tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540283839479085577.post5873114656676898699..comments2023-06-28T04:54:16.142-07:00Comments on Anthroslug the Much Put-Upon: Ghost Hunters and Science!Anthroslughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12455234504938025982noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540283839479085577.post-49440231478508689472009-10-27T16:48:52.643-07:002009-10-27T16:48:52.643-07:00JakeR: Good points as well. When Dave suggested t...JakeR: Good points as well. When Dave suggested the blinding, I assumed that he was describing something along the lines finding a location that is reputed ot be haunted, but which would be difficult to find information for on short notice (I know of a few such locations). <br /><br />I agree with your second point, in principle. If an alleged ghost has a defined set of attributes, then it is wise to look for those attributes, and definitely avoid vague statements. In practice, I would settle for a even a few verifiable attributes.<br /><br />Oddly, the word verification that I get is "Dying".Anthroslughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047686739793030565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540283839479085577.post-42296368631552922372009-10-27T16:35:42.799-07:002009-10-27T16:35:42.799-07:00JakeR said...
The blinding plan assumes the ghost...JakeR said...<br /><br />The blinding plan assumes the ghost hunters don't have access to information about the alleged haunted house, which is not a safe assumption. A ghost hunter who signs on for this deal will be looking for information on every house identified, using local newspaper morgues, other published accounts, and the internet. You can't reasonably sequester these folks for weeks possibly before and certainly during the test.<br /><br />Further, the study must be double-blind. Once the outside party has identified the houses for the study, the person who briefs the ghost hunters must be blind. Ideally, the person who assesses the ghost hunters' findings must also be blind, and the assessment must be based on objective criteria that the ghost hunters either do or do not meet. If the alleged ghost is male, fat, and about 40, the ghost hunter must unequivocally find those facts, and the assessor must not give a pass to Barnum statements such as, "He met a violent death" or "she is lost and confused."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540283839479085577.post-29460035257924658082009-08-12T16:59:34.162-07:002009-08-12T16:59:34.162-07:00My PKE Meter has often detected the ethereal beast...My PKE Meter has often detected the ethereal beasties. Luckily I had my Proton Pack handy to hold them long enough to get my traps out. I am holding them in my ECU if you would like to examine them with all your sciencey methods.Evan Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16182133151384159011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540283839479085577.post-26088437533913701202009-08-10T15:36:22.610-07:002009-08-10T15:36:22.610-07:00Anne, thank you for the excellent comments.
I am ...Anne, thank you for the excellent comments.<br /><br />I am aware of Richard Wiseman, as, I believe, is Dave. He is doing some really interesting work, and I very much enjoy reading and hearing about it. I look forward to following through and reading the article that you reference (unfortunately, that will have to wait a few months until I'm back home and have access to a research library again).<br /><br />As for your comment that ghost hunting is primarily a hobby, yes, I agree. I see nothing wrong with people pursuing their hobby in any way that they see fit (I myself have spent time wandering through allegedly haunted places looking for whatever I could find or see). What Dave is criticizing is people who claim to be doing rigorous scientific work when they in fact are not doing so. This is a specific subset, and does not include everyone who is interested in the subject, but when people claim to be scientists, it is absolutely valid to criticize them for not being what they claim.<br /><br />Also, unless I'm very much misunderstanding what you mean (which is quite possible) it's incorrect to say that trying to apply scientific methods to the paranormal is a way of excluding and ignoring the paranormal. If these phenomenon do exist, and it's open to debate whether or not they do, then their presence should, at the very least, create anomalies that are detectable even if not explainable. Basically, if ghosts exist, then they are impacting the physical world (otherwise we'd not be able to percieve them with our physical senses), and are therefore detectable, even if their ultimate nature was unexaminable. Rather than ignoring them, this is taking them seriously enough to not hand wave one's denial or acceptance of them.<br /><br />Now, you could say that the fact that people perceive these things means that they have been detected, and you may be right. The problem is that our senses are notoriously unreliable and prone to a wide variety of influences. So, without a way of clearly eliminating such influences, you're left with anecdotes, not evidence. Ultimately, that's what Dave is getting at in his essay. <br /><br />Perhaps he's wrong, the blind study may not be the best approach, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a workable approach out there. <br /><br />Again, though, thank you for thoughtful and well-articulated comments. I hope that you will comment again in the future.Anthroslughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02047686739793030565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540283839479085577.post-906259581696617422009-08-09T23:49:55.484-07:002009-08-09T23:49:55.484-07:00I think that at least some of the ‘scientific inve...I think that at least some of the ‘scientific investigation’ you’re calling for in your post is actually taking place. Just one example is the article ‘An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings’’ by Richard Wiseman et. al. (published in the British Journal of Psychology (2003), 94, 195–211). In this paper they describe two experiments in which they conducted blind studies of just the kind you suggest. To quote their abstract: <br /><br /><br />In cases of alleged hauntings, a large number of seemingly trustworthy witnesses consistently report experiencing unusual phenomena (e.g. apparitions, sudden changes in temperature, a strong sense of presence) in certain locations. The two studies reported here explored the psychological mechanisms that underlie this apparent evidence of ‘ghostly’ activity. The experiments took place at two locations that have a considerable reputation for being haunted—Hampton Court Palace (Surrey, England) and the South Bridge Vaults (Edinburgh, Scotland). Both studies involved participants walking around these locations and reporting where they experienced unusual phenomena. Results revealed significantly more reports of unusual experiences in areas that had a reputation for being haunted. This effect was not related to participants’ prior knowledge about the reputation of these areas. However, the location of participants’ experiences correlated significantly with various environmental factors, including, for example, the variance of local magnetic fields and lighting levels.<br /><br /><br /><br />While their conclusions are somewhat unsurprising their data could be interpreted in a number of ways - most of which might be interestingly debated here. While I think studies like the one above are important for a number of reasons not least of which is their adherence to academic research practices which allow for replicateable studies, academic terminologies and quantifiable results (just to name a few). I also feel that you simultaneously hold ‘ghost hunters’ up to this kind of scientific rigor whilst also acknowledging that paranormal investigation is, most often, a ‘hobby’. If particle physicists had to conduct their experiments with equipment they built in their garage then it is likely that their investigations would seem similarly more quirky (not that sting theory isn’t doing its part). At the end of the day ‘ghost hunting’ is not an area of research for which one can (generally) get research funds or university positions unless one wants to study the nature of belief in the paranormal (for example as above). Which brings me to my second point, which is that ultimately ‘the paranormal’ cannot reasonably be accommodated for within ‘normality’ (para from the Greek meaning beside, near, past, beyond, or contrary) and as such research paradigms structured on this necessity (such as those that require replicateable results) will often not be able to accommodate that which is sought – i.e. that which is beyond normal. While bringing paranormal phenomena into the normality of science may have some positive results one could also argue that to subject all paranormal investigation to the scientific method is yet another attempt to reduce the metaphysical to the physical and thereby to ignore the unknown.shekeldehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12031810398147672252noreply@blogger.com