Celebrities like Adele have weird love/hate relationship with ghosts

Adele ‘invites Robbie Williams to haunted mansion’ – Monsters and Critics.

Adele has invited Robbie Williams to stay at her haunted mansion.

The 23-year-old ‘Someone Like You’ singer reportedly believes her 10-bedroom home is Sussex, England, is being staked out by ghosts, and has invited super-natural enthusiast Robbie and his wife Ayda Field to come and experience the spooky goings-on.

A source said: ‘Adele’s often said she hates staying at home alone in the mansion because she’s sure it’s haunted and she gets spooked.

‘She knows Robbie and Ayda are fascinated by the supernatural and has offered to have them to stay for a haunted weekend any time they like.

‘Adele thinks they are both fantastic and would love to spend some time sharing ghost stories and witnessing paranormal activity.’

Source: Monsters and Critics

Color me confused. There are many rational investigators she could call in (and can afford to pay them) to check out her paranormal issues and figure out what might be bugging her.

[Paging: Dr. Richard Wiseman (a professional)]

But it strikes me that isn’t her goal at all. It sounds more like she is bragging about the situation and wants sympathy more than answers. That’s what always amazes me about people claiming haunted houses. Why not call in a scientist? That would actually be HELPFUL. I’ll never understand this stuff… Maybe I need a psychologist.

  6 comments for “Celebrities like Adele have weird love/hate relationship with ghosts

  1. Patrick Orlob
    March 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    I love this blog, but there have been multiple instances of reporting uncritically on a celebrity’s supposed issues with the supernatural, which I find frustrating. This story comes from “a source” who “spoke” to the Daily Mirror, a paper with a monumental history of just making stuff up.

    While the claim at hand is fairly trivial, I think it’s important that we be a little more careful in how we as skeptics report and react to stories like this, else we’re just buying into convenient fictions or unfalsifiable claims, just as the people we criticize.

  2. March 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

    Patrick: I understand your point about the sources. I have tried to steer clear of these trashy sources. But, if the stories are found in multiple places, they are getting to public eyeballs. I suppose I could make that comment of every story – “Assuming the above facts are true…” But my goal is a little different. It is to get people to think critically about the ideas proposed, not only the veracity of the story.

    Here are our goals http://doubtfulnews.com/about-doubtful-news/ We aim to reach out to the public, not just skeptical folk.

    My commentary on the above is not uncritical of the topic. I call people to task for indulging their paranormal proclivities instead of getting to the bottom of their problems. Most of the traffic from this site comes from search results on these subjects. When they get here, they get a different view than the more credulous one they may have seen in the original media report.

    Would you think that I NOT put such stories on here? It’s important for skeptics to see what is out there in the press and for everyone to realize the poor journalism and bias that comes out with these types of stories. Surely you can see that it is an advantage to attract a broad audience beyond the “skeptical” one. We have to address such topics and hopefully plant a seed. I’d also wonder if the audience really remembers they heard the story from the Mirror or Mail or Gather, etc. They just remember. Those big ideas are what we are trying to pick away at.

  3. March 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

    I’ve no problem with you reporting such sources, but I agree that they need more sceptical treatment/caveat than more respectable news sources without a history of pathologically making stuff up.

    But you are doing a splendid job here, so please don’t take this as a criticism.

  4. Patrick Orlob
    March 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

    I get what you’re saying, that it’s important to draw attention to pseudoscientific ideas when they’re presented in the media; that it’s the larger story that has to be tackled.

    But I still get rankled at the idea that false things be presented as true so we can dismantle a strawman (Adele’s ghost beliefs, not ghost beliefs in general). The me, when the Mirror (to pick on them some more) publishes a story like this, it’s not much different than if they publish a story saying Atlantis has been discovered. It’s the unsubstantiated claim that is the problem.

    Anyway, that’s my take. 🙂

  5. March 28, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    In fairness, I may not be as knowledgeable about bad sources. OTOH, sometimes even the Daily Mail will get a winner. Any suggestions on how to handle dubious sources? Disclaimer? Or just look for keys like “A source says”

  6. Patrick Orlob
    March 30, 2012 at 12:48 PM

    I think something like “if the unnamed source in the article is to be believed…” would fit the bill, I think. Also, I’d avoid headlines that make a claim, unless that claim itself is examined in the article. (Something like “Does Adele have a weird love/hate relationship with ghosts?” at least doesn’t assume it’s true.)

    Also, I know I don’t often comment here, so I don’t want you to think my minor criticisms here are indicative of what I think in general. Far and away, I love everything you do here. 🙂

Comments are closed.