Perpetuated Fallacies of Ghost Hunters

[Jose Collado]

Would love some feedback on perpetuated fallacies from ghost hunters in general. Devices, techniques and theories involved.

Examples:
- Uncalibrated devices
- Stating assumptions as fact
- Theories that come from thin air

I'll throw a few more in when I get time.

Interested in what skeptical eyes can see is wrong with this scene. Would be cool to get some help to highlight these

[CapnG]

Hastily imposed ideologies- ie "it's demonic!"

[urkotic]

Originally Posted by Jose Collado

- Stating assumptions as fact

The "assumptions as fact" thing is a big hot button for me with spook chasers. Related I think, one I can't sum up real well is, I really think a lot of ghost hunters just cast a wide net and then claim anything that might (might, maybe, just possibly) be anomalous as evidence. Witness: 'orb' photos.

[Raevenskye]

i get irked with the EVP collecting and thermo readings when they're waving instruments around, and generally acting silly. I know that my digital voice recorder is ultra sensitive, and would probably pick up "voices" if i waved it around, too (i haven't tried it, but i plan to).
I also hate the whole "demonic" aspect that's thrown out, esp. in "Paranormal State". Just b/c someone is afraid doesn't make an entity demonic....and don't even get me started on the Warrens!
I also think "provoking" a spirit is generally a silly concept. It appears (in GH), that the hunters get bored or tired of waiting on a response, so they get confrontational to see if they can get a response. In some cases, maybe this would work, but in a general, non-angry haunting...why do it? What's the purpose of trying to taunt some poor old lady (or child) who can't seem to cross over? I find it personally annoying.

[Poi]

I get bugged at all the labels everyone gives their particular and very favorite entities too, but we have this habit of trying to attach meaning to everything. That we question everything makes us great. That we settle for labels makes us human. When we're real human, we begin to assign levels to energy that cause interference in our reality. Ghosts! Ufos! Demons! Faeries! (I do suffer an attachment for the Boogeyman. Used to tell my kids he'd climb in the window to get 'em if they got out of bed. Anyway, he's a favorite because he has no distinguishable face!)

IMO, it's really just interference that occasionally happens for reasons we may never understand. I think it may have a lot to do with varying frequencies which manifest in repeatable fashion, information bleeding through and perceived in whatever manner the observer is attuned. I haven't seen a ghost for instance, but a couple of ufos have crossed my path. I'm attuned to them. I've labeled them. Probably my first big mistake in that those craft are not so different from the automatic writing I experienced in my youth. All I can really say is that there has been an information exchange in which I was the receiver, one with no real understanding for what I've experienced.

But that's the same kind of box I rail against. I'll design a new box in the future. It's what we do.

[Jose Collado]

I have issues with the whole scene. I started off all wide eyed and eager and not too far into the whole paranormal thing I was more skeptical that ever.

The fact people lay claim to this scene being scientific is questionable. I've heard shows on TV claim to use scientific method but fail to see any. I've also questioned people who claim to use scientific method and they also fail to highlight how they use it. You don't need to be a scientist to implement scientific method.

When I see people waving EMF meters I often ask if they're calibrated and to what level. Then I ask why they use the device. Entities produce EMF...says who? Where is the research? Where did the theory come from?

People tend to take every bit of info and run with it without stopping to ask why.

I saw one show where a guy was wearing a barometer wrist watch. Shortly after, someone posted a huge topic on the barometer and how a drop in air pressure is a sign of possible paranormal activity. I asked why. The topic ended in a barrage of scientific terms. Then I asked again...why? A barometer is great for it's intended purpose...but why would it be a great way to detect paranormal activity? Does a drop in air pressure actually result in activity? Where is the research? Who researched this? How many peers have veiwed this research? Are they qualified? My pen is running low on ink...is that a sign of paranormal activity? We have a water cooler, it's low on water so I assume low in pressure. Is our water haunted?

Thermal imaging is great for a lot of things but is it suitable for "Ghost hunting"? Honestly, almost everything in the scene is based on speculation and assumptions that aren't effectively followed up. I'm sure scientists make assumptions and speculate about things, but they make sure they let people know. They don't profess to something being a fact if it isn't.
I'm more interested in the psychology of the scene rather than chasing "orbs". I started off wanting to find "ghosts" and ended up renting Ghostbusters...because there's more ghosts and far less comedy value than the real deal.

Terms like Matrixing annoy me. I got a visual of a guy running up walls when I heard this. The way it was described could make sense, but there are terms already out there to represent "matrixing". It simply shows people don't have the ability to research effectively...or that they care to.

I can use a feather duster and claim it's an effective tool to find "ghosts". If it catches on, everyone will be waving the feather duster spouting my theory. How long until someone stops and asks..."Hang on...how do we know this Jose dude isn't full of shit? Where the hell is his research reports?" I put my money on....it'll be a really mildly cold day in hell.
What REALLY gets to me is the fact people say "Scientists don't want to get involved in the paranormal so we have to do the work ourselves". Hmmmm...I dunno...last engineer I spoke to laughed at the whole EMF thing and pointed out all the flaws. I consider that information VERY helpful. People just want to believe no matter what.

I do believe...I just find it extremely hard to maintain the belief.

[urkotic]

I'm probably just abusing the idea of this thread at this point but... a specific thing, where did this notion that "ghosts manifest themselves by drawing energy from the environment, thus making cold spots" come from? I'm sort of paraphrasing a theory there I've read or heard expressed many times many different ways, but with that basic idea. This is an idea that I think sort of sounded interesting the first time I encountered it, then raised questions I couldn't answer upon thinking about it for two seconds (not that I'm a physicist or the like, you understand). Where does the heat go? Are ghosts less active in cold weather and more active in hot weather? Do ghosts in fact cause the seasons? I believe I've heard ghosts blamed for draining batteries too, with this same energy-drain reasoning behind it.

It is likely I am just cranky at the moment and never thought about how this power drain stuff is supposed to work before.

[TClaeys]

I'll have to agree with most of the criticism of GB. However, it is a TV show after all. People watch it. Grant and Jay probably make some decent money. Maybe they are in a situation where they need to soup it up techno-gadget wise. Wave EMFs, lots of thermo cam shots, EVP's that play, ... something, even though it isn't likely to from late Aunt Betty. So for one thing we can take it as it is.

On the other hand, this sets precedent with a lot of newer groups following the "experts" lead. EMF sales are good. Ghost hunters are following the correct protocol so to speak. Is there any evidence to support their use?? Thermo-imaging is difficult to interpret from what I understand. Which still makes me still question the Flir video on the latest UFO Hunters( but thats another topic) Anyway it is complex. These devices also seem to "spike" (ooohhh, whoa dude I got a 4). EVP's seem to contain enough gibberish to continue their existance in the ghost hunting world. I get sick of it too.

But it leaves us with what? What do you do to try to gain evidence that ghosts exist?? It's definitely not a scientific endeavor. There is no repeatability. There is no apparent cause and effect. There isn't any consistent interaction with matter and energy that we can collect data on. It isn't a problem that a scientist can solve. So I wish people would quit trying to do it in a pseudo-scientific way. That certainly doesn't mean ghosts don't exist. Just that it's probably an unsolvable thing. And the only pieces we can really build on are credible experiences. We can, perhaps at best, know something is going on, but having no idea why or how. And that probably doesn't make that great of TV.

[urkotic]

Originally Posted by TClaeys

What do you do to try to gain evidence that ghosts exist?? It's definitely not a scientific endeavor. There is no repeatability. There is no apparent cause and effect. There isn't any consistent interaction with matter and energy that we can collect data on. It isn't a problem that a scientist can solve. So I wish people would quit trying to do it in a pseudo-scientific way. That certainly doesn't mean ghosts don't exist. Just that it's probably an unsolvable thing. And the only pieces we can really build on are credible experiences. We can, perhaps at best, know something is going on, but having no idea why or how. And that probably doesn't make that great of TV.

Well I like those words, TClaeys.

I've been watching some episodes of Ghost Hunters and A Haunting recently. Ghost Hunters seems like a good example of reality TV, although even with the good reality TV craft in evidence, editing a story together, my attention usually wanders some during an episode. A Haunting just seems to want to take a story and turn it into a little horror movie, and goes pretty over the top along the way.

But to your point (I think)... it struck me with Ghost Hunters, they're not going to find 'proof'. If they ever captured any 'evidence' that was even really impressive, it seems like it would be larger news. The show, actually both of those shows, prove to me one thing about ghosts, which is that people certainly believe in them, and really believe that they experienced something supernatural.

[TClaeys]

I guess I think we get stuck between 2 things. One being the experience itself, the subjective kind. Someone experiences a ghost, a shadow, a noise, a full blown apparition. This, of course, is pure subjectivity. Again, something happened from the view of the "experiencer". What it is may be different from person to person, but to the "experiencer" it is just that, a ghostly encounter.

The second thing we get in to is the people that say "Hey, I know people have these experiences. Hell, I've even had one myself (not me personally), I wonder if we can get some type of proof?" Lets get all the gadgets and go to known places where these encounters have occurred and see if any of them go off. So then we get all these, sort of, meaningless (Well, OK... inconclusive) things that are captured by these devices. Now begin sprouting theory upon theory like a huge mangled, twisted tree of marketing.

So then we end up with the same 2 things, experiences and jumbled up "data". Now if we could ever cross the two together I really wonder what might come of it. When I think of Biedneys ghost experience I wonder what if a camera was there. Would it show anything? Is the experience something that you can actually capture? Because even though I've never seen a ghost I am interested by the compelling stories. Something is happening, even if it is a siezure or a projection or brain fart or a ghost. And I'd like to know what it is. However I'm going out on a limb and saying I'm probably not going to get it from two Roto-Rooter guys.