I know that many paranormal investigating groups use mediums and place different levels of importance on their role in investigations.
From a scientific point of view however, do they have any role to play at all?
Their ability is unproven and it seems to me that using one form of unproven phenomenon to investigate another has no scientific merit at all.
Yet, groups use them. What use are they on serious investigations, and should serious investigators use them?
If so, why?
.
I think no, mediums can and should be tested independently. I'd guess that they're used a lot because they're so intertwined and (from my limited experience) paranormal investigators start with the proposition that supernatural entites exist and work to proving that. Mediums can contact these entities, therefore they're another investigative tool.
Any good scientific investigation seeks to eliminate as many unknown elements during a test, not add more.
Agreed, the problem it seems is that one mentions 'paranormal investigation' it almost presumes a 'paranormal' conclusion. To establish the criteria of a measuring instrument, one needs to askI'd guess that they're used a lot because they're so intertwined and (from my limited experience) paranormal investigators start with the proposition that supernatural entites exist and work to proving that. Mediums can contact these entities, therefore they're another investigative tool.
'What does it measure?' and 'Is the measurement constant for all occasions'.
Actually thinking about, the inclusion of a medium invites a paranormal interpretation. It would be interesting to see how many investigations in which a medium has been involved, turn out a verdict of 'no psychic vibrations'? ???
What on earth is the point of researching one unproven phenomenon with another one? None. Any conclusions one might form are hopelessly tainted.
I have fought this fight over on PA. Investigating with mediums is pointless unless their abilities are quantifiable. Given that this is not the case and does not ever look likely to be, their investigative value is presently nil.
This is not to say that subjective observation could not form a legitimate part of paranormal research. However, doing this on the basis that one person's perception is valued differently from another's on the basis of a self-claimed and unproven ability makes absolutely no sense - even if you do believe in ghosts.
I agree that their usage on investigations cannot be justified from a scientific point of view.
Even so, many groups use them. Apart from using them because that's how Most Haunted do it, is there any reasonable (non-scientific) justification for using them?
Is there anything that they add to the process of investigation, for example?
Just looking at both sides.
.
There is no use in employing mediums on investigations - unless of course that investigation is directed towards mediums themselves. Linking ghosts to mediums is adding two bad apples together...and this time it dont make cider... :D
However, i have used self-claimed pyschics and mediums in a number of ways while i was studying the psychological impact of context on their performance. This I have done in haunted locations.
Example - often psychics will pick the darkest coldest rooms, with the most visually suggestible areas as the important 'hot spots' of activity. Some try to be too clever and pick the lightest rooms (thus trying to fight their natural biases) as they think the experimenter is expecting certain forms of decisions in certain areas (a situational demand). You can see examples of this on Britains psychic challenge where many of the psychics fought against their natural biases (and thus performed worse than chance and the baseline group....)
Another Example - Some i have used in conjunction with questionnaires and floor plans for them to tick off where they felt weird....then i have measured these areas (and baseline areas) for things like magnetism, drafts, etc. On a minority of cases there have been interesting associations to magnetic areas and reports from psychics. However, almost without exception the psychic has also been (i) an epiletic, (ii) a mirgraine sufferer, (iii) has reduced normal vision, etc.....
Others I have taken to complete baseline locations..... :D
Not all psychics are lying (they can be legitimately reporting physical sensations etc), but no psychic i have ever met is actually psychic.....
Intersting.Originally Posted by Dr B
Of course there are many reasons why some locations could be perceived as more 'haunted' than others. The suggestibility of the age, appearance, colour, decor, etc. of one room may be more in line with the expectation many people have of what something haunted is meant to look like compared to another room.
If psychics are ruled by their right temporal lobe rather than their left one, they may simply be naturally attracted to the more suggestible features of locations. If they're doing it subconsciously of course.
I guess this aspect of psychics with their feeling 'energies' etc. could also influence others to become a little more suggestible too. I guess they can liven things up quite a bit for the not so serious investigators.
If I was going to investigate somewhere I wouldn't consider using a psychic for the reasons given above. I'd be looking for answers, not entertainment.
.
Are Mediums* Valid Investigation Tools?
*Or would the plural be media?
The simple answer is that they are no less or more valid than any other tool. Environmental meters, photo/video equipment, human experiencers. EVP, ITC, Ganzfeld. None of them are flawless or proven methods for 'paranormal observation'.
If you believe none of the above methods are proven or disproven then you can use them all. At PSI we are using all of them over a period time to observe trends and then draw conclusions.
The Other Argument
Having said that, I do not support the use of mediums on investigations. And here's for why..
If one is making a geniune attempt at recording human experiencers during investigations, for the purposes of:
- Observing percieved paranormal phenomena
- Tracking paranormal belief
- Observing the role of context
Then you must attempt to rule out all other factors that could interfere with these, for example:
- Prior knowledge of the location and alleged hauntings
- Undue influences by other participants
This latter one is quite important to me. It is quite clear that any participant will be strongly influenced by the actions of a medium. This is the key reason for me.
The influences can be varied. Of course people could feel they are percieving the same as the medium. In cases also beleive that if there is a medium present they will percieve less experiences themselves.
Why Do Groups Use Mediums?
There are various reason I've come across. I should state in advance that none of this is to say anything negatively about the mediums themselves:
- Interest/Entertainment - For many 'investigators' the presence of a medium can break the undoubted tedium of experiencing. For many they form part of that 'experience'.
- Prestige. For some having a bona fide medium on board is a feather in their cap.
- Protection. I come across a lot of people who say they would never attend an investigation without a medium because otherwise they would not be adequately protected
Surely the real problem involved is in having someone there who has a vested interest (whether for financial reasons or for reasons of their own personal prestige) in claiming that the paranormal exists,and also claims means of detection of the paranormal to which the rest of the group have no access?
Well, if you can find one...For some having a bona fide medium on board is a feather in their cap.
I would say that mediums are less useful as a tool simply because anything they come up with cannot be independently scrutinised.
Although capturing a 'ghost' on video will always be doubted, at least the camera and resulting footage can be independently tested.
It's interesting though about using mediums in the context of studying the psychology of the experience. I have assumed that when doing an investigation that we'd be 'solving the mystery'. I guess that an experient who's heavily influenced by a medium can be assumed to be a highly suggestible individual and this would have to be taken into account. Of course, I doubt that many mediums would see that as their role.
.
Not really to my view.
Whilst I see what you mean, you could argue that experiencers have a vested interest in experiencing - for example for acceptance by their peers.
Mediums who make money or are so vague that their findings can be interpreted any way is one thing. But those who will will 'spill' everything that comes into their head with the knowledge that it may not all be correct (and is willing to have it all in print) clearly has less vested interest than most.
Again, must disagree.
When an experiencer experiences it cannot be objectively scrutinised. One can either conclude that it was paranormal or misattribution. There is no independent objectivity in most cases.
The same goes for use of any sort of equipment.
If you wanted to properly study mediums so long as they had no prior knowledge you could rate each and every statement for accuracy and probably assess the liklihood of the proportion of 'correct' information being the result of chance.
Seems even more solid to me.
The one fly in the ointment is that most people report that there is just no evidence for psychic abilities.
This points to a ruling out of such a paranormal 'method' but saying the tool itself is inherently flawed is inappropriate to my mind.
I don't think you need to be highly suggestable to be influenced in such a way. I'm not sure how comparable it is, but DrB posted some very interesting findings on the ASSAP forum about how subtely and effectively the average mind can be influenced.
Quite so. Although the mediums we work with would certainly not attend investigations because of their own self-stated views that whatever they say or do will skew results.
Dave - not sure this is strictly true. Equipment measures known variables in a given and explicit manner. Of course it can be misused and misinterpreted - but the nice thing about equipment (I am talking about scientific instruments here) is that you know the explicit parameters of the device and the type, form, content of the information it is capable of giving. If I use an EEG that has a particular sample rate and signals can only be amplified by a certain degree, then I understand what it can and cannot do. This is simply not the case with self-claimed psychics and mediums. Firstly, there is no evidence that such an ability exists, and secondly, if it does, we have no idea how it operates, or that it is indeed under conscious control etc. There are far too many assumptions underlying the use of mediums in this way for me.
I do not think there is any merit in using mediums to aid in 'ghost hunting' (for want of a better term) as it adds more noise and nonsense. An experiment is supposed to take an ambiguous situation and make it less ambiguous than it was before - using mediums does not do this.
I do believe that mediumship should be studied in its own right however, and that this too can happen in the field (i.e., a haunted location). But any such study is one directed at claimed abilities and not the reputed haunting.
Not necessarily true - because i can give you 1000 MADS sensors and they will all measure the same thing, blind to each other, and do so repeatedly, for as long as you want. Mediums are not even consistent within themselves.
I certainly agree that lack of prior knolwedge is a must - but it is not an absolute ruling out accuracy (i.e., cold reading of locations and people). It is also difficult to assess true probabilities with certain forms of information that are not expressed in mathematical form (i.e., testimonies).If you wanted to properly study mediums so long as they had no prior knowledge you could rate each and every statement for accuracy and probably assess the liklihood of the proportion of 'correct' information being the result of chance.
You can use mediums without using the content of their ramblings....You can simply give them structured questionnaires or floor plans and try to get the data in a more usable format. This can be interesting (dont forget your control group however!!!!). However, my research suggests what we are studying is natural human biases to situational demands and contextual influences....fascinating stuff....just not paranormal
All fascinating stuff. Dave - I know you are doing some excellent stuff in this area, any updates on what you are finding on the role of context?
J
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks