Approaching Investigation with a Pre-Existing Notion
The obvious difference between the investigatory approach of a paranormalist (willing to include paranormal causes as an explanation) and that of a non-paranormalists (assumes you can’t ever conclude anything is “paranormal”) is an (intentional or unintentional) effort to look for or focus on evidence to “prove” a preconceived notion. The non-paranormalist approach is wider at the beginning, with less assumptions about the scenario. It starts with the questions “What really happened? Was there a mysterious event that occurred?” and only then will they pursue an answer to “What are the most satisfactory, normal explanations that may account for the events?” The non-paranormalist approach was not apparent as the starting points for most ARIG investigations. The process employed by many ARIGs is to take witness claims or circulated stories at face value, assume something is going on, and seek evidence to support those claims. As I described in my own ghost hunting experience at Fort Mifflin, paranormalists were not amenable to my approach that was more aggressive towards establishing “what, if anything, is happening” and we clashed. They were disappointed with my suggested rational explanations and rejected them. This was not unexpected as it is unlikely for people to reevaluate their observations and conclusions if those conclusions are supportive of their preferred worldview. It will not help to point this out, either. ARIGs will instead become defensive in the face of skeptical criticism to protect their worldview.
Ruling Out Causes
Ruling out natural causes is a basic expectation in any paranormal investigation. ARIGs can do an adequate job considering the time they have to explore these options. However, many don’t spend enough time or effort to do so completely. They are disadvantaged in finding the precise non-paranormal cause in that they do not have the luxury of spending weeks or months at one location or on one event to study it thoroughly, as a scientific investigation would be designed.
Attitudes and practices of the investigator are key to the results. An investigation is “better or worse conducted depending on how scrupulous, how honest, how imaginative, how thorough it is” (Haack 2007: 339). Not considering the many alternate explanatory causes for a phenomenon is a trap for ARIGs as they fail to develop and nurture a critical attitude (Beveridge 1957; Baker & Nickell 1992; Radford 2010). ARIG’s frequently will state as part of their methodology that they pursue all avenues of the logical or normal first. Only when all those options have been exhausted, do they conclude that something other than the normal exists here. Such statements are unreasonable. How is it possible to think of, test, and rule in or out all possible normal explanations? It takes a great deal of time, effort, and imagination to think of and devise testing for the many logical possibilities, but we can’t ever know all the potential possibilities.
But the main reason why the normal causes are not diligently sought appears to be because of the bias in favor of a paranormal idea. Thus, the context is conducive to finding evidence that will be consistent with that goal. Once that pro-paranormal evidence is found, they often conclude the investigation. Collecting further data or assessing validity of the evidence is irrelevant because a satisfying explanation has been reached. The effect of the bias towards paranormal causes leads ARIGs to mistakenly reinforce their preconception that they have found another supporting case for paranormality.
Skeptical Investigators
In the 1957 volume The Art of Scientific Investigation, Beveridge says, “Nothing could be more damaging to science than the abandonment of the critical attitude and its replacement by too ready acceptance of a hypothesis put forward on slender evidence.” Anyone who would embark on investigations with a preconceived idea of the cause of the mystery is not doing good science or competent research. A few truly skeptical investigators who pursue solving these cases via a rational approach, outright state they hold no prior belief in any paranormal causes. From this basis of critical thinking, we can contrast the different methods of approach to an investigation. Even though there are a significant number of skeptically-minded organizations in the U.S., few publicly promote paranormal investigation as one of their services. Presuming paranormal activity has nearly become a prerequisite for ARIG participation. And, skeptical investigators would not be convinced by the typical evidence presented in eyewitness accounts. Only two of the groups in my survey explicitly identified themselves as skeptical organizations.
Sham Inquiry
Proper research is a well-organized, continuous action that builds a foundation culminating in progress in understanding the subject. Inquiry into the subject as part of the overall research agenda must have a clear purpose, with a goal and a plan to achieve that purpose. Philosopher Susan Haack (1997) brought forth the idea of sham inquiry (“fake” inquiry or “pseudo-inquiry”) via the musings of C.S. Peirce regarding sham reasoning (Peirce 1931). Sham inquiry is not an often-used term but it resonated with me with regards to the method used by television paranormal investigations and, subsequently, ARIGs, to investigate mysterious claims. Sham inquiry, is a backwards form of inquiry where, instead of the evidence leading one to a conclusion, the assumed conclusion determines what the reasoning shall be. That is, the inquirer already has a preconceived notion of what he wishes to conclude. This method is practical for a television program or to impress a client. It is also excellent for reinforcing an existing worldview. However, the “sham” process means going through the motions, without understanding or foundation, and placing adherence to a belief framework before truth or accuracy. The process and the results of it misleads the investigator and misinforms the audience—it’s dishonest. Sham inquiry puts us several steps backwards as it allows the investigator to make an end run around adequate consideration of important questions. And, it speciously portrays an unsupported presumption as the reasonable conclusion to a research inquiry.
After extensively examining their methods, and documenting ARIGs’ thinking about what investigation and scientific inquiry is, I concluded what most ARIGs do can fall under this label of sham inquiry. Evidence provided here shows that ARIG investigation often turn out to be an exercise in advocacy of a personal belief. The outcome of decades of unproductive and ineffectual sham inquiry is that society has no more reliable or better quality information on these paranormal subjects than we had 100 years ago.
What follows are some examples taken directly from ARIG websites and publications that illustrate how many ARIGs misunderstand the scientific endeavor and undertake sham inquiry while claiming they are being scientific. Groups may claim to be “unbiased,” only to then state later down the page that they seek to “validate the existence” of their quarry. Those two concepts are contradictory. If you are seeking to validate the existence of, say, Bigfoot, then you are not unbiased in your search—you are seeking to find Bigfoot, not an alternative answer.
An illustration of this comes from the bylaws for Milwaukee Area Paranormal (MAPI). The website stated:
The purpose and objective of this organization shall be:
A. To scientifically and without bias or prejudice explore the realm of the paranormal.
B. To attempt to prove the existence of claimed paranormal activity or beings.
…
E. To educate the membership and public on the existence of the paranormal.
Stating in A that they are without bias is contradictory to their B and E values which make it clear they are biased in their belief of the paranormal and intend to present this to the public as true. Another example3 seems to provide only lip service to normal explanations with the intent to reinforce a preconceived paranormal belief: “A paranormal investigator will rule out any natural causes … and then pursues the paranormal side of events. This ensures that the evidence collected can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that the events recorded are in fact paranormal and ghostly in nature.” Unpacking this statement requires us to question how the “paranormal side” can be pursued when the “paranormal” is ex
clusionary and unexplained. We see some words of certainty, “proven without a shadow of doubt,” that no scientists would use in a project. How can you prove something is “ghostly in nature”?
These two statements from groups betray a perverse understanding of scientific philosophy and methodology: “We cannot be so vain as to rule out that which is only scientific in nature”4 and “There are times when we are left with evidence that proves science has no understanding.”5 Some groups explicitly express a desire to change science to suit their paranormal ideas. They wish to “adapt existing science laws to the reports of the paranormal”6 and “attempt a bridge between science and the paranormal.”7 The Ohio Paranormal Researchers redefined paranormal in their own terms: “We make conclusions by using our own discription [sic] of what we think is paranormal … which is not anything that is readily explainable by known scientific methods.” Science is a community effort, an ethos, a method, and a body of knowledge, not a set of statements written in stone. Anyone who has some scientific training or familiarity with scientific discourse likely found the above examples painful to read and laments the degree of scientific misunderstanding in the U.S.
12
Pseudoscience
The ARIGs we’ve been discussing throughout this book uniquely focus on those areas where no other organized research or inquiry is focused—those on the questionable fringes of experience, or “paranormal” activity. ARIGs may respect science but they misunderstand it. This misunderstanding is evident in their ubiquitous conclusion that they have found evidence or proof of the paranormal, in their methods of investigation, and in their philosophy towards investigation. This section wraps together all the observations about ARIGs to assess if their work constitutes “false science” (pseudoscience).
The scientific community generally steers clear of paranormal subject areas but will disagree about the importance of these topics and possibly even be hostile towards those that investigate them. As established, a presentation that looks scientific can increase prestige and credibility with an audience. Therefore, even those with religious agendas will attempt to use science when possible to raise their status. Scientists will not hesitate to protect what they feel is their turf—explaining nature. Therefore, scientists have historically constructed social and philosophical boundaries around what they deem to be science and what to exclude. This has not been particularly successful for reasons I will attempt to elucidate.
ARIG websites can, unfortunately, be exhibits of sloppy thinking. Problems displayed by ARIGs and individual paranormal proponents include ignorance of normal human biases we all have, lack of critical thinking, contamination from belief, misappropriation of skepticism, influence from media sources, and lack of adequate background knowledge. Their results, however, are packaged to compete against natural, scientific explanations. Thus, cryptozoology, paranormal investigation, and ufology are commonly labeled pseudoscience.
The Demarcation Problem
When scientific-minded commentators think a field of study claiming to be scientific is on the wrong track, they make no bones about it—it’s labeled “pseudoscience.” That’s a damning word. The label serves as an efficient rhetorical means to represent an inferior alternative to science. “Pseudoscience” entered wide use after the 1960s (Thurs 2007). Its first use describes a “pseudoscience” as having a “self-adjusting arrangement” whereby the evidence was either kept or discarded in accordance with preserving the idea at all cost (Pigliucci & Boudry 2013). The growing use of the word suggests that science, as an institution and cultural icon, is policing the boundary between what is acceptable science and what is not (Thurs 2007). Fringe topics are frequently labeled as pseudoscience (Friedlander 1995; Hines, 2003): ufology, “Bigfootology,” cryptozoology, creation science, and “ghostology” are all examples that have been soundly tossed into the bin of pseudoscience and excluded from academic circles.
Literally, pseudoscience means “false science” and it is employed effectively as a value-laden pejorative to indicate exclusion from the traditional realm of science, and, consequently, from legitimacy (Haack 2007). However, it’s tricky to use this way because there is a quality spectrum ranging from poorly done science, through dubious methods, to conventional, solid processes, to those that may be legitimate but new and unusual (Lyons 2009). So where can we draw lines, if at all, around bad science, non-science, pretend science, proto-science, and marginal science? Well, lines can’t easily be drawn. The trouble with demarcating science from methods and knowledge generation that is not science is called the demarcation problem (Gieryn 1983). Adding to the cloudiness is that some subject fields go through maturation stages where they can’t be fairly judged as to their place within the scientific spectrum. Designating a field or subject as pseudoscientific can be complicated and arguable. A field may be pseudoscientific in one era only to undergo a renaissance and become an accepted science, such as alchemy that evolved into the scientific field of chemistry. It’s not the academic standing of any field (or person) that indicates pseudoscience (or pseudoscientist) but the method used and the type of knowledge produced. Lyons (2009) provides several examples, including that of sea serpents and spiritualism, to show that “in the midst of discovery, it is often difficult to distinguish what constitutes science from what does not.” Some fields go off the track into pseudoscience where others eventually are legitimized. There is a spectrum of pseudoscience—from fields or individuals that just miss an arbitrary level of scientific credibility all the way to charlatans and medical quacks who deliberately deceive the public with sciencey-sounding tactics they know do not or cannot work.
There is always the possibility that breakthroughs in technology or theory, over time, can render a field previously labeled “pseudoscience” as legitimate. An example includes the idea that rocks fall from space (meteorites) (Westrum 1978). Until sufficient evidence was accumulated, the intellectual minds of the day did not accept that meteorites were space rocks. String theory has some characteristics of pseudoscience right now but because it’s studied by qualified researchers building on what is already known about the universe; it’s not typically called pseudoscience. ARIGs in my study frequently contend that theirs is a proto-science, one day to become legitimized. However, they fail to consider that each subject once was examined in terms of science and then rejected or evolved into another field. Such fields were not doomed to remain trapped in the morass of pseudoscientific wheel-spinning, but the odds that paranormal subjects as defined by ARIGs will undergo a reboot and scientific blossoming after all these decades of trying are remote.
Pseudoscience can not simply be characterized by a single trait but is more meaningfully described as a set of cumulative characteristics (from the scientific point of view) (Bunge 1984; Derksen 1993; Dolby 1979; Hines 2003; Pigliucci 2010). The more of the following characteristics that can be attributed to a stated doctrine (e.g. Intelligent Design) or a field (e.g. cryptozoology) or kind of activity (e.g. ghost hunting), the greater the chance it will be labeled pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists. Here is a list of key characteristics that contribute to being labeled “pseudoscientific”:
1. Portrayed as being scientific by use of jargon, images and actions associated with scientific work;
Scientifical Americans Page 25
