Search recent issues

Review info
• About us
• Subscriptions
• Advertising

Copy editors have opinions: Ghosts and superstition

By Harrison Demchick

Not only do copy editors have opinions, but they can also be offended. Take, for example, a flyer that went up around the school on Halloween.

I have always wondered if there were any ghosts in Oberlin. I assumed there probably were, considering how old and how historic the town is, but I had never heard anything about hauntings or the like. So the flyer I noticed walking into Wilder last Friday afternoon seemed to be advertising something of particular interest to me – a chance to learn about “Oberlin’s spooks.”

A shame, though, that the event in question, the 9 p.m. meeting in Asia House, was not the focus of the flyer. Instead there was that word, in big black letters, at the flyer’s center: “Superstitious?”

It makes very little sense, I think, on a single flyer to insult the very crowd you are trying to draw. Insult, you ask? How?

It’s really very simple. The study of ghosts has nothing to do with superstition. It also has nothing to do with belief. Belief implies a leap of faith and a leap of logic; an understanding of the phenomenon of ghosts requires, and includes, neither of these things.

I do not, then, believe in ghosts any more than I believe in trees or in the existence of, say, November. Ghosts simply exist. My interest in this meeting was steeped in the idea that I could learn about the ghosts of Oberlin, but I was certainly not willing to attend a meeting that belittles its own purpose as “superstition.”

This is needlessly condescending for a number of reasons. First, it assumes that ghosts are nonexistent, a conclusion that can only be drawn not from lack of evidence, but despite an abundance thereof.

Second, it insults all those who study ghosts as either profession or hobby, ignoring the logic and intelligence they bring to the subject every day, assuming instead a passion based on the implied ignorance of superstition.

Third, it further insults those who actually reported these ghostly encounters; it assumes, simply, that they are lying, delusional, or complete idiots. These are unfair assumptions to make regarding those who experience an actual phenomenon that in my opinion should be considered scientific fact.

Picture a modern ghost hunter. This is not an amateur investigator who goes into a house with a psychic and tries to prove paranormal activity, although psychics are often used with some real success.

These are students of the science who carry the tools of the trade, not merely the obvious cameras and video cameras, but also scientific instruments like electromagnetic field (EMF) detectors, thermometers, motion sensors and electronic voice phenomena (EVP) equipment or tape re-corders, essentially.

Time and time again these tools have shown unusual and unexplainable readings concurrent with ghostly phenomena, such as electromagnetic fluctuations, sudden, extreme drops in temperature, and very interestingly, audio recordings of voices and sounds that were not present at the time of the recording and sometimes not even on the recorded side of the cassette.

These readings are consistent and scientifically verifiable. And then there are the more obvious records of hauntings and spirits, where video tapes have captured the phenomena, photographs of ghosts with the negatives having undergone full scientific investigation, and eyewitness accounts.

To me, this topic always raises the question: what are people waiting for? What more is needed to warrant proof? Let’s face it, nobody is going to capture a “live” ghost for the entire world to see. There simply cannot be clear physical evidence because “physical” is not the nature of the phenomenon.

But ghosts are scientifically detectable and I really do feel that the reason ghosts are not considered definitely existent is general stubbornness.

What are ghosts? That is more difficult to say. The spirits of the dead is, I believe, the best explanation, because it can reasonably fits all forms of the phenomena, but it is not the only explanation.

Perhaps some individuals leave an energy imprint when they die, causing the occurrences in question. This doesn’t strike me as a good explanation, but it has been put on the table.

Maybe it’s something entirely different. We will never know until people stop questioning the reliable sightings and start questioning the reasons.

I could continue with this point for pages without convincing people, but that is not my leading motive. The point is that those who do see merit in the field, like myself, have excellent reasons for considering the veracity of ghosts.

To use the blanket accusation of “superstitious” in reference to every individual is not only offensive, but also ignorant; especially since it was on a flyer that was specifically aimed towards those who may find it offensive.

I want to learn about ghosts at Oberlin. I don’t want to be insulted in the process. The sooner the legitimacy of the study of ghosts is understood, the sooner intellectual discussion — free of condescension — can begin.