The science of ghosts

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?