A Skeptical Evening with Two Paranormal Investigators
On Wednesday MISkeptics went to an event hosted by Chris Lindsay of the Ann Arbor Science and Skeptics Meetup group. I had been excited about going to this for quite some time since Chris had managed to schedule 2 (count ‘em, 1 and 2!) Paranormal groups to the event. I was looking forward to talking with them about their techniques and their process for “ghost detection”. Plus their views on the scientific method and logical evidence gathering and critique. What I walked away with was a bucket full of shattered myths and misconceptions and in invitation to provide a skeptical resource to their evidence and statistic resources.
I asked Chris to write up and article for us and he provided this gem which you can find after the jump.
Last Wednesday, August 11th, Adam Bourque (of the Michigan Skeptics Association) and I had the pleasure of having a casual conversation, tasty meal, and a couple of beers with two paranormal investigators and several other skeptics. The investigators were the guests of the Ann Arbor Science & Skeptics and the purpose of the get-together was to better familiarize ourselves with methodologies, experiences, and overall views on ghost hunting.Chris Bailey of Grimstone Inc. and Brandon Wackerle of Frost Paranormal were the paranormal investigators, and both of them were gracious enough to provide us with an overview of paranormal investigations, and then while answering questions and comments from the skeptics.In my prep before the meet-up, I familiarized myself with the abundant amount of information that was available on their respective websites. Grimstone Inc’s in particular, had press clippings that detailed past investigations, and there were many resource guides of terminology that seemed to suggest experiences and conclusions of both scientific and supernatural explanations.For example, Chris Bailey described a rather thorough process to their investigations. They begin each investigation by mapping out the target location – structural and perimeter topography, then they conduct and record individual interviews (to which they study for signs of deceit, mental impairment, etc.), and then examine the electrical, water, and gas lines for any sign of defect, ultimately trying to apply as many controls to the environment as possible. They stated that a majority of the cases prove to be either natural explanations or flagrant hoaxes.In skeptic circles, it has become somewhat typical to characterize ghost-hunters in a cynical light with regard to their operations (“buffoons running around with equipment they don’t know how to use” comes to mind). And to their credit, Bailey and Wackerle acknowledge these characterizations (they go so far as to say that the television paranormal investigations often rightfully reinforce these portrayals) and try to take steps to minimize, eliminate, turn-around those qualities deserving of the stereotype.With all that being said, it is important to remain skeptical of what they say and what is on their websites, because it could turn out that the investigators are over-stating their methodology, fail to be meticulous, lack attention-to-detail, or have incompetent tools and resources.After the investigators concluded their overview, it was the skeptics turn to offer polite, but pointed criticism. The skeptics covered three areas in depth, and partially a fourth area. In the cases where they concluded that paranormal activity was likely to have happened (or be happening), the skeptics stated:1) There is a lack of consistent evidence. The observed phenomena are various in nature and lack predictability. It is an exercise in anomaly hunting.
2) There are neurological and psychological processes that predispose people to both believing in paranormal explanations and seeking supernatural explanations for unknown phenomena.
3) The scientific protocols, while respectable, are still far from proper methodology. No matter how much the paranormal investigators try to remove variables and establish controls, there are still inherent obstacles and flaws in the process.
4) Despite continual interest in paranormal investigations, there seems to be a lack of advancement with regard to tools, methodologies, and theoretical models.
The paranormal investigators responses to these four points are summarized as follows:
1) Acknowledged. However, there are some published theoretical models in which phenomena can be cross-referenced. They also infer that paranormal investigations are still in the first stage of scientific process – such as carefully recording their observations.2) They point to video and audio recordings as evidence that counters the “it’s all in your head” argument. Admittedly, the video/audio recordings are a point of contention between skeptics and believers. We never got around to talking too much about the evidence. We briefly talked about orbs and EVPs (to which both investigators seem to put little stock).
3) They acknowledge a lack of resources (both financially and technologically). They stay current on latest techniques (and know where to discern the best information).
4) Published theoretical models, and peer-reviewed articles and reviews on tools and methodologies are to be found in the paranormal literature – and much of it is determined to be useless or not consistent. In other words, they do reject the aspects of paranormal propaganda. But there are advancements on resources that can be more helpful in detecting paranormal phenomena or eliminating natural explanations.
In general, the conversation was casual and interesting. Everyone was cordial and respectful, but there were moments where skeptics and investigators clashed on some specific points. One example was when Bailey described an experience where at a meet-and-greet/open-house fund-raiser, the Grimstone investigators provided a tour of guests into a facility where they can be introduced to paranormal phenomena and investigations. Bailey stated that over the course of a few days proceeding the fund-raiser, they received calls from some of the guests who experienced some paranormal phenomena. Bailey remarked that many of the descriptions had similarities that seemed beyond random chance. One of the skeptics, Greg, countered that claim. He pointed out that the guests were likely to have a predisposition towards paranormal belief. He added that when you look at it from a statistical perspective, then the number of over-lapping experiences were not statistically significant – and could be very much at the levels of random chance. Thus Greg argued that an understanding of bias and statistics can put this particular event in some perspective.My general conclusion is that I think the paranormal investigators are doing their best to bring some element of skepticism into their overall approach to investigations. Where skeptics diverge from the investigators is the point where something can’t be explained (all things have been ruled out). The investigators are willing to hedge their bets on something paranormal in these instances, whereas skeptics will defer to the acceptance that its likely an explanation beyond their knowledge or experience to verify at that time.
Comments are closed.
