Forums » It's NOT Haunted!

• Wes Forsythe

  

  • 641 posts
  February 22, 2012 8:40:50 AM EST

  Report

  I've written in the past about the "scientific method" and disproving hauntings. A lot of people claim to investigate as skeptics (not a bad word) and allegedly go into investigations with the aim of proving there is nothing paranormal going on.

   

  I agree 100% that alternative explanations should be pursued and presented as they present themselves.

   

  However, I think the emphasis should be on finding those alternative explanations and not just debunking for debunking's sake or dismissing claims.

   

  Here is the challenge question. Can anyone give me some examples of great scientific discoveries that were found by taking the negative approach? In other words can you give me an example of a discovery that was found with the assumption that there was nothing to find?

• Carolyn D

  

  • 24 posts
  February 22, 2012 11:23:44 AM EST

  Report

  Well, this isn't the same thing, but I think it goes along the idea of debunking to rule out natural causes first before anything can be considered paranormal. In medicine, some conditions are diagnosed only by ruling out others. Like Fibromyalgia. There is no conclusive diagnostic test at this point to identify it, just patients reporting the same symptoms, and then the documentation and comparison of the patient histories. So rheumatologists test for other conditions that have similar symptoms. If they are all ruled out, only then will they make a diagnosis of Fibromyalgia.
  
  
• Wes Forsythe

  

  • 641 posts
  February 22, 2012 6:11:26 PM EST

  Report

  That is close. But eliminating the other possibilities to arrive at the correct diagnosis is a good thing which we can apply to our field. I don't think the doctors approach the patient thinking that they are not sick (although I am sure that on occasion that is the diagnosis).
  
  What I am looking for is an example or two of the skeptical view producing an important result. The "prevailing wisdom" is that we should approach all investigations under the assumption that we will not find anything paranormal. I am trying to find another field that is approached in this way.
• Rob ~ DEADPsalm

  

  • 256 posts
  February 25, 2012 3:17:50 PM EST

  Report

  There may need to be a differentiation between skeptics and those who simply do not believe in "ghosts". I suspect many skeptics do at least consider the paranormal possibilities where those who simply do not believe will not even consider the possibilities. Only the latter can truly go into a situation with a “negative” view. At the same time, it is very unlikely a person who truly does not believe would be in such a situation because they would see no point to the investigation to begin with.

   

  Back to your question…I might submit some aspects of astronomy to be in the realm of discovery without expectations. Specific efforts coming to my mind are the “discovery” of dark matter and the search for life elsewhere. With dark mater, they did not anticipate discovering something they cannot physically prove to exist. Evidence suggests it is there but we cannot use our senses to observe it. With the search for life, only mathematics suggests it is out there somewhere. Even if we do discover a data set suggesting a distant planet harbors life we will still have no proof.

   

  Does this fit your paradigm? Probably not; but I’m not sure a serious paranormal investigation would fit this paradigm either. The “non-believer” or negative perspective is important to any investigation. However, if this is the only perspective I highly doubt the investigation can produce any valid results.

  This post was edited by Rob ~ DEADPsalm at February 25, 2012 3:17:50 PM EST
• Wes Forsythe

  

  • 641 posts
  February 25, 2012 6:49:59 PM EST

  Report

  Food for thought there, Rob. I am working on updating my old "disproving a haunting" topic. That paradigm suggests that we should approach every investigation with the mindset that everything can be explained away (whether we can explain it or not). While that is a perfectly valid way to investigate, I am wondering why so many of those who practice it consider it the only valid approach.
  
  Your examples in the field of astronomy seem to fit closely to where we find ourselves in this field. Thanks, I will use them.