Here’s an ethical question that I’m throwing out to my skeptical readers.
Last year at this time, I was working for a historical house museum. Naturally, for Halloween we did the usual haunted house. The house was “haunted” by people acting as the ghosts of the former residents, and the guests went from one room to another meeting various historical characters.
It was a lot of fun from my end. I got to write some of the scripts, which gave me the opportunity to role-play as some of the more interesting people in the history of the Hudson Valley. Even better, I managed to avoid having to wear a period costume.
Not long thereafter, I got an email from a local “ghost hunting” group. They’d heard about our haunted house and asked if they could come and do their ghost hunting bit. From what I’ve heard, they’re the typical ghost hunters: running around with instruments that they don’t really understand and always finding some evidence that *might* be supernatural.
I couldn’t reject them out of hand, because that wasn’t my place. I took it to my supervisor and prepared all my arguments against ghost hunting. The conversation went like this:
Supervisor: “I’m sorry, but we can’t in good conscience work with this group …”
pshew!
Supervisor: “… because we already have a relationship with this other group.”
D’oh!
I’m not sure some of my coworkers saw the difference between our haunted house tour and this ghost hunting bit. It’s crystal clear to me: one is a bit of educational theater, and the other is something that credulous people take seriously.
Do you think that most people can see the difference? Or is the standard haunted house bit playing into the hands of the ghost hunters? Should we stop the haunted house tours?
The house was “haunted” by people acting as the ghosts of the former residents, and the guests went from one room to another meeting various historical characters.
It was a lot of fun from my end. I got to write some of the scripts, which gave me the opportunity to role-play as some of the more interesting people in the history of the Hudson Valley.
That sounds like fun. The best part is explaining how they rejected Jesus H. Christ and wound up in Hell for eternity.
The best part is explaining how they rejected Jesus H. Christ and wound up in Hell for eternity.
Is overacting a sin? If so, I’ve got some suggestions ….
Haunted museum tour does sound like fun. The people who see the difference are the ones who want to. A lot of Americans believe in ghosts.
Ghost hunters are little more than tin-foil hat wearers, without the fancy hats. That said, I really can’t see how harmful it can be. For the most part ghost hunters are productive members of society who have jobs and pay taxes, all so they can afford to purchase the latest piece of ghost hunting tech, which never conclusively proves anything anyway. I’d say let them have their fun, as long as they make an appropriate donation for use of the premises.
That said, I really can’t see how harmful it can be.
I don’t like the way they dilute the meaning of science. “Ooh look, we use fancy electronic equipment for our fantasy role-playing, therefore it’s scientific.”
Link added in proof.
Sad, but true. You would think that in the 21st century, superstitious b.s. would be less prevalent, but no.
I reject all superstitions including the most common one, religion. It’s sad to see grown people believing in such drivel.
I’d suggest that the ‘meet historical characters’ tour be continued, minus the ghostly aspect. If you let the ghost hunting group in, why not require that a member of the museum staff (you) remain with them at all times? It would be a fascinating report.
I watch Ghost Hunters sometimes, and I think their effects are done with clear fishing line. I can’t detect any phonemes in most of what they call EVPs, but if a recorder picked something up, so what? I used to have a turntable that picked up CB chatter. I actually do think people see apparitions of people from past times, but to assume that what they are seeing is a trapped soul is too big an assumption to make. More likely something to do with space, time, physics.
Bring ‘em in. I think people have become more skeptical, not more credulous, regarding the so-called ghost hunters with the greater exposure. (Huh, sort of like religion.)
Oh, and I think the haunted museum thing is a really nice idea. Brings the inhabitants to life…or afterlife…or something.
Bring ‘em in. I think people have become more skeptical, not more credulous, regarding the so-called ghost hunters with the greater exposure. (Huh, sort of like religion.)
I tend to agree. Breathlessly jumping at every bump and shadow wears on even the most credulous after a while, simply because it is exhausting.
I’d also say, from a subsidiary ethical perspective, that belief in ghosts is one of the least harmful of superstitions. Usually beliefs only become harmful if they are coupled with action (especially action compelled by normative beliefs that accompany the descriptive ones, like the horrendous codes of behavior and ethics that accompany most religious belief systems), and belief in ghosts rarely comes coupled with these subsidiary compulsions. It is rare indeed to see an argument of the form: “Ghosts exist, therefore homosexuality is wrong.”
Which is not to say it is entirely harmless. Beyond the basic affront to verifiable truth and reality the belief represents, it can also cause some complications during, for example, the grieving process. Queen Victoria’s obsession with ghosts and the occult after Prince-Consort Albert died is a good example of how this can go very wrong and become quite unhealthy. Really, though, we (as a society, and usually as individuals) tolerate way less examination of way more harmful ungrounded beliefs all the time in many areas.
The haunted house tour sounds cool, and I don’t think you should abandon it because of a bunch of wingnuts. It’s much the same as the fundies who protest against Halloween because it encourages Satanism/evil spirits/demonic possession/whatever; the rest of us shouldn’t have to stop having a bit of innocent make-believe fun just because some idiots take it seriously.
Overall, I’d say that if someone can’t tell what a crock this “ghost hunter” stuff is, they’re probably beyond help anyway.
I don’t believe in ghosts. But, once, 41 years ago, I took a part-time job to help pay for college, as a night attendant (self-contained apartment inside) in a funeral home in Portland. Something happened around midnight that, to this day, I can’t explain. But it scared the hell out of me, and I resigned after my first night on the job. And there were no bodies in the funeral home that night. I did NOT expect anything like that. Even in those days when I was a christian, I was pretty skeptical about ghost stories.
I discount 99% of ghost stories, but sometimes . . .
I don’t think it was my imagination, because there was the guy whose place I was taking, who was present, and also witnessed it.
You would think I should have learned my lesson by now but yesterday looking for anything that isn’t football on TV I ended up watching a show about zombies on the aforementioned history channel. It started somewhat OK with a overview of the kind of living dead myths found in different cultures, somewhat superficial but not too bad for an entertainment based venue. Then they moved on to burial rituals aimed to prevent the dead from coming back, once again I would have phrased thing differently to make it clear that the ritual was believed to stop the dead from rising instead of their way which made it sound as if the ritual actually did prevent the dead from coming back to eat your brain, but again I can live with that. At this point they started talking about the modern version Hollywood zombies and the show just went completely off the rails. They presented as fact that a virus can create zombies and then seriously discussed what weapon is optimal for zombie survival an assault rifle, machete or crowbar. But what finally broke me was when they mentioned the 2001 Anthrax attacks as an example of how the zombie apocalypse can start and refereed to it as the deadly Anthrax virus. Couldn’t the morons spare one intern from the machete vs crowbar research to figure out the difference between bacteria and virus. ARRRRRRGH!!!
Virus, bacterium, whatever. The difference is hardly visible to the naked eye. ;)
But seriously, that’s a pet peeve of mine too. As is the use of the word “bacteria” as a singular count noun or a mass noun, when it’s a plural count noun.
Bring them in, if only so you can really scare the poo out of these ghost hunting pillocks :)