Buck Bannister

But is it science ?

November 3, 2008 |  4 comments
Image Credit: Image After What is a "scientific" investigation team? The popular definition coined by Ghost Hunters' Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson is one that seeks to look for natural causes first and paranormal causes only when natural explanations cannot be ruled out. Yet, is this truly "scientific" or just a flip in the normal methodology employed for over 100 years in paranormal research? Some people seem to define "scientific" investigation as using as many electronic gadgets and gimmicks as possible. But is this "scientific" or just "technology heavy" investigation? After all, throughout history investigators and ghost hunters have used the latest gadgets in their work.

To me, "scientific" means being neutral in our outlook and strenuous in your data collection and analysis over a period of time. Many teams today use the "investigate and forget" paradigm. In this system the team investigates a location and makes a determination: Haunted or Not Haunted. Then immediately following the TV style "reveal" the investigation is promptly forgotten. Never again are the results compared with other investigations and never again (usually) is the site re-investigated to correlate the initial data with later information. This is especially true of "Not Haunted" locations.

Today, using the TV model the general approach in paranormal investigation is to visit a site once. If nothing is found a determination is made and the site promptly forgotten. If something is found a group might go back to a site again but even that can be a rarity if they have many cases pending.

So, how is this scientific? Science calls for testing and retesting of subjects to verify results. Once, therefore, could never be enough if the ruler of science is used. It would take multiple investigations with data being correlated over time to use the ruler of science to measure the validity of an investigation.

Likewise, groups using EMF meters, camera, recorders, and other electronic tools use the word "scientific" with abandon. Very seldom do groups analyze not just their tools but themselves.

Most investigators will tell you they are "open minded" but what does this mean? In many cases it means "I am a believer but I don't want to state that outright." This, at least, has been my personal experience. After all, open minded would actually be someone who simply didn't know either way. They would be "open" to the possibility that paranormal phenomena existed but just as open to the idea that it doesn't. They should feel no stress either way.

And there's the rub. We don't really know what the innate prejudices are that groups carry within themselves. That is, in my mind, one of the most important pieces of information to have. After all, a believer will often desire proof of the paranormal and unconsciously misinterpret something to underscore that belief. Likewise, someone who is a hard core disbeliever might misinterpret something in order to simply deny that it could be paranormal in nature.

Let's look at two examples using the most frequent "evidence" gathered by paranormal groups.In our example we have an investigator who has caught a sound on their recorder. They play it and think it says "who" in a drawn out way. They play it over and over assuring themselves they are correct. They play it for others who don't hear anything but a slight breathy noise until they point out what it says. Then, they too, can hear the "voice". They pronounce the sound as a ghostly communication and an EVP.

Now, let's assume that we have a similar situation except this time we have an investigator who catches a very clear and audible response to the question: "What is your name?" The answer returns on the recording "I'm Mary." This recording is now played for the hard core skeptic and disbeliever who pronounces it as "radio interference" out of hand and dismisses it. When pressed on how the radio interference happened he is unable to provide any concrete data on the frequency of the recorder picking up stray signals. He simply makes the pronouncement and dismisses it as coincidence.

Who in these examples is correct? It's impossible to tell because neither has actually provided any supporting work to shore up their assumptions.

What's more is that we would see that based upon their personal prejudices they are much more likely to make a pronouncement that fits their personal belief system.

Is there a way to check for inherent prejudices within groups? Certainly, tests exist that can do this and have been used in parapsychological studies for some time.

Therefore, I am suggesting that a study be undertaken of groups who hold themselves out as "scientific" and see how both as individuals and as a group they line up using such a system.

Are the people reviewing data true believers and more likely to interpret things as paranormal without supporting facts? Are they disbelievers and more likely interpret things as natural without supporting facts? Does the group as a whole exhibit an over all tendency in one direction or another?

Knowing these inherent tendencies within a group, personnel decisions could be made to insure that those reviewing evidence are truly "open minded" as well as give a bench mark for hiring decisions to keep the group average within the "open minded" range.

After all, despite the popularity of the word "scientific" in TV shows, if we are to do this seriously and not as entertainment we should make use not only of gadgets but also psychological studies and common sense. Comments (4)

 Total Posts: 7,768,587    Topics: 325,030    Members: 203,772

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!