MRT
23rd September 2007, 06:39 PM
I have been studying the paranormal for decades now. I have always taken a neutral stance, ready to be convinced (maybe even hoping to be convinced) by the evidence.
The major problem I have come across, again and again, is the quality of evidence - or rather the lack of quality. For instance, someone sends me a photo showing a person I am told is a ghost. It looks like a normal, undoctored photo of a normal person to me. Why do they think it is a ghost? Because they were alone at the time. How do they know they were alone? At this stage they often get a bit annoyed that I am questioning their memory. In fact, I have every reason to question their memory as many scientific studies have shown how fallible it is, along with our observational skills.
Someone may argue that such case is strong because we have physical evidence - a photo of someone. I would say the case is weak because it is, in essence, anecdotal. So many cases go this way when they are analysed carefully.
Too many people take such anecdotal evidence and use it to produce paranormal theories, like 'recording' ghosts. To my mind, they are going way beyond the available evidence. Paranormal researchers need to forget about paranormal theories entirely for now and concentrate on getting much higher quality evidence first.
The major problem I have come across, again and again, is the quality of evidence - or rather the lack of quality. For instance, someone sends me a photo showing a person I am told is a ghost. It looks like a normal, undoctored photo of a normal person to me. Why do they think it is a ghost? Because they were alone at the time. How do they know they were alone? At this stage they often get a bit annoyed that I am questioning their memory. In fact, I have every reason to question their memory as many scientific studies have shown how fallible it is, along with our observational skills.
Someone may argue that such case is strong because we have physical evidence - a photo of someone. I would say the case is weak because it is, in essence, anecdotal. So many cases go this way when they are analysed carefully.
Too many people take such anecdotal evidence and use it to produce paranormal theories, like 'recording' ghosts. To my mind, they are going way beyond the available evidence. Paranormal researchers need to forget about paranormal theories entirely for now and concentrate on getting much higher quality evidence first.