Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead

by Joe Nickell

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. Putting aside purely romantic tales, this book examines the actual evidence for ghosts—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. Offering numerous exciting case studies, this book engages in serious investigation rather than breathless mystifying. Pseudoscience, folk legends, and outright hoaxes are challenged and exposed, while the historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of ghost experiences and haunting reports are carefully explored. The author—the world's only professional paranormal investigator—brings his skills as a stage magician, private detective, folklorist, and forensic science writer to bear on a topic that demands serious study.

Genres: Science, Paranormal, Nonfiction, Skepticism

500 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Joe Nickell was an American skeptic and investigator of the paranormal.
Nickell was a senior research fellow for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and wrote regularly for their journal, Skeptical Inquirer. He was also an associate dean of the Center for Inquiry Institute. He was the author or editor of over 30 books.
Among his career highlights, Nickell helped expose the James Maybrick "Jack the Ripper Diary" as a hoax. In 2002, Nickell was one of a number of experts asked by scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. to evaluate the authenticity of the manuscript of Hannah Crafts' The Bondwoman's Narrative (1853–1860), possibly the first novel by an African-American woman. At the request of document dealer and historian Seth Keller, Nickell analyzed documentation in the dispute over the authorship of "The Night Before Christmas", ultimately supporting the Clement Clarke Moore claim.

Reviews

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although Joe Nickell comes across as a likable, avuncular figure, as a book The Science of Ghosts has a few problems. One is its organization, or perhaps better, lack thereof. Stories and commentary are repeated throughout (is there an editor in the house?) and there seems to be no science or progression in the order of the stories he sets out to debunk. He claims not be be a debunker, but since he insists from the start (and often repeats) when a brain dies that’s the end of a person’s mind/spirit (or whatever term you’d like to use) it’s pretty clear he’ll never find a ghost.

There are many useful things here, however. The fact that ghost hunters use scientific equipment does not make them scientists. Nickell is quite right about that. He’s also almost certainly right that many people do fake evidence. Hoaxes happen. By exposing hoaxes, however, you don’t disprove a phenomenon. It’s a logical fallacy to suggest that since you caught a few fakers that centuries of human experience are wrong. Ghosts are funny that way. The book also, as I mention on my blog (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) uses misdirection, straw-man arguments, and personal biases. There may not be ghosts, but a book like this will not convince those who tend to treat all evidence fairly.

Nickell has a chapter decrying the University Press of Kentucky for publishing a book of “true” ghost stories. The interesting thing here it he betrays something that those of us in publishing not infrequently encounter: an author insisting a press not publish views counter to his or her own. Writers (and I’m one) are a strange lot. The idea that a university press bow to the standards of one author is ironic on many levels. It reveals a deep-seated insecurity that one’s own works might not be as potent as imagined. It also betrays a basic lack of understanding regarding how publishing—even academic publishing—works. So it goes. Even those we like can strike out when pride’s at stake. It’s the spirit of the game.

[Larry Thompson · Rating 2 out of 5]

There seemed to be very little science involved. The book is filled with one man's opinions and little else. For example, one "debunking" boiled down to the fact that a ghost didn't show up in front of him during the couple hours he spent touring a historical landmark. As far as the text reveals, this was the only thing that happened - he showed up and didn't see a ghost. While an episode like that might color one's opinion, I hardly think it counts as the kind of "science" I expected from this book based on its name.

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I want to give this book a much higher rating, and in a lot of ways it deserves it. Skeptic Joe Nickell uncovers the truth behind everything from Harry Price's spirit investigations to today's reality tv ghost hunters. He conveys a lot of important psychological and phsyical concepts that help explain why people might think they've seen ghosts and provides non-supernatural explanations that explain how people can fake ghost sightings and activity. He covers a lot of ground and goes into details of both famous and obscure but representative cases.

The problem is that the individual chapters seem to have been written separately, never intended to be published together and not revised as such. So there's an awful lot of repetition from chapter to chapter and section to section. This starts to grate after a while. It's a pity, because Nickell can tell a good tale, and his unravelling of the 'science of ghosts' provides a much-needed dose of reason and common sense.

[Peter Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's an excellent book trying to get out here. However, the structure prevents this and it feels very repetitive and incredibly episodic, almost as if it's a series of blog posts that have been stitched together.

The book is in 4 parts, 3 of which contain accounts of hauntings. These all opened with the background to the haunting and were then followed with the investigation and results. Each one was interesting on its own, but taken as a collective, all rather repetitive, not helped by Nickell describing the same rationale every time it came up. After these have been mentioned the first dozen times, you've already got the idea. Due to each account being so short, there are a heck of a lot of them and this does nothing to dispel the same old same old feeling of them and that's a shame, as individually they are great.

The 4th section is all about ghost hunting and this is by far the most interesting, with a thorough accounts of what to look for in various scenarios. It's pretty much a step to myth busting flim flam and would, if expanded, make an excellent book on its own.

There should be more scientific and sceptical books about the paranormal. They're far more interesting than the woo ones.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the amount of repetition of terms and definitions, I assume this is a collection of articles slapped together to make a book, which I find a little annoying. The parenthetical notes at the end of sentence after sentence, listing sources, etc, are like speed bumps and a bit distracting. In spite of these few minor gripes, I still found the material itself quite interesting and engaging. The author states from the start that when he makes an investigation into a claim, he's going to go with the simplest explanations requiring the least amount of assumptions, (Occam's razor). Some see this as having the intent to debunk and dismiss, but in reality it's simply to find a solution to a mystery. Were the solution actual proof of the paranormal, so be it. But this has yet to be the case.

One interesting thing brought up that I never really thought about myself- why exactly do ghosts wear clothing? Aren't they existing in a different plane of 'spiritual' existence? How then did non-spiritual, material items 'pass on' along with them?

Other, probably even better scientifically based paranormal books exist, (I have two in mind to read), but this book I believe is the only one dealing solely with ghosts/spiritualism. Recommended if the interest in the subject is there.

[Jessie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but it got really repetitive after a few chapters.
The author repeats a lot of the same things over and over again at various parts of the book.
I liked it alright, but I got tired of reading the same few sentences recycled in different ways in every chapter.
There was a lot of repetition in this book, but other than that it was very interesting.

[Mooncalf · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has the same problems as other books in Skeptic/New atheist movement which is that most of what it refers to as logical rules are actually just rules of thumb and there is no effort put into explaining why these rules lead to correct beliefs.

[Theresa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Skeptical without being dismissive; (except on the topic of TV psychics-- the author is clearly disgusted by all that kind of crap) I thought it was pretty interesting.

However, I am still a rube who can still be convinced that ghosts could exist, even after reading this.

[Eric Wojciechowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is a ghost? In this volume, you'll find out. Or, at least, you'll find out that what passes for ghosts in popular public opinion turns out to be wind blowing through cracks in the walls, pranks, natural settling of a residence, and so on.

People find agency in natural events. A rustling in the bushes is assumed to be caused by some intelligence when, in fact, it's just the wind. A cold spot in a room is said to be a spirit of the dearly departed when, in fact, it's just a cold spot. Faint footsteps coming up the stairs turns out to be pattern seeking of behalf of the witness where none actually exists.

I, myself, had such an experience. Being in my basement one day I heard running coming from the first floor of my home, running down the hall. I ran upstairs to find out who was in my home (I was supposed to be alone at the time) but no one was there. I didn't assume there was a ghost, I wondered about the evidence itself: What did I really hear? So I returned to my basement and listened and sure enough, the running in the halls continued. But I listened more and moved around my basement to gather more evidence and noticed shadows passing back and forth passed my basement block glass windows. And sure enough, it turned out to be kids running up and down my neighbor's driveway. The stamping of their feet on the pavement ran through the first floor of my home and sounded like they were coming from the inside.

If you believe there is something to life after death and said life hangs around from time to time for reasons unknown, spoiler alert, this book doesn't find it. What it does is lay out case after case from Nickell's own investigation files of alleged ghosts turning out to be just running in the halls.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Joe Nickell’s The Science of Ghosts is more straightforward “This is the report, and this is why it’s nonsense” writing, with different kinds of hauntings grouped together (Civil War ghosts, theater haunting, etc). Nickell introduces each section with context, so we get a history of the spiritualism movement of the late 19th century before examining those specific claims. Nickell’s background and interests make him a keen investigator: he has performed as a magician, for instance, experiments with photographic effects, and has a background in folklore that he uses to analyze ghost stories from a different angle than most. When flipping through the book at the post office, I was surprised to encounter the familiar visage of Robert G. Ingersoll, a masterful orator of the late 19th century who was known for his skeptical lectures — evidently so much so that one person claimed his ghost was using her hand to rebut himself after his death and urge sinners to return to God. Nickell conducts a literary analysis of the “ghost” Ingersoll and the genuine article and points out how stylistically and grammatically dissimilar they are. Several of the cases were proven as frauds in their own lifetimes, but are nonetheless still believed in — like the Fox sisters, who admitted they were putting audiences on, but whose confession is regarded as forced or done for ulterior motives. The book is really just a series of cases and commentary, though, not a deep dive into the various environmental or psychological factors that lead to perfectly rational people believing in hauntings.

[Aly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il libro è una raccolta delle indagini svolte dall'autore in giro per il mondo alla ricerca del paranormale.
Do solo tre stelle perché l'esposizione e l'organizzazione sono confuse, soprattutto nella prima parte non si capisce quale logica stia sotto l'organizzazione dei capitoli, la spiegazione delle teorie sostenute e i viaggi dell'autore.
L'autore è uno scettico, e questo nel 2021 è più che lecito; in più punti spiega i trucchi e i fenomeni che possono dare vita a dei fake e a delle visioni, tutto molto interessante. Il problema è che in alcuni casi la spiegazione data è fantasiosa quanto la leggenda del fantasma. Addirittura fa appello a un paio di teorie psicologiche che sono molto controverse e dibattute e io personalmente non credo sia il caso di tirarle in ballo alla leggera come fossero la soluzione di tutti i problemi paranormali.
Per il resto lettura interessante per chi è appassionato dell'argomento.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely an interesting topic, but I was a little turned off by the writer's attitude. I admit that I occasionally found his ridicule of so-called "true" ghost stories amusing, but I also found his general contempt for the "credulous" rather alienating. Also alienating was the chapter he devoted to complaining about one of his publishers.

Also, this book wasn't constructed very well, and the author repeats himself a lot. He keeps bringing up how brain activity ceases after death, as if that somehow argues strongly against the existence of ghosts, when frankly, all scientists can do is measure brain activity in a body that the ghost is no longer using anyway.

[Katherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been trying to read this book for about a year now. I appreciate a skeptical view point but the book put me to sleep quite often. I’m honestly surprised I finally finished it. I truly do commend the author for his diligent work and his painstaking research (some of it on the ground), but I have to agree with some other reviews that it just was weirdly organized/edited. Some of the fat could have been trimmed and it probably would have been better for it.

[Tom Walsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here is everything You wanted to know about the spirit world. Everything!

[Ana · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lots of ghosts, very little science.

[Estelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough and informative book. The large number of references is great as it shows the author has really done his research. Each case he presents is explained scientifically - however I did find case after case rather repetitive (the author surely does not need to explain what a “waking dream” is in every case he looks at)!

He also appears to assert that his explanation of the events is the true way of seeing them. I would have appreciated a lot more critical discussion from believers and non-believers alike. I was also hoping for in-depth explanations of the psychology behind seeing ghosts in some cases, because I find it to be the most fascinating part of the paranormal. But I felt this aspect was skimmed over in each case. However, I am not aware of the amount of psychological research behind the paranormal, so maybe there wasn’t much to say, in which case, fair enough. I am not overly convinced of the author’s approach because his insistence somehow put me off.

Overall, a good read, but if you want to read the whole thing in one go you may find it rather tedious due to the similarities between cases.

[Tim Garwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read with some good research to back up the explanations of why the supposed sightings never really happened. Unfortunately am area populated by charlatans and those aiming to make money.