Scientists don't fall into this fallacy. Scientific skepticism, or rational skepticism, simply states you can't prove the negative. In other words, if you don't have proof of ghosts, then you don't have proof of ghosts. Not that ghosts aren't real. To prove to a skeptic that a ghost is real, you can't just provide evidence. That's never good enough. You need to provide a replicable, measurable experience. In other words, you have to take me to the haunted house, conjure the spirit, and let me observe and measure it when scientific instruments. You'd then have to let my colleagues do the same thing to compare the results, and then let an objective third party study the results. Because that isn't possible, ghosts will always be relegated to the field of metaphysics. And I say this as someone who's had a paranormal experience I can't explain. It doesn't convince me of the reality of ghosts. I need more evidence beyond my own senses.