Suppose you take a cheap digital voice recorder out and capture what sounds like an EVP. Now suppose three of your friends also take out their cheap digital recorders and also capture what sounds like EVPs So you tell your scientist friend you've caught proof of EVPs and he wants to see for himself. So he takes out some highend scientific equipment, well designed and shielded against outside interference. and captures nothing. What does this prove?
The first conclusion is that you can't use good equipment, you have to use cheap stuff, based on only the evidence at hand. After all, three of you captured something and one of him didn't. There's proof in numbers, right? But the scientist also can explain why all of your cheap stuff is subject to all sorts of interference resulting in false positives that his good equipment is immune to. He uses scientific reasoning to support his case.
So now the quandry begins, do you discount what the scientist can prove in order to support what is evidennt only because everyone else is doing it, using cheap stuff for research? Or do you accept the proven aspects of science and build on them, admitting most so called "evidence" out there (not all, just most) is the result of poor investigation practices and equipment use?
Therein lies the reason science has problems accepting the paranormal, especially when investiagtors make claims using boxes that create noise, and EMF meters that speak random words (Ovilus) and call that stuff research. We need to get out of the dark ages ourselves before we can expect any serious consideration from the scientific community.
Edited by CaveRat, 05 April 2009 - 08:26 AM.