Question

Would you consider the practice of "ghost hunting” to be closer to science or pseudoscience, based on the information provided in the article? Provide two examples to support your answer.

Answer 1

I would consider the practice of "ghost hunting” to be closer to pseudoscience than science because the work described in the article mostly lacks process and is subjective. In the article, people looking for evidence of ghosts do not set up controlled experiments with repeated trials. Instead, they take several measurements and make guesses about what might be causing the results they see. The people in the article also base conclusions on observations such as feeling a "heavy presence” or a "sudden chill.” These are subjective observations.

Explanation: It's right, trust me.

Answer 2

Pseudoscience

Step-by-step explanation:

The practice of "ghost hunting" is generally considered closer to pseudoscience than science. While some individuals and groups claim to use scientific methods and equipment to investigate paranormal phenomena, the field lacks solid empirical evidence and is often criticized for its lack of rigor and reliance on subjective experiences. Here are two examples to support this assessment:

Lack of Reproducibility: In science, one of the essential aspects of conducting experiments is the ability to reproduce results independently. In ghost hunting, there is a significant lack of reproducibility, which means that the same results are rarely obtained when different investigators examine the same location or claim to encounter the same phenomena. This inconsistency raises doubts about the reliability of the methods used and the existence of paranormal activities.

Subjectivity and Bias: Ghost hunting often relies on subjective experiences and personal interpretations of events. Investigators may attribute ordinary or unexplained occurrences to supernatural causes without considering more plausible natural explanations. This subjectivity can introduce bias and make it challenging to distinguish between genuine evidence and wishful thinking or preconceived beliefs.