It can't be proven scientifically because hard science and paranormal activity are like apples and oranges. They're completely different animals.
This is a statement of belief not fact. If you have reasons to believe this, I'd like to hear them, but to me it just sounds like an idea which you've adopted because it fit what you wanted to think. What evidence have you gathered to make this plausible?
I believe in ghosts because of the many experiences I've had, but I don't believe there will ever be any scientific way to prove they exist. Whether or not someone believes will just have to be let up to each individual.
Relying on the experiential is flawed for reasons previously stated.
Take "Near Death Experiences." People who go through them often sense an experience that confirms their religious beliefs. The key thing of note here is that they all experience things that confirm
personal beliefs, which if all are taken to be true, then we have quite a paradox. This is, in itself, evidence that what they've experienced is based off of their expectations. Add in the way we know that the brain deals with trauma, and it's quite obvious that what people are seeing is simply some version of a dream.
There is a show in Scyfi called Ghost Hunters. They use scientific equipment like electro-magnetic detectors, cameras, thermal cameras, and digital recorders. They've caught some very interesting stuff that could not be explained with any rational explanation.
Have you looked for such explanations, or did you just decide this on your own? Because I've seen quite a few blogs, podcasts, and television shows devoted to explaining the supposedly "unexplainable" phenomenon of these ghost shows.
The equipment they use measures predetermined things. Fluctuation in heat, electromagnetism, et cetera, not
the presence of ghosts. The problem with those experiences as reliable evidence is that there is an operational definition
being proposed based on nothing. They claim that if something happens with the various meters and devices they employ, it is proof of the existence of the supernatural. No, it's only proof that whatever those devices are designed to measure has happened.
Television shows are created to make money. If they had real, documentable, solid evidence of the paranormal, why wouldn't they publish a peer-reviewed paper on it? Don't you think evidence of the paranormal would be a contender for the Nobel Prize in Science? Or the Million Dollar Paranormal prize I keep referring to.
That is what paranormal activity is, and always will be; things that cannot be explained by science.
Again, according to this principle which has no basis whatsoever.
Scientific equipment can catch things like the shape of a man walking across a hall on a thermal camera when the people operating the camera saw nothing, but there will never be a way to analyze it and prove what it was.
I'm wondering what your background in science or technology is to actually make such a strong statement.
The bottom line is, things that're considered now part of everyday phenomenon were once considered paranormal (as Alice alluded to). There was a time in human history when we understood very little and even the rising of waters in Ancient Sumeria was considered to be paranormal and driven by some unseen force, gods as it were. By induction, it can be reasoned with a fair degree of certainty than anything in the world will eventually be explained by science; every event that science has been able to tackle thus far serves as corroborating evidence to this claim. And there is no solid proof
so far that even a singular event exists that science cannot analyze. Thusly, that argument is completely without merit.
When I was 8, I was afraid of ghosts. I asked my dad, "How can you be sure ghosts don't exist?" He responded, "I've lived 30 some odd years and I've never seen one." This deceptively simple statement has a nugget of wisdom to it. Anyone who tells you all of these paranormal phenomenon have no grain of truth to them is making a statement of opinion backed by all of the evidence in their life (including every waking day which they've spent living and observed nothing paranormal) and all of the evidence that has been collected throughout human history by science and individual experience.
Those who claim to have seen firsthand these events are in the vast minority and there are rational explanations that serve as perfect rebuttals to their experiences. I guess it all depends on what you're going to believe, plausibility or implausibility based on confidence in personal experience.
There is one fact to be gleaned from all of this that no one can deny: Paranormality is an improbability.
EDIT: An amusing afterthought. If ghosts could be left behind after a person's death for a variety of reasons, wouldn't the amount of paranormal reports have increased exponentially with the population? More people, more deaths, more ghosts. You would think there'd be a paranormal overcrowding issue too, if the ghosts don't go away on their own.
If ghosts exist, it's gotta be the worst in China given population density and the human rights abuses that would cause the trauma that leads to supernatural persistence as postulated by the average ghost hunter.
...funny that the Chinese government isn't concerned about their hypothesized "ghost problem."