Episode 1922: Sam Golbach and Colby Brock

Why This Episode Requires Critical Analysis

Joe Rogan’s conversation with YouTubers Sam Golbach and Colby Brock centers on paranormal investigation and ghost hunting - activities that the scientific community universally classifies as pseudoscience. While Sam and Colby present themselves as entertainers, the uncritical discussion of supernatural claims without scientific scrutiny can promote pseudoscientific thinking among millions of listeners.

The Scientific Consensus on Ghost Hunting

The National Science Foundation explicitly identifies “haunted houses, ghosts, and communication with the dead” among pseudoscientific beliefs that lack empirical support. Despite centuries of investigation, no scientific study has ever confirmed the existence of ghosts or validated any ghost hunting methodology.

According to scientists and skeptics, ghost hunting fails as legitimate investigation because:

It doesn’t conduct actual hypothesis testing
The equipment used (EMF detectors, temperature sensors) has no proven connection to supernatural phenomena
Claims are based on “guesses, unproven theories, and wild conjecture” rather than evidence

Problematic Claims Discussed

Paranormal Entities “Following” Them

Sam and Colby claim they carry paranormal entities with them between locations, with multiple people independently telling them “there is someone behind you.” This represents classic confirmation bias and the power of suggestion - when people expect to see ghosts, they interpret ambiguous stimuli as paranormal.

Ghost Hunting as Investigation

The duo presents their YouTube content as “paranormal investigation,” lending a veneer of legitimacy to what amounts to entertainment. Real scientific investigation requires:

Testable hypotheses
Controlled conditions
Reproducible results
Peer review

Ghost hunting employs none of these methodologies.

The Harm of Mainstreaming Pseudoscience

When influential platforms like JRE present paranormal claims without skeptical examination, several harms can result:

Erosion of Scientific Literacy: Presenting pseudoscience alongside legitimate science without distinction undermines public understanding of the scientific method.
Exploitation of Grief: Ghost hunting often preys on grieving individuals seeking contact with deceased loved ones, leading to emotional and financial exploitation by supposed mediums and paranormal investigators.
Misallocation of Resources: Belief in the paranormal can lead people to spend money on fraudulent services, equipment, or “haunted” experiences rather than evidence-based solutions to real problems.

The Entertainment Defense

While Sam and Colby primarily position themselves as entertainers rather than serious investigators, the distinction becomes blurred when:

They discuss personal beliefs in the paranormal as if based on evidence
Their content influences millions of young viewers
The conversation lacks any scientific counterbalance or skeptical perspective

Context: YouTubers Without Expertise

Sam Golbach and Colby Brock are content creators who transitioned from comedy videos to paranormal content for entertainment value. They have:

No formal training in investigation or scientific methodology
No credentials in any relevant field
Openly admitted they started as “the most skeptical people ever” but now “believe” based on their subjective experiences

Personal experiences and anecdotes, no matter how compelling, do not constitute scientific evidence.

The Responsibility of Large Platforms

With JRE’s massive reach, there’s a responsibility to either:

Present scientific skepticism alongside paranormal claims
Clearly frame such content as entertainment rather than investigation
Include expert voices who can explain why such claims lack empirical support

This episode does none of these things, instead treating ghost hunting as a legitimate activity worthy of serious discussion.

Conclusion

While Sam and Colby may be entertaining content creators, presenting paranormal investigation without scientific scrutiny on a platform of JRE’s influence helps mainstream pseudoscientific thinking. In an era where scientific literacy is crucial for navigating misinformation, uncritically platforming ghost hunting - an activity the scientific community unanimously rejects as pseudoscience - represents a missed opportunity for education and a potential source of harm to vulnerable audiences.

Sources

National Science Foundation. (2002). “Science and Engineering Indicators – 2002.” Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding. NSF.
Radford, Benjamin. (2010). “Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries.” Rhombus Publishing.
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. “Ghost Hunting Science vs Pseudoscience.” CSI.
Live Science. “The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting.” LiveScience.com.
Wikipedia. “Ghost hunting” and “List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.” Accessed 2025.