The Curious Question of Ghost Taxonomy |

Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 300+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 26000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €10,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade Now for €10,99 Learn more
This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Loyalty Points

The Curious Question of Ghost Taxonomy

The nature of ghosts remains unknown despite centuries of collective effort by legions of ghost hunters.

Among the vast constellation of unexplained and Fortean topics, ghosts are by far the most elusive and unknown. Cryptozoologists who search for Bigfoot, for example, have reached a general consensus on what they’re looking for: a tall, bipedal, hairy, manlike animal. Not so with the most popular paranormal subject in the world: ghosts.

What are ghost hunters looking for? It’s not clear. As Owen Davies notes in his book The Haunted: A Social History of Ghosts, historically “Ghosts shared certain characteristics with fairies, angels, and devils, and the tricky task of distinguishing between them often depended on the context in which they appeared: and this in turn changed over the centuries according to religious, philosophical, and scientific developments” (Davies 2007, 13).

Over the years various attempts have been made to classify and categorize ghosts (by early researchers including G.N.M. Tyrrell, Eleanor Sidgwick, and others associated with the Society for Psychical Research and more recently by writers such as Brad Steiger and John Zaffis) usually according to eyewitness reports. Of course there are inherent problems with classifying and categorizing potentially ambiguous and error-prone experiences. This was perhaps not obvious in the late 1800s, but over the past decades, it’s become clear from psychology research that sincere people misperceive and misremember events with alarming consistency. Research is only as good as the data, and the testimony and accounts of apparition witnesses simply cannot be taken at face value.

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - May June 2018
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - May June 2018
Or 549 points
Getting free sample issues is easy, but we need to add it to an account to read, so please follow the instructions to read your free issue today.
Email Address
Annual Digital Subscription
Only € 3,16 per issue
Or 1899 points

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

Progressophobia: Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are STEVEN PIKER Percival Lowell and the Canals of Mars The Curious Question of Ghost Taxonomy and much more!