Innovation and Growth
Most ARIGs are closed to opportunities for critique, cooperation, and change. Engage with those with different views instead of being hostile towards them. A variety of viewpoints can only strengthen your knowledge and help build a more solid conclusion.
A well-run ARIG requires a regular evaluation of the group mission, attitude, and mindset. Avoid copying other groups and expand knowledge independently. Investigative techniques should be promoted that break down the problem, seek high-quality evidence instead of anomaly hunting, and reach a sound conclusion. The desire to support a pre-conceived idea about a paranormal subject must be discarded instead of encouraged.
Societies and organizations are vital to producing a set of standards for researchers to follow and training in those standards. ARIGs certainly benefit from having a community and should make efforts to share data. An overarching organization that sets recommendations for methods, encourages peer review, and facilitates publication of results would be highly beneficial.
Change is uncomfortable. Stagnation is a waste of time. Bad methods are useless or harmful. ARIGs can change for the better by eschewing “being scientifical” and by recognizing how to avoid sham inquiry. The alternative process requires deep reflection, additional understanding, diligent work, critical thinking, and openness to criticism. It also involves loosening the tight grip on a paranormal worldview to be able to see the wider expanse of options. A shift in ARIG philosophy can bring about a much-needed improved approach to paranormal investigation that will better serve the needs of individuals and provide useful knowledge to society.
Appendix: Ghost Hunting Guidebooks
The scientific consensus is that ghosts are not spirits, remnants of the dead, recordings of energy, or supernatural entities. Our existing knowledge about nature does not point to a conclusion that ghosts are a single definable thing, paranormal or normal, that you can find, observe, measure, or study. Yet, from a quick search, I find about 200 guides to “ghost hunting” in print or e-book form that lay out ways to obtain evidence of or contact ghosts. A considerable number of these books have been written by ARIG participants.
It is not independently verifiable that any ghost handbook (or Bigfoot guide book, for that matter) has led anyone to genuinely catch and identify an entity. The supposed value in these books to readers is that they lead you to interpret whatever you find as evidence of an entity. All ghost, monster, and alien hunting instruction books have ultimately failed. But there is good reason to take a closer look at the array of ghost hunting guidebooks. As this volume attests, ghost hunting, as one facet of the paranormal sphere, is an interesting cultural phenomenon, a mainstream hobby, and tourism draw. Paranormal investigation reveals important aspects of society’s attitudes towards finding out about the world, deciding what is meaningful and true, using science to examine questions, promoting cooperation and trust in a community, and taking part in a larger effort beyond one’s own small role in life. Among other things, by examining the genre of ghost hunting guidebooks, we can get some indication regarding the state of science education (or science literacy) and observe a public discourse about belief and reality.
In examining a selection of several of these books (one person cannot possibly read them all) that span a significant spectrum in time, we can observe the evolution of ghost hunting technique. Many appear to be self-published since several ghost investigation group leaders feel the need to have their own personal volume to use.
A 1973 Practical Guide
Andrew Green’s 1973 book Ghost Hunting: A Practical Guide is the “first-ever do-it-yourself guide for the psychic researcher.” Green was given the snappy moniker of “the Spectre Inspector” in the U.K. and was a well-educated pursuer of ghosts for sixty years. He felt that there was such an interest in the subject of ghosts that there was a need for a small, non-technical guide for the amateur. Green eschews fanaticism and suggests that those interested in the ghost phenomenon study parapsychology, thus reflecting the thinking at that time that academic parapsychology would unlock the mystery of life after death. Therefore, a good portion of the book describes parapsychological concepts, such as telepathy, which he states can be an important consideration as to the cause of a phenomena. He describes Zener cards experiments, which would gain notice after appearing in Ghostbusters (1984). This portion of the book will be rather strange to those weaned on 21st century ghost TV shows.
As with many of today’s paranormal investigators, Green considered serious ghost hunting important and “groundbreaking” work and the researchers were mavericks. But Green’s book contrasts with modern ghost guides, in several ways:
• Green defined ghosts in terms of psi, a parapsychological construct that modern ghost hunters would probably not be familiar with.
• EVPs were called “Raudive voices” and are not emphasized as evidence. Green thought there were too many potential pitfalls to use them this way.
• The technology was primitive compared with what we have today. Equipment included very basic detective-type materials: level, compass, strain-gage, sand or sugar, powder for fingerprints, thread, maybe a camera. But the idea of measuring environmental variables was already being pursued by the Society of Psychical Research at that time.
• Green mentions exorcism but it was clearly not as common as today and people were less bold in advancing the idea.
• Green’s advice is that the investigator must be thorough and careful in research and provide a sophisticated investigation. His recommended investigation included studying the geology, geography, and past owners of the location, and producing a report that could be professionally published. This is not on the scale of what is proposed by weekend/overnight trips of today’s ghost hunters.
• Green advised the investigator to never (as in not ever) get involved in publicity for the case as he recognized that some people are in it just for the attention. Restricting publicity is not what today’s investigators typically would agree to since one of their goals is to make a name and reputation for themselves to invite more potential investigations and greater media attention.
One curious “test” that Green proposes is a way to judge the client in terms of credentials. This example of using technology is certainly an indication of how much times have changed: “The production of a caseful of apparatus at the commencement of an investigation in itself constitutes a test, for the witness of a genuine phenomena will be, or should be, impressed with the serious nature of ghost hunting, while the fraudulent will be worried by the prospect of being exposed.”
Green states “I believe” in his description of how his proposed process should work but few citations of evidential support are provided for these suppositions. For example: Heat extracted from the environment will energize a haunting. Such ideas about ghost manifestations are very old but have yet to be supported or well-argued. Green subscribes to ghosts as real but he is not careless or overtly credulous. He obviously holds expertise in the history of the field, provides many reasonable pieces of sound advice for investigations, and writes at a sophisticated level. This book has been reissued in 2016 by Alan Murdie of The Ghost Club in the U.K. Murdie had recommended this book to me as one of his favorite guides.
Well-Meaning Nonsense, 2003
How to Be a Ghost Hunter by Richard Southall (2003) appears to have been written in 2001 which was the start of the massive proliferation of ghost hunting groups in the U.S. This may have been a “unique handbook” for the time, but it was not for long. The book is of the “Confessions of a Ghost Hunter” type: ghosts are defined, historical aspects are mentioned, prior cases related, procedures and equipment are suggested, collection of data and evidence are described, and advice on forming your own team is offered. Southall states he has a degree in journalism and psychology; the book also has a genuine publisher (although of New Age books), which brings the quality and readability of this guide above most others. However, it follows the typica
l outline of information and includes many unsupported claims, assumptions and statements of “fact.”
Southall, as with most authors of this type of guidebook, assumes that ghosts exists, that paranormal activity is ghost activity, and that these certain descriptions are characteristics of ghosts. How he “knows” this is never explained. No sources are supplied but various unsourced, un-detailed anecdotes substitute as justification. It is assumed the reader will accept these as evidence. Undefined, sciencey-sounding terms are used throughout: “highest amount of paranormal energy,” “life force,” “psychic energy.” He accepts that orbs are an indication of psychic energy. Southall slides into the realm of the supernatural by claiming that if you investigate enough, you will encounter a “demonic entity.” Beware, he says, that the Ouija board can invite it in so that device is dangerous to use.
Southall wrote this ghost hunting guide to promote the topic as he was running a ghost tour at the time. He states his role shifted from investigation to teaching. This book fails to bolster the author’s scientific credibility when he refers to fictional movies, such as The Sixth Sense, to suggest the real world is actually like this. Southall states that the scientific method is the means to get “tangible, measurable evidence” as opposed to psychic impressions and divination, though the two methods can validate each other. He is not a scientist and it shows.
As with Green, the technology used in this time period is quite a contrast to modern investigations. Southall states that ”A photograph of a ghost cannot be denied.” Considering that faked ghost photos existed since the dawn of photography, this wasn’t even rational advice at the time, let alone in the age of today’s add-a-ghost phone apps.
He states a good investigator should be unbiased but the language from start to finish is completely biased in the belief that an area is likely haunted. Short shrift is given to examination of mundane causes. But he advises to talk up your own credibility: ”Clients love credentials and memberships.” The bibliography contains no journals or otherwise scientific sources, but only references to other ghost hunters’ books and mass marketed paranormal publications. Southall’s writing projects the attitude of a good person who is concerned with people who are having a paranormal problem and want answers that he believes he can provide. He understands that people need reassurance that what they experience is understandable and things will be OK.
Ghost Tech and Science, 2012
The book Ultimate Ghost Tech (2012) by Vince Wilson is an example of volume that was used by many ARIGs as part of their education for research and investigation. In one of the forewords (one is spelled “foreword,” the other “forword”), Vince is described as the “foremost expert in the technological aspects of paranormal investigation.” Note that Wilson is not a scientist or a tech professional. In the other foreword, well-respected parapsychologist Loyd Auerbach blatantly reveals a truism about ghost hunting technology: “Let’s face it: ghost hunters love their tech—even if they don’t know how to use it or to assess the data from it in light of the reported phenomena.” The rest of this book is an example of sounding sciencey but falling short of representing anything like scientific investigation. Wilson’s earlier book, Ghost Science, was also sloppy—formatted and written with a great many errors. That book begins with a revealing premise: “One of the main purposes of this book is to show that, not only do ghosts exist but also that the laws that govern reality allow them.” Wilson’s array of three books (3) are essentially self-published and make unsupported claims such as “random energy particles may hold the essence of consciousness…,” and “Ghosts will be proven to exist one day and so will psychics….” He refers to “stuffy scientists” and takes a disparaging tone towards skeptics while using the phrase “just another theory” where “theory” is used to mean “a guess” instead of the scientific meaning of an evidence-supported overarching model of explanation. He apologizes for using mathematical equations to explain a concept in physics, which is odd considering the book is about science and technology. Wilson admits Ghostbusters (the movie) changed paranormal research with its lingo and gadgets, “Paranormal research just became really cool overnight.” He suggests using science as way to pump up your credibility—not real science, but faking it—saying you should answer questions from people with sciencey words to sound “professional and cool” and a little “nerdy” as people are too embarrassed to ask what you mean.
All ghost hunting guidebooks relate ubiquitous assumptions about ghosts predicated on the belief that they exist (thus scuttling any unbiased investigation of what might really be happening to people). The paradigm of today’s ghost investigation is reflected: changes in the environment can be related to ghost behavior and hauntings; technology can provide objective evidence in contrast to just human experience. Wilson suggests that a cold spot could be created (through an explanation of energy transfer) from an entity moving through dimensions. This type of rhetoric (apparent in nearly all ghost hunting guides) is creative but intellectually flimsy. He promises great things for ghost hunters (p. 160): “You can be an amateur parapsychologist and usher in a new era of paranormal research. Wow! That’s pretty deep for me!”
Wilson, like many of these guide writers, seems well-meaning, but also willing to learn new things, expand his thinking, and is fairly literate in science ideas—just enough to sound knowledgeable to people who aren’t scientists, which is most of the population. Wilson understands that TV ghost hunters are playing a role and that many paranormal investigators are “fooled by an intense need to believe.” Hoaxes are rampant. So there is a kernel of truth in much of what he writes. However, that is trumped by his own faith that equipment can detect anomalous energy of some sort. The processes he suggests leave out critical considerations about confounding factors and alternative explanations. Wilson has lectured as a ghost tech expert in the past. He suggests that giving workshops to teach people about this topic is a good way to fundraise for your group.
Sciencey Real Ghost Hunting, 2003
Joshua P. Warren is a fairly well-known personality in on the paranormal scene. His book, How to Hunt Ghosts (2003), was produced by an affiliate of Simon and Schuster publishing so the basic elements of a book—grammar, punctuation, spelling, and formatting—are superior to small or self-published efforts. However, the same unsupported model, built on speculative paranormal assumptions, is applied. The first words, “Ghosts are real,” show us this is not about investigation but about finding proof to support a preexisting conclusion. These opening words oddly contrast with the last words of the book, “Never pretend to know all the answers. All the answers are not known.” In between, there is a mish-mash of sciencey sounding claims and scientific misrepresentation. Warren’s resumé does not include science. He writes fiction and worked in film-making. Like many who appear on TV shows, Warren uses these appearances to bolster his credibility. How to Hunt Ghosts is replete with scientist namedropping including Descartes, Newton, Einstein, and Sagan.
Warren holds that our current technology is not good enough to easily discover spirits but is oblivious to the reality that physicists can detect subatomic particles and the tiniest perturbations of energy. Yet, our technology is not adequate to identify ghosts?
Warren berates scientists for not paying attention to ghosts because they need to limit their work to activity of a certain category. “Most scientists are busy enough researching the activity they already know about.” From the early days of the scientific endeavor, knowledge became specialized by necessity. To say science is flawed because of this is like saying medicine is bad because too many doctors specialize in distinct areas of health or surgery. Specialization is advantageous for advancing deep knowledge.
He states, “Virtually any location can prove to be haunted,” and says you should experiment to decide if the Ouija board, automatic writing, pendulums, etc., work for you. However, if everything works, then we might logically conclude nothing works.
Warren re
searches natural anomalies like “ghost lights” and runs a “Bermuda Triangle Research” site in Puerto Rico. Therefore, you might possibly put him above “amateur” status since he appears to make a living off this work; it is not professional science but creativity with fringe ideas. His incredible claims about energy fields and “warps” in nature that could explain anomalies do not have equally incredible documentation provided. Like many ghost researchers, Warren knows some science basics but he applies them wildly incorrectly.
Warren is a fiction novelist. He refers to many fictional movies to the point where a reader might question the standards he uses to discern scientific facts from fictional license. Warren provides foundation-less claims that sound like fiction and so fails to support any worthwhile conclusions about ghost experiences. It also leaves these ideas wide open targets for derision by scientists working in legitimate research endeavors. A perusal of his website in 2015 shows that Warren has moved into the business of selling “wishing machines” and lucky charms.
Array of E-Books
I accessed what was a rather random sample of several of the dozens of e-books available online. Unsurprisingly, these also fit into the same template and had similar characteristics:
• “Just so” facts and stories
• No references
• Lack of proofing or editing including several typographical errors and incorrect punctuation
• Poor layout and design
• Unsophisticated, overly casual writing style
• Superficial content
Scientifical Americans Page 30
