A human soul, real or not, would not have weight because it's not a physical thing. That would be like saying that our brains get heavier the more thoughts we have.

I want the opinion of the person who posted this.?

Without a link to the actual experiment (if there was an actual experiment), where his technique could be examined and evaluated, it is likely bullshit.

This "experiment" was done in 1907 with a sample size of 1, on a simple weighing machine usually used for sides of beef. A second experiment was disregarded after the results showed no weight loss, owing to "faulty scales"
Dr. Duncan MacDougall, a G.P. from Haverhill, Massachusetts carried out the "experiment" to prove his thesis which was published without peer review in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, and though later it was reprinted in American Medicine, it was for the purposes of discrediting it.

In short
It's Bollocks.

By definition, the soul is non-material and as such has no mass, so such a conclusion is ridiculous. Another issue that should be dealt with prior to such an experiment would be to define what soul is, which clearly has not occurred here. To my knowledge, there has been no evidence that such a phenomenon as soul exists.

I don't believe it for a second. It's a complete load of horseshit.
It's not even feasible that he would have done that, unless he was some
sort of mad scientist/serial killer.
It defies logic.

The crazy thing is, I clearly remember my pastor using this from the pulpit to prove there is a soul.

snope first then post

Well - I voted 'no' because it's bollocks, but that wasn't actually the question.

The question was whether it was ACCEPTABLE - and there we have a problem.

Is it ACCEPTABLE to be wrong?

I would say that every one of us is wrong. Probably many times a day. Does this make us unacceptable, or does it just mean we have things yet to learn and to understand?

Is making a statement that is not true unacceptable? If you do so deliberately, then you are lying - and that might be considered heinous - but what if you state a falsehood in genuine and sincere mistake? Should you then be declared unacceptable? Or does it depend on whether or not you're open enough to consider your words, assess their validity, realise they were erroneous, and change your mind?

I voted 'no' - but, to be honest, I think it's just not as simple as that.

How the Hell did he managed to get people just before dying? That's very hard to guess the moment when someone is about to die unless this was done in a n euthanasia clinic. That's my logic, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact only one of the six subjects met the hypothesis. The case has been cited as an example of selective reporting."

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Testing