Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Paranormal standards--an urban myth?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 18 December 2013 - 11:10 PM

Was stumbling through the site as I usually do when I get lost and ended up in the directory. Man, are there a lot of professional investigators out there! This is NOT a bashing session as there are enough threads on that over the years. The question is can the paranormal community survive long enough to establish the means to create real professionals?

The situation is not beyond salvaging. There are many established liberal arts that get along very well without knowing exactly what they are working with. Most "ologies" like psychology, philosophy, sociology and the like are accepted fields that have no real consensus within the studies. So we can live with ourselves not even agreeing on what ghosts are.

We are all aware of the problems we have. The boards have all the topics you can think of that drive common sensed individuals crazy. We don't have the means to have professional paranormal investigators. We can be logical, methodical and systematic. We can act in a professional manner. But we don't have a common framework or training plan upon which to build a common base although there are claims of such that are typically unique to the group (s). Is it possible for us to come together to a point where standards can be established?

Can't Fall Off the Floor


#2 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:50 AM

The problem here is the wide number of diverse opinions on what constitutes a "profesional" paranormal investigator. If we applied standards equivilent to what other professions employ we would find that the large database of investigators suddenly shrinks to a small percentage of what you found.

Conside rone area where I have seen some controversy and am also familar with, equipment. Hoe often have we seen someone who claims to run a scientific group argue the point that they are scientific but their group can't aford expensive gear. Yet they want to be consider professional.

Sorry, that won't cut it! While their intent may be good there is no substitute for using top quality gear if you are a true professional. When yo go to a doctor you expect he uses the best he can get regardless of cost. In fact his profession requires it! So why should we be any different? Professionals use the best there is regardless of cost. And if you can't afford it then you must admit you are only going through the motions. (And by now I'm sure there are quite a few who are ready to disagree!) But that is the kind of stadards we will need to adapt if we ever truely want to be considered professionals.

The same will apply to methods as well. Certain unproven meethods often employed on TV ghost buster shows are pure bunk! These are also claimed as effective by many simply because they saw it on TV! Ovilus and Ghost Boxes come to mind.here! The evidence obtained in this manner does not stand up to serious scrutiny..

Which brings up anther point for debate. How strict do we attempt to debunk one another's evidence? I would say as strictly as possible! Science opens itself up to peer review as a part of the process. And most theories are debunked in the scientific community by their peers; only the best survive. Yet in the paranormal field if one investigator calls another's evidence into question suddenly it all gets very defensive! That attitude has to change if standards are ever to be accepted. keep in mind that any serous standards WILL call into question most things accepted. And by doing so will strengthen the evidence that survives. But along the way a lot of feelings will be stepped on. And we as investigators will need to be ready to accept this and take our lumps along with the glory. Only then will progress be made.

#3 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 23 December 2013 - 09:32 AM

Don't remember how many times Leslie and I have discussed those issues. Semantics gets all snarled up and misuse of terms befuddle things. Would like a nickel for the frequency that the phrase "Scientific Method" has been used. Anyone familiar with the real scientific method realizes that we couldn't get past step 3. And as to electronics, I have long have had heartburn over the love of boxes that buzz and beep and blink. It seems like the more noise and lights the thing produces, the more valid and "scientific" it is. And most of the time, forget asking for a paper trail for any evidence posted.

Looking at the birth of a lot of fields, very few of them were easy, although none of them had to contend with instant communication of the internet. There have been a few sites that have tried applying some sort of logical method to their postings and forums. Without much success which is evident. I think they have bitten off more than they can chew. The attempt to reform the whole community at once is bound to fail.

Maybe a small trial forum might be in order. Pick a topic--such as photography. Set a standard regarding providence, type and minimum requirements for evidence submitted. Make it clear that this evidence will be possibly ripped to shreds. Or given kudos. Critiques must be submitted with rational reasons pro and con for every comment. This exercise will be slow and painful. It will probably die off rather quickly. But it will show most folks how the established fields approach any offered theory or evidence.

Can't Fall Off the Floor


#4 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:33 AM

Would also like to find attempts by a legit lab or institution to design a ghost. Or at least define the conditions that would support the more common phenomenon. Not talking about pseudo-science babble that you find all over the internet that involve angels and extra dimensions and maybe clowns.

Edited by greg_dragonlvr, 06 January 2014 - 09:35 AM.

Can't Fall Off the Floor





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users