The Paranormal Blog

Wikipedia is Accurate. (Citation Needed)

#1: Did you know that the British Society for Psychical Research ranks Athens as one of the most haunted places on earth? It must be true, I mean, that link above is from The University of Ohio's newspaper, "The Post"! Heck, if that wasn't enough for you, how about this link to a secondary online source! It's true, it's true! (Oh, in case while writing this and publishing it, things fly down the memory hole... Screen Shot of the first link... Screen Shot of the second link... if needed.)

#2: Speaking of the much vaunted (with good reason) society, did you know that Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman were once presidents of the organisation? It's true! Someone on the Unexplained Mysteries message board SAID SO! (In case of memory hole, click here.... the fellow also gets double-points for this typo in his signature line...)

#3: Hey, why pick on the Society? I mean, we here at PSICAN force people who wish to be a part of our group as researchers and/or investigators to GIVE us just under $100 JUST to take the exam... even if you FAIL! (I won't put that link up for that last one, because... well... it was "dealt with" and no harm no foul... I'm only bringing it up for this point...)

Everything above (save my italicised note,) is 100% pure and utter horse poop. Codswallop. Nonsense. Fabricated. Not true. Has no basis in reality. Utter bullsh... you get the idea...

...but DAMNED if these "untruths" don't continue!

Heck, even the recent unpleasantness at St. John's Shrewsbury in Quebec is a single-source miscommunication more likely than not... because "thrill seekers" and "would-be ghost hunters" didn't understand the difference between a "ghost town" (a town that is deserted,) and a "ghost" (or "ghosts") in a town.

It seems people hear something, parrot it back as if it's absolute, and whammo! In the popular mindest, it becomes acknowledged fact.

To set the record straight...

#1: The SPR has never done a ranking of haunted places that anyone's aware of. After all, how would you "quantify" a place as more or less haunted than the next? (So says Tom Ruffles of the SPR...)

#2: Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman, both well known as quasi-sceptics (non-believers), might have been members of the SPR... but never presidents. (So says this list of their past presidents.)

#3: PSICAN, Torontoghosts, Ontarioghosts, ParaResearchers... and all sites and groups DIRECTLY related to them... have not and will never "charge" to become a member or an investigator. (Um, I'm a founder... and a current director... and yeah, I've been running the joint with Sue since day one.)

There's a VERY famous quote that may or may not have originated with either Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens or Abraham Lincoln (earliest attributions) that goes along the lines that it's better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought to be a fool then to open it and remove all doubt.

Apparently, on the internet, this need not be the case. You can pretty much say any danged thing, and if you like it or FEEL it might be true, then it is... and aren't you smarter for it!

A prime example of this are those people who use Wikipedia as the "ultimate resource" for any discussion or quick article.

In all honesty, I use Wiki for some things... but I do have this annoying habit of getting the "quick read" from it, then double-checking the resources and citation's listed for the topic I'm looking at... Then I "Google" that topic AGAIN and look for secondary the even third, fourth, and fifth sources... and if it's for a paper or a full-on article, I will hit the library for help... and e-mail "authorities" on the subjects for assistance too! (Oh, and yes, I do cite everything... even Wiki...)

...but consider this...

As at least an "interested party" in things paranormal (and if not, what are you doing reading this blog???) would you accept data and "corrections" on things paranormal from THIS (click here) person? This person DOES have editorial rights on Wiki... and is the bane of many folk's Wiki existence... because he CAN cite things like the aforementioned Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman (though folks like him "shun" these people because "psychology" is a soft-science at best,) and CSICOP (although they changed their name to the more pop-culture, media-friendly CSI... and have two "doctors" in that HARD science of English - both emeritus...) JREF, and Skeptics Magazine to PROVE his infallibility.

...this is akin to the doctors that were hired BY the big tobacco companies who told us HOW GOOD smoking was for us... and they had detailed studies and tests (all done by other doctors and scientists who, oddly enough, ALSO worked for the big tobacco companies,) to show us the error of our ways for quitting our nicotine habit.

Now, in recent months, I've been smacked (and smacked HARD!) by some folks in North America who feel that the study of the paranormal should (actually) NOT be the domain of the "educated elite" (so to speak... and if anyone's reading this, just so you know, I'm now expecting THREE e-mails from people who wish to know why I'm "talking about" them...) and we should just "go forward" with... well... whatever. One person of this view also felt that "we", those interested in the subject, would never be "taken seriously" by anyone with a higher education so that angle of study and work was a trifle pointless... I was able to show that "evidence" was to the "contrary", but I did understand that point of view with what some folks do...

This said, some of us do feel the need to say that what we do *is* legitimate and *is* worthy of proper funding and resources and very well *could be* extremely important work from everything from a psychological, physics-based, and even possibly neurological standpoint. In order to break that barrier of being considered a "proto-science", we need to separate the "ghost hunters" from the psychical researchers... We *must* say that...

#1: ...running about the "haunted house" trying to get readings on this or that machine is one thing...

#2: ...trying to explain things like...

a: Why do these things happen?
b: Why do people experience these things?
c: What is the cause of these experiences?

...and even...

d: Why did that machine get a weird reading?

...is another.

You can do the first one and (provided your respectful, careful, and ethical,) have a great time, have a nice social experience, and indeed, possibly find some really interesting data and evidence in your activities... but that is "ghost hunting"... and it doesn't help provide empirical data to try and change the minds of the "powers that be" in terms of taking our work seriously... but if you don't want to, you don't have to!

However, if you wish to do the second one... well... then you better be prepared to be questioned... and those questions may NOT be easy... and you will need to do some homework.

I get about four to five "submitted corrections" for articles and bits on our websites every year... and I do look into them and see if there's validity in them... and indeed, I do and will make corrections as needed (and if they desire, credit the person who "straightened me out" for the help!)

...but I also get people writing to me complaining that things like my understanding of the multiverse is incomplete, my knowledge on neutrinos needs brushing up, and my notes on The Battle of Queenston Heights is missing some important data... and they DO come from academics and people who are "authorities" in those areas... and I do accept and am grateful for their help and indeed, their interest in our work!

This said, if I made the statement, using one of the examples above... All apparitions MUST be made of neutrino particles as they are the ONLY things that might have the ability to do those motions apparitions are SAID to go through!, I better do four things...

#1: I need to understand what a neutrino is.

#2: I need to qualify what an apparition is said to do, decide if the model I'm envisioning fits a general statement, find sources that show this is the case, and why I feel that this statement is accurate.

#3: Look into other possible hypothesis of what an apparition is, what reputable work exists to support/defeat my hypothesis, and decided if my statement can stand up to general scrutiny.

...and most importantly...

#4: FACT CHECK MYSELF with good cite-able sources.

...because I'm going to be questioned... and I should be... and honestly, saying I saw a teevee show is not good enough... and this is what is passing for "knowledge" with most people... (many citing what can be only best described as "reality-ish" television programs,) and citing Wiki... well... there's a good reason why it's common to see the words in Wiki... Citation Needed.

If you want to progress this study... if you want to be MORE than a "ghost hunter", or a "thrill seeker", or someone with dreams of being the next reality-ish television star... then have that citation ready and indeed, PROVE YOUR POINT properly!

Heck, if you really, Really, REALLY think that the Society for Psychical Research thinks the University of Ohio is in their ranking of the "Most Haunted Place" list... drop the SPR an e-mail... it won't hurt, you'll get an answer pretty quickly, and best of all, you'll be wiser for the experience.

It's all about being as correct as you can be...

I find it's best to let others be simply "loud".

A wee caveat about the "Pants on Fire" image at the top of this rant... MOST people who publish rubbish without citation or only a single source of the rubbish they whelped back into the general discourse of "things" are not liars as such... Lazy? Probably... Wanting to support their views any way they can (even with shaky facts?) Most common...

...but when these folks do caught out, it does make them look as if... well... give these folks an extinguisher for their trousers.

It's too bad really... because bad sourcing is as bad as dealing with the "close minded".