Employing The Scientific Method In A Paranormal Investigation - by Carrie Rodler

This group is called Paranormal STUDY and RESEARCH. We study our surroundings and conduct research not only into equipment, methods, and hypotheses; but we seek to improve them.

Currently, there are a lot of groups doing a lot of illogical things, and I find this distressing. The high number of blurry pictures or those containing spots are paraded around as “proof”. An EMF “spike” of just 4 is believed to be evidence of a ghost by people who have little to no understanding of electricity, magnetism, or electromagnetic fields. Some people even go so far as to claim that a headache developing at the site of a paranormal investigation is supernatural in nature…. whereas a headache acquired at work is just bad luck!

Let’s make no mistake about it: this is pseudoscience. We have no support from the scientific community, but we must still conduct ourselves in accordance with the Scientific Method in order to be respectable. Therefore, if questionable evidence is acquired, it can be better scrutinized by science if it has been acquired by the accepted laws of such. So here it is in its basic form:

1.      Recognize the problem

2.      Formulate a hypothesis

3.      Predict the consequences of the hypothesis

4.      Perform experiments to test predictions

5.      Formulate the simplest general rule that organizes the hypothesis, prediction, and outcome into a theory

The process listed above contains the following elements:

1.      Observation

2.      Description

3.      Prediction

4.      Control

5.      Identification of Causes

Here is how PSR handles each:

1. Observation: We enter each property with pens and worksheets, and we fill out one for each room. We take temperature and EMF readings in each room and make note any anomalies, including what they’re most likely caused by (i.e. an old chandelier in a small room where EMF is 26). Each member independently rates his/her feelings about each room on a scale of 1 to 10 for various emotions and sensations, once again making note of possible reasons (slanting floors for unsteadiness, dust and cobwebs for creepiness, etc.). Though these things will come up again in the “Identification of Causes” section, we make note of everything in the environment during this phase.

2. Description: In a laboratory setting, this is where information from one’s experiments must be reliable, repeatable, and valid. Applying this to ghost-hunting, this is the most difficult thing to do. But by establishing the baseline in the “Observation” phase, we can then disregard things like high EMF spikes in the chandelier room example because we’ve already determined what it is… and isn’t. The best we can do when we encounter something abnormal then is to record our readings on an event log with the time and place it occurred, and take as much footage as possible of the area. Instead of taking just one picture or recording only one EMF reading, do everything possible with all available equipment. The main point here is to keep a time log of all recordings… make it as logical and scientific as possible. That is much more respectable (and believable) than having just an uncorroborated EMF spike in the hall.

3. Prediction: This is where your past and present observations must hold true for future phenomena. If your evidence thus far does not have the capability to predict or repeat an experiment, you have failed this part. And, obviously in paranormal investigations, you always will. However, this is still very useful, and all is not lost! If you can get something to happen and predict that it will keep happening, then perhaps you can debunk a supposed supernatural event.

A perfect example of this is when PSR was investigating the ballroom of a mansion, and we heard a terrible growl from a spooky, dark alcove off the corner of the large room. Though very scientifically-minded, I could not help but to think of demons because it sounded very evil and very scary! Plus, it just goes to show what the human mind can do to you. Pat suggested that it could have been the floor, but it sounded so truly demonic that I wouldn’t believe it. Some groups would have stopped there, having stories of hauntings from the ballroom and a demonic-sounding growl. Evidence! But we went ahead with our assumption that it was the floor and predicted that weight applied to a certain spot on it would yield the same low growl. Though those first few steps were somewhat terrifying, nothing attacked us from the shadows as we walked over to where Mark was originally walking when the growl was heard. Sure enough, we repeated the results and concluded that the sound came from the floor and not a ghost.

Obviously, people get into ghost-hunting to find ghosts, but it is equally important to debunk things that aren’t paranormal in order to help property owners understand what is going on and also lend credibility to ourselves and our field. We, in this pseudo-science, agree that there is “something more” out there, so let’s not muddy the waters if we can clearly define what isn’t supernatural.

4. Control: This is all about eliminating bias by being fair with your evidence. Take samples from a wide range of everything rather than being opportunistic. For instance, if you took 100 pictures in a home, and one showed what might be an orb… don’t show only that orb picture and call the house haunted. In a laboratory setting, it’s very easy to establish a control. In a paranormal research setting, it isn’t. The way we do it is, as mentioned in the “Observation” phase, is record as many readings as possible right away with the lights on and people there, just as it is every day. This establishes our control. We repeat the whole process with lights out, machines off, people gone, etc. to see what changes. If we come up with an odd photo, we take 10 more in exactly the same spot. Obviously, this isn’t ideal and perfect like lab conditions can be, but it’s better than just wandering through one time with an EMF meter. It is more time consuming to check and re-check, but the more data, the better. If it was established that the temperature of a room was 68 degrees Fahrenheit every 15 minutes for the past two hours, yet now it has dropped to 61 degrees without any open windows or air conditioning, then that’s a lot more interesting and respectable than simply stating “we encountered a cold spot in the house”.

5. Identification of Causes: This is perhaps one of the most important things we can do, not to prove anything, but to disprove. It is very doubtful that anyone will conclusively prove the existence of a ghost, at least not anytime soon. Even some of the amazing footage and EVP’s captured by TAPS is not enough. Nothing will be enough for some people. So the best thing you can do is remain logical and identify the causes for the things that are happening that aren’t supernatural. Disprove as much as you can, post what’s left, and let people decide for themselves. Everything you say and do will be subject to disproof, and unless you have a lot of PhD’s, a ton of equipment, and a whole hell of a lot of respect… there’s no way you will ever have your hypothesis accepted by even a small margin of the community. The best you can do is step up your investigative processes, set your personal beliefs aside, and remain objective. Even if you truly believe in your heart that it’s true, you must still run everything you find through this process. For instance, I swear I saw a ball of light descend 3 feet and dissipate in an elevator often reported to be haunted in the hospital at which I work. However, no one was there to corroborate it. Though there was no other source of light and I have never hallucinated, I must take into account the possibility that I was in fact “seeing things”. I cannot call this evidence or even dare suggest it is proof since there is another, more plausible cause.

I wrote this article because I am dismayed by a lot of bad evidence out there. I’ve seen groups go on two investigations a month and find “tons” of evidence at all of them, and then have the audacity to call it proof. Nobody has proof. Remember that the leading scientific minds in the world thought the earth was flat for hundreds of years. We are just scientifically untrained people with some gadgets and a basic understanding of them. Anyone can watch a needle move on an EMF meter, but how many of us understand electromagnetism? Anyone can say “ghosts are energy”, but how many of us understand what causes energy and what its different types are? There is a lot of physics involved, and physics is difficult. So there’s a lot more to ghost hunting than watching a meter, taking some pictures, and listening to recordings. It’s okay to do it that way, but don’t call it scientific proof if you did not follow the scientific method. It’s hard enough to investigate while attempting to follow the scientific method anyway, and few will take our results seriously. We now have the equipment and technology to step up our game, but we as investigators need to become more educated and take the time to follow the rules.