First and foremost let's establish the irony of having a dictionary of terms
regarding the paranormal field or worse yet types of ghosts. Yes there are situations that call for it such
as "EMF Meters" and "Charles Fort". The irony that I speak of is more for
the definition of specific terms such as "ghost". Sure we can speak of the
traditional beliefs held by societies no longer in existence, that is a safe
route and less debatable. The irony that I'm heading towards I'll keep to
three points. First the complete lack of accepted scientific practices
used to reach the belief that could then be easily included in the definition of
"ghost." The second point works even if you hold the scientific method in great
fault. With concluding what a "ghost" is and hence being able to construct
a definition requires for most a reason that can be fairly debated and after
still holding the greater likelihood of the current definition to be correct.
While I have read and heard many definitions of "ghost," where the creator had
no claim of connection to science, there has also been only subjective
experiences, interpreted by the person making the definition. There is
nothing specifically wrong with a person interpreting an experience, hey we all
do it every day. There is however in my opinion something very wrong when
this singular interpretation of an experience is then put forth as an
indisputable fact that has only the one explanation. Lastly whether you
approach the definition of "ghost" with a stringent scientific method or
completely subjective and metaphysical one, the specific and general
understanding of what a "ghost" is or if a "ghost" even exists remains widely
believed to be incomplete. In this reality how could we then make the
supposition of defining something that remains unexplained or at best yet fully
understood.
Learn More!
