sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Jun 22, 2008 8:57:28 GMT -11
GH is now being shown on the SPACE channel in Canada. I guess in order to portray a balanced viewpoint, SPACE aired a special today (Ghost Hunting) that debunks many of the techniques used by ghost hunting groups (including TAPS). The special was filmed back in 2003 and concentrates on Canadian locations, but it demonstrates why the equipment and techniques being used by TAPS doesn't provide anything more than anecdotal evidence. I guess SPACE wanted to help people watch GH through a more informed perspective than Skiffy typically promotes. Good for SPACE!
|
|
|
Post by chrissy on Jun 22, 2008 10:46:04 GMT -11
lol I dont know. the way I look at it. If I go into a place where Im the only one there and I turn on a recorded and ask questions and people respond that arent there. That works for me ! I understand that on tv you dont see a lot and it could be anything, i can see that being debunked. But if you are there in person, and you are the one talking and listening, it would be hard to tell me what I didnt or did hear.
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Jun 22, 2008 10:51:41 GMT -11
lol I dont know. the way I look at it. If I go into a place where Im the only one there and I turn on a recorded and ask questions and people respond that arent there. That works for me ! I understand that on tv you dont see a lot and it could be anything, i can see that being debunked. But if you are there in person, and you are the one talking and listening, it would be hard to tell me what I didnt or did hear. I understand that personal experiences are important to the ones having them, but they do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence. This documentary did not discount personal experiences, it just pointed out that anecdotal experiences are not scientific evidence of ghosts. The scientists did suggest better ways of gathering evidence than what TAPS uses.
|
|
|
Post by chrissy on Jun 22, 2008 11:09:57 GMT -11
I wonder if I can get that online to watch Would love to see.
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Jun 22, 2008 16:15:44 GMT -11
I wonder if I can get that online to watch Would love to see. I've been looking for more info on it to share with everyone here. If I find something, I'll let you know. I enjoyed it because the scientists were really having fun with the whole ghost hunting thing. They didn't discount anyone's belief in thier own personal experiences. They did question the use of various types of equipment (emf meters, thermal imagers, black light photography) and methods being employed by the paranormal group in the documentary (I believe the group was Haunted Hamilton). Haunted Hamilton is a group seen in many Canadian paranormal shows (Creepy Canada in particular). I couldn't find any mention of this program on thier website, but maybe they were not happy with how they were portrayed. Here is thier website: www.hauntedhamilton.com/
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Jun 22, 2008 16:59:59 GMT -11
I understand that personal experiences are important to the ones having them, but they do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence. This documentary did not discount personal experiences, it just pointed out that anecdotal experiences are not scientific evidence of ghosts. The scientists did suggest better ways of gathering evidence than what TAPS uses. Sandstone, Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this program out. I suspect TAPS has set themselves up for this kind of critique by (i) presenting the object of their inquiry as though it's something that can be scientifically studied and (ii) presenting themselves as engaged in some kind of scientific pursuit. Both assumptions are problematic, and as far as I can see, no member of TAPS has ever provided much of an examination of these assumptions. That being said, I'm not sure I buy into the idea that TAPS' only evidence is anecdotal. Their data are not restricted to personal testimonies or stories, though this is (contrary to their own intentions) an increasingly large part of their evidence. Also, while anecdotal evidence is not itself science, there's no reason why scientific explanations can't be offered for the anecdotal evidence. This is precisely what many skeptics do when they attempt to provide the best explanation of haunting reports, for example, in terms of the usual suspects of malobservation, fraud, and wishful thinking. I think this helps bring TAPS' main problem into better resolution. The problem is that TAPS never makes a good argument for supposing that their evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) is best explained in terms of some paranormal hypothesis, as opposed to the usual suspects. The most TAPS seems to accomplish is showing that in some cases the evidence collected is not best explained by a paranormal hypothesis. Sadly this is overshadowed by their tendency to indulge in obvious forms of fallacious reasoning when it comes to more positive conclusions. Their attempt to argue that some location is haunted seems based largely on their superficial inability to uncover natural explanations. But this doesn't adequately fasten the logical screws to the paranormal wood. Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Jun 23, 2008 6:19:16 GMT -11
I understand that personal experiences are important to the ones having them, but they do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence. This documentary did not discount personal experiences, it just pointed out that anecdotal experiences are not scientific evidence of ghosts. The scientists did suggest better ways of gathering evidence than what TAPS uses. Sandstone, Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this program out. I suspect TAPS has set themselves up for this kind of critique by (i) presenting the object of their inquiry as though it's something that can be scientifically studied and (ii) presenting themselves as engaged in some kind of scientific pursuit. Both assumptions are problematic, and as far as I can see, no member of TAPS has ever provided much of an examination of these assumptions. That being said, I'm not sure I buy into the idea that TAPS' only evidence is anecdotal. Their data are not restricted to personal testimonies or stories, though this is (contrary to their own intentions) an increasingly large part of their evidence. Also, while anecdotal evidence is not itself science, there's no reason why scientific explanations can't be offered for the anecdotal evidence. This is precisely what many skeptics do when they attempt to provide the best explanation of haunting reports, for example, in terms of the usual suspects of malobservation, fraud, and wishful thinking. I think this helps bring TAPS' main problem into better resolution. The problem is that TAPS never makes a good argument for supposing that their evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) is best explained in terms of some paranormal hypothesis, as opposed to the usual suspects. The most TAPS seems to accomplish is showing that in some cases the evidence collected is not best explained by a paranormal hypothesis. Sadly this is overshadowed by their tendency to indulge in obvious forms of fallacious reasoning when it comes to more positive conclusions. Their attempt to argue that some location is haunted seems based largely on their superficial inability to uncover natural explanations. But this doesn't adequately fasten the logical screws to the paranormal wood. Michael Oh Michael! I knew I could count on you to come out and play! I wish that I had some way to bring you more information from this documentary, because it really was interesting. It is called Ghost Hunting, was filmed in Canada in 2003 (mainly in Hamilton and Toronto), and has been shown on Space in Canada and Tech TV in the US. I couldn't find any clips on youtube. The documentary didn't target any one ghost hunting group in particular (although Haunted Hamilton was one group featured). They had a scientist and a skeptic watch the methods used for capturing 'evidence' of paranormal activity, and the methods were critiqued. Basically what the scientist had to say was that going out and ghost hunting was great fun, but to provide evidence that was scientifically defensible some sort of "double-blind" experiment needed to be used. I got the impression that he thought these groups had some good ideas, but that they needed to take things to the next level. The one problem pointed out that really applies to GH is whether or not equipment is being used to collect data appropriately. If you are going to consider something - EMF or temperature variability for instance - as a proxy for paranormal activity, you need to first do the work to establish these things as valid proxies. Not just that, but you have to establish the parameters of how to interpret the collected data. If you could do that, then you could set up equipment in a location, log readings over a period of time, and send the readings out to an independent lab to verify if a location was haunted or not. No one’s “gut feelings” about a place would taint the data. There have been paranormal studies using scientifically defensible “double blind” methods. Richard Wiseman’s work comes to mind (Wiseman et al., 2002). So it can be done. My concern is that so many people see shows like GH and take them as an example of the “scientific” way to prove a haunting, when this clearly isn’t the case. Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Greening, E., Stevens, P. & O'Keeffe, C. (2002). An investigation into the alleged haunting of Hampton Court Palace: Psychological variables and magnetic fields. Journal of Parapsychology, 66(4), 387-408. Wiseman's paper can be downloaded at: www.richardwiseman.com/research/papers.html
|
|
|
Post by drmichaelrhodes on Jun 23, 2008 13:06:51 GMT -11
My concern is that so many people see shows like GH and take them as an example of the “scientific” way to prove a haunting, when this clearly isn’t the case. Sandstone, Good post. I'll see if I can locate clips on Youtube. Ultimately I have to see this show to offer any substantial engagement with it. (1) I agree with your point about people's perception of shows like GH. It's all very pathetic that they take any of this as science. Thankfully no one in the academic parapsychological community takes any of these shows seriously. In fact, they generally don't mention them at all. (2) Re: Double-blind experiments. Yes, there are lots of ostensibly double blind experiments regarding the paranormal, but I think these are conceptually problematic even within a laboratory setting and quite difficult to set up and apply in spontaneous case investigations. And I don't think such experiments would tell us much about the paranormal even under optimal conditions, especially if "paranormal phenomena" include causal influence on the world and human minds by discarnate spirits. (3) "you have to establish the parameters of how to interpret the collected data. If you could do that, then you could set up equipment in a location, log readings over a period of time, and send the readings out to an independent lab to verify if a location was haunted or not." I would agree that a more rigorous method of collecting and documenting evidence in spontaneous case investigations is necessary. TAPS seems wholly unable to do this, but in principle it's not hard to do. The difficult matter is this issue of "fixing the parameters of how to interpret the data." This is where the gun gets loaded. (4) As for whether an independent lab can verify that a place is haunted, I don't know. I think this depends largely on what it means to say that a place is haunted. If by "haunted" you mean "location L has physical properties Q such that Q causally influence the mind of living agents in manner Z," I can see that possibly being verified by laboratory analysis. If by "haunted" you mean "a discarnate person S has causally influenced the mind of some living agent(s) in manner Z," then I don't think a laboratory is going to be able to verify this. I need a vodka..... Michael
|
|
sandstone
Artemis
Be gneiss, and don't take your friends for granite!
Posts: 405
|
Post by sandstone on Jun 23, 2008 16:29:26 GMT -11
Michael, I'll drink to that! Sandy PS: If you can't find the documentary, we can always just debate reasonable methods of collecting evidence. I've seen methods questioned at enough thesis defences to have some ideas.
|
|