|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Nov 6, 2008 19:28:47 GMT -11
I found this interesting article written by Buck Bannister concerning the claims that GH is scientific in how they conduct their investigations... What is a "scientific" investigation team? The popular definition coined by Ghost Hunters' Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson is one that seeks to look for natural causes first and paranormal causes only when natural explanations cannot be ruled out. Yet, is this truly "scientific" or just a flip in the normal methodology employed for over 100 years in paranormal research? Some people seem to define "scientific" investigation as using as many electronic gadgets and gimmicks as possible. But is this "scientific" or just "technology heavy" investigation? After all, throughout history investigators and ghost hunters have used the latest gadgets in their work.Read rest of the article here: www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=139590
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Dec 24, 2008 13:45:03 GMT -11
What is a "scientific" investigation team? The popular definition coined by Ghost Hunters' Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson is one that seeks to look for natural causes first and paranormal causes only when natural explanations cannot be ruled out. Yet, is this truly quot; scientific" or just a flip in the normal methodology employed for over 100 years in paranormal research? Some people seem to define "scientific" investigation as using as many electronic gadgets and gimmicks as possible. But is this "scientific" or just "technology heavy" investigation? After all, throughout history investigators and ghost hunters have used the latest gadgets in their work. I agree with this. Here are several points to consider. (1) TAPS' use of technology or instrumentation in the investigation of the paranormal is nothing new. See Tony Cornell, Investigating the Paranormal (New York: Helix Press, 2002), chapter 29. Cornell discusses the use of gadgets in spontaneous case investigations going back to William Crookes in the 1870s, though most of the discussion focuses on the use of instrumentation since the 1980s. I believe Loyd Auerbach was the first to use the trifield meters, and this would have been before TAPS. (2) Ruling out natural explanations of phenomena has been an important part of paranormal research since its inception in the late nineteenth century. TAPS adds nothing new here. A paranormal explanation of some phenomenon becomes plausible only if ordinary culprits are shown to be implausible. If bad plumbing is a good explanation of knocks and raps in my walls, it will be pointless to appeal to psychokinesis or spirits. This is simply the way abductive reasoning (inference to best explanation) works. However, if postulating spirits or living agent psychokinesis leads us expect our observational data, and these data are otherwise improbable, then paranormal explanations become very plausible explanations of our data. But the data will be "otherwise improbable" only if there is no rival explanation that is itself highly plausible and leads us to expect the data. (3) We shouldn't confuse using technology with using a scientific method. Science obviously makes use technology because science purports to tell us about the empirical world and technology allows us to measure different properties of the empirical world. But not all use of technology is science. All candy may be sweet, but not all sweet things are candy. A "scientific approach" to any subject matter involves a use of logic appropriate to the subject matter of investigation. Unfortunately, TAPS has never offered a clear statement about what a ghost is, much less what sort of logic is appropriate for the investigation of such entities. In other words, TAPS lacks any sort of theoretical framework. But practice without theory is blind. (4) TAPS thinks that it offers something scientific because unlike "other groups out there," TAPS doesn't use psychics. But this is implausible. First, other groups use instrumentation, and the use of instrumentation is logically compatible with the use of psychics or mediums. Many groups use both. Secondly, Jason and Grant both seem to equate psychic testimony with something that is completely subjective and incapable of verification. But this is false. To the extent that psychics or mediums offer veridical information, they offer data that can be verified or confirmed. To the extent that their testimony involves a significant amount of detailed veridical information, their testimony will have evidential value. The irony of course is that TAPS relies on highly subjective reports in their own investigations. TAPS members are constantly saying things like "I was touched," "I feel a cold spot," "I feel like someone is watching me," or "I heard a voice." These claims often go without any corroboration from instrumentation, and some of them are in principle incapable of being corroborated by scientific instrumentation. So TAPS refuses to use psychics because doing so involves reliance on subjective testimony, but they take seriously their own subjective experiences. No psychics allowed, but "personal experience" counts. Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 24, 2008 15:56:17 GMT -11
"TAPS has never offered a clear statement about what a ghost is, much less what sort of logic is appropriate for the investigation of such entities. In other words, TAPS lacks any sort of theoretical framework. But practice without theory is blind." Michael, I think this is something that applies to a lot of groups, not just TAPS. But you are correct. If you have no idea what a ghost is, how can you even begin to decide what is and is not evidence of a ghost? "TAPS thinks that it offers something scientific because unlike "other groups out there," TAPS doesn't use psychics.... Jason and Grant both seem to equate psychic testimony with something that is completely subjective and incapable of verification." Eyewitness testimony, whether it comes from a psychic or someone else, should be given consideration. Personally I don't like the term psychic because it is used to separate certain individuals from the rest of us, and I don't really see the point. Everyone experiences paranormal phenomenon as an individual. Even different psychics experience things in their own way. One person may see a ghost, while others will hear something, smell something, or feel a presence. I think the true value of using technology in ghost hunting is that it can be used to corroborate a witness’s experience.
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Dec 24, 2008 16:58:08 GMT -11
"Personally I don't like the term psychic because it is used to separate certain individuals from the rest of us, and I don't really see the point."
Even if we suppose that everyone has psychic abilities, clearly psychic functioning isn't developed to the same degree in everyone. So certain people are separated out from the rest by virtue of the degree of psychic functioning they exhibit. The term "psychic" is simply a handy way of referring to such people. I don't see a problem with this.
But the more important point is that TAPS is inconsistent. Either they are permitting their own psychic evidence OR they are permitting personal experiences that are no more objective than the experiences of people they label psychics.
Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 24, 2008 18:06:51 GMT -11
"Even if we suppose that everyone has psychic abilities, clearly psychic functioning isn't developed to the same degree in everyone. So certain people are separated out from the rest by virtue of the degree of psychic functioning they exhibit. The term "psychic" is simply a handy way of referring to such people. I don't see a problem with this."
Michael,
Intelligence isn't developed to the same degree in everyone either, but it would be politically incorrect to go into an investigation excluding certain witnesses based on IQ! Many people assume psychics are either frauds or delusional. Such negative connotations make J&G feel justified in excluding psychics and mediums from TAPS investigations. I think we should stop using terms such as medium and psychic! It could be the start of a paranormal version of political correctness.
Sandy
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 24, 2008 18:27:51 GMT -11
“TAPS has never offered a clear statement about what a ghost is, much less what sort of logic is appropriate for the investigation of such entities. In other words, TAPS lacks any sort of theoretical framework. But practice without theory is blind.” Michael, As I mentioned before, this problem is not unique to TAPS. Could you provide a theoretical framework adequate for such investigations? Sandy
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Dec 26, 2008 7:04:39 GMT -11
“TAPS has never offered a clear statement about what a ghost is, much less what sort of logic is appropriate for the investigation of such entities. In other words, TAPS lacks any sort of theoretical framework. But practice without theory is blind.” Michael, As I mentioned before, this problem is not unique to TAPS. Could you provide a theoretical framework adequate for such investigations? Sandy Yes. :-) Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 26, 2008 7:46:42 GMT -11
“TAPS has never offered a clear statement about what a ghost is, much less what sort of logic is appropriate for the investigation of such entities. In other words, TAPS lacks any sort of theoretical framework. But practice without theory is blind.” Michael, As I mentioned before, this problem is not unique to TAPS. Could you provide a theoretical framework adequate for such investigations? Sandy Yes. :-) Michael Michael, Well I'd love to hear it! Sandy
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Dec 26, 2008 12:31:07 GMT -11
Michael, Well I'd love to hear it! Sandy I knew you were going to say that. :-) Part of my complaint about groups like TAPS is that their conclusions are not arrived at through any rigorous method of reasoning. That's the formal aspect of theoretical adequacy. Now, as Aristotle said, one should not demand of any subject matter greater precision than the subject matter allows. To keep things real, the paranormal is not going to allow the kind of precision or testing techniques used in chemistry, physics, or astronomy. That being said, one can and should draw conclusions based on logical criteria that are spelled out with some clarity. I've spelled out these criteria elsewhere. See Part 1 of the following handout. philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Designtuning.htmMy other related complaint is that TAPS' conclusions are not really informed by the right kinds of conceptual distinctions. For example, they seem to largely ignore explanations of the data they collect in terms of living agent psi. Yet this remains one of the most intractable problems in survival research. A theoretically adequate model of anything must consider models in the conceptual neighborhood, at least as a constraint on one's own conclusions. I don't see that TAPS succeeds in this, but it's certainly an essential aspect of theorizing about the paranormal among parapsychologists. Third, a theoretically adequate model of the paranormal must involve conclusions informed by work in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and abnormal psychology - to name just three. For example, how can one talk about the survival of persons without engaging the problem of personal identity? It must also be informed by the data collected specifically in parapsychological research. For example, can anyone be taken seriously in their thinking about apparitional experiences who isn't familiar with the Census of Hallucinations (1894) and subsequent SPR studies? I think not. Now these are what we might call "formal" requirements for theoretical adequacy. There are also substantive issues such as the specific content of one's paranormal hypothesis. For example, my own hypothesis about post-mortem survival is a development of H.H. Price's model of discarnate existence taken as analogous to the dream world experience of our present lives. I believe this kind of hypothesis involves significant content, content that allows the hypothesis to be tested in various ways. mscourses.homestead.com/files/HHPrice.htmBut there are other similar models out there, such as William Roll's "place memories" survival hypothesis, laid out, for instance, in "On Apparitions and Mediumship: An Examination of the Evidence that Personal Consciousness Persists After Death" in the Survival of Human Consciousness, ed. Storm and Thalbourne (McFarland, 2006). I know that this is only a sketch-response to your question. Alas, grading calls. . . . Michael
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Dec 26, 2008 12:32:54 GMT -11
Sandstone,
Are we the only two people in this forum? LOL
Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 26, 2008 13:55:53 GMT -11
I knew you were going to say that. :-) Michael! You must be psychic (for lack of a more politically correct term)!!! ;D Part of my complaint about groups like TAPS is that their conclusions are not arrived at through any rigorous method of reasoning. That's the formal aspect of theoretical adequacy. Now, as Aristotle said, one should not demand of any subject matter greater precision than the subject matter allows. To keep things real, the paranormal is not going to allow the kind of precision or testing techniques used in chemistry, physics, or astronomy. That being said, one can and should draw conclusions based on logical criteria that are spelled out with some clarity. I've spelled out these criteria elsewhere. See Part 1 of the following handout. philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Designtuning.htmMy other related complaint is that TAPS' conclusions are not really informed by the right kinds of conceptual distinctions. For example, they seem to largely ignore explanations of the data they collect in terms of living agent psi. Yet this remains one of the most intractable problems in survival research. A theoretically adequate model of anything must consider models in the conceptual neighborhood, at least as a constraint on one's own conclusions. I don't see that TAPS succeeds in this, but it's certainly an essential aspect of theorizing about the paranormal among parapsychologists. Third, a theoretically adequate model of the paranormal must involve conclusions informed by work in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and abnormal psychology - to name just three. For example, how can one talk about the survival of persons without engaging the problem of personal identity? It must also be informed by the data collected specifically in parapsychological research. For example, can anyone be taken seriously in their thinking about apparitional experiences who isn't familiar with the Census of Hallucinations (1894) and subsequent SPR studies? I think not. Now these are what we might call "formal" requirements for theoretical adequacy. There are also substantive issues such as the specific content of one's paranormal hypothesis. For example, my own hypothesis about post-mortem survival is a development of H.H. Price's model of discarnate existence taken as analogous to the dream world experience of our present lives. I believe this kind of hypothesis involves significant content, content that allows the hypothesis to be tested in various ways. mscourses.homestead.com/files/HHPrice.htmBut there are other similar models out there, such as William Roll's "place memories" survival hypothesis, laid out, for instance, in "On Apparitions and Mediumship: An Examination of the Evidence that Personal Consciousness Persists After Death" in the Survival of Human Consciousness, ed. Storm and Thalbourne (McFarland, 2006). I know that this is only a sketch-response to your question. Alas, grading calls. . . . Michael Michael, I appreciate the quick overview of paranormal models, but the problem I see is that the average TV viewer is not going to have the patience to follow all of that. I've done some reading on such topics for my own personal interest, and I realize that there is a lot of material to cover. More than I’m likely ever to read, and way more than anyone can summarize in a TV Guide! Do you think it would be possible to come up with a very basic, easily understood and supportable framework suitable for even the most ephemeral attention spans out there (like mine)?
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Dec 26, 2008 14:22:05 GMT -11
I appreciate the quick overview of paranormal models, but the problem I see is that the average TV viewer is not going to have the patience to follow all of that. I've done some reading on such topics for my own personal interest, and I realize that there is a lot of material to cover. More than I’m likely ever to read, and way more than anyone can summarize in a TV Guide! Do you think it would be possible to come up with a very basic, easily understood and supportable framework suitable for even the most ephemeral attention spans out there (like mine)? Sandstone, It might be possible to do so, but these are complex issues and I think they resist translation into the conceptual equivalent of a food restaurant. That being said, Loyd Auerbach manages clarity, brevity, and accuracy in his TV spots. He's probably the best at providing an accurate popular presentation of the paranormal. I doubt we can do better than Loyd does. Of course, I was offering a critique of TAPS, not the television show Ghost Hunters. Like any paranormal investigative group, TAPS has the ability, at least in principle, to meet more rigorous standards, whatever the TV show ends up doing. Clearly the days of the Sixth Sense are gone, except for the rebroadcasts on the Chiller channel. Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 26, 2008 14:32:06 GMT -11
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Dec 27, 2008 1:30:10 GMT -11
Sandstone, Are we the only two people in this forum? LOL Michael I'm here, reading along.....Love your guys' posts ;D Not posting as much - now devoting 12 hour days to my new job.
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Dec 27, 2008 7:15:04 GMT -11
Sandstone, Are we the only two people in this forum? LOL Michael I'm here, reading along.....Love your guys' posts ;D Not posting as much - now devoting 12 hour days to my new job. I'm glad we kept you entertained! Hope the new job goes well for you.
|
|