The Paranormal Blog

Defining things sometimes is annoying... especially when you feel there's probably no need for a definition and that, indeed, most folks should understand the basic principals of certain things without having them laid out in any way. The real trouble is, within the "paranormal investigative/research community", there is a bit of a disconnect with the idea of review, criticism, and the sense of being attacked.

Now, thankfully, we've dodged this bullet of late and not had too many run-ins with folks for any reason... but this is also because we've had to self-muzzle when we've wanted to present data that we know would upset certain folks... and yes, in some ways... many ways... that's wrong... because we are occasionally holding back things we know are true (and verifiable) to keep a silly sense of peace.

Right now, we're watching not one, but three other folks (groups, to be exact,) we know start down a really bad path which can be... well... almost a bit destructive. I don't want to get into gory details, but it's because of them not grasping the ideas of those three words... "Review", "Criticism", and "Attack".

First, allow Merriam-Webster to help me out...

REVIEW: An act or the process of reviewing, a retrospective view or survey, a renewed study of material previously studied or an exercise facilitating such study.

So, to "review" someone's work is to simply re-study it... an effective "new look" at something that's already out there.

CRITICISM: The art of evaluating or analyzing works, the scientific investigation of literary documents, an observation or remark.

So, a "criticism" is an evaluation of something previously done and the remarks about it afterwards.

Last but not least...

ATTACK: To set upon or work against forcefully, to assail with unfriendly or bitter words, to begin to affect or to act on injuriously.

So, for lack of anything better, an "attack" is... an attack. It's the act of being not very nice. Nothing more, and most certainly nothing less.

Allow me to give you some diagrams to follow...

(Insert a: )

...or, to give a more tangible example...

(Insert b: )

Seems reasonable enough, and with more review and criticism, a possible actual answer that stands up to all scrutiny will be found!

The trouble is, this is how the above is read by many... far too many...

(Insert c: )

...or worse.

...and if anyone thinks this is "just us" here, boy are you wrong. (Please, do not get grumpy with that observation! Head to any large message board and you'll find similar somewhere about someone...)

The problem is this...

Many people forget that if they publish anything, especially publicly, and make any claim, it will probably be challenged... and that CAN be a good thing for all involved... unless you see yourself in "Insert C" above..

Many people publish reviews and/or criticisms without taking into account the sensibilities of the "opposing" number who is being reviewed or criticised... which, if you think about it, shouldn't be THAT big a deal because, hey, if you're in the public eye and make a statement, you should be willing to support the claim with the data you have... but again, remember, this is a study based a LOT on faith and belief... two VERY strong things. As much as we can ask, in a perfect world, for everyone to stick with the hard data only, for many it's the equivalent of asking a fundamentalist Christian to imagine "Christ isn't walking with you... just for a second"... it won't happen... and people should keep this in mind when reviewing or critiquing things.

...but...

If you're a SERIOUS researcher and/or investigator, you should welcome CONSTRUCTIVE review and criticism on your work... and either defend it based on the data ONLY (never the personalities involved) or work towards eliminating possible holes in the fabric of your data to make it more complete.

...that's the perfect world... but... well, here's how it's worked for me.

Them: We published this document and we think "X" is "Y"!

Me: Okay, but what if "X" is "Z"... or even "A"... or perhaps "X" doesn't exist at all? Have you looked into all these possibilities?

Do I need to finish this... or can you hear the screaming, cursing, and genuine hatred towards me, the great heretic, already?

As another example (not me but I saw it transpire...)

Them: Buy tickets to go on a ghost thing that NO ONE has EVER DONE BEFORE in this famous haunted locale!

Person 'A': Well, it has been done before... and often... here's where and here's how.

Them: {Delete Person 'A's comment and ignore them.}

Okay, now this was a "for profit" thing... and it was to earn those involved some dosh... but then anyone might ask, by doing this, are you suppressing the evidence? Are you hiding the truth? If you're asking people to pay to find something with you, shouldn't you be honest?

From poor history from "historians" which cannot be questioned (because questions are "attacks",) to bad science coming from those who claim "scientific experience" (but again, no questions... that's attacking,) many people looking into this topic can not or, more likely, are unwilling to accept criticism and review... because either it may cut into their profits, their chances of fame, or they won't get to feel "as smart" as they were...

...even though, with proper review and criticism, they might learn more, find out more, answer questions they may not have thought of, and overall, do a better job and service to this study (amongst others!)

"Criticisms" should not be ad hominem attacks (against the person or people) but should be critiques of the data intended to make people think or do better.

"Reviews" should also not be little more than non-constructive criticism, but a genuine look at with positive and/or negative feedback with an eye to what was wrong and/or right with what's being reviewed... suggestions should be welcome as well!

In closing, however, if you tell me that The War of 1812 happened between 1923 and 1931, it is NOT an attack on my part to correct you, and cite sources... it's a genuine wish that, indeed, the facts are put out for those interested.

...and if you DO STILL DECIDE to say The War of 1812 happened between 1923 and 1931, I promise that my response will NOT be, "Well, what do you expect from mouth breathers who can't tie their shoes and who probably cheat on their taxes!", but again, I'll question the data... and bring my evidence to the fore... and hopefully, you can either correct me (if you have the information to cite,) or perhaps I can show you...

This isn't "controlling"... it's "helping".

AGAIN, if you put something "out there" in the public, expect review... expect criticism... accept it, adopt it, adapt it, and improve...

Dismiss personal attacks and things said that are not relevant to your data.

GRANTED, you can ignore this entire article if you're only interested in the study of the paranormal for your own amusement... and don't care about the truth, possible alternative hypothesis or answers, and don't want to have less flawed work out there for the masses to see...

...but then, do us all a favour... call yourself ANYTHING but "researcher" or "investigator". Don't even suggest you're actually in the field for any other reason than some bizarre egocentric weirdness... and let us know, TRUTHFULLY why you're interested.

You want fifteen minutes of fame ONLY? There's people who'll still follow you if that's your goal... you don't have to make the false claims of being genuine in your interest.

You want to make MILLIONS? Then be honest and say it out loud, "Show Me The Money!" Again, you can shelve any semblance of altruism... at least you'll be honest, if nothing else, and yes, people still like entertainment.

Do you KNOW what these things are and are only more or less going through the motions to preach your belief to the masses? Fine... but again, let us know... don't cloak yourself in any sort of term like "study" or "investigation"... If you already know what you're looking at, why pretend you're looking any deeper than normal?

Are you genuinely interested in finding out more about these things that are considered "unknown"? Then again, accept, adopt, adapt, and improve... and share with us all... and consider yourself a legitimate and proper investigator or researcher.

Sue and I will still (mostly) keep a civil tongue in our head... for now... but to those "in the field", consider this notice... We may start questioning... yup, that's right, we might start reviewing... and even offering criticism... we will NEVER attack, it will be about the data... it may be YOUR data, but it's the data we will question... and if that's gonna be a problem, I don't know what to say to you.

Basically, if you're calling yourself a "researcher", "investigator", or even a "historian", "folklorist", "scientist", "physicist", or anything like that... and you publish something we see an error with... it JUST MIGHT be questioned.

One hopes if we continue to keep our fingers off the keyboards at those moments, other's will take up the cause... and battle back against hearsay, conjecture, and just plain "made up stuff" presented as "FACT" with evidence, citable sources, and indeed... REAL facts.

...because we need less attacking, more reviewing and even more critical analysis in this field.

The witnesses will appreciate it. Your colleagues will appreciate it. And the study as a whole will definitely benefit from it.

In Addenda: Already got a question... Is this one way, or do YOU expect review and critisism?...

The answer is, OF COURSE! Provided it's constructive, not ad hominem attacks... and it's about an article or paper of ours that's based on the data therein with examples and citations brought to the fore... not simply based on conjecture or personal belief sent in to us as "fact".

Basically, if we made a boo-boo... if we didn't cover something properly... if we ignored something... yes, we do want to know about it! We appreciate that as, again, it's help!