Pet hates number 1: 'scientific ghost hunting'

[Mulder]

While it is perfectly possible to apply the scientific method to ghost research, and a few people do it, most don't! To most 'ghost hunters', 'scientific' means waving an EMF meter (designed to detect fields produced by mains electricity) around and pretending it is a ghost detector. As soon as 'scientific' ghost hunters start asking ghosts to 'show themselves', you realise they haven't a clue what science is about.

I feel better now. Do carry on ....

[Dr B]

I agree. But as you say, it can be done properly under the guise of 'field-based' research. O0

It's all about the questions you start out with, your underlying logic, and the methodology you use. If you examine that - you can tell whether people know what they are doing.

[dalriada]

This is a pet hate of mine too. Either there are no such things as ghosts, or throughout the entire history of humanity we have been been spectacularly, stunningly, unsuccessful in catching even one for display purposes. Nevertheless even in the 21st century there are sizeable numbers of people tottering out in the cold this weekend quite prepared to think their little band might well be the first people to do just that. :undecided:

The whole Science-meets-the-spirits fantasy was totally understandable when viewed as part of the Victorian cultural crisis of faith. The 19th century would have been far more comfortable for a lot of people if those two conflicting elements could be reconciled. The resurgance of interest in recent years may be far more attributable to TV pop culture, Most Haunted etc and that's just tacky (I have at least some respect for cognitive dissonance.) What also annoys me is the blurring of the lines between Reason and absolute, utter Nonsense to the point where there are university researchers who appear to see those pop culture-consumers as their primary audience in preference to proper peer review and who seem fairly ready to stray from the narrow rocky path of scholarly endeavour for a shot at being a TV hero. I suppose this may well be encouraged in newer universities seeking a higher public profile but at what price? Postgrad research students now drawn from the 'Most Haunted', 'Hex' and 'Ghostwhisperer' watching (and appearing) demographic. Fact and fiction merged. I wonder how research units with a parapsychology slant will fare in the upcoming University Research Assessment Exercise? All that time spent trailing around the Haunted Houses of Everywhereshire was time not spent writing papers...Academic Parapsychology in the UK has flourished in comparison to its decimation in the US, but if a bibliometric system (output volume, citation volume, journal impact etc), is going to be used post-2008 to judge research quality and allocate funding there could be some dark days ahead for those who don't publish in mainstream journals.

I think the potentially most interesting ghost-hunter research would be an ethnographic study of the groups themselves. A detailed investigation of the paranormal sub-culture and the subtle ways in which a selection of ghost-hunting groups differentiate themselves from other. The ones who wave EMF meters in comparison to the ones who wave meejums, the ones with matching printed t-shirts and compasses round their necks (magnetic awareness you see) in comparison to the ones with crystals, ankhs or crucifixes. The ones who believe in orbs and the ones who don't and the ones who believe in orbs with faces, and the one who really,really used to believe in orbs and now have discovered they don't (even though someone else discovered it first). Feuds. Territory. Contested spaces. Allegiance building. Overt and covert ways in which competitor groups are denigrated. Totems and fetishes... Status symbols (does a nightvision camera trump a member with a PhD? Is Chris French viewed as a more desirable vigil buddy than Richard Felix or Mia Dolan?)

Failing that I'd love to see Louis Theroux spending Weird Weekend conducting serious study, research and investigation with the foremost Scientific anomalous and paranormal investigation team in the country (whoever they might be ) :)

[dalriada]

The Hunting of the Snark (http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/carrol03.html)

[Mulder]

I think the potentially most interesting ghost-hunter research would be an ethnographic study of the groups themselves. A detailed investigation of the paranormal sub-culture and the subtle ways in which a selection of ghost-hunting groups differentiate themselves from other. The ones who wave EMF meters in comparison to the ones who wave meejums, the ones with matching printed t-shirts and compasses round their necks (magnetic awareness you see) in comparison to the ones with crystals, ankhs or crucifixes. The ones who believe in orbs and the ones who don't and the ones who believe in orbs with faces, and the one who really,really used to believe in orbs and now have discovered they don't (even though someone else discovered it first). Feuds. Territory. Contested spaces. Allegiance building. Overt and covert ways in which competitor groups are denigrated. Totems and fetishes... Status symbols (does a nightvision camera trump a member with a PhD? Is Chris French viewed as a more desirable vigil buddy than Richard Felix or Mia Dolan?)

You make the whole thing sound horribly like a cult. I hadn't considered that. Ouch!

[dalriada]

Ghost Hunters = Trekkies + a spiritual side - mathematical aptitude (and ability to speak Klingon)

>:D

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

This is a pet hate of mine too. Either there are no such things as ghosts, or throughout the entire history of humanity we have been been spectacularly, stunningly, unsuccessful in catching even one for display purposes. Nevertheless even in the 21st century there are sizeable numbers of people tottering out in the cold this weekend quite prepared to think their little band might well be the first people to do just that. :undecided:


Not just ghosts - we are living in the most recorded age in history. The number of gadgets which can record images (still or moving) and/or sound is growing at an exponential rate, yet there seems to be a decrease in the number of phenomenon captured.

Let's ignore orbs though in this argument ;)

It's obvious the ability to fake pictures or video has been superceded by the ability to detect the fake. The only thing faked these days is a supermodel's cellulite or a labour photocall :smiley:

Miracles seem to have decreased to zero for some reason.

Basically, the point I am making incoherently, is that we have millions and millions of cameras compared to 20 or 30 years ago, but no one is capturing all the ghosts....it's strange that.

There was a minor story in one of the papers today about ANOTHER haunted hotel somewhere in Scotland, funnily enough they are hoping it will attract more business :-[

[Mulder]

Ghost hunting = train spotting, only without the trains ... :smiley:

[dalriada]

This kind of science & seance nonsense has been around for a while though. I've just come across the following passage from GK Chesteron's autobiography, Chapter IV: How to Be a Lunatic (!)

This progress of the preternatural has gone on spreading and strengthening through my whole life. Indeed my life happens to cover the precise period of the real change; not realised by those occupied only with later changes or alternative spiritual solutions. When I was quite a boy, practically no normal person of education thought that a ghost could possibly be anything but a turnip-ghost; a thing believed in by nobody but the village idiot. When I was a young man, practically every person with a large circle had one or two friends with a fancy for what would still have been called mediums and moonshine. When I was middle-aged, great men of science of the first rank like Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge claimed to have studied spirits as they might have studied spiders, and discovered ectoplasm exactly as they discovered protoplasm. At the time I write, the thing has grown into a considerable religious movement, by the activity of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, much less of a scientist, but much more of a journalist

I must read more Chesterton.

[Mulder]

Before the TV ghost hunting shows, there was a small band of researchers investigating ghosts in as scientific way as they could. The general conclusion was that there were a small number of consistent reports of ghosts that required explanation but that there was little or no evidence to support the 'traditional' view that ghosts were 'spirits'.

Then the TV shows came along and now thousands of people ape their activities around the country every night. Most ghost sightings can still be explained readily by natural causes. The causes of the remainder remain obscure and, sadly, will continue to do so while the current circus of nonsense continues.

[Dr B]

I think it is important to remember that there is an experiential phenomenon to be explained. To truly appreciate what psychological mechanisms might be involved - then such excursions - if done properly - can be illuminating.

It can also be a good way of getting the General Public into science - again, if done properly and is not used as a vehicle for pseudo-nonsense.

Remember - if ghosts are hallucinations / delusions then we need accounts to explain how such events can take place in the normal brain.

[dalriada]

Most ghost sightings can still be explained readily by natural causes. The causes of the remainder remain obscure and, sadly, will continue to do so while the current circus of nonsense continues.

There's a world of difference between doing research into anomalous occurrences in order to discover the reasons why they occur and 'doing research' to prove that the anomalous occurrence is evidence of true, real, undiscovered power, with laws and ends unto itself (and possibly even worthy of worship).

The sad thing is, that the lines between the two are now so blurred in the national imagination that the public can't tell the difference and the longer an academic researcher stays purely in that field the more likely they are to start suffering from the same ailment and so they become part of the problem.

[dalriada]

Remember - if ghosts are hallucinations / delusions then we need accounts to explain how such events can take place in the normal brain.

Absolutely, these events take place inside the human brain, 'ghosthunters' are convinced they must necessarily take place inside a haunted house. When was Richard Felix* last seen with a neuroscience textbook?

Out of curiousity, do you know if has anyone done research into the McCollough effect and the perception of apparitions?

[SKIRRID5]

This isn't exactly about ghost-hunting as such, but it might be relevant. Does anyone remember a TV documentary some time in the last few years, fronted by one of the actor Fox brothers, about paranormal phenomena? I knew one of the Foxes had been a born-again Christian, and perhaps unfairly, I thought it would be another display of casual acceptance such as TV so often throws up. For some reason I did turn it on half way through, and wished I'd watched it all. There was a fascinating account of a lab, or some such building, where staff felt uneasy and threatened, feeling as if something was lurking just behind them. It turned out to be caused by the strip lighting emitting a very low-pitched hum which somehow affected people's nervous systems (via the balance organs, perhaps?). There must be many examples of such subliminal interference triggering fear or panic reactions, but I doubt if most ghost hunters would want to hear such unromantic explanations.
Now, about that cowled figure behind my left shoulder...

[bobdezon]

I dont see anything inherently wrong with ghost hunters (the people not the TV series) I think they are simply people who wonder if there are ghosts and try to find evidence for such. The problem is when they do not try hard enough to seriously find evidences and just jump on the "I have equipment my findings are scientific proof" bandwagon. Even worse are the ones who settle into the destructive spiral of including demons witches crystals prayers of protection mediusm etc. Its all rather silly. Unfortunately people all tend to be lumped togather in the same catagory. There are serious investigators who conduct good work, and there are those who are too stupid to breathe unaided, but can afford gadgets.

Evidence of ghosts may never be found, but I applaud all who seriously look for evidence of such considering the vast amount of time they spend on it. Those who do it for kicks or fame hold no interest for me.

[Mulder]

The people I'm talking about believe ghosts are 'spirits' before they begin. They just use instruments to give a 'scientific validity' to what they already 'know'. It is a pointless waste of everyone's time!

[Dr B]

Out of curiousity, do you know if has anyone done research into the McCollough effect and the perception of apparitions?

Not sure actually,.....do tell more.....8)

Slightly off topic - I use Emmertts law to describe to students (and the public) how the brain goes way beyond sensation (something another poster around here does not realise in terms of sound ;)). Basically an afterimage has a fixed size on the retina - however, its perceived size changes depending on whether you look at a surface close to you or one far away. So the perception changes even though the stimulation stays the same! The effect can be very striking - and you hardly hear anyone talking about these days. I have measured the degree of change in this perception as a factor of belief in the paranormal and paranormal experiences. That is to say - my students and I have tried to measure the size of the overestimations and any between-subjects factors (relating to the paranormal). There are no statistical differences in size perception estimations - but there were differences in questionnaires on the emotional response to the effect. :smiley:

[bobdezon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision ?

[British Sceptic]

A kent based team of 'sceptical' ghosthunters got on my site and went about trolling the admin and members.

I swear I spent best part of my evening toing and froing with these aggressive ghostbusters.

All you got is they know better than any sceptic/scientist/intellectual on the planet as they have 'ghostbusting equipment' and they actually 'investigate' haunted buildings.

Therefore what they say goes and every other shred of evidence is wrong.

Asked my opinion on what a ghost is (im no expert in that area) I said imho an hallucination.

There reply was it is medically proven that ghosts cannot be explained by hallucination.

When pressed for evidence another tirade of BS!

Like a good politician they would not answer a straight question but expected us to supply documentary evidence to support every sentence.

When we supplied wiki links, they were brushed aside as nonsense, same applied to the skeptic dictionary link - ghosts!

Talk about giving ghosthunters a bad name.

ended up barring them as they were too disruptive to members.

regards,

Den.O0

[bobdezon]

which forum was this? and which "investimagation" group was it?

[British Sceptic]

PM You detais, got enough heat off their pitbull without publicly displaying them:sad:

Den.