REAL scientific study of ghosts and the paranormal

Ok, this thought occurred to me as I cracked open a beer, sat on the couch, and popped in some good evening entertainment to watch with the kids........Ghost Adventures.

The show in itself, is mildly entertaining to to the over dramatic personalities of some of the "investigators". One thing that struck me as interesting, is how all of these shows have their goofy little gadgets that "work".

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say "we've seen it all".

Everything from heat sensor cameras, digital thermometers, digital recorders for EVP's, using psychics, dousing rods, ouija boards, laser beams, pendulum crystals, etc, etc. And this particular show had some even weirder devices. Electromagnetic pumps, a strange visor like device that enables ghosts to use words in a database and make them appear on the screen (who even makes these devices?). The list goes on and on and each new ghost show has new devices and new gimmicks to offer more and more proof.

Did I say proof? Now lets cover that. We have personal experiences, possessions, noises, items moving, EVP's, orbs on video, shadows on video, picture phenomena, audio phenomena, etc, etc.

My question is, what if I wanted to do a show where I actually applied the scientific method to investigations, and used real science, not in an attempt to prove or disprove, but in an attempt to legitimize if there is indeed any type of phenomena happening? Be it natural or supernatural.

Now science only covers the natural world, which is why I do not have "science" conversations about paranormal topics, but then again everything from God to aliens is considered paranormal or supernatural until we observe testable, repeatable evidence to the contrary. At that point the supernatural is categorized as a natural phenomena.

Getting back on topic, we all are aware of the scientific method:
-Formulate a question
-Develop a hypothesis or conjecture
-Predict the outcome
-Testing
-Analysis (revise hypothesis if necessary)
-Peer review analysis

Now there are obvious problems with testing paranormal topics. Top on my list that I can think of is "controlled environment". Since a majority of these haunting appear to happen in locations rather than occurring everywhere, we run into the problem of these on site investigations. Now, I am not doubting the "witnesses" credibility, but there are too many outside factors that interfere with these TV type investigations.

Plus, these investigations are always held at night and the investigators are investigating in the pitch dark. This is one factor I never understood, especially since most of the witnesses who have seen apparitions and the like, were NOT in the environment in the pitch dark. I guess it makes for better television though.

One solution to this could be testing haunted objects in a controlled environment. But then again, how are these witnesses even linking the hauntings to a particular item is beyond me.

When evaluating these shows and investigations they always present their "proof" at the end of the show. Now the "proof", to me, is always sketchy at best. The 3 most common types of proof are:

1.- EVP's: EVP's seriously annoy me. Like, REALLY annoy me! The investigator will ask a question like "What is your name?!" and there will be a 2 second muffled sound on the recording that sounds like "Mmmppft!" and the subtitles under it will say "My name is Mary Beth MacKenzie from Scotsdale" or something outrageous. Yes, I am half joking, but then again I'm not. I have heard some very clear EVP's, but without me being there myself, I can not hold that as valid "proof" for a variety of reasons

2.- Orbs: These bad boys are my second most hated type of "proof" the paranormal investigators offer. First of all, most of these inestigations take place in the pitch dark. They always try to validate the orb by it "moving differently" than the other dusts or insects in the room, but that is impossible to validate unless the "investigators" have a working knowledge of the properties of every piece of individual flying debris in said location.

3.- Shadows: These are much less common than the aforementioned segments of "proof", but they still occur in some videos, pictures etc. Again, these are impossible to validate or replicate without being at the said location.

Now moving on to the attempted science. Ghosts are said to be the spirits or souls or left over remnants of a once living being. Every living being on earth has observable patterns that can be replicated by other observers. Note that the observer is not causing the effects and patterns to happen, they are simply observing them naturally. If you investigate me and my life, so will find a fairly strict pattern of natural behaviour. One person observing me going to work every morning can publish these findings and another observer or investigator should observe similar patterns. Same can be done for animal and plants and all observable forms of life.

The point of all that is to establish that if spirits are deceased people, they should have observable patterns that others can investigate.

Case in point, a ghost lady who walks down a particular stairway every day.

Anyways, I could break this down by filling in the blanks next to each step of the scientific process, but I dont think I need to. I think you get the point.

So now I need the brilliant scientific minds that I know exist out there within ATS to help me with these following questions:

-Are there any LEGITIMATE scientific studies of this topic? If so, can you direct me to resources?
-What type of equipment would actually be used in this type of study? The typical approach is very lacking IMHO.
-What type of data can be used to prove or disprove if anything paranormal is indeed happening, and how would you correlate that data to being caused strictly by the phenomena?


Any help, insight, advice, is welcome here. Not to be rude, but please do not introduce psuedo-science into this thread. No psychics, Biblical advice, typical ghost hunting techniques, etc. I am looking for new approaches to this.

My frustration is brimming over the top because with thousands of years of supposed stories and phenomena, all we have is a few sketchy videos, pictures, and EVP's........

Thanks ATS!!!

reply to post by Poveglia

par·a·nor·mal
ˌparəˈnôrməlSubmit
adjective
1.
denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

That is the problem. It is beyond or outside of established mainstream "science". The "scientific method" is designed to monitor and study things that occur within the boundaries of already-understood physics.

Several instances in history has shown us that the then-contemporary method of scientific study wasn't always adequate to study new phenomenon. Planets were gods until we could observe them better. Paranormal activity will also someday be "normal" when observed more reliably and perhaps judged on a different platform of science.

Sadly, i dont know of one true scientific study done.
all i have seen can be written off due to bad set up,
bad equipment, or bad /misguided people.

I have always wanted to do a serious study, find a house that
is reported as 'haunted' that has proven activity, buy that house
and wire it for sound so to speak.
Hook up at least 2 cameras in each room, one being night vision
one being thermal, each location a camra or camcorder or the like
is placed it is accompanied by a second to validate, not only would you
have both video and thermal of anything happening, but you would have
the same evidence from 2 locations in each room.

The type of investigating i'd love to do, would require a huge investment,
of not only the property, but also equipment.

I'd love to have the cash to finally put a answer to the question of if it exist,
or if in many cases we see its mistaken idenity, or made up.

Study the house for a year, use any and all equipment avail, in each location,
it would require a huge investment. Imagine the cost, number of rooms x2 x
one camera still, one camera video 0lux capable one camera thermal, temp
readings, audio recording, meters set up so video can record info,
for each location.

But if a serious approach was taken, one could finally answer the question.

The other aspect is i'd want to seal the house from the outside, from not only
people and animals, but from wind and weather as well. To make sure there was
no way the readings could be tampered with.

Would be nice to have the funds to set something like this up, set up the monitors
and such in a house next door, run all power from the house next door for equipment,
and study it for a year, document everything.


ahh to be rich. it would be interesting to see the results that is for
sure. I'm to poor to do such a study, but i hope some day,, someone
that has the funds will take this on and finally answer the question for all,
prove beyond a doubt if it exist or not, then move on to the question of
what causes it and why, then move on to the other questions of life.

reply to post by Poveglia


You asked who makes all the devices.

Gary Galka makes the MEL meter they use (named Mel after his daughter Melissa who died in a car accident at age 17 in 2005) and several other devices.

Originally posted by Poveglia

So now I need the brilliant scientific minds that I know exist out there within ATS to help me with these following questions:

-Are there any LEGITIMATE scientific studies of this topic? If so, can you direct me to resources?
-What type of equipment would actually be used in this type of study? The typical approach is very lacking IMHO.
-What type of data can be used to prove or disprove if anything paranormal is indeed happening, and how would you correlate that data to being caused strictly by the phenomena?


Any help, insight, advice, is welcome here. Not to be rude, but please do not introduce psuedo-science into this thread. No psychics, Biblical advice, typical ghost hunting techniques, etc. I am looking for new approaches to this.

My frustration is brimming over the top because with thousands of years of supposed stories and phenomena, all we have is a few sketchy videos, pictures, and EVP's........

Thanks ATS!!!

There are two ways that scientific theories are established as being theories and being scientific theories. One is by being falsifiable via experiment, and the other is being testable through reference to existing or new facts about empirical reality. The first method is used by physicists and the second is used by cosmologists and those who work within the "squishier" sciences, like biogenetics and anthropology. This standard is a combination of Karl Popper's view (falsifiability) and Jim Baggot's recent upgrade contribution to the philosophy of science (testability). Between these two methods, scientific theories can be tested, and all theories are tentative until they fail - seriously, in science nothing is considered a permanent fact.

Falsifiability through experimentation is pretty well-understood, so I'll focus on the 2nd, more recent, standard - testability through reference to existing or new facts about empirical reality. How this is done is by the use of auxiliary assumptions. This refers to stuff that we know about related stuff, and using that stuff as "dots" that can be connected to what it is that we're primarily focused on and examining. As much as some hardcore skeptics enjoy the fact that paranormal evidence is immune to experimental falsifiability, it's just as true that extremely well-established scientific theories - like the Big Bang, Evolution, Human Consciousness, Creative Thought, and Biological Genetics, are also immune to experimental falsifiability. This means that if one is serious about a scientific examination of paranormal manifestations, then what's required is for them to approach the effort properly.

Skepticism is healthy, but like all healthy things, there's a reasonable limit before it loses its value. Read up on how scientists examine stuff that directly pertains to the subjective and volatile human being - psychology, sociology, anthropology - since, if ghosts are real, they're human. No one studies the human mind in a lab setting, or through falsifiable experimentation, since they know they'd never learn a damn thing if they tried. If that's the case, then what makes anyone think that they can study paranormal manifestations through lab experimentation?

Back in the 19th century, scientists cut open cadaver heads and scooped out the brains to see where people's thoughts were stored. Seems pretty stupid now, but no more clueless than someone like the Amazing Randi expecting that ghosts can be dragged into a lab and put through experimental testing. That guy - - he really is amazing. Amazing that he's been able to keep that silly scam alive as long as he has. Whatever.

reply to post by Poveglia


Scientists in the 1800's certainly tried to investigate the phenomena, but ran into so many quacks and tricksters that the interest died down. Research nowadays is generally done in the field of anthropology and is in the form of simply collecting the stories and analyzing them in the context of folk tales (i.e., "how does the La Llorna tale vary from the Rio Grande to Arizona?")

Although many have tried, no reliable method of detecting a spirit has ever been found... and, if you've ever gone ghost hunting with different groups, you will soon find out that each group gets different info from the same site (different names, different descriptions.) If you test them by taking them someplace where there is no ghost they will still come up with spirits and spooks.

I had friends who used to work at a local haunted house and were very amused by the tales the Real Ghost Hunters had about props and the house itself. None of the tales they "uncovered" in their ghost hunting was correct.

I can think of a few ways some of it could be scientifically investigated.

It would require a residual haunt though. You would have to find a residual haunt and then set up equipment around the area and keep trying out different things until you start to notice patterns with equipment that is being used, weather it is picking up something from the haunt or not, and kind of fine tune your equipment over time as it happened over and over again. Something like that could take years to do.

There does seem to be plenty of documented residual haunts in history, so it wouldn't be that hard to find one that is strong enough to maybe get some information on and then keep fine tuning equipment to the haunt to see what can be learned from it. Then, you take that equipment, and try it out in more random intelligent haunts, like haunted houses etc...

That would be about the only way I could see anyone really getting down to the serious science aspects of it.

s&f for making me think in the paranormal this morning

So, you sat down and cracked open a beer... That's probably what made everything sketchy for you. I see a guy/ gal, thinking to much and not actually looking at the proof that is out there.

Long post. I suggest instead of drinking... Find a location and get your science on. When your not actually at a location study what others have found and use more sources then just " Ghost Hunters "

reply to post by tracehd1


I'm actually doing this next month.

Staying a night at the Palmer house in Sauke Centere MN.

Don't have much for paranormal equipment though other than evp recorder, and cameras,
and a medium...lol

Sometimes the only way to do it, is to do it yourself

Originally posted by tracehd1
So, you sat down and cracked open a beer... That's probably what made everything sketchy for you. I see a guy/ gal, thinking to much and not actually looking at the proof that is out there.

Long post. I suggest instead of drinking... Find a location and get your science on. When your not actually at a location study what others have found and use more sources then just " Ghost Hunters "

Actually, I have done all of the above. I have physically been to a wide variety of places (like Poveglia island, hence the name) that not many people can boast.

I also have had very paranormal experiences. Several times in my life. But then again, I am just a guy with another ghost story or two. Besides investigating the phenomena in the exact same manner that every other paranormal investigator uses, I'd like to approach this in a different manner.

Don't know if that is possible, but I'd like to try...

reply to post by Poveglia


I find the majority of the so called 'proof' to be lacking credibility & or actual 'proof', I do have to mention some of what I found for recent material. There have been a few 'cases' where the 'event' is examined & as usual still leaves many questions unanswered & raises many more questions as a result. As the end result in most all of these 'scientific study's' & 'documentary's' is one side of the coin says 'further scientific study is required' & the other saying 'that the EVP results literally 'speak' for themselves' ultimately "Who knows?" Some interesting finds none the less.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing cases of demonic possession was Anneliese Michel, the video & audio recordings are a trip to say the least, but again its still a toss up as to the actual 'facts'.
Another much more recent documented possession, [aside from the Emily Rose story, more than just a movie...] was the "Julia" case. [not the real girls name, used as a case name for protection, the Catholic church has done the same in another semi famous possession case, changing there 'documented' name. weird?...]
This is from 2008, "Julia" was treated by a Dr. Richard E. Gallagher. A board certified Psychiatrist & associate Professor of clinical psychiatry at New York medical collage. Not that this Link gives you much in terms of picts or video but its a good place to start. www.oddee.com...

There was a study done on Psychic ability & published in 2011 by A Cornell Professor, Daryl J. Bem the journal claimed to have strong evidence of the existence of psychic ability's news.discovery.com... fear-the-paranormal-130115.htm. The Link also has a link for the 'Paper/Findings' of Bem's. & a link to the 'Evidence of the contrary' as a team of 'Researchers' attempted to replicate Bem's final experiment. There results were published in the journal PLos ONE titled 'Failing the future, Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem's retroactive facilitation of recall effect.'

Interesting, but it would appear that were seeing a 'trend', in which any case no matter what the conditions or what the science says or points to the possibility of - 'Further testing is required...' & in many cases there were 'corrupted' results or data - either the science was flawed or a calculation was deemed 'false'.
I'm not one to believe without some [in my opinion] significant proof.

Seams to me that when it comes to 'The Scientifically Unknown' - we need more Science to 'Rationalize' it.