Ratings1
Average rating2
Are ghosts real? Are there truly haunted places? How can we know?
From the most ancient times, people have experienced apparent contact with spirits of the dead. Some have awakened to see a ghost at their bedside or encountered a spectral figure gliding through a medieval castle. Others have seemingly communicated with spirits, like the Old Testament's Witch of Endor, the spiritualists whose darkroom seances provoked scientific controversy in the last two centuries, or today's "psychic mediums," like John Edward or Sylvia Browne, who seem to reach the "Other Side" even under the glare of television lights. Currently, equipment-laden ghost hunters stalk their quarry in haunted places—from urban houses to country graveyards—recording "anomalies" they insist cannot be explained.
Putting aside purely romantic tales, The Science of Ghosts examines the actual evidence for such contact—from eyewitness accounts to mediumistic productions (such as diaphanous forms materializing in dim light), spirit photographs, ghost-detection phenomena, and even CSI-type trace evidence.
Are ghosts real? Are there truly haunted places, only haunted people, or both? And how can we know? Taking neither a credulous nor a dismissive approach, this first-of-its-kind book solves those perplexing mysteries and more—even answering the question of why we care so very much.
Reviews with the most likes.
This book had me all excited the very first moment I read its title. I have a great ‘‘affection'' for the paranormal and supernatural, especially for the scientific aspect of it. I started reading The Science of Ghosts at a slow pace to absorb the details and the plethora of information that Joe Nickell provided. So far, so good, eh? Not. By the time I had reached about half of the book, my excitement began to wear off.
Nickell's effort is remarkable; each chapter is embellished with photos of the people and the places ‘‘under investigation'' and the research is meticulous. However, it is one thing to state the scientific evidence in an attempt to bust the myths and another to be so dismissive, so abrupt, to accept no other truth but your own. I am aware that the writer wanted to envoke his deep scepticism over the paranormal evidence, but I strongly disliked his constant “calling names” attitude. I found his treatment of the people involved rude, full of contempt, hardly an example of what I perceive as ‘‘scientific'' writing. Instead, it reveils one who is too full of himself. It comes across as bitter and, frankly, I don't believe that each and every experience described can be explained as a result of “waking dreams''. After all, what is the evidence for it?