One of the biggest recurring issues in this field and a big beef between skeptics and believers can be summed up by the following:
Skeptics: show us evidence, or at least some type of recurring measurable activity that can be tested/ monitored to build some type of hypothesis.
Believers: ghosts/paranormal activity are a fleeting, ephemeral and cannot be readily predicted and therefore will never be suitable for true scientific study.
And here is where the disconnect, and my actual question comes in. There are hundreds if not thousands of locations purported to be haunted with several people claiming to have experienced things at said locations.
Why do paranormal investigators move on? Why not “camp” and investigate the same sight for months even years gathering and collecting data to form the basis for an in-depth more scientific investigation. Especially in cases where they “hear” or record something, or see something, why would you look elsewhere? (Sincere question here.)
In every other branch of science and scientific investigation, it is painstaking, often very unrewarding efforts to find and prove things. I mean think of the zoologist who has some evidence of the white spotted lemur, found droppings, some hair samples, that person or team is camping that area or returning to that area until they finally get conclusive evidence of the creature. They don’t find some evidence and say “close enough” let’s go look for some elsewhere.
I can honestly say I would be very intrigued to see the results of a long term study of a single, well known haunted area, with logs and data spanning large time spans. To me, if paranormal investigators would approach their investigations in a manner more similar to other branches of science, it would add credibility and weight to their discussions.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Edited by CakeOrDeath, 19 April 2013 - 04:12 PM.