule should be used when viewing this board. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

If one doesn't believe in something, then that's fine and it's even okay to say that you don't and give reasons why you don't. But, when nothing more is added, other than the equivalent of encircling someone and poking them with sharpened sticks because they have an open mind about something, then it gets into troll territory.


However, this trolling has been going on for a long time and it doesn't seem to bother Disco or merit a visit from the mod stick. I think they made this forum just to have someone to laugh at. I may be wrong about that, but it seems that way for as much as this behavior is perpetrated by the same people over and over again and yet they continue to post, unabated, with no fear in the world being caught and moderated for what they are doing.

Any electro magnetic field will cause the hairs on your arms and neck to stand up.

So, if ghosts were operating by being pure energy alone, I could see how their energy would absorb other energies as well.

To me it's a fascinating idea, that it would get cold and a spike in electro-magnetic fields would cause hair to stand up and electronics to malfunction.

[quote]When I say that some people check their critical thinking at the door...[/quote]

Then you're misusing the term "critical thinking." What you describe is not "critical thinking." It is simply being polite, and uncritical. The term "critical thinking" is used to refer to thinking in a logical and rational way, carefully examining underlying assumptions, demanding a reasoned analysis and some evidence for claims, and so on.

That is very different than just not making a joke about someone who does NOT exercise critical thinking.

I am one who has been accused in the past of mocking those who believe in oogie-boogie nonsense. I confess that I have. I will insist, however, that I never START OUT with mocking. Rather, I try to be polite and to point people towards some real critical thinking and rational analysis. When people absolutely REFUSE to do that, though, then I have been known to laugh at their foolishness. Sorry, I just can't help myself.

If they don't want to be laughed at then they shouldn't try to justify their oogie-boogie beliefs with pseudo-science and pretend-logic. Most especially here, on a forum created for a show that is dedicated to rational analysis, logical thought, and scientific investigation. They should just admit that it is oogie-boogie, that they have made a choice to believe it anyway, and accept that there is no critical thinking or rational thought involved--then there wouldn't be anything to laugh at or mock.

[quote]Quite often, mother's golden rule should be used when viewing this board. "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."[/quote]

I have to disagree. There are too many young and easily-influenced people who read this forum. They need to have the oogie-boogie nonsense pointed out to them so that they can learn the difference between critical thought, rational analysis, logical thinking, and simply making a choice to believe in something that is fundamentally irrational. I will not simply leave those people to be influenced ONLY by the believers in the oogie-boogie.

[quote]I am one who has been accused in the past of mocking those who believe in oogie-boogie nonsense. I confess that I have. I will insist, however, that I never START OUT with mocking. Rather, I try to be polite and to point people towards some real critical thinking and rational analysis. When people absolutely REFUSE to do that, though, then I have been known to laugh at their foolishness. Sorry, I just can't help myself.[/quote]

You've been extremely polite in your posts to this thread. In fact, I was a bit impressed with how professional your post came off. It was well-stated with points well placed to make your portion of the discussion.

I respect your points of view and have read your post in detail and truly considered some of the points that you made.

[quote]You've been extremely polite in your posts to this thread.[/quote]

Thank you. I might as well tell you ahead of time, though, that if people start trying to justify a belief in ghosts with a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook, made-up evidence, and/or (what happens most often) an insistence that anything unexplained should be interpreted as proof positive that ghosts exist, then I am very liable to resort to a bit of mocking.

As Cecil Adams once said, "It is one thing to be misinformed, it is quite another to be willfully ignorant." Those who choose willful ignorance, and then try to dress it up as logic and intelligence, deserve every bit of mocking and ridicule that they get!

I know like everyone else that is somewhat skeptical of ghosts exsisting not to jump to conclusions right away about ghosts but I think I like to believe in them only for pure amusement because in a way for me it could make those lame ghost stories around the campfire a little scarier

Hmm, some interesting replies. Does anyone have information on what happens with "cold spots" etc as bikewer mentioned, or even a good site that explains electromagnetics? It would help to have a better understanding of what we're dealing with.

Denverd0n-- 2 fallacies in your argument.
One: I presented a relatively believable OP, in which a "ghost" is defined as an elctromagnetic or otherwise energy-related anomaly, one that is able to cause change. That's scientifically possible.
When I say "critical thinking", though you were polite and I admit unseasonably "nice" in your replies, your critical thinking was not so critical after all. The purpose of applying such schools of thought to an "oogie boogie" myth was to look scientifically at the myth itself and then explain why it would not work. "Something something electromagnetic fields cannot cause change for EIEIO reason, et cetera" would have been an addition to the myth, rather than simply stating that there is no evidence. This doesn't help much, as there are evidence as per Uggae that electromagentic fields can cause change. You seem to be confusing critical thinking, in this case, with criticism.

Two: Your crusade to keep impressionable youths from believing in "oogie boogie" stuff is admirable. I wish I could be more like you. Say, I think there's a church meeting this Sunday. Why don't you and I get together and bust in on'em? Think of all the minds we'd be liberating! We'll ask for proof of their religion and then respond with verbal warfare when they choose to keep the faith! Soon, everyone will accept science!
...Maybe you should take a peek at the first Amendment.

D_C_C, maybe you should read up on the First Amendment.

It does NOT give you the right to be free of criticism. It does give you the right to make a fool of yourself without being stopped by the government (within certain very limited restrictions, the classic example yelling "Fire!" in a crowed theater). You have (and use!) the right to post the most ridiculous ideas. Denverd0n and all other readers are also free to form and express their opinions of your posts. Or would you deny them freedom of expression, because they might hurt your feelings?

Jumping from electrical energy to ghosts is patently irrational. Believing in ghosts because sometimes a room gets cold is oogie-boogie nonsense. There is no evidence that ghosts exist. None. CHOOSING to believe in the absence of any evidence at all is the veritable definition of irrational.

That is a choice you can make if you wish, but do not try to defend it as if it were a logical, scientific, evidence-based decision. It is not. And I will continue to point out that it is not.

Just like believing in God is not a scientific, logical, evidence-based decision. Yes, believing in God is patently irrational. It is a faith-based decision. It is a choice, and has nothing to do with reason, evidence, science, or anything else like that.

And yet I still believe in God. Yes, I do. I am just not stupid enough to try to justify that belief as if it were a scientifically-based decision. That is the difference. Anyone who tries to justify their belief in God on a science, logic, and evidence basis deserves just as much ridicule and mocking as anyone who tries to justify a belief in ghosts, spirits, ouija boards, and other oogie-boogie nonsense on that same sort of basis.

If you make the choice to believe then accept that it is simply a choice, has no basis in evidence or science, and cannot be "busted" or "confirmed" in any quantifiable or repeatable way.

Oh yeah, and as for the First Amendment, you have the right to post anything you want, so long as it is within the rules that Discovery sets forth. This board belongs to them, and they can control the content in any way they want, without infringing on anybody's rights. And just like you can post whatever you want, I am free to laugh hysterically at the stupidity of irrational and illogical postings that spout oogie-boogie nonsense--which I do from time to time.

I do not in any way believe that the first Amendment frees one from criticism. I do, however, think that Denverd0n was not giving this board and its respective theories a fair chance--mostly rushing in as the perennial naysayer, always trying to forward his own opinions. I don't really think that's right, since there are usually perfectly realistic facts there to be discussed.

My post, I thought, was pretty well-grounded. I'm not exactly a college professor or anything, but I figured that energy being able to cause change--and change itself--was a relatively down-to-earth idea next to some of the stuff I've heard on other forums--curving a bullet, for example.
However, obviously there are fallacies in MY argument, which I need to fix. Is there a better explanation of these phenomena somewhere?

Denverd0n--Nobody, no matter what their beliefs, deserves to be laughed (hysterically or otherwise) at for their faith. This is why I said you need to consult the first Amendment. I do not laugh at you for your beliefs. Likewise, if I believe in purple frogs that live behind my desk and eat my staplers...well...that's fine.

I would just like to add that Mythbusters and by extension, this board, is not about science at all.

Simply because science-oriented people enjoy the concept of the program does not magically transform this board into a science forum.

I would like to make it clear that the brass tacks of the show are two guys with SPECIAL EFFECTS, NOT SCIENCE experience with a machine shop where they test MYTHS (stories, universally held to be untrue or unconfirmed--that means no evidence, no pictures, no proof, no scientific samples for chemical testing, nada, zip, zilch!)

It is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for people to believe and even discuss these brands of MYTHS just like the other MYTHS being tested on the show. Simply because they cannot be confirmed or busted means absolutely nothing. Once again, I will direct your attention to the header bar and description for this board.

They haven't tested the myth of the guy with a hook for a hand coming after two teenagers in a car either, but it doesn't make it any less of a myth and certainly does not preclude it from being discussed here on the board for Mythbusters.

Wherever you got this idea that the show was simply scientific, I have no idea. I have yet to see them go into one laboratory and begin carbon testing or running a chemical analysis on anything.

Just because they use robot equipment, computers, and engineers does not in the least say that this is a science based show.

If that were the case, then half of the myths they've tried would have been thrown away, such as "pop rocks and soda, ancient battery, speaking or singing to plants" and my very favorite (completely reason and rationality-free) myth would be the Rocket Chair. Yes, the Rocket Chair.

Did anyone logically think that it would take an emperor to the moon, or anywhere for that matter? Did you really believe that it wouldn't just explode?

I'm going to bet that the logical answer to that one could have been established long before they even solidified the concept for the episode, but they did it. Why? Because this is a show about myths, not about science. If we're basing this on the small portion of some episodes where they say "Warning: Science Content" then that is just irrational and illogical.