It is better to know some of the questions than all
of the answers -- James Thurber
Almost immediately, one particular paragraph caught
my attention while reading. It was mentioned that PhACT (Philadelphia Association
for Critical Thinking), a group of paranormal skeptics, "...has about 120
members, most of whom are scientists, doctors and college professors......".
This little tidbit of information tries to add credibility to their organization.
Personally, I found such a statement unnecessary. In mid-article, this quote
left me wondering where their society was lacking. Lacking enough to compel
the president of PhACT, Bob Glickman, to reassure us how legitimate they
are by mentioning that they consist mostly of highly regarded individuals.
The remainder of the article may hold the key.
Another quote taken from the same paragraph was "Members are encouraged to do their own scientific research and publish papers debunking the supernatural." This specific sentence goes against everything that science stands for and prides itself on, a non-biased opinion. Even when conducting the simplest of experiments, science is careful not to sabotage itself with bias. For example, when selecting subjects for an experiment, science requires that it be done randomly, as to not jeopardize the outcome. Once, the results of a past experiment were deemed unreliable because the means of selection were not fortuitous enough for science scrutiny. For that particular study, the test subjects were selected from every tenth letter received in the mail. The fear was that such a means of selection was not random and may directly impact or bias the outcome of the results. Now, here is a group of individuals, with supposedly prominent positions in society, incorporating bias while investigating paranormal events and informing, or more accurately, misinforming, the public about their findings. How credible is this method?
In the next passage, the word that skeptics like to hide behind most when confronting the paranormal, "coincidence", is asserted. As a ghost hunter, I have experienced my share of events that could be interpreted as coincidence. But, how much coincidence must one endure before it is no longer labelled that? For example, and all ghost hunters can identify with this: We investigate a known haunted location. During the event, one or several of our various tools used for spirit detection indicates anomalous activity. Having ruled out the possibility of naturally occurring phenomena, a photograph is taken. Strangely, upon developing the film, that particular image is the only one on the entire roll of film to have captured spirit energy. Could this all be coincidence? Sure it can, but why do such things occur mostly at locations reported to have spirit activity? Why do spirits tend to photographically manifest while detections have been recorded? The more factors added to the equation (i.e. reported activity, detection at active location, energy photographed at active location while obtaining detection, this result mostly happens at locations known to have spirit activity), the less chance there is of coincidence. When is coincidence no longer coincidence?
The next interesting twist of this article is the wrench thrown into the gears of so called skeptic societies. Marcello Truzzi, a founding member of the world's oldest and most respected skeptic society, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), withdrew his allegiance "after growing disillusioned with the group's research methods." He avows that CSICOP has made the burden of proof of the paranormal "'outrageously'" high. He also contends that, should a paranormal event meet such high standards, they will either tighten the vice or label it a fluke in order to dismiss the results. Additionally, he suggests, "'They tend to block honest inquiry" and "'Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them.'" If this is the direction the entire spectrum of modern science has taken, I'm frightened!
In evaluating the next few paragraphs giving mention to the Philadelphia Ghost Hunters Alliance, did you ever get the impression that the reporter was a skeptic? And no, I did not say "......this proves the images are paranormal." What I did say is that, "along with the various readings of our equipment and careful photography, we suggest such images are paranormal." Additionally, I did not only say "the problem with science is that they need a control group. and you can't control ghosts." I also said "in order for science to properly conduct an experiment it must be able to repeatedly duplicate a scenario in order to study it. This cannot be achieved with ghostly activity. For now, all we can do is continue to mount evidence of the existence of spirits. Eventually, the proof will be too overwhelming to be ignored or dismissed."
Basically, the rest of the article refers to believers
in the paranormal as potentially dangerous, irrational, confused, non-critical
thinkers who do not use reflective intelligence. How is this for critical
thinking and rationality? I have always perceived skepticism as not readily
believing everything you see and hear while remaining open to the fact that
anything is possible. While trying to prove the possible, we have learned
to accept the seemingly impossible. This is the foundation on which our ghost
hunting organization, as well as others, stands. Societies of "Critical Thinkers"
have inaccurately labeled themselves as skeptics, at least by my definition.
Their non-agnostic and bias approach to explaining away strange phenomena
has become very lucid to me. They are solely out to disprove paranormal phenomena
by what ever means necessary. Simply, this approach is not of scholarly standard
and how dare they hide behind the cloak of science.
By no means are we perfect. We are continually learning about the spirit
realm. The major difference between us and critical thinkers is that we are
accepting all the possibilities and not dismissing any of them. Skepticism
is what has led us to researching the paranormal. We incorporate it into
every investigation because we want and have to. We gather our evidence and
present it to people for their own interpretation. Realistically, the only
way to determine for yourself is to become an active participant in ghost
hunting. Our own experiences have taught us that.
Lewis B. Gerew II, R.T.(R), A.A.S.
President & Cofounder
Philadelphia Ghost Hunters Alliance