Looks like TAPS is back with four reruns tomorrow on SciFi, starting at 3:00 PM Eastern. Airing of new episodes resumes June 6. Fun show.

I can't wait...it seems like it's been six months since the last original episode...oh wait, it has! i

I agree, it is a very fun show to watch. I like the way they are very skeptical about most things, and try to debunk whenever they can. It adds a bit more realism to the show.

I still don't know the fascination with the EMF meter though. Has that thing ever given them a concrete result?

Yep...it is a fun show to watch

And I have to agree, them trying to debunk what happens/experience is interesting. They come up with rational explanations.

Yes it has, more so in season 1. But even Jay and Grant are the first to say the EMF readings alone aren't proof of a haunting.

If I had a choice between taking an EMF to a site and taking a capable medium, I'd take the medium. (The emphasis here being on capable.) For that reason, I don't think I'd ever quite belong in a group like TAPS, even though I enjoy the show and think they're doing good work. I just think they're a little confused about what makes a procedure scientific and what doesn't.

I'd take the EMF because all you have from a medium or sensetive or psychic is his/her word for it. Even if 100% truthful and accurate I can't experience the same feelings the medium is claiming to be getting. No way I can make a scientific or just practical analysis or comparison of the medium's experience (if in fact it was genuine). All I have is thier word for it.

Whereas with an EMF meter I can have someone else along with me to look at the meter and confirm the reading. Or I can photograph or video the display. Regardless, the results of the meter can also be experienced by others. Then others can look at the environment and help confirm or debunk the reading as unexplainable by means other than possible paranormal activity. And others can come back to the same spot with thier own meters and try to experience the same results.

I watched severl episodes over the past week. Even if they are re-runs I still very much enjoy watching the show.

My favorite show on TV! Can't wait!

Sean

I agree with you about the EMF meter. I think they have had much better results with the thermal imaging cam and audio recordings. It seems the EMF meter picks up spike that can be bad wiring or even natural fluctuations that occur almost everywhere. I would love to have a thermal cam.

Not true. A capable medium will give information that can later be confirmed or falsified. It's important to observe a double-blind protocol, where neither the medium nor anyone present during the "reading" has any foreknowledge of the place. Results gotten in this way are as strong as just about any results you can get in a field study in any branch of science.



If you get a reading on an EMF meter, that is interesting, but my question is always "so what?" It doesn't give you any information. There's no content. So you see the meter move-- you still are in no positition to say what caused that. It never tells you what, where, when, who, or how.

Also, the hallmark of an EMF reading that indicates paranormal activity is precisely that it is not consistent and repeatable. I guess the theory goes that an EMF that just sits there all the time can't be an active spirit. It must emanate from some fixed and inanimate source. (I'm not advocating that theory, just noting that it's how EMF proponents seem to state it.)

I think that the strongest finding you can get from an EMF reading might tend to disprove a haunting, as it can help investigators track down bad wiring and other sources of EMR that could be causing people to feel "presence," see shapes that aren't there, and so on. If you get a reading and can't find the source, all you can really say is that you got a reading, and you don't know why.

So I know it's against the current fashion to tout a medium as a scientific instrument while foregoing gadgets like the EMF meter. I realize that most people would look at the electronic box and think "science." But science relies on method first, not on high tech. The important thing is a sound experimental design, and I think that's better done with a medium than with Geiger counters, field meters, and so on. I also think that the people who are experiencing a haunting, on whose behalf we're supposedly investigating, would like to know what it's all about. That's one thing an EMF meter can never tell you.

That's just my opinion, which is in the minority these days. I hope it makes sense to someone out there.

I think you meant debunked instead of falsified.

Same with an EMF meter. Even more so. Anyone can take an EMF meter back to the place of activity and see for themselves what results. If it's a natural (non-paranormal) or artificial source anyone can test that hypothesis. Whereas with a medium, I can't go to the spot and feel what the medium claimed to have felt. Even another medium can't go to the spot and feel something.



Yes it can.

I can look around and see if there are any obvious wires, outlets, devices etc that might be giving off high EMF. I can move the metere around and track down the source of the high EMF to a specific spot (done that many times to trace the source of a high artificial EMF reading).

Whereas with a medium, all I have is the medium's word on it. I can't confirm what he/she claims to be feeling/sensing/receiving/etc. So they give me a name. Big deal. Could easily have found out the name before arriving at the site. Could be a common name - Michael, John, Paul, Peter etc. So they say they're feeling the presence of a man or woman or child. In a home that means nothing. Could be anyone, if anything at all. I wish I had a $1 for everytime a medium/sensetive told me they felt someone there then I looked around and the person's name was on a picture or plaque or something in the area. Or it was on the site's website.



That's correct. If you go to a place and your meter is constantly and consistantly pegged then a) it's probably artificial in source (paranormal activity very very very rarely occurs on any regular or constant basis) and such a consistant high reading is rarely paranormal (if it is paranormal you've hit ghost pay dirt! ). Which is why I always say you need to have some understanding of meter ranges. A digital EMF goes from 0.00 to 199.9 milligause. If you get a reading of say 80-90 it's artificial. If you get a reading of 6-7 it could be paranormal (all compared to your base readings).



Science requires the repeatability of the experiment and same results by anyone trying it. With an EMF meter I could send my grandmother into a spot to check readings and she has as much chance of getting a reading as I do. But with a medium, who knows.

Some mediums may have genuine talent. But the fact that it's internal and personal as opposed to public and exposed makes any claims automatically unscientific and therefore can't be held as evidence. A skeptic would rip it to shreds.

Nope, I avoid the term "debunked" if I'm trying to speak in scientific terms. It's a loaded word, just reeking of bias. It's never used in science. I'd rather say that a proposition is either supported (confirmed, verified) or shown to be false, i.e., falsified.

If I call something "bunk," it's not just that it's false. It has to be unintelligible or self-contradictory.



Yes, and if the measurement is repeated, then it is said not to indicate paranormal activity! Spirits are said to come and go, just like flesh and blood persons. It's an EMF fluctuation or "spike" that is said to require a paranormal explanation. (That is, if you're impressed by the whole EMF thing, which I'm not, personally.)



Actually, that's exactly the way to test the reliability of mediums! Get several in there. Observe a blind protocol. If the perceptions of the mediums refer to anything real, then they should agree at levels that can't be statistically explained by chance. If this never happens, then we're in a position to say that we've never observed reliable mediumship.



Yes, exactly. You can use the meter to disprove the haunting hypothesis.



That's false. You can check the information a medium gives you. It's done all the time.



Not if a blind protocol is observed. Remember, I said how important that is.




That's why we talk about "statistically significant" results-- ones that can't be accounted for by chance. Certainly, if all a medium came up with was "John," and there was a "John" associated with a case, nobody would be impressed. If the medium accurately got a "John Brzezinsky" who died in a fire in 1907, then we require an explanation. If there is anything at all to mediumship, then there should exist some mediums who can pass this kind of test.

And in fact, some mediums have been tested in such a way and found to give reliable information. If you've got a medium who can do that, I'd say it's quite a bit more informative than an EMF reading! Again, I know that's not the current fashion, but it's my opinion.




Right, agreed.




That's what many otherwise knowledgable people think, but it's simply false. A medium's observations can hold up to scrutiny (or fail to) exactly the same as observations made by anyone in any field. I realize that the common perception is that reasoning based on a medium's observations is"automatically unscientific," while reasoning based on a high-tech instrument like an EMF meter is automatically scientific. Nothing could be further from the truth. The misperception comes from a poor understanding of what science is. Science is not technical gadgetry. Science is a specific mode of reasoning embodied in a research design. You are hitting on exactly what groups like TAPS don't get! And it's exactly why I mentioned mediumship.

I'm a little skeptical about Ghosthunters. They seem to get proof of ghosts in almost EVERY episode, and I just don't buy it.

I really enjoyed the first season but after that I started getting the feeling that some things were staged just to keep interest. I later heard a rumor that they had staged the chair moving in the lighthouse but the video was so dark. I wasnt impressed either way. I have not watched it much after the first season but I am looking forward to seeing whats going on with the guys. One thing to remember is that it is a reality show so just enjoy it for what it is.

Right, I think you were confused as I was when first reading the thread. But the OP is refering to TAPS, and not Ghost Hunters. (The screaming English, as I refer to them)

TAPS is a fun one to watch, skeptics at their finest!

TAPS is the organization, and Ghost Hunters is the title of their show on the SciFi Channel here in the States.