Halloween can be marked by an increase in the public's interest in all things paranormal, often accompanied by members of the public out on their own search for paranormal phenomena. But is Halloween actually a more paranormally active night?
There are no known research results to suggest that there is an increase in unexplainable phenomena on Halloween. People's perceived increase in phenomena may be caused by several contributing factors.
Firstly, there is likely to be an increase in people out on 'investigations'. These people will comprise a mix of experienced and inexperienced investigators. With more people out searching for phenomena, it follows that there would likely be an increase in reported experiences, the more people you have looking for something, the more likely you are to find it. But are these reported experiences genuinely paranormal? Probably not.
The increase in 'investigators' will be largely comprised of inexperienced members of the public, taking the opportunity to search out phenomena for themselves. These people are less likely to be analytical and rational in their scrutiny of experiences and are, therefore, more likely to attribute non-paranormal phenomena to the paranormal, due to their lack of experience. The increased expectation and anticipation of phenomena is also a contributing factor towards an increase in reported experiences. This is an effect that is largely diluted amongst experienced investigators, but more concentrated within the lesser experienced investigator.
The final contributing factor in this article is that of atmospheric change. October is often recognized as the month where the weather becomes considerably colder and more stormy weather conditions can affect experiences in a number of ways. Firstly, dark, cold, stormy nights are often linked to the traditional ghost story, therefore reinforcing the lay-investigator's expectation of phenomena, as previously discussed. Secondly, these weather conditions are linked to the production of greater static charges and the creation of negative ions.
These two factors can contribute towards the sensation of being touched, an often reported form of 'phenomena', albeit entirely naturally explainable.
The increase of inexperienced people conducting 'investigations' also raises several other points that must be born in mind. Without the necessary infrastructure to organize and conduct an 'official' investigation, many members of the public may result to visiting allegedly haunted sites without permission. This can result in charges of trespass, the creation of damage at such sites and tar the reputation of genuine investigation groups who do seek prior permission.
Another issue raised is one of health and safety. Wandering around in the dark, and often dangerous, places without suitable lighting and attire can result in personal injury and inadvertent damage to the property being visited. There were recent reports of a young man on a ghost hunt who fell asleep with a lit cigarette and burnt the entire building down, narrowly escaping with his life.
Unofficial investigations are disrespectful, counter-productive and dangerous. If you wish to go looking for phenomena on Halloween, or any other night of the year, please find a reputable group to join. Have a safe and happy Halloween!
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The Paranormal Numbers Game
Many a paranormal investigator becomes cynical and frustrated over the years because no one who isn't a full-blown believer will take them seriously. To take one example, they can recall several occasions when they pointed towards an 'orb' and it 'appeared' on camera. Everyone concerned might exclaim that there is no way 'orbs' can be dust--because they appear on command.
To those with less experience such an event might seem impressive. Surely orbs must be paranormal if they can behave on command? No mote of dust can do that. So why anyone rational won't take these claims seriously, even when they accept them at face value?
Something science learnt long ago is that what is not said is just as important as what is said. Would you take a potentially dangerous clinical drug if ten out of ten studies said it was effective? How would you feel if twenty studies showed them to be ineffective, but no one bothered to mention them? The odds might seem less appealing now. If someone shows you a single picture of someone pointing to an orb on camera it seems quite compelling. but what if, in a file drawer somewhere, there were another thirty photos of the same person pointing at nothing at all? Or the orb was in the wrong place?
One in three photos might show orbs (a common figure in many locations) and there may be a one in ten chance that an orb might appear near or in the line of someone's outstretched hand. Is it not therefore just simple math logic that thirty photos of them must show an orb that an orb is being pointed out, in the same way that six rolls of a die should show every number?
It is difficult to believe that most individuals would go out to deceive in this way. However, the reality is that they most likely do not. Human memory is very selective. We will always pick and choose from events to find those that fit in with our beliefs and our arguments. Over time all the other circumstances are forgotten and just the one occasion and the one photograph remains.
Next time someone is failing to take you seriously it's always worth asking yourself whether you are really giving them any reason to take you seriously.
To those with less experience such an event might seem impressive. Surely orbs must be paranormal if they can behave on command? No mote of dust can do that. So why anyone rational won't take these claims seriously, even when they accept them at face value?
Something science learnt long ago is that what is not said is just as important as what is said. Would you take a potentially dangerous clinical drug if ten out of ten studies said it was effective? How would you feel if twenty studies showed them to be ineffective, but no one bothered to mention them? The odds might seem less appealing now. If someone shows you a single picture of someone pointing to an orb on camera it seems quite compelling. but what if, in a file drawer somewhere, there were another thirty photos of the same person pointing at nothing at all? Or the orb was in the wrong place?
One in three photos might show orbs (a common figure in many locations) and there may be a one in ten chance that an orb might appear near or in the line of someone's outstretched hand. Is it not therefore just simple math logic that thirty photos of them must show an orb that an orb is being pointed out, in the same way that six rolls of a die should show every number?
It is difficult to believe that most individuals would go out to deceive in this way. However, the reality is that they most likely do not. Human memory is very selective. We will always pick and choose from events to find those that fit in with our beliefs and our arguments. Over time all the other circumstances are forgotten and just the one occasion and the one photograph remains.
Next time someone is failing to take you seriously it's always worth asking yourself whether you are really giving them any reason to take you seriously.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Where have all the Ghosts Gone?
Few surveys or censuses are completed these days about the nature of 'ghosts' and 'hauntings'. The major censuses--Phantoms of the living and a Census of Hallucinations--of the Victorian period concentrated on the prevalent haunting feature of the time: apparitions. In the 1970's Green and McCreery concluded that the vast majority of haunting cases involved apparitions. In her book Parapsychology in 2005, Jane Henry stated that the other studies have drawn similar conclusions. Certainly the traditional ghost account or story almost always involved an apparition of a dead (or living) person (animal or object). So why is the experience of so many modern day paranormal investigators so different?
Various paranormal investigators and researchers have, anecdotally, commented that haunting cases of the last decade seem to involve fewer apparitions than those of the past. A haunting case today seems more likely to report cold spots, light anomalies, strange noises and feelings rather than a full-on sighting of a ghost
The Haunted Swindon Census in England found that over 50 years more than 80% of haunting cases involved at least one apparition. But comparing this to haunting cases over the last 10 years this number dropped, staggeringly, to around 30% involving an apparition seen. The figures may well be unrepresentative, but the findings seem to ring true with the experience of so many researchers today. But why?
It is almost impossible to conclusively say. Perceptions of hauntings involve so may factors, and very few of these are really understood.
One theory that has been advanced is that of the role of the media.
Some rational theorists have concluded that our interpretation of ambiguous events as hauntings is driven by our perception of what a haunting 'should be' -- after all, no-one is born with the knowledge of what a haunting is: we learn it from our environment-- often the media.
For more than a century, until recent times, most paranormal media -- from T.V. programs to stories, and films -- seemed to involve a ghost apparition. The last 10 years has seen a renaissance in the paranormal media, coinciding with the rise of 'reality television'.
Immediately popular ghost-related reality T.V. shows show viewers very few apparitions -- one could only guess why that would be! Indeed in the latest PSI Journal found that, in one paranormal TV show, only 5% of experiences related to some form of apparition. To take the place of the traditional 'ghost', these shows have showed the public that haunting symptoms include light anomalies, strange noises, feelings and the like.
Is the decrease in apparitions simply down to the sharp change how T.V. shows tell people that a 'haunting' is present? We might never know, but it's food for thought.
Various paranormal investigators and researchers have, anecdotally, commented that haunting cases of the last decade seem to involve fewer apparitions than those of the past. A haunting case today seems more likely to report cold spots, light anomalies, strange noises and feelings rather than a full-on sighting of a ghost
The Haunted Swindon Census in England found that over 50 years more than 80% of haunting cases involved at least one apparition. But comparing this to haunting cases over the last 10 years this number dropped, staggeringly, to around 30% involving an apparition seen. The figures may well be unrepresentative, but the findings seem to ring true with the experience of so many researchers today. But why?
It is almost impossible to conclusively say. Perceptions of hauntings involve so may factors, and very few of these are really understood.
One theory that has been advanced is that of the role of the media.
Some rational theorists have concluded that our interpretation of ambiguous events as hauntings is driven by our perception of what a haunting 'should be' -- after all, no-one is born with the knowledge of what a haunting is: we learn it from our environment-- often the media.
For more than a century, until recent times, most paranormal media -- from T.V. programs to stories, and films -- seemed to involve a ghost apparition. The last 10 years has seen a renaissance in the paranormal media, coinciding with the rise of 'reality television'.
Immediately popular ghost-related reality T.V. shows show viewers very few apparitions -- one could only guess why that would be! Indeed in the latest PSI Journal found that, in one paranormal TV show, only 5% of experiences related to some form of apparition. To take the place of the traditional 'ghost', these shows have showed the public that haunting symptoms include light anomalies, strange noises, feelings and the like.
Is the decrease in apparitions simply down to the sharp change how T.V. shows tell people that a 'haunting' is present? We might never know, but it's food for thought.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
The Fallacy of Democratic Paranormal Science
As I have written here before, the tragedy of psychical research is that whilst other fields of study have come on in leaps and bounds over the last hundred or so years, the field of paranormal study has hardly advanced at all.
For a long time we could blame this on poor methods and poor funding; fewer people doing research, hence, fewer outlets for the research. But recent years have seen the field of parapsychology raising its method game, and thousands upon thousands of part time paranormal investigators flooding the field.
The advancement of science can be likened to building a house. Firm foundations are laid, and every new discovery--no matter how small--builds upon what we already know. With thousands of researchers all knowing the increasing foundations, and adding to them, psychical research could advance like never before.
So what's the problem? Paranormal research today seems to be built on the shakiest of foundations. No matter how much we like to think otherwise, so much in the paranormal investigation field is built on what we see in the media, rather than what we read in academic books and journals.
Research is further hampered by a seeming 'democracy' of thought. Everyone assumes that no one else knows anything, therefore people feel that every thought--no matter how scientific--is equal to every other thought. We seem to base our knowledge on pub-style discussions of opinion and rather dubious hunches. After all, if no one knows better than anyone else, then my guess is as good as anyone else's right?
So rather than researchers assiduously reading the trials and tribulations of those who have come and gone before--learning and building--we all start from nowhere and, if the experience of the last ten years is anything to go by, get precisely nowhere either.
The field of paranormal research is weighed down by the fool's gold of misattributed experience, topped up with pseudo-science, and no collaboration seems to be based on the sharing of knowledge and research.
All the while educational charities like the Society for Psychical Research and the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena and The Rhine Research Center have accumulated the wisdom and research of ages, but few people seem to bother with them. After all, any one person's random thoughts are just as valid as the accumulated scientific discovers of decades?
Reading deeply into our subject and learning from our predecessors might be less fun than ghost hunting and making it all up ourselves, but are we really going to achieve anything?
For a long time we could blame this on poor methods and poor funding; fewer people doing research, hence, fewer outlets for the research. But recent years have seen the field of parapsychology raising its method game, and thousands upon thousands of part time paranormal investigators flooding the field.
The advancement of science can be likened to building a house. Firm foundations are laid, and every new discovery--no matter how small--builds upon what we already know. With thousands of researchers all knowing the increasing foundations, and adding to them, psychical research could advance like never before.
So what's the problem? Paranormal research today seems to be built on the shakiest of foundations. No matter how much we like to think otherwise, so much in the paranormal investigation field is built on what we see in the media, rather than what we read in academic books and journals.
Research is further hampered by a seeming 'democracy' of thought. Everyone assumes that no one else knows anything, therefore people feel that every thought--no matter how scientific--is equal to every other thought. We seem to base our knowledge on pub-style discussions of opinion and rather dubious hunches. After all, if no one knows better than anyone else, then my guess is as good as anyone else's right?
So rather than researchers assiduously reading the trials and tribulations of those who have come and gone before--learning and building--we all start from nowhere and, if the experience of the last ten years is anything to go by, get precisely nowhere either.
The field of paranormal research is weighed down by the fool's gold of misattributed experience, topped up with pseudo-science, and no collaboration seems to be based on the sharing of knowledge and research.
All the while educational charities like the Society for Psychical Research and the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena and The Rhine Research Center have accumulated the wisdom and research of ages, but few people seem to bother with them. After all, any one person's random thoughts are just as valid as the accumulated scientific discovers of decades?
Reading deeply into our subject and learning from our predecessors might be less fun than ghost hunting and making it all up ourselves, but are we really going to achieve anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)