tonyyoungblood
New Blood
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2009
- Messages
- 5
I was lucky enough to attend this year's Dragon*con in Atlanta, Georgia. One of the highlights was Sunday night's panel The Truth About Ghosts and Ghost Hunting with Joe Nickell and Benjamin Radford, both of whom are heroes of mine. Tim Farley of What's The Harm encouraged me to blog about it on the JREF forum.
The room was packed. Some audience members speculated that ghosts hunters were in our midst, hoping to crash the party. There is a Youtube video shot by Kylie Sturgess that shows a few clips from the panel. I have not made enough posts to the forum to be allowed to post URL's but you can easily find it on YouTube. Just search for "Joe Nickell Benjamin Radford Dragoncon."
Joe and Ben talked about some of their investigations into the paranormal. Joe recalled the ghost that turned out to be a maintenance crew walking up parallel steps in the building next door. How did he solve the case? He simple asked the neighbor. The neighbor told him that out of all the paranormal investigators to ever visit, Joe was the only one to bother asking him. Ben discussed the haunting of a historic theater that turned out to rest entirely on one witness's testimony (out of dozens that saw nothing paranormal). Ben discovered this by tracking down some of the other people in attendance on the night when the alleged haunting took place. All the other investigators simply took the witness's word for it. The point I believe they were making is that in an investigation, you have to truly investigate. You can't come in already knowing the answer and filter the evidence to fit that answer.
At one point in the talk, Ben mentioned an "X-track" paranormal panel led byPatrick Burns, host of TruTV's "Haunting Evidence." Patrick immediately raised in hand in the audience. It caught Ben off guard a little, and he said, "◊◊◊◊. You're here."
During the Q&A, a paranormalist accused Joe of being arrogant and of portraying the believers as ignorant fools. Joe had just discussed the argument from ignorance or, as he put it, "I don't know, therefore, I do know." I think perhaps the audience-member misunderstood that "the argument from ignorance" is simply the name of the logical fallacy -- Joe wasn't calling the believers ignorant. Soon after, Darkness on the Edge of Town radio show host David Shrader, accused Ben and Joe of attacking straw men by examining weaker paranormal investigators. Serious paranormal investigators, according to him, don't believe in orb pictures and understand that EMF meters detect electromagnetic fields, not apparitions. (Ironically, it was skeptics like Joe and Ben who first exposed the truth abut orb pictures and EMF meters.) In Joe and Ben's defense, the topic of the panel was not, "How to debunk the techniques of paranormal investigators," yet still, David's comments intrigued me. The panel ended because they were already over on time, but David continued to shout comments while people were getting up.
After the panel, I approached David and asked him how he uses EMF meters. He told me he was using the devices for their true purpose, to detect electromagnetic fields from powered equipment. He went on to tell me the story of a person experiencing paranormal phenomenon at night after he had gone to bed. David conducted an investigation and found that the clock radio on the bedside table was emitting a high reading on his EMF Meter. He took the radio away, and the person's problems went away. David's theory is that strong electromagnetic fields somehow affect a person's brainwaves, producing hallucinations.
Me: "But that's a testable theory. How is that paranormal?"
Him: "Because science can not yet explain it, therefore it is paranormal."
Contradicting himself, he went on to say that there already was good evidence that EMF's affect brain chemistry. When asked where we could find this research, he told us to ask some other ghost hunters who were not present. I told him that there probably are good studies examining this very claim and that I would hunt for some. It was apparent he had not looked into the research.
I had to cut the conversation short because I was late for my next panel. I would have liked to ask him how could he be sure that the culprit was the radio's EMF and not simply the placebo effect. I would have told him that he could conduct a better study by leaving the radio in the room and hiding any indications that reveal it is on or off. The radio would be turned on or off for a specific number of nights, and the sleeper would write down when he experienced paranormal phenomenon. Neither David nor the subject would know when the radio was on or off. At the end of the study, David would look to see if the subject's visions corresponded to when the radio was turned on. If there was a correlation, then it would warrant further study.
When I got back to my hotel that night, I did a search to see if there was any scientific studies on electromagnetic fields and hallucinations. I very easily found a systematic review on electromagnetic-hypersensitivity. I am not yet able to link to URL's, but you can find it by googling, "the role of emf in ghost hunting." Click on the second page that comes up and click on the "scientific or medical studies" link. Unsurprisingly: "This systematic review could find no robust evidence to
support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity to
EMF." I forwarded this to David that very night. I still have not heard back from him.
Yet still, I have to admit, that even though David was wrong, he was wrong in a novel and innovative way. He can rightfully claim that skeptics are not looking into his particular brand of research. Are skeptical investigators really out of date on their criticisms? If most paranormal investigators truly have moved on from orb pictures and EMF ghost-detection (and I have no evidence to show that they have), shouldn't the skeptics move with them? Otherwise, aren't we just giving the believers a reason to write us off as being out of date and out of touch? I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts.
How can we correct this? I suppose the first step is finding out if there's any consensus among paranormal investigators at all and, if so, what is that consensus. Does anyone have any information on this? One solution would be to seek out local paranormal groups and attend their meetings. My local Skeptic group, The Nashville Skeptics, are considering holding a joint meeting with The Nashville Paranormal Research Society to each learn more about the other.
Whether David's brand of paranormal investigating is a rogue branch or representative of the whole, we cannot rest on our laurels. Paranormal claims will continue to evolve, and we have to stay up to date on what those claims are. Otherwise, they will accuse us of knocking down straw men and ignoring the "latest" research. What do you think?
Tony Youngblood
The room was packed. Some audience members speculated that ghosts hunters were in our midst, hoping to crash the party. There is a Youtube video shot by Kylie Sturgess that shows a few clips from the panel. I have not made enough posts to the forum to be allowed to post URL's but you can easily find it on YouTube. Just search for "Joe Nickell Benjamin Radford Dragoncon."
Joe and Ben talked about some of their investigations into the paranormal. Joe recalled the ghost that turned out to be a maintenance crew walking up parallel steps in the building next door. How did he solve the case? He simple asked the neighbor. The neighbor told him that out of all the paranormal investigators to ever visit, Joe was the only one to bother asking him. Ben discussed the haunting of a historic theater that turned out to rest entirely on one witness's testimony (out of dozens that saw nothing paranormal). Ben discovered this by tracking down some of the other people in attendance on the night when the alleged haunting took place. All the other investigators simply took the witness's word for it. The point I believe they were making is that in an investigation, you have to truly investigate. You can't come in already knowing the answer and filter the evidence to fit that answer.
At one point in the talk, Ben mentioned an "X-track" paranormal panel led byPatrick Burns, host of TruTV's "Haunting Evidence." Patrick immediately raised in hand in the audience. It caught Ben off guard a little, and he said, "◊◊◊◊. You're here."
During the Q&A, a paranormalist accused Joe of being arrogant and of portraying the believers as ignorant fools. Joe had just discussed the argument from ignorance or, as he put it, "I don't know, therefore, I do know." I think perhaps the audience-member misunderstood that "the argument from ignorance" is simply the name of the logical fallacy -- Joe wasn't calling the believers ignorant. Soon after, Darkness on the Edge of Town radio show host David Shrader, accused Ben and Joe of attacking straw men by examining weaker paranormal investigators. Serious paranormal investigators, according to him, don't believe in orb pictures and understand that EMF meters detect electromagnetic fields, not apparitions. (Ironically, it was skeptics like Joe and Ben who first exposed the truth abut orb pictures and EMF meters.) In Joe and Ben's defense, the topic of the panel was not, "How to debunk the techniques of paranormal investigators," yet still, David's comments intrigued me. The panel ended because they were already over on time, but David continued to shout comments while people were getting up.
After the panel, I approached David and asked him how he uses EMF meters. He told me he was using the devices for their true purpose, to detect electromagnetic fields from powered equipment. He went on to tell me the story of a person experiencing paranormal phenomenon at night after he had gone to bed. David conducted an investigation and found that the clock radio on the bedside table was emitting a high reading on his EMF Meter. He took the radio away, and the person's problems went away. David's theory is that strong electromagnetic fields somehow affect a person's brainwaves, producing hallucinations.
Me: "But that's a testable theory. How is that paranormal?"
Him: "Because science can not yet explain it, therefore it is paranormal."
Contradicting himself, he went on to say that there already was good evidence that EMF's affect brain chemistry. When asked where we could find this research, he told us to ask some other ghost hunters who were not present. I told him that there probably are good studies examining this very claim and that I would hunt for some. It was apparent he had not looked into the research.
I had to cut the conversation short because I was late for my next panel. I would have liked to ask him how could he be sure that the culprit was the radio's EMF and not simply the placebo effect. I would have told him that he could conduct a better study by leaving the radio in the room and hiding any indications that reveal it is on or off. The radio would be turned on or off for a specific number of nights, and the sleeper would write down when he experienced paranormal phenomenon. Neither David nor the subject would know when the radio was on or off. At the end of the study, David would look to see if the subject's visions corresponded to when the radio was turned on. If there was a correlation, then it would warrant further study.
When I got back to my hotel that night, I did a search to see if there was any scientific studies on electromagnetic fields and hallucinations. I very easily found a systematic review on electromagnetic-hypersensitivity. I am not yet able to link to URL's, but you can find it by googling, "the role of emf in ghost hunting." Click on the second page that comes up and click on the "scientific or medical studies" link. Unsurprisingly: "This systematic review could find no robust evidence to
support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity to
EMF." I forwarded this to David that very night. I still have not heard back from him.
Yet still, I have to admit, that even though David was wrong, he was wrong in a novel and innovative way. He can rightfully claim that skeptics are not looking into his particular brand of research. Are skeptical investigators really out of date on their criticisms? If most paranormal investigators truly have moved on from orb pictures and EMF ghost-detection (and I have no evidence to show that they have), shouldn't the skeptics move with them? Otherwise, aren't we just giving the believers a reason to write us off as being out of date and out of touch? I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts.
How can we correct this? I suppose the first step is finding out if there's any consensus among paranormal investigators at all and, if so, what is that consensus. Does anyone have any information on this? One solution would be to seek out local paranormal groups and attend their meetings. My local Skeptic group, The Nashville Skeptics, are considering holding a joint meeting with The Nashville Paranormal Research Society to each learn more about the other.
Whether David's brand of paranormal investigating is a rogue branch or representative of the whole, we cannot rest on our laurels. Paranormal claims will continue to evolve, and we have to stay up to date on what those claims are. Otherwise, they will accuse us of knocking down straw men and ignoring the "latest" research. What do you think?
Tony Youngblood
They all came from peer-reviewed journals.) As for David's rather odd statement, "science" does have a rather good hypothesis for the phenomenon of increased sensitivity to "paranormal" perceptions when exposed to low-level EMF's, and that's in the research too-- its biggest strength is that it's supported by researchers in addition to Persinger (although I do have to say, I've never been able to find anything wrong with his experimental protocols). Essentially, subjects with symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy tend to show these unusual reactions to EMF's (and without them, to some degree and depending on what kind of experiences we're talking about). 
