Hi,
This series is currently being broadcast in the UK. The trailers promissed a serious scientific investigation into different paranormal issues and which sounded like a great idea for a TV show.
The format of the show is that each week they have 3 claims to be investigated - which they present the evidence for - then select a 'test protocol' and at the end of the show they show the results of the tests and give a conclusion as to whether the claim has been shown "Proof Positive" or not.
All sounds great - however I think the way the material is presented and the conclusions are seriously misleading - ie if one test fails to show that the claim is definitely false then it gets labeled 'Proof Positive' - even if the claim is definitely shown to be false - but there is still any question not completely answered it gets a 'Proof Inconclusive'.
The tests themselves seem fine - and professionally executed - but the conclusions they reach from the results are just not rational. eg I remember one episode where they investigated claims of a 'ghost light' at a lighthouse. The test very clearly showed that no ghost was involved in the light (just a reflection) - however just because there had been some peripheral unanswered questions during the filming they gave it 'Proof Inconclusive'! In the same episode there was a guy who claimed to have past life memories - and the test was a lie detector test. Just because the lie test showed he probably wasn't lieing (ie he believed the past life stuff was true) they announced the whole claim 'Proof Positive' - which is just bad logic.
Also - I don't like the way some of the material is presented - ie its generally from the point of view that this phenomena is a real thing and the question is just whether this particular case is a real example - however I could forgive that if they didn't stretch the conclusions so much...
Anyway - a real shame I thought - it could have been a great programme. Having said all that maybe there is still some value in showing people that these claims generally don't hold up - even if they imply that some of the time they do!
Anyway - I just wanted to know what other people thought - or if anyone had asked the program makers for comment.
- Drelda
This series is currently being broadcast in the UK. The trailers promissed a serious scientific investigation into different paranormal issues and which sounded like a great idea for a TV show.
The format of the show is that each week they have 3 claims to be investigated - which they present the evidence for - then select a 'test protocol' and at the end of the show they show the results of the tests and give a conclusion as to whether the claim has been shown "Proof Positive" or not.
All sounds great - however I think the way the material is presented and the conclusions are seriously misleading - ie if one test fails to show that the claim is definitely false then it gets labeled 'Proof Positive' - even if the claim is definitely shown to be false - but there is still any question not completely answered it gets a 'Proof Inconclusive'.
The tests themselves seem fine - and professionally executed - but the conclusions they reach from the results are just not rational. eg I remember one episode where they investigated claims of a 'ghost light' at a lighthouse. The test very clearly showed that no ghost was involved in the light (just a reflection) - however just because there had been some peripheral unanswered questions during the filming they gave it 'Proof Inconclusive'! In the same episode there was a guy who claimed to have past life memories - and the test was a lie detector test. Just because the lie test showed he probably wasn't lieing (ie he believed the past life stuff was true) they announced the whole claim 'Proof Positive' - which is just bad logic.
Also - I don't like the way some of the material is presented - ie its generally from the point of view that this phenomena is a real thing and the question is just whether this particular case is a real example - however I could forgive that if they didn't stretch the conclusions so much...
Anyway - a real shame I thought - it could have been a great programme. Having said all that maybe there is still some value in showing people that these claims generally don't hold up - even if they imply that some of the time they do!
Anyway - I just wanted to know what other people thought - or if anyone had asked the program makers for comment.
- Drelda
