Do I think it’s really a ghost? No, but I think we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard when debunking woo.

Many of these recurring arguments about whether a given claim has been truly debunked would go away if the arguers would first agree on their definition of ‘debunk’. Some feel it means ‘disprove’ while others feel it means ‘provide a more plausible alternate explanation that explains all observations’.

Harry Houdini had a marvelous invention – the “medium’s box”. Claimed to be rigged so that a specific medium could be tested in the box and her powers foiled, the box is also claimed to be designed so that Houdini himself can be locked in the box and yet create the effects which the medium claimed to be capable of. The box was designed to prevent the medium from employing any of the tricks which Houdini was aware of (and which were relevant to the claims). If the box were designed to prevent only one specific trick, Houdini would have looked really bad if he had guessed the wrong trick and the medium were able to do her thing. Unless people stand up to be tested or volunteer to have appropriately skilled people scrutinize their claims, there is often no telling what trick was used to produce an effect. Even when it comes to testing it is not necessary to know exactly what trick will be employed (as long as that particular trick had been accounted for) – it is sufficient to demonstrate that the claimed effect cannot be produced. But in this case neither CD nor Randi are testing a claim, they are merely showing one simple option for how the trick can be done, and in doing so they have already debunked the claim by providing a natural explanation for the observation.

Where can I get one of those skeptic communicator devices? :P

They provide a video with an explanation. They are trying to get views, and make people get scared. Simply stating an alternate hypothesis demonstrates to the viewers that, in fact, “ghost” isn’t the only explanation. People are smart, and will weigh the odds on their own. In the absence of another explanation, they will blindly accept the “woo” hypothesis. If we provide a more reasonable one, then they may think of even a better one on their own.

And besides, what kind of video maker who is trying to scare the audience, would let a group of skeptics come in and tear through his house? The video is clearly an attempt to entertain, and the debunking of it just adds some extra entertainment.

Why not?

No, seriously though, the reason I make that statement is because in the war of reality versus woo, skeptics, debunkers, and dewooers have already got such a hard job challenging and countering the endless bath of woo that washes over the world, I think the extra several steps of reality cleanse are extremely important.

Woo entertains and appeals to so many people to such a deep degree, that I feel if skeptics, deubunkers, et al do not go those extra several steps they end up preaching only to the already converted. And what is the point of that?

Yes, I know, many wooists are not going to be convinced by any reality. But fences sitters cover a wide range of being accessible to reality, and they should get the most and the best of reality as often as is possible.

“… any reasonable person would have to conclude that the plausible hypothesis is more likely to be true.”

And just how many wooists are reasonable people?