On Behalf of the Fool

Responding to the critics of paranormal research

by: Jim Hall

James Randi of the Randi Educational Foundation has described paranormal researchers in this way:

"…a parapsychologist who delights - as do most of the ghost-hunters - in running about old houses with overly-sensitive electronic equipment which reacts to almost any variance in the area. This makes such folks look scientific, and gives him lots of graphs and numbers to which great significance can then be assigned. A simple cool draft becomes fraught with beyond-the-grave meaning, a creak assumes fearful proportions, and if anything shows up that is not exactly called for, or is unexpected, that is read as first-rate proof of a disembodied entity being in residence. Of course, if the house is drafty and creaky, that helps...." (from his website, July 26, 2002)

Randi's criticism of the field of paranormal research is a common one, and one that is unfortunately supported by the methods of some connected with the field. But is it fair or accurate to paint all paranormal researchers with the same brush?

Would you dismiss astronomy as a science because some people run around with tinfoil on their heads claiming to see UFOs? Of course not. Believe it or not, what we at Haunted North Carolina do is SCIENTIFIC research. We follow the scientific method, we follow strict protocols in our methods, and most importantly, we DON'T MAKE CLAIMS THAT WE CANNOT SUPPORT. On a recent radio interview, the host asked us "What are ghosts?" Our response to her and to 250,000 people in the greater Charlotte area was…we don't know. We don't. Do we believe that paranormal phenomena is real? Yes. Do we believe that the cause of this phenomena is disembodied dead people walking around? Not so fast…

But, I'm getting ahead of myself. First, let me address the claim of critics that what we do is "pseudoscience" (or not legitimate science). To properly address this claim, I will first need to define some terms. An inference is the leap from a premise to a conclusion (ex: "The sun will rise in the morning"). There are three types of inferences one can make in life. The first is what is called an inductive inference. It is an inference that some observed case(s) have some characteristic and that some unobserved case(s) has (have) that same characteristic. (ex: "The sun has risen every morning since time began, therefore it will rise tomorrow morning."). The second type of inference is what is called an abductive inference. It is an inference to the best possible explanation. (Ex: "My car won't start and the gas tank is full, therefore the battery must be dead.") The third type is called a deductive inference. It is an inference wherein you eliminate all possibilities but your final conclusion. It is an argument whose premises are meant to provide absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion. (Ex: "A=B, B=C, therefore A=C). On a practical level, we use all three of these inferences thousands of times a day, but guess which one is scientifically valid?

If you said deductive, you're right. It is what the scientific method is based upon. You form a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis, and if it fails, you start over. In the field of paranormal research (or "ghost hunting" in particular) it means that when we observe or record the occurrence of some time of phenomena, we test every possible "normal" explanation before allowing ourselves the possibility that the explanation might be "paranormal".

For example, let's say we get a crystal clear EVP (electronic voice phenomena) on audio tape The first thing we would do is to check our log records. Who was nearest to the recorder? Who was observed in the area? What is the sensitivity of the microphone? Could it possibly pick up radio transmissions? We will exhaust every possible avenue of investigation before allowing that it COULD be evidence of paranormal phenomena. (And I stress COULD be…as I said before, we don't make unsupported claims) Now using this same example, a common criticism would be "Oh, it's obviously one of the group talking from the other room." What type of inference is this? Right, an abductive inference. We use deductive reasoning and the scientific method, yet our critics base their conclusions on nothing more than a "good guess". Yet, we're the crackpots…

Anybody who devotes themselves to this field of study should know that they are going to come under fire. Whether it is from high profile skeptics like James Randi, or the wiseguy at the water cooler who asks you with a smirk "Seen any ghosts lately?". Just rest assured that as long as your methods are sound, your reasoning is on much sounder footing than theirs.