Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

This one's more for the "ghost hunters" out there than anyone else, but it could transcend various studies into the paranormal...

I've talked before about people figuring out why and what they are looking for when they say they are investigating ghosts and hauntings... and many people wrote to me to tell me that they are looking for "proof" of the phenomena.

That's a relatively simple goal... and quite possibly not necessary. Why? Well, does anyone out there doubt that the vast majority of people who report to have witnessed, heard, or felt these things didn't have the experience? Does anyone think that every witness is a liar or utterly delusional save those of you who are hard-core non-believers? Even then, can hard-core non-believers state, without hesitation, that the people who feel they've run into these things didn't have a genuine experience of some sort?

The truth of the matter is, these things *are* experienced. This is something that is a statement of fact.

The question is, how physical are these events?

So, let's modify what many "ghost hunters" might be after... "Physical Evidence of Physical Activity that explains or might explain Ghostly Experiences".

They want "proof".

Okay, quick sideline here...

The question, "What constitutes proof?" comes up quite often... and that question is completely subjective.

"Proof" is what's acceptable evidence to an individual or group. Not too long ago in our history, a person remembering when a bad drought happened and who was an acting wet-nurse looking after babies while a person should have been being born was often enough in legal terms to decide a person's age. As another example, the Sun seems to come up in the East and down in the West "proving" (without question) that it obviously was circling the Earth. One last example would be to consider legal matters again... Back "in the day", how many people went to their deaths because neighbours believed they were guilty of this or that crime? Even within ancient academia, "proof" seemed volatile... just look into the ongoing history of the discovery and examination of neutrino particles if you need something far more current...

"Proof" is one thing... "Empirical Evidence" is quite different.

"Proof" can be simply the say-so of an accepted authority... "Empirical Evidence" must be... well... empirical... meaning the following...

The data is observable by neutral parties, repeatable or repeated, predictable (as possible), and measurable when it occurs.

So, to continue with examples, the statement "Rocks are hard" is offered as proof...

...but it's pretty incorrect.

Talc is a rock, and it's not too hard... but compared to diamonds which are also rock?

Ergo: With repeated experiments, we can say, with some level of acceptance, that diamonds are a hard substance by most standards... and that's empirical... and can/has been borne out by repeated observation and indeed, experimentation, from many sources.

So, bringing us back to our topic at hand, being looking for "proof" of ghosts, perhaps we should say that good ghost hunters are...

That's a reasonable mission statement for many "ghost hunters"... and it would be nice if all "ghost hunters", investigators, and/or researchers really sat down and created a true mission statement for what they're trying to accomplish. (Hence the title of this blog post.)

Now, here's my real question...

*If* many of the "ghost hunters" who've written to me found something that appeared to stand up to empirical scrutiny in terms of evidence of ghostly phenomena, what would they do with that?

Think about it.

You've managed to (metaphorically, of course,) trap your ghost in a jar.

Now what?

Show it off?

Why? To what end? Who are they trying to "impress" if they are even trying to "impress" anyone?

Perhaps sell it to the highest bidder... make it a commodity...

I'd like to think that wasn't the case and that most people in this field are relatively altruistic, but common sense tells me that at least 35% to 45% of the people I've seen reporting to be "ghost hunters" (or investigators or researchers) are not in the field for purely altruistic reasons... call me cynical due to some rather bad experiences and indeed, observations.

Shortly before writing this piece, a news item hit that I'm shocked didn't send absolute waves of excitement through the paranormal investigative and research "community"... The Society for Psychical Research, one of the oldest and absolutely one of the most respected legitimate organisations looking into these things, sent out a news release about Dr. Barrie Colvin's work with recordings of "poltergeist rappings"... (you can read the article here. ) Dr. Colvin found a unique and not-quite understood sound-wave signature with the recordings or knockings and rappings which seem to suggest that these sounds can not be caused by "normal means". Effectively, if you compare the structure of the sound of "normal" rappings and "poltergeist rappings", there's distinct and measurable differences.

Empirical evidence of "poltergeist raps" not being made through natural (or man made) sources? Perhaps...

Empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts? Nope.

Still, to not see the major importance of this study would be a little silly... and remember, using the guidelines for what's empirical you are looking for patterns... and he may have found one that as of now, might defy explanation.

Did Dr. Colvin head to JREF (James Randi's "sceptical" group) to collect the million dollar prize? Of course not... First of all, it's not empirical evidence of the paranormal, only a clue and possible pattern to help maybe solve a bigger puzzle.

Did he race to The National Enquirer to claim it's prize for proof of "Life After Death"? No...

Is he now seeking a television show to "showcase" his talents? Nope.

He published his findings in a respected journal with an accredited group where it can be used to further exploration and hopefully education into these things.

He does/will receive some "fame" (more credit, to be honest,) for doing some ground-breaking work and publishing... but beyond that, he's an actual investigator... a scientist... and he's putting out his work for critical examination... and presented his data.

In terms of "ghosts", one could note that Dr. Colvin's work doesn't make any strides towards figuring out if any of the popular hypothesis of causation of the phenomena are "the answer" to these events... I mean, are poltergeist knocks part of the DPH (Dead Person Hypothesis? - Thanks to Eric Oullett for this acronym...) Are these manifestations RSPK (Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis?) Are they Psi phenomena requiring a medium (anomalous energy transfers?)

...or something completely different?

Perhaps he hasn't "solved" any of the puzzles in terms of what is or isn't a ghost or poltergeists, but his work may be a key component for the next group or person coming along... I know we'll be pouring over his published (complete) notes the minute we can.

Granted, I could now go into a rant about some of the morons "in the field" that complain reading and studying other people's work and efforts, especially from long ago, is a wasted effort as "They didn't find anything, so why should we care?"... and then the said same morons start re-doing the work done years previously blissfully unaware that they are indeed simply re-tracing old steps that people have already done and often with nothing more than new mistakes and spewing out baseless conjecture... but I shan't bother you with that...

Er-hmm...

Anyway...

So, looking at the work above... and the mission statement... I really only have three questions for everyone who reports to be a "ghost hunter", ghost investigator, or ghost researcher...

First: What is your mission statement and why?

Second: What methods are you using? Would they result in empirical findings? Would your evidence stand up to full scrutiny?

Third: If you did accomplish your mission, what would you do with your work?

These questions aren't as simple as they'd seem.

...and to be fair, here's my answers...

First: PSICAN's mission is to look for and document cases of paranormal experiences from a historic, psychological, and scientific view with an eye to finding out possible causations to these events or presenting various hypothesis of causation for examination by all.

Second: Our methods are tailored on a case-by-case basis depending on the phenomena reported. We do work to find the best possible way to keep data empirical, but are always working to perfect our methods and do tap as many accredited specialists in various fields as possible towards that end.

Third: We are and always have been an educational resource that keeps all publishable information free for viewing on our websites (and perhaps in the future, in a facility with public access,) in the hopes they will further the understanding of those experiences that we currently dub "paranormal" in nature.

These three answers shouldn't be for everyone... and it's fine if they're not. This is "us"... Sue's and my vision... it may be your's too... it may not be.

...but still, if you're a "hunter", investigator, or researcher... ask yourself those three questions... and see what you come up with.

There's no harm if it is a little more "fame and fortune" based... or even more "thrilling stuff" based... but still, it's an interesting exercise for everyone... if nothing else, to define what you want from this study.