Some scientifically outrageous ideas may sound completely plausible simply because we don’t have adequate knowledge to judge them. “Quantum entanglement” is not only purposed as a vague, “hand-waving” explanation for psychic ability, afterlife communication, remote viewing, and extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional visitors, but also invoked heavily for New Age ideas of alternative health treatments. Quantum mysticism is applied to a nauseating degree by celebrity gurus like Deepak Chopra. “Quantum flapdoodle,” a phrase coined by physicist Murray Gell-Mann to encompass the misuse and misappropriation of a genuine scientific theory, is a subset of the attempts at sounding sciencey. ARIGs that cite quantum-related explanations should raise immediate concerns that they are faking scientific credibility.
“Energy” is a word often inserted when “thing” or “stuff” would suffice. That is, it is used generically without a specific meaning because it sounds like an inherently meaningful word. (Example: “It has a lot to do with energy.”4) Spirit or psychic “energy” is supposedly indicated from the responses from ghost-seeking devices. This “energy” derives from the disembodied entity or from consciousness (of a living or a non-living person). However, this is an incorrect interpretation of the scientific definition of energy which is a property of a material object—something made of matter. Ghosts do not appear to be made of matter in the conventional sense and are non-material. A common pleading from paranormalists is that the “energy” of life (referring to consciousness) must go somewhere upon death. A dead body does have energy but all potential is released into the environment when the body is destroyed by death and decay. If the soul or consciousness is something ethereal and not generated by the body and mind, paranormalists contend that this consciousness could remain intact after death. Sometimes, they assert, it gets transmitted to the environment (see “stone tape” or “water tape” theories in the Paranormal Theories chapter) to be detected later. Or, the “energy” remains in a place to manifest as an apparition or paranormal activity—a supposition that goes against physical laws that we have already established to be true. Scientific consensus is firm that there is no solid evidence for survival of consciousness after death. No special form of “energy” that survives death. The lack of support for paranormal activity as any kind of energy does not seem to diminish the misuse of terms like “spectral energy” or “ghost energy”—vague “fields” that can be detected by gadgets or certain witnesses. Mysterious “energy” sources are invoked to explain the extraordinary power, effects, and propulsion of extraterrestrial craft. Some cryptid accounts include descriptions of the creature emitting a unique “energy” or detectably energizing or electrifying the environment. Thus, the term “energy” is misused by all ARIGs to explain effects supposedly produced by ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot and psychic phenomena.
The ubiquitous term “energy” and the trendy term “quantum” are guaranteed to be used in discussion of all these topics but in a scientifically meaningless or absurd way. One group described their effort as “focusing on understanding the underlying environmental or quantum variables.”5 Another described their method as “a parascientific approach to quantum evolution.”6 “A Proposed Scientific Framework for Paranormal Activity” included this explanation of a ghost encounter: “the electric field of a living human may resonate with the quantum state of the solispirit, an intelligent interaction could occur.”7 That last one deserves a prize for being meaningless gobbledygook. The “quantum state of the solispirit” is a made-up term meant to sound both spiritual and sciencey. If it was a real concept, we would expect published research on it and testing of this “resonance.” There isn’t. The sciencey-sounding language is vague and confusing on purpose with the intent of appearing showy and serious.
Another linguistic habit of ARIGs is their regular assertion of certainty through use of words such as “prove,” “rule out,” “verify,” “undeniable,” or “irrefutable” (in terms of evidence). Scientists who publish in journals or write about their own research would never use such loaded words because nothing in science is ever certain. A conclusion is considered probable based on the evidence, and only after the researchers calculate the probability of the effects being attributable to chance. Scientific conclusions are statistical, not absolute. Declared certainty—in conclusions and pronouncements—is an indication that the speaker is someone without scientific training, but probably not scientifically illiterate, who is applying concepts incorrectly.
While ARIGs rarely cite current research by the few scientists doing work on fringe topics, name dropping of historically famous scientists occurs frequently. The work of Einstein and Edison are explicitly connected to current ideas relating to the paranormal because technology once promised great strides. Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” in reference to quantum physics is a concept particularly overused and applied to inappropriate situations. Benjamin Radford conducted a Google search to gage the perceived relationship between ghosts and Einstein. It returned almost eight million results indicating that this is a common association.8 When ARIGs use the “spooky action” concept, the scientific description, along with explanation or citations, is given short shrift because thoroughly comprehending the complexities is beyond the resources of the average person.
Ideas of Heisenberg and Bohr suggested we were on the cusp of revolutionary understanding about causality and materialism (Lyons 2009). ARIGs and others name-drop to give a sense of legitimacy to their ideas even though the work of those scientists and their scientific theories do not connect to paranormal research to any extent.
Many ARIG leaders and independent paranormal researchers who are not scientists consider themselves science enthusiasts. Vince Wilson produced two books—Ghost Science (2008) and Ultimate Ghost Tech (2012)—even though he is not a scientist. I reviewed these books to determine the legitimacy of the science concepts referenced in them. An ARIG member could reasonably assume that such volumes would represent the state of “ghost science.” These books were excellent examples of sounding sciencey. The content was missing references to large swaths of pertinent knowledge about psychology, physics, scientific methodology, and history related to perception of ghosts. Scientific terms were repeatedly misused, and science fiction was regularly conflated with science facts. The recommended reading list contained references that repeated unverified speculative claims and included pop science sources like The Handy Science Answer Book, indicating that this was not a well-researched book from a credible expert in ghost science. (For more details, see the Appendix.)
Attempts to assume a role of expert when clearly not qualified to do so reveals a desire to attain a prestigious role in the paranormal community and to reinforce a certain belief system. Wilson had called himself a “parapsychologist” in the past even though his education was through a non-accredited facility. Fortunately, personal communication with Mr. Wilson suggested that he is willing to change his opinions, which is commendable. But these books and ideas are still out there in the public sphere doing a disservice to paranormal investigators and the esteemed concept of science. Four years after Ghost Science, Wilson (2012) admits he thinks that most ghost hunting activity is a farce:
“Ghost hunting” has devolved into a social networking hobby and is far from a field of study. The desire for TV appearances, book deals and ego stimulation has exceeded individual inclinations toward any sort of professional commitment. There is no peer review, no sharing of information and no true scientific research being done. It wouldn’t be so bad truthfully and mostly harmless if not for the fact that these people with little more training than what they have seen on TV and they are going to people’s homes! Can you imagine if this was okay in any field? If your house was being robbed, would you call someone who has seen five seasons of COPS or would you call an actual police officer?
Though I would quibble with several points in his presentation, there is a kernel of truth there. Allowing paranormal investigators with only a mock-up o
f “training” to be in your home or business that contains valuables (and possibly children), is not a wise decision.
We Use “Scientific Methods”
As I noted previously, around half of groups I surveyed stated they are scientific in their methods or thinking. Promotion of this effort is employed most often by stating: “We investigate using scientific methods.” ARIGs consider recording and logging environmental changes and anomalies to be collecting data by scientific methods. And they assume that employing objective means such as use of equipment is part of the overarching “scientific method.”
Groups that reference the scientific method frequently do so in a generic way, for example, describing it as a “procedure for the systematic collection of data through observation and experiment.” Methodical, organized, and logical are characteristic of scientific processes, but it’s not the whole of science. Being systematic is another way of saying being orderly and careful which applies to activities other than scientific processes.
Several ARIGS stated that they are using “a proven scientific process,” “quantifiable and qualitative techniques,” and “reliable, scientific protocols.” What should reasonably be expected to follow are details describing what those processes, techniques and protocols are, but instead the rhetoric is used more as an advertising ploy to create a sense of seriousness.
Several groups touted their methods as being the most comprehensive or accurate in the field, which is puzzling because there are no standards for comprehensiveness or accuracy in this area of research. Empirical methods were emphasized—that is, collecting demonstrable evidence mainly through equipment or recording audio or visual data, which is not quite right. Equipment use, as described previously, is perceived as scientific and objective because it is viewed as superior to eyewitness observation, feelings, or intuition. I recorded website statements like these examples:
[We] use equipment that will catch a remarkable display of spiritual evidence.9
Empirical evidence strongly suggests something of a paranormal nature exists in our world.10
Our goal is to disprove until we find empirical evidence to the contrary.11
Ghost/ARIGs outwardly state that recording temperature changes, for example, is a scientific way of detecting the presence of ghosts, assuming that the equipment is capturing displays of potential spiritual evidence. ARIG members appear to confuse “empirical” with objective, equipment with scientific tools, and gadgets with precise instruments. The concept of being scientific is inextricably linked to the idea of instruments delivering convincing unassailable objective measurements as in Galileo showing the movement of celestial objects through his telescope (Pigliucci 2010).
Many of the statements on ARIG web sites referencing the scientific method, methods, or equipment are non-sequiturs or fundamentally fallacious: “[Our goal is] to teach young girls how to use all the scientific methods using various electronic devices.”12
Using complicated equipment as a way of representing science is similar to using complicated math equations to produce an astrological chart. It seems complex and superficially impressive but it has no logic. One can make a display of food from fake and inedible ingredients look appetizing. If the core reality is ignored, the imitation you are given is ultimately unsatisfying and not useful in the future.
ARIGs can easily fall into a trap of saying the equipment is acting this or that way because of a preferred entity or cause instead of using the data to objectively inform a conclusion. Scientific methods of data collection can tell us “what” is happening but do not tell us why or how. The “why and how” involves a more complicated and difficult process of fitting the findings into the larger display of a sound, defendable explanation. Interpretation of the data involves deciding if it does or does not confirm a hypothesis and how that fits into the theory under investigation.
A few groups have rejected equipment because it preoccupies the minds of investigators or acts as a crutch between the person and the experience. There is certainly merit to this as some investigators become so engrossed with their gadgets that they entirely fail to think about the problem to be solved on a practical level, and may miss obvious solutions to the paranormal problem such as hoaxing by the eyewitness or client.
Some groups also refrain from explicitly using the term “scientific methodology” because they recognize that their techniques and subjects of study are not amenable to scientific rigor. How can an investigator achieve control of all variables in the environment of a family home, a woodland area, farmers’ fields, or even a remote cabin where people claim they experience the anomalous? The setting ARIGs work in is far removed from that of a sterile laboratory or a defined, restricted area of observation.
A few ARIGs opt for purely spiritual or occult methods, such as use of psychics. Most often, ARIGs employ a mixture of both objective and subjective approaches. The gadget-heavy, scientific approach is supplemented by spiritual, subjective, speculative, or creative approaches. For ghost hunters, this entails involvement of sensitives, intuitives, or psychic mediums to validate strange equipment readings (and vice versa). Every possible tool, human and mechanical, is used to cover all potential reactions and measurements. This type of approach can be impressive to the client. By employing an approach of both objective science and subjective feelings it appears to the observers that investigators are open-minded, flexible and “covering all bases” with regards to the client’s preferences as well.
The group that developed and used the “Ghost Lab” data logging equipment provided a colorful example of pairing objective methods with subjective means. Here is how they describe one incident using tech gadgets: “It was interesting to see how spirits deal with this modern technology. The fact that the entity disliked modern technology during this investigation was confirmed by other psychics on the team.”13
Because ARIG results are almost never documented in journal articles for others to review, we can’t know if experiments were repeated and what those results were. How do these researchers justify the astounding conclusion that the “entity disliked modern technology” without repeated successful attempts to reproduce the results? Remember, science is a collective enterprise, not one person or group’s pronouncement that sounds interesting or plausible. But this pronouncement of conclusions without an adequate basis can be found in a large percentage of paranormal observations.
Approach
A mixture of objective and subjective approaches is effective in maximizing results (locating anomalies) and possibly to in enhancing the reputation with the client (or each other). Ghost/ARIGs in this survey nearly universally followed the typical TV ghost hunter method of using gadgets, staking out the location at night, relying on anecdotes and interviews, provoking with objects, words, or sounds, and interpreting anomalies as “evidence” prior to analysis. Testing and attempted re-creation of the reported event by conventional explanations was uncommon (though universally used by skeptical investigators). Use of psychics and sensitives, sometimes even using animals as sensitives, was common. Dowsing, pendulums, protective devices (charms), and prayers were also common. For cryptid and UFO reports, eyewitness accounts were most crucial. The locations were visited and observations were made. Any previous strange story with any remote connection to the area or incident was considered support for a paranormal “hot spot.”
The mélange of methods appears to be haphazard with no reasoning or support behind their use. Descriptions of how and why ARIGs gather data are vague and confusing, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research:
Ours is an organization dedicated to the applied science of ghost investigation and supernatural research using a combination of high-tech, psychosocial and spiritual approaches.14
We may use “sensitives” to assist investigation towards a scientific conclusion.15
In conjunction with scientific instruments, investigators also use natural, clairsentient abilities to study the nature of paraphy
sical reactions humans experience while being exposed to potentially supernatural phenomena.16
[Our group] uses a mix of modern equipment, elements of scientific methodology, psychic ability, quantum theory, meta and quantum physics.17
[We] use tools of science and well as our feelings.18
Groups will state their intent to “prove” the supernatural via objective means: “We will use scientific means to try to prove that there is a world beyond this life.”19 They aspire to provide “scientific evidence” of life after death.20 There is an epidemic of inconsistent reasoning.
Misunderstanding of objectivity was also commonly exhibited:
Everything we do is through a very scientific approach…. We should be using ourselves as the first tool, then, technology … our minds tell us what’s real and what isn’t.21
[We use a] double blind study method [where] only the lead investigator is aware of the activity history to avoid researcher bias.22
We believe in ghosts so you can believe in us.23
To set themselves above other ARIGs, some bold groups will declare that while the typical group has low-quality investigation procedures, they are working to raise the standards in the field (of paranormal investigation). Or, they hint that they consider themselves the trailblazers in an evolving field.
Lets [sic] think of it as a science just being born. With further work by paranormal investigators our research will be eventually accepted.24
Scientifical Americans Page 19
