Scientifical Americans
Page 4
The different categories of ARIGs share many features in common, but they have clear distinctions based on the specifics of their chosen focus. It is difficult to generalize each subset of ARIGs, let alone the entire diverse population of participants. They have similarities and some unique differences. And, they evolve through time. For purposes of this book, I mostly discuss all categories of ARIGs but in some cases, specific categories are mentioned and I will use the designation ghost/ARIG or UFO/ARIG, if this clarification is necessary.
A common complaint of ARIGs is that the scientific community does not take them or their interests seriously. This is simply incorrect as is demonstrated through the history of each ARIG field in upcoming sections. ARIG topics at one time were seriously considered by science but lost scientific standing over time. When a field loses scientific respectability for whatever cause, it may be taken up by amateurs who attempt to regain its credibility again. Ironically, some of these fields become the subject of historical or scientific research about religious movements, the nature of science and social, cultural or psychological phenomenon. A consequence of amateurs appropriating a field outside of gatekeeping institutions is the inevitable involvement of exploiters, charlatans, and outright hoaxers.
The MUFON database website allows anyone to search cases submitted to the Mutual UFO Network, including photographs and videos from witnesses. Photograph by Kenny Biddle.
“Scientificity”
ARIG websites that specifically noted or suggested a sense of scientificity did so in a number of ways. One way is reference to a systematic method or “the scientific method.” Another is emphasis on gathering of objective measurements with specialized equipment. “Scientificity” describes the degree to which ARIGs addressed science—if they actually used the words “science” or “scientific” to describe their group or procedures or if they suggested they used science-related processes. Examining scientificity of ARIGs allowed comparison between ARIGs’ understanding and use of science and scientific research with academic and professional scientific research.
Using Internet browser tools, I scanned each ARIG home and “about” pages for use of the words “science” and “scientific” with reference to their method, goals, mission, or process. If “science” or “scientific” was mentioned, I determined if the context was invoking or revoking science. If they were outwardly hostile to science, I counted scientificity as a “no.” If the terms were used to positively describe a characteristic of the ARIG, scientificity was counted as “yes.” Greater than half of the groups, 526 out of 1,000, were positive for scientificity. An additional two groups were more tenuous and used “quasi-” or “semi-” as a modifier in front of scientific. This cautiousness suggested that some ARIGS are aware of how different their activity is from academic science. Statements such as “this is not an exact science” soften the scientificity. There are those who clearly state their opinion that investigation into the paranormal, cryptozoology, or ufology is science. Many others will just reference the equipment they use as “scientific” and others strongly suggest scientificity by referencing scientific works or famous scientists, like Einstein or Tesla. A completely non-scientific approach was evident only on 19 sites, all of which carried religious connotations or advocated a strong metaphysical foundation and spiritual approach. Meanwhile, 408 of the sites did not specify or hint at if and how they used scientific methods, or if they thought their efforts were scientific.
Those ARIGs that strongly portray scientificity in their presentation to the public consider their subject to be an uncharted, ignored form of science and, therefore, conclude the scientific community is unjustly ignoring this field. Anyone who has examined the idea and believes there is “something to this” sees a preponderance of evidence for life after death, Bigfoot, possession, psychic powers, or unexplained things in the sky. In their view, the evidence is obvious and highly convincing. They tout their evidence as if adding photos, stories by eyewitnesses, and their own personal experiences will persuade the scientific community. In general, ARIGs do not exhibit knowledge of the scientific and scholarly history of exploration into fringe areas. Quotes from some scientific minded groups will illustrate their ambitious goals. Their missions included:
• “furthering the science” (In the Shadows Paranormal Project);
• “bringing science and paranormal together” (Peace of Mind Paranormal Society);
• “helping the scientific community embrace the world of unknown” (Eastern Kentucky Ghost Hunters—EKG Investigators); AND
• “compelling the scientific world to action” (Texla Cryptozoological Research Group).
2
The Paranormal in Popular Culture
Those who do not believe in paranormal claims are regularly astounded at how many people around them subscribe to paranormal thinking. Paranormal topics are presented in American popular culture as real, both in fictional works as well as “true accounts.” In popular media and survey data, paranormal topics are not marginal; they are mainstream. Percentages from public polling show a substantial belief in paranormal phenomena. More than half the population at any time admits to accepting some mysterious concept as real. From 1990 to 2001, belief in haunted houses and ghosts each increased 13 percentage points—from 29 to 42%; communicating with someone who has died was up 10 percentage points to 28%; and extraterrestrial visitation was up 6 points to 33% according to Gallup polling.1 Those numbers came down slightly in 2005 which was the last set of results available.2 These fluctuations are not dramatic and point to a persistent belief. More than half the U.S. population subscribes to at least one paranormal or supernatural belief. It’s possible (but unclear) if the high point in 2001 was due to the popularity of the paranormal in popular culture, though that hypothesis is reasonable.
Paranormal belief appears to be correlated with paranormal media. Support for paranormal media comes mainly from the audience that subscribes to that paranormal worldview. A 2009 Pew survey of over 2000 people showed 29% of people reported they have been in touch with the dead in some way and 18% experienced ghosts. In total, 65% of the population of adults express belief in or report having experience with at least one supernatural3 phenomena (Pew Research Center 2009). Is this the result of psychic celebrity shows on TV and the several programs that relate personal stories of ghost encounters? A study of belief in ESP suggests that people are generally more willing to accept the truth of claims if others around them appear to accept them also (Ridolfo et al. 2010).
Paranormal topics occupy an uneasy spot as alternatives to mainstream religion and entertainment. In Paranormal Media (2010), Annette Hill, a media professor, charts the media representation of paranormal beliefs. Hill (no relation to author) says belief in spirits was immediately intertwined with the development of mass entertainment. Capitalization of those beliefs was maintained through pop culture, though they have undergone evolution beginning with the popularity of Spiritualism, a religion of Victorian times that arose in conjunction with the growth of scientific thinking and new technology. Today’s paranormal belief is not so much about religion as about a desire for unique and extraordinary cultural, social, and emotional experiences. Spirits reflect socio-economic and political changes, changing morals and cultural imbalance (p. 35). UFOs grew from the military industrial complex and during times of fear of foreign invasion. Bigfoot represented natural existence. Hill argues that this evolution is coincident with changing worldviews and how we understand reality. Culture and paranormal beliefs are intimately connected and move together. A particularly pertinent point was that people enjoy seeing their beliefs played out in public situations.
In 2010, the book Paranormal America (Bader et al. 2010) was the first comprehensive look at people who are heavily invested in a paranormal belief system. Paranormal America relied on results from the Baylor Religion Survey to examine the less overtly religious landscape of U.S. paranormal beliefs relating to ghosts, astrology, UFOs, psychi
cs, and Bigfoot. Bader et al. were surprised that the participants were not “marginal” members of society, describing them as “very normal people talking about a very strange subject.” They also noted the oddness that the public is both interested in and repulsed by paranormal ideas—we are curious and feel compelled to subscribe to these emotional concepts, but at the same time may be concerned these beliefs render us irrational, gullible, or superstitious.
Several of the findings in Paranormal America echoed my own observations on the influence from television and the Internet in reinforcing and expanding beliefs into the American mainstream, making fringe ideas more palatable to the general population. Bader et al. also noted how some individuals and even municipalities capitalize on paranormal curiosity by promoting their mysteries as tourism or merchandising opportunities.
With two-thirds of Americans saying that they believe in at least one paranormal subject, we are faced with accepting that the paranormal is normal in the U.S. We can hardly label this subculture as “counter-culture” anymore (Dobry 2013).
Paranormal communities lack structure and stability, particularly in comparison to organized religion. Throughout Paranormal America, the researchers contrasted loose paranormal communities with religious communities, hypothesizing that perhaps people leave religious communities for various reasons and find a replacement in the paranormal scene. The relationship is not straightforward but they did differentiate two distinct styles of paranormal practice and belief. Enlightenment seekers are inwardly focused, interested in personal understanding and enrichment. Discovery paranormalists seek evidence of the phenomena that can be presented to the world. Discovery paranormalists are the core of ARIGs. We can further subdivide paranormalists based on other habits. Paranormal particularists may accept one phenomenon as real but reject another (Bader et al. 2010). They are more likely to focus seriously on one topic and not take another similarly categorized belief seriously at all. This is exemplified by Bigfoot “naturalists” who think of the entity as a physical flesh and blood creature. They typically want nothing to do with ghost or UFO believers. However, there are paranormal generalists that accept a wide range of paranormal ideas and tend to see interconnectedness among them. Some Bigfoot paranormalists accept exotic, fantastic ideas relating to UFOs, alternate dimensions, and spiritual or demonic association. Nonbelievers of all paranormal topics are the odd ones out when they suggest these reports are not mysterious but all have prosaic explanations.
Paranormal versus Supernatural
Paranormal themes are part of today’s cultural landscape. What is popularly referred to as paranormal changes over time based on cultural and media representations (A. Hill 2010) but the word itself didn’t always exist and, in the recent past, it meant something different. When I talk about “paranormal” I mean it in the context of today’s subjects, what the participants believe to be paranormal. What exactly is that? Paranormal means “beside, above or beyond normal” (Baker & Nickell 1992). It is that which does not appear to fit into known mainstream science. A working definition for my purposes would be: those extraordinary phenomena perceived to defy explanation or not yet explained using current scientific understanding. Therefore, paranormal is exclusionary—all that which is not normal (Collins & Pinch 1982). Of course, that does rely on the degree of unusualness the experiencer perceived and ascribed to the experience. Paranormal is an alternative narrative to normal. “Perceived” is a critical distinction. That important concept—that a sighting or phenomenon is one or more persons’ perception, not facts—is glossed over by casual investigators. Paranormal activity is presumed to exist by many people. But, that is not proof that it does exist.
Though some argue otherwise, I contend that paranormal should be distinguished from supernatural, and the distinction is considerable. Paranormal allows that we may yet discover a normal cause and redefine natural laws to accommodate the phenomena, or the phenomenon will one day come into the realm of established science. Supernatural does not suggest this. The supernatural cannot be examined under scientific processes since, by definition, natural rules do not apply which means all tests are moot. If we can’t count on physical laws for supernatural causes, we can set no boundaries. As such, paranormal and supernatural are not synonyms. Many ARIGs, and the media, use these terms loosely. Paranormal events can appear to be supernatural, and vice versa, but the ultimate distinction is based on the root cause proposed—part of the natural world we can measure and test, or outside of natural laws, unpredictable, and, hence, outside science. Supernatural also presupposes that operation is dictated by some agent or force—a god, demon, angel. Belief in agents causing events is ingrained in the human brain; we naturally assume there is an underlying cause instead of accepting the vagaries of the universe (Goode 2000). So far, we don’t have any solid cases that are conclusively supernatural. Believers in miracles (as a matter of faith rather than evidence) might dispute this but there has always been a potential alternate natural explanation for miracles. We’ll leave open the possibility that a day may come when an entity that can suspend natural laws shows his actions to humans by defying the laws of physics repeatedly in front of us with no alternative explanations. Until then, logic and odds dictate we’d best rely on natural laws to continue, as they have, unabated. They’ve not failed us so far. While some critics insult those who believe in paranormal phenomenon and supernatural entities, the core causes for such beliefs are a normal part of the human condition. Yet, in society as well as in science, both paranormal and supernatural discourse occurs on the margins, outside the mainstream.
The term paranormal has evolved through time, expanding in scope and becoming muddled in meaning over the past few decades. Some supernatural topics became paranormal in the 1930s (Clarke 2012). In the 1960s through the 1980s, “the paranormal” was largely synonymous with psychic powers, ESP (extrasensory perception), telekinesis, and clairvoyance. Since the 1990s, it has expanded to include several subject areas, but its primary use has shifted to referencing ghosts and hauntings—as paranormal activity. This new usage may have to do with pop culture marketing and the decline of formal parapsychology research programs. The term has been co-opted to gather similarly peculiar and fringe topics under one label for ease of media consumption, whether that be for books, movies, or television shows. The paranormal is such a diverse term that it encompasses what people perceive both as real and as fiction and it can engender extremely strong emotion. The extent to which some pursue paranormal subjects are similar to that of political or religious fervor (Grinspoon & Persky 1972).
The generalizing of the use of paranormal, ironically, normalized reporting events as paranormal activity. Though the experiences are almost entirely associated in the public view with lower levels of education and income, the themes are ubiquitous. One is hard pressed to find a Ghost/ARIG that does not assume paranormal activity is real, and they claim to find it all the time! If they didn’t come across what they consider to be paranormal activity on a regular basis, there is a good chance they would get frustrated and give up. Instead, they are rewarded via their own constructs in a self-fulfilling event. This process will be discussed in detail in Chapter 12.
Because of the negative connotation of the term paranormal associated with weird, fringe, or supernatural and therefore, unscientific, some ARIGs object to being associated with the term. Bigfoot, UFOs and other anomalous phenomena fit under the paranormal umbrella in that they do not currently align with any accepted scientific explanation and continue to be seen as unexplained and mysterious. The concept of ghosts is certainly paranormal. Cryptids that are claimed to be hiding from man and not subject to established concepts of wildlife biology, zoology, or evolution are outside normal (Loxton & Prothero 2013). UFOs that can’t be identified or that reportedly move unlike any earthly craft, deviating from well-established parameters of nature, are also included under the “paranormal.” As described earlier, I use ARIGs to accommodate the diversity in methods o
r how they choose to portray themselves (as naturalists, skeptics, or interested researchers). I chose not to officially label the groups as “paranormal investigators,” but reserve “paranormal investigator” for those that deliberately seek out paranormal evidence. There are certainly many under the ARIG rubric who are paranormal investigators; not all operate this way and, as I later conclude, they don’t have to.