[RobertRoberts]

You are missing a critical point. Before this, there was likely no proof that people could share or rely on to question if _any_ ghost could be an illusion.

This is very important to future critical thinking because this gave people evidence to back up being skeptical for future illusions that they can't immediately explain.

[BugsJustFindMe]

I agree that it's important to advance knowledge of what's possible, but that is very different from proving a negative.

[RobertRoberts]

When I see a card magic trick, for all intents and purposes it "appears" magic. Once I learn _one_ card trick, I start to realize it's not magic. Regardless if I can prove anything or not.

This same applies here with ghosts. People needed to know they _could_ be fooled, how it was done doesn't matter, because people were being scammed and were afraid of things that weren't ghosts.

Proving something is a ghost has never been done, so ghost scams is a good thing to educate people on.

[mistermann]

Do you ever notice how in Internet arguments people switch between logic and rhetoric seamlessly to support their argument?

In a very real sense, it is a lot like watching children (with their intelligence limits) arguing, thinking what they say makes sound sense.

This phenomenon is everywhere, including the most powerful places, and it is essentially not even on humanities radar.