Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

A while back, I was listening to Stephen Fry being interviewed on the CBC by Jian Ghomeshi and he made an interesting point... which I'll paraphrase here.

Although, no doubt, some of our readers may not know who Stephen Fry is (as such,) he's rather famed in Britain and has a large following worldwide... and you probably have seen him somewhere in something... his body of work is extensive. (I'm going to cheat and simply send you on to his Wikipedia entry if you wish to check in on him.)

The topic of "fame" came up in the interview and Mr. Fry, who's an AVID Twitter-er, pointed out that comments by people with a modicum of fame can be blown out of proportion... and that facilitates the loss not as much of privacy, but of the ability to react and behave "normally".

The "example" he gave was being stuck in a line at a pharmacy (chemist/"drug store") behind an elderly woman struggling with completing her purchase. (Counting out small coins and such...) Although everyone should be tolerant, the best of us can become exasperated and a bit "hrumphy"... and whereas I can do that and simply come off as a grumpy, rushed idiot at worst, if Stephen Fry did it, within hours it would be all over the online world and in tabloids that he, Stephen Fry, obviously hates the elderly and is a diva who wants instant service!

I am not famous... nor do I want to be... but there are people out there who read my writings... potentially too closely... so close, that often, I'm (apparently) not allowed a personal opinion or critique as it reflects on the groups I work on... and with some regularity, I'm called out because of speaking my mind.

This is not to say I'm sexist (not at all!) or racist (I actually have a painful aversion to racist folks that's landed me in several heated arguments against "hate",) or holding viewpoints that might otherwise be considered not terribly... "mainstream" or socially acceptable... and, as an example, the PSICAN General Information & Codes of Governance/Presentation does specify the public statements that amount to "hate" (which is defined in Canadian jurisprudence,) will result in anyone in the group being either disciplined or asked to leave... and yes, that WOULD include me... and Sue too!

No, it's not those things that get me (and Sue) in trouble, the "speaking" of my mind that usually initiates comments and notes chastising us, regardless of where it is or the context it's given in, are things like my personal aversion to "reality-ish" television... my dislike of overt marketing in terms of this study... any review of a television program/movie/musical offering... choice of server software, and things like this.

I have taken far more grief for critiquing (personally) media than I did for my early stance and work on orb photos! (...and the latter came with physical threats of violence back in the late 1990's!)

One of our friends (and a member of PSICAN and The Parapsychological Association,) said that as "stewards of PSICAN, some people believe that we cannot voice any opinions and must, as PSICAN strives to do, stay neutral and absolutely balanced at all times.

...he recognised this "viewpoint" of certain people as massively flawed.

Heck, as our (and it's been there since day one,) "rules" say...

5: PSICAN does not hold or express any corporate views. Any opinions expressed through its articles, papers, websites, or via other means are, therefore, those of the PSICAN member, investigator, researcher, or founder alone.

Which I whole-heartedly admit, I... um... "borrowed" (with an indefinite return date!) and adapted slightly from The Society for Psychical Research...

Basically, when reading through our "Rules of Governance and Presentation", it says something like, in a nutshell..

Sum Up Rule on This Topic One: If you're reporting a case or presenting an article or a paper through PSICAN that is *not* an editorial or opinion piece, you must stay as absolutely neutral as possible and point out all information without prejudice to any favoured belief or hypothesis.

...and...

Sum Up Rule on This Topic Two: You are ABSOLUTELY entitled to your own belief and opinion and can express said as long as it's a critique, editorial, note, or, in general, not a paper, article, or report.

...with the caveat...

Sum Up Rule on This Topic Three: Don't preach or profess "hate" (racism, sexism, or the like,) even in editorials, notes, critiques, etc.... basically, everything should be "hate free"!

I could add more to this, but read through things and you'll discover, that's the general rules in terms of writing and presentation on the site, in the groups, and even on this blog! (...although things like this blog, the message board, and even our Facebook group can be a little more open and a little more "wild West" as opinions are expected in those forums.

Now, aside from complaining about being very much the poor man's version of Stephen Fry "hating the elderly" (from a small few,) when I say things like I am not a fan of Apple Computer's business models, there is another point to this blog post... that's also been covered a tiny bit in my last two posts...

As I said, OF COURSE faith, belief, and general leaning towards one thought or another are not only allowed within our groups, it's expected! (Find me someone without an opinion! There is an old joke about cowboy hats, opinions, and something else... but it escapes me right now...) and we've ALWAYS allowed for it... only asking people to be as neutral as possible when presenting non-editorial stuff... and our crew has been and is exemplary in doing that...

...but...

Far too often, we come across people who can't separate their strong belief or faith from facts... "orb photos" being a perfect example... but I'll go one further with you, our dear readers...

Let's look at UFOs.

What are they?

What if I told you that they are categorically things that have slipped through another universe (or dimension)? Do you accept that?

Now, what if I presented work... papers... articles that went STRICTLY with that hypothesis as absolute fact and reviewed all cases with that... in other words, no matter WHAT the case, everything about it is "pan-dimmensional" ignoring the "ETH" (extra-terrestrial hypothesis,) or potential military test planes or even "mistaken identities". Is that good work?

...and yet, within not only Ufology, but cryptozoology and especially ghosts and hauntings, this is exactly what I see... presentations that knee-jerk to ghosts being ONLY based in the "DPH" (Dead Person Hypothesis) and also ardent parapsychologists that knee jerk against the DPH and only see it as a potential psi events. (Psi, in this case, being used to define some sort of "projection" using a psychical ability to manifest something outside of the human body that resembles a "ghost".)

Bigfoot can ONLY be an "animal" or biological entity... or are they?

Poltergeists are angry spirits of the dead... or are they?

UFO and alien encounters are absolutely only extra-terrestrial in origin... or are they?

It's that "Or Are They?" bit that's missing in so many people's work.

As stated, I completely and totally accept the idea that someone, in a note, or quick read article that's an opinion piece or based on "folklore", might swing their efforts in a particular direction and say something like, "The ghosts is that of the young girl who was spurned by her lover..." but in a proper academic article, and one that's inclusive, I want to see all aspects taken into account with maybe the words, "The ghost is reportedly the remnants of the girl who was spurned by her lover...". Even then, there should be a discussion of alternative hypothesis or thoughts on the matter up to an including everything from spirits of the dead to it being "nothing"... because if you accept that gamut of possibilities in terms of "what" it is, you're more likely to stumble on the truth either through elimination or by perhaps someone else spotting an argument either supporting or refuting potential explanations.

Basically, it's looking at all angles that shows neutrality... and advances the study...

Going back to the beginning of this article, being "neutral" in a critique or opinion is an oxymoron. "Opinions" tend to be one-sided... and up for rebuttal.

Looking back on the Facebook comments I blogged about below, how much further some might have been if instead of people promoting their own belief only as an argument, a genuine debate on their hypothesis ensued... and that was followed by everyone learning about the alternate views to their own.

Won't happen, though... because people have strong beliefs bordering on faith, no matter what the argument.

Debate is where opinion is important... as is critical assessments and even editorials.

Within an academic paper, however, opinion doesn't have to vanish... but it should be pushed back in favour of the evidence presented... on all sides.

That's neutrality in presentation... and yes, it can lead (much like a good debate,) to stronger insights from all parties.

I, and Sue, are proud to be a "stewards" of PSICAN... and we will be neutral in our work where it's needed because that's important.

By the same token, however, we're human and at last check, allowed to express personal opinions... and welcome others PROVIDED they understand that it could be up for debate as we do with our own thoughts.

Although this post has a personal message, I hope it strikes a cord on some levels with folks... because Stephen Fry doesn't hate the elderly... but he is, on occasion, grumpy and has places to go... and both his "professional" and "personal" beings are quite alright and acceptable!