Junk thought is defined as "the act of counter-defining science using "anti-rationalism" to explain certain phenomena." In terms of whether or not it is worthless, it usually it depends on what it is. There is some useless information out there and there is some that still deserves to not be discarded. But nonetheless, people have the right to believe what they want. I have had a lot of experience with this sort of thing. For example I have seen ghosts and other sorts of spirits before and so have a lot of my friends. My mother has seen them and so have a lot of her friends. On the other hand I know a lot of people who haven't seen them and think the thought of them actually existing is absurd. My brother and father are prime examples of this. Nonetheless, lots of people have seen them, yet when people claim feel like they are being haunted by ghosts, they are looked down on as crazy. This is mostly because the people they are telling it to have never shared the same experience. Paranormal scientists claiming they can detect the existence of ghosts by using heat and electromagnet devices to detect disturbances. Many people see this as potential proof because it is able to be documented on equipment. I really think they should take a step further and come up with a way that might get the science community interested. Perhaps the thought of there being scientific evidence that there is such thing as ghosts scares people. But just because there is evidence does not mean that everyone will get to see them.
From a scientific view, what would proving the existence of ghosts mean?
