Spot on with Robb's attitude. By his logic: I was in Portland, recently. It didn't rain while I was there; so everyone who told me it rains in Portland is a liar or halcinating or wouldn't know rain if it hit them in the head.

Also, the story I heard regarding Elizabeth was that everyone just kind of turned their heads until she started in on the daughters of nobility.

First post… be nice.

The Bathory story (crudely exploited in Hostel 2) is to be taken with heavy grains of salt. It is beyond question that young girls died, but how, why and how many is shrouded in the clouds of history and added upon via folklore.

As for exclaiming "not haunted" about a location, instead of we couldn't prove it is haunted, that brings into question methodology. Firstly, GHI is to laden with looming music and SFX and to heavily edited for anyone outside to have any possibility to assess findings and evidence or lack thereof. On a side note, I have always found it disappointing that GH never publish a report on their investigations for peer-review, a procedure which is basic and unthinkable not to do in the scientific community, Without transparency and publishing of theory, methdodology and results and a following peer-review, any claims of scientific approach should be taken very lightly.

But back to the episode in question and Robb's statements. Or rather if such a statement can be made och if so, when. Firstly, for anyting to be dismissed it must be able to be tested, with a viable and reasonable methodology. That is rather impossible with most paranormal activities. Nota bene, I am not saying that paranormal activites does not exist or that they do exist, just that I have not seen a theory and methodolgy which can prove or try them. Yet. But that does not mean we have to resort to it might exist but we can't prove it. And the answer to this is quality debunking. If we can produce alternative explanations using what we can prove, test and see, the activities paranormal or not, falls short using science. Without these alternatives taken out the formula, the "haunting" remains a story.

And now coming to why I wrote all this, if all "experiences" has or can have alternative explanations the house can be deemed "not haunted". However nothing happening is not enough to dismiss claims of paranormal activities using the equipment and methdology GH and GHI uses. Just as any other science a certain theory and methodology reaches certain results, why the theory and methodology must be srutinized and always tried out and improved. That does not mean that what science doesn't "see" does not exist, just that it cannot be proven scientifically, making it possible to state it is nothing there to be seen. However science never delivers definite, absolute statements but put their statements and conclusions under scrutiny (unfortunately not enough in my experience however) and will revise their conclusion if new results is reached using a grounded theory and methodology.

So, in conclusion, Robb's statement aside, it is possible to deem a place not haunted and claims can de dismissed. But the question is if GH and GHI have the competence and ability to make such a statement or the reverse one. Again, peer-review.

That's all, for now.

bullerspoke, no disclaimers needed but as for declaring a place "not haunted", first off you're absolutely right about the reports — they NEED to be debunked or else you've got no basis for the claim whatsoever. If that's been accomplished then the claim could be made that all reports can be explained and there is no evidence for a haunting, however the real die-hard believers will tell you that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and technically they'd be right.

It's logically impossible to prove something doesn't exist (if you start with the premise that it might exist). If you start with the premise that nothing exists unless it can be proven first — that's arguably a better methodology (we won't have to worry about chasing down all those chimeras, basilisks and unicorns) but you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone with strong religious beliefs to come around to your way of thinking

"Just the facts, Ma'am"….Jack Webb.

Welcome bullerspoke!

I did a little research on the idea of "you can't prove a negative", and to my surprise found out that it isn't an actual logical fallacy. Example: I can prove that there is no rhinoceros in my bedroom by opening the door and looking (especially if we've cleaned recently).

I can't prove that there are no purple rhinoceri in the world, but that's more of a practical consideration than a logical fallacy. If I had the ability to look at all of the rhinos in the world, there wouldn't be an issue.

However, we can't prove that there are no ghosts in Cachtice Castle– or even in my bedroom. That's because the concept "ghost" is poorly defined, or defined so as to be non-disprovable.

Here's the best definition of "ghost" that I've been able to come up with. A ghost is the immaterial remnant of a deceased person which can somehow affect the material world.

Now, you can't disprove the existence of immaterial things. I can't prove that there's no immaterial rhinoceros in my bedroom. I can't prove the nonexistence of a thousand invisible, intangible Bigfoots on my roof. All I can say is that I don't have any evidence for them.

That's a problem. Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable. Non-falsifiability is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Things aren't looking good for scientific ghost hunting unless they come up with a hypothesis that can be falsified.

What's irritating about Robb's pronouncement is that he's trying to have it both ways. He hasn't shown us any way of falsifying the ghost hypothesis, so he hasn't done that. Instead, he just doesn't have any evidence that the place is haunted. By that logic, I will now end all future ghost hunting investigations: I have no evidence that any place in the world is haunted. Therefore, they're not haunted. Robb can go back home now.

Nicely said about falsifiability Stephen.

Ghost hunting can't be scientific because science only studies the natural world. A ghost is commonly thought to be supernatural/paranormal; something that is "beyond" the natural world which we occupy. Therefore ghosts cannot be tested, and as Stephen pointed out, cannot be falsified either. Call it what you want, but science it is not.

Ghost hunters can use "scientific methods" and cool electronic gizmos, but that doesn't make their conclusions scientific. Every one of their theories is based on a best guess. A theory in science actually has evidence backing it up.

I bet if Robb and the GHI crew had gotten a couple of EVP's from this case, they would've sung a different tune about the ghostly woman walking around. Something along the lines of: "Well we didn't catch any evidence of her, but that doesn't mean she's not here. Just listen to these cool EVP's we got. So yeah, there's definitely activity here, and I wouldn't be surprised if she is walking about the ruins."

As for people seeing what they want to see, that can apply to investigators too, Robb. So can hearing what they want from ambiguous EVP's.

I am familiar with Poppers theory of falsifiability and for that matter the positivistic tradition and school of thought. However I do not hold it sacred but rather as one theory among others. I must confess that a statement such as that non-falsifiability is a hallmark of pseudo-science is rather a generalization. Whilst it is true that pseudo-science stays clear of falsifiability, their are plenty of science which do not operate with positivistic theory and/or falsifiability. These usually do not of course make claims about natural phenomena but they do make ontologistic claims and to claim any non-positivistic statement about natural phenomena as pseudo-science, false or hokey is a bit rich.

Just because you can't measure it, it doesn't mean it is not there. And that's not because it supernatural or "beyond" but that we might measure the wrong thing or the wrong way. The theory might have fallacies. Which brings us to the question at heart: the theory behind ghosts and other paranormal activities. In natural science there are a number of statements that are yet unproven, that are theories. Higgs particle, for example. However this is able to be tested because there is a grounded theory behind it which indicate it should be there.

Unfortunately when it comes to ghost we do not have that. We have loose threads of hearsay and pseudo-science ofta laded with religious beliefs, cultural contamination and pure fantasy. The early sciences which operated with different thoughtcomplexes, alchemy and others, has evolved into a narrative of outer forces interacting with the natural world and furthermost the possibility of a world beyond the measurable world.

I do agree on that there is serious issues on the "science" of GH, even if I do not measure solely against positivistic thought. That is partly due to that I mainly have studied social phenomena and cultural phenomena, where positivism many times falls short. However, it is no less science, just different. Ghosts are indeed a social phenomena as well as cultural phenomena and to look away from that does not lead to a better understanding of the claims of such things as paranormal phenomena. The longevity of and wealth of repeorts of paranormal phenomena does not make it "true" but it raises questions on why. It might be a psyhological need among humans to interpret the world in that way, it might be a influence of durable cultural complexes, it might be someting that is gratifiying and enjoyable providing comfort for people through the ages, it might be attempts to explain the world around us and what we call reality and so on. Take ghosts (and horror as a feeling and cultural expression) for example which is an integral part of almost all cultures around the world, and the thought is implanted in every new member of those societies and therefor it is not strange that they interpret what to them is strange occurences (due to ignorance or psyhological or neurological disposition or stimuli) as ghosts.

Well, I strayed way off here, but I'm not satisfied with the positivistic dogma, if it is not measurable it does not exist, or is real. Fallacies with the theory and method of measuring must be taken into account and the theory's ontological claims scrutinized or atleast taken into account.

Now, back to scientificness of GH. There is no viable, durable theory of what ghosts are and how to measure, observe or interact with them. There are theories of what ghost might be and how they usually have been perceived. That is mostly the basis of GH's methods, and that's the core problem, even if GH is not solely to blame. We do not have the theory, despite the efforts made to prove or hunt ghosts för decades. We are fumbling in the dark (literally) and no real reverse engineering is made when it comes to statements such as ghosts creating EMFs, interact with digital recorders and whatnot. That would be a good starting point, if anyone wishes to lend a scientific air to ghost hunting. But also a critical study on the phenomena of ghost and it's social and cultural implications would prove helpful to erase the inconsistencies and common myths (and their source) within the field.

Now back to the original question, deeming things not haunted. What can be said is that phenomena which are called paranormal can be effects of natural phenomena such as infra-sound, EMFs, mildew or chemicals. I refer to the case of a guy who reported paranormal phenomena in his house (might have been season two) which was not present when he was elsewhere. And in his house GH found ridiculously high EMFs, from an unshielded circuit box, heavy presence of mildew (which is toxic), and chemicals galore in his garage close to a air intake. While we can't say there is no presence of unmeasurable stimuli or energy, because we can't measure it, we can say that natural phenomena is more likely to be the cause of the reported phenomena (since science states that as possibility or an actual fact), and should the reports cease after these natural stimulis is removed, well, the were probably the cause. If we are to use Occam's razor, which is popular here, the probable explanation is not paranormal and that is basis for deeming the house not haunted.

Like others have stated, this segment made me angry. Elizabeth Bathory fascinates me, so I was very excited when I heard they were going to one of her castles. I figured if there was going to be an imprint, or whatever you want to call it, it would be there.

Well, not according to Robb! No crappy EVP? No ghost! No Haunting! They spend exactly how long there, in a wide open place, and declare "oh, there's no paranormal activity here." Please. It was segements like this that really make me wonder why I bother to Tivo this stuff any more.

Hello everyone! Back from a quick trip to the wine country, where I dealt with spirits of an altogether happier sort.

Bullerspoke: Great to have a real philosophical debate! We should probably take it to the forums if we want to continue much further.

The quick response is that just because I think non-falsifiability is a sign of pseudoscience doesn't make me a positivist, nor am I holding all sciences to some kind of positivist standard. Nor do I think that falsifiability is the only standard to judge things. (I'm not averse to being called a verificationist. I'll join with Dennett in being the Village Verificationist. "But let us be urbane verificationists, surely!")

Still, I do think that non-falsifiability is a warning sign, particularly in the natural sciences. As you state, pseudosciences steer clear of falsifiability. I believe that most pseudosciences start with an untestable claim. As our ability to prove or disprove gets better, and the claims get tested, the claims of pseudosciences tend to recede further and further. I understand that social sciences do on occasion make untestable claims, but the study of the paranormal is supposedly a (super)-natural science, so the criticism applies.

You use the Higgs boson as an example. The Higgs boson is testable in principle, and in fact we expect to get some tests of its existence out of the LHC. If we run our experiments and it doesn't appear, we'll have pretty much disproved it, and the physicists will throw up their hands and move on. It's kind of like the purple rhinoceros– it can't be tested right now, but it's not impossible in principle.

However, I'm pretty much with you the rest of the way. Logisti and I give a good rundown on infrasound in the podcast episode entitled "Funhouse Antics", and talk about other non-ghostly causes in "The Third Option".

Well, yes the forums might prove a better forum (hehe) for further discussion, yet I would like to make a few remarks here:

First off, yes, yes the study paranormal is in part a supposed natural science, and to criticise their lack of applicable methodology and theory in that regard is quite correct. However not all of the paranormal investigation (I hesitate using the word research) is a matter of physics or natural science in general. Finding anomalies in say, EMFs, temperatures and whatnot is a question of natural science and should be scrutinized to those standards, but when the investigator makes the claim that this is the energy of a specific or unspecific dead person, we actually leave the field of natural science and venture into philosophy, history (genealogy not the least), etnology and psychology, even sociology. Because such claims can't really be disproven or proven solely on the grounds of natural science. To understand and explain and even disprove such claims we need to scrutinize the theory behind the afterlife and the theory of existence of ghosts and their behaviour and the claim itself. No matter if natural science states no energy remains after death (in short), the beliefs and implications of those can really only be studied and disproved by a mixture of social sciences and natural science. A good example is when people claim a ghost is a certain historical person, and we get an anomalous reading on say, EMF or a shadow on camera. Whilst the anomaly maybe can't really be explained, geneological and historical research can prove that it can't be a certain person because they didn't die there, never lived their or simply did not exist. And thereby putting the phenomena in large in question, and furthermost the theory and the stories. When then holding this up to the grand theory of ghosts such research can poke big holes in it, due to it's inconsistencies (or plasticity). And beside whatever natural science has to say in the matter. Another good example is when a phenomena occurs, gets wide press, and suddenly everyone seem to experience it. What I'm trying to say is that you can prove or disprove or research paranormal phenomnea without ever using natural science. Inconsistences, myths, suggestion, you name it. Of course the best is to combine the two angles of attack, but I feel sometimes the natural sciences, like in many other cases, gets the upper hand and predominance in interpretation.

Untestable claims can be studied with good scientific methods. Whenever someone claim ghosts to this and that that can be correlated with experiences or by scrutinizing the statement in itself, it's source, and it's position in idea-historical and sociological context. Or test versus philosphical schools of thought. And not the least, urban legends.

As I stated before, it is not strange that people interpret strange occurences as ghosts, if they are told that ghosts exists (de facto or as a possibility). And if we ever are going to have an answer to what a ghost is, any credible theories, disproving or not, we must weigh in other factors other than the measurable. People and nature is irrational at times and experiences in large are subject to many fallacies. Interpretation is a tricky game to play.

So, non-falsifiability in itself not pseudo-scientific but is used by pseudo-science as an umbrella. But the problem is not really in it's non-falsifiability but in the plastic theory that lends itself to hazy, often contradictory statements. And that theory can be attacked and disproven using everything but the theory and methodology behind the idea of falsifiability.

A bit long, sorry about that, got carried away. I would like to point out that I'm not a post-modernist, claiming everything a narrative and beyond science and measurability. I'm only saying there is more to skepticism than what natural science can measure, as in life in general.

For me, Robb kept getting more irratating as the season went on. And I found it strange that throughout the season they kept saying each place was haunted or had paranormal activity despite limited proof. Then they investigate this castle and nothing is found so that means its not haunted. i believe they had one episode where all they had was a couple EVPs and several personal experiences and Robb was quick to say that was enough proof to label the place haunted. In the early days of GH if thats all they got, J&G would say something like "something above the normal is going on here but we dont have enough info to name the place haunted."

its sad this show fell so short of expectations because they places they go are so great. I tended to like Barry more and more because he knew sometimes you had to speak in the native language to get responses and I liked Brandy for the limited time she was on. Unlike Kris who just started to review the cases, Brandy jumped right in on day 1 and was doing reviews.

It will be interesting to see if they come back in the future.