By Brian D. Parsons
Founder, Director, Ohio Paranormal Investigation Network

The word “science” or “scientific” has been thrown around in the field of ghost hunting and paranormal investigation for many years. What does science offer a field that is almost completely philosophic in nature, from the lack of insurmountable evidence to the loose theories that fuel our pursuits?

The pursuit of our field officially began on February 20, 1882 in England when the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) was officially constituted. This new organization was formed from Cambridge University students and other individuals who had ties to possible paranormal situations as well as many skeptics. The goal of the SPR was to investigate claims of parapsychological phenomenon through objective investigation (Irwin, 1994 pp14). This pursuit was not of interest of other established fields of science and has since been viewed by them as a fringe science or mere hobby.

The United States also played an important role in the scientific pursuit of this field. In 1848 the Spiritualist movement officially began with the Fox sisters of Hydesville, New York. Maggie and Kate Fox were purportedly able to communicate with a spirit of a deceased man who was supposedly buried on their property. The girls became famous and a tour would soon ensue with them giving demonstrations of their supposed abilities. This sparked others to gain heavy interest in communicating with the other side as Mediums began to spring up in New York and soon all over the United States.

Seances began to be conducted and people began communicating with the other side, or were they? Soon many individuals and groups began to question the validity of these claims and many investigations and controls over these seances came into effect.

Over time more and more Mediums were exposed as frauds and the public, as well as the scientific community, began to lose interest in any possible validity in this field, Spiritualism was dead. Parapsychology continued its pursuit of claims of Psi (ESP, PK and survival of bodily death) through the decades and became very strong in the 1960s and 1970s through College programs that offered grants to pursue this field. In the late 1970s and 1980s the money began to disappear and Parapsychologists began to be absorbed into other fields while pursuing their interest in their spare time. Thus we have come to another ebb of the professional pursuit of paranormal abilities and events, although there has been recent involvement with the press and television that has thrusted these professionals into the public eye.

Through all of this there has always been amateurs who have worked in the background of the professional organizations and individuals, at no other point since the Spiritualism era has the amateur ranks played such an important part of ghost and paranormal research. The SPR and the ASPR (American Society for Psychical Research) still exist as well as other professional arms of paranormal research (Paranormal Association, Rhine Research Center, etc.) though the amateur ranks outnumber the professional ranks as well as the overall exposure and interaction with spontaneous cases.

What separates professionals and amateurs, besides a degree from a University and and/or a professional organization is the interpretation and use of science. The raw form of scientific approach in the historical context of parapsychological study was mere case reports (data collection). This would merely be a collection of first hand accounts of paranormal activity as well as possible witnesses. This was not enough to make this into a science until they were able to systematically study or replicate experiments with these reports.

This now draws us to the 21st Century and the amateur pursuit of this field using scientific tools. The use of tools in this field (EMF detector, compass, dowsing rods, ion detector, infra-red thermal imager, camera, camcorder, cassette and digital audio recorder, motion sensors, etc.) has seemingly clouded the minds of those who are attempting to verify anomalous phenomena through them. Many people think that the mere use of these tools is science and having anomalous readings with them serves as evidence of the paranormal.

There is no such thing as a ghost detector. No tool in use in the field of ghost research has the ability to determine a ghost is present. The mere use of these tools alone does not constitute a scientific endeavor. No valuable evidence will ever come from the use of any combination of these tools. These preceding statements are not my opinions, these are fact. These statements have been made by parapsychologists and others in various scientific disciplines.

It seems that the objectivity of the use of these tools has been overlooked since many groups have stated they have collected data that they have detected the presence of ghosts. But the question is, how do they know it has detected a ghost and not another anomalous object or field of energy? If the detection with the instrument was accomplished in addition to an anomalous event happening at the same time then we have a possible legitimate reading on our hands (see Auerbach, (2004), p. 112). Then we have to ask if there were baseline readings done of this area in question prior to and after the anomalous reading? Were there witnesses to this event or any other devices that could back up the other? We could wonder whether those who set out to gather this evidence may have unintentionally created the anomalous event. Is this a repeatable event? To many ghost hunters this sounds like an impossible task, but it should to most since this is how real science works. Believe me, I am being generous in my examples here compared to those that would be required for other scientists to have a sliver of belief in what we are trying to accomplish.

The major piece of the puzzle that would come next would be for the group that encountered these readings to publish their findings and have another group attempt to gather the same data (or finding discrepancies with the prior data collection methods) using similar or related instruments. I can already hear some people out there laughing at the premise of a group inviting another one out to confirm or deny their findings, though in fairness I know quite a few that would be happy to do this. The bottom line is that this is true science. Merely wielding tools of science is not scientific, which is my whole point here.

Let me share with you an excerpt from the handbook I designed for the Ohio Paranormal Investigation Network in dealing with the scientific approach as well as steps in a scientific investigation.

A major theme of psychology that sets it apart from “Ghost Hunting” (not necessarily parapsychology) is that it is empirical in nature. That is, it has been set by observation, experiments, and practical experience. It is not based on theory, speculation, or uncritical common sense. Therefore “Ghost Hunting” is not really a science, until we have documented, studied, theorized and disseminated findings within (and outside) the field.

Measurement and Description- Before a scientist can explain why the world works in a certain way, they need to describe how it works. Science’s commitment to observation usually requires that an investigator figure out a way to measure the phenomenon under study. The goal here is to develop measurement techniques that make it possible to describe behavior clearly and precisely.

Understanding and Prediction- Scientists believe that they understand events when they can explain the reasons for their occurrence. To evaluate their understanding, scientists make and test predictions about relationships between variables.

Application and Control- Ultimately, Most scientists hope that the information they gather will be of some practical value in helping solve everyday problems. Once people understand a phenomenon, they often can exert more control over it.

The first step is to translate a general idea into a testable hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. Hypothesis are generally expressed as predictions. They spell out how changes in one variable will be related to changes in another variable. To be testable, scientific hypotheses must be formulated precisely, and the variables under study must be clearly defined. Researchers achieve these clear formulations by providing operational definitions of the relevant variables. An operational definition describes the actions or operations that will be made to measure or control a variable. Operational definitions establish precisely what is meant by each variable in the context of a study.

2. Select the Research Method and Design the Study.

The second step in a scientific investigation is to figure out how to put the hypothesis to an empirical test. The research method chosen depends to a large degree on the nature of the question under study. The various methods- experiments, case studies, surveys, naturalistic observation - each have advantages and disadvantages. The researcher has to ponder the pros and cons and then select the strategy that appears to be the most appropriate and practical. Once researchers have chosen a general method, they must make detailed plans for executing their study.

3. Collect the Data

According to their plans, researchers obtain their samples of subjects and conduct their study. Psychologists use a variety of data collection techniques, which are procedures for making empirical observations and measurements. Commonly used techniques include direct observation, questionnaires, interviews, psychological tests, physiological recordings, and examination of archival records. These methods are broken down below. Collecting research data often takes an enormous amount of time and work.

Direct observation - Observers are trained to watch and record behavior as objectively and precisely as possible. They may use some instrumentation, such as a stopwatch or video recorder.

Questionnaire - Subjects are administered a series of written questions designed to obtain information about attitudes, opinions, and specific aspects of their behavior.

Interview - A face-to-face dialogue is conducted to obtain information about specific aspects of a subject’s behavior.

Psychological test - Subjects are administered a standardized measure to obtain a sample of their behavior. Tests are usually used to assess mental abilities or personality traits.

Physiological recording - An instrument is used to monitor and record a specific physiological process in a subject. Examples include measures of blood pressure, heart rate, muscle tension, and brain activity.

Examination of archival records - The researcher analyzes existing institutional records (the archives), such as census, economic, medical, legal, educational, and business records.

4. Analyze the Data and Draw Conclusions

The observations made in a study are usually converted into numbers, which constitute the raw data of the study. Researchers use statistics to analyze their data and to decide whether their hypotheses have been supported. Thus, statistics play an essential role in the scientific enterprise.

6. Report the Findings

Scientific progress can be achieved only if researchers share their findings with one another and with the general public. Therefore, the final step in a scientific investigation is to write up a concise summary of the study and its findings. Typically, researchers prepare a report that is delivered to a journal for publication.

The process of publishing scientific studies allows other experts to evaluate and critique new research findings. Sometimes this process of critical evaluation discloses flaws in a study. If the flaws are serious enough, the results may be discounted or discarded. This evaluation process is a major strength of the scientific approach because it gradually weeds out erroneous findings. For this reason, the scientific enterprise is sometimes characterized as “self-correcting”.

The major disadvantage of the scientific approach (especially in the case of ghost research) is that experiments are often artificial. Experiments require great control over proceedings and researchers must construct simple contrived situations to these their hypothesis experimentally. It is practically impossible to simulate the environment of a haunted location in a laboratory setting, this is why there is no experimentation within the study of the paranormal- not only can we not duplicate this environment, nor could we control it.

We must rely solely on descriptive research methods. These methods are used when the variables can not be manipulated. In other words, these methods can not be used to describe cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Though this could come with time and understanding and after the use of the descriptive research. Descriptive methods permit investigators only to describe patterns of behavior and discover links or associations between variables. This is where Parapsychology has been stuck for over 120 years. Once variables are introduced the results usually seem to become inconclusive. Descriptive research cannot demonstrate conclusively that two variables are causally related.

Descriptive research methods include:

Naturalistic Observation

A researcher engages in careful, usually prolonged, observation of behavior without intervening directly with the subjects. The problem with this approach are twofold. First, it is nearly impossible to observe ghost activity for a prolonged period of time, especially when dealing with a specific case. This lack of observation time usually proves the information gathered inconclusive. Secondly, it is nearly impossible to observe the ghost behavior without becoming directly involved with the subjects. We try hard to gather as much as possible and to go in to a location at the last possible second, but with this you risk not being able to observe any activity yourself. Once you are part of the environment you have changed the variables and altered the environment in which the events occur.

Case studies

An in-depth investigation of an individual subject. Data is collected for individual cases and compared to that of other cases to arrive at a common explanation. The major problem with this approach is that they are highly subjective. The information from several sources must be knit together in an impressionistic way. During this process one may focus on information that fits with their expectations, which usually reflect their theoretical slant. Thus, it is relatively easy for investigators to see what they expect to see in case study research.

Surveys

Researchers use questionnaires or interviews to gather information about specific aspects of subjects’ behavior. Surveys are often used to obtain information on aspects of behavior that are difficult to observe directly. Surveys also make it relatively easy to collect data on attitudes and opinions from large samples of subjects. The major problem with surveys is that they depend of self-report data. Intentional deception and wishful thinking can distort subjects’ verbal reports about their behavior.

Scientific research is a more reliable source of information than casual observation or popular belief. However, it would be wrong to conclude that all published research is free of errors. Scientists are fallible human beings, and flawed studies do make their way into the body of scientific literature. This is why replication of a study (or observation) is important. Replication of a study may lead to contradicting results. Some inconsistency in results is to be expected, given science’s commitment to replication. Fortunately, one of the strengths of the empirical approach is that scientists work to reconcile or explain conflicting results. In fact, scientific advances often emerge out of efforts to explain contradictory findings. This is very important to keep in mind as we collect data and continually observe findings in the field. We must not always be too quick in search of the answer, or the truth may elude us. Looking at conflicting evidence is very healthy and may lead us to the answers.

Placebo effects occur when subjects’ expectations lead them to experience some change even though they receive empty, fake, or ineffectual treatment. Placebo, for our concern, may happen if we give them information on the subject, they may conform their observations on the new information given to them or alter what has happened in the past or jump to quick conclusions about natural experiences. The overall effect of the thought of a ghost is interacting with them causes some to distort previous experiences. We must be careful with what information we give them and at what time we give it.

Social desirability bias is a tendency to give socially approved answers to questions about oneself. This could also include conforming your observations by what is popularly known to be ghost activity. Example; someone feels a draft in their house and assumes it is a ghost, they may lump other unrelated experiences with it to draw the conclusion or convince others based on the current social trends of paranormal activity.

Experimenter bias occurs when a researcher’s expectations or preferences about the outcome of a study influence the results obtained. This is a common problem with ghost research on many different levels. The first that comes to mind is that we (like some who experience ghosts) jump to conclusions based on bits of information obtained during the case. We must learn to look at each piece of evidence as separate and not lump everything together immediately and assume every clue adds another piece of the puzzle and help confirms a ghost. Another lies with the popular orb photographs. In this we have a tendency to draw our conclusions from what we see or believe, not what we can prove or study. We must not try to “see what we want to see” and look for viable evidence to deny any rational or natural explanations first and foremost.

We must take what the history of science has given us and use it to our advantage, it can only help us confirm or deny what we set out to find.

I know many people will read through the last part of this editorial looking for the answers of, “So how do we do this?”. That’s not for me alone to answer. We must all develop our own ways of collecting data without leaving more questions than answers behind. If we are all about finding proof we must start out by providing evidence first (and understand what evidence and proof mean), proof will never be accepted by a one time event, it never has and never will. I will provide more insight into the scientific aspects of ghost hunting that we need to see in a follow-up article in the near future.

References

Auerbach, Loyd. (2004). Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal. Oakland: Ronin Publishing.

Irwin, H.J. (1994). An Introduction to Parapsychology, 2nd. Ed. Jefferson, NC. McFarland & Company.

Weiten, Wayne. (1992). Psychology: Themes and Variations, 2nd Ed. Pacific Grove, California. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

© 1996-2007, Ohio Paranormal Investigation Network.