Assumptions in paranormal research
I noticed that the majority of paranormal research, especially as it is portrayed on television, follows an assumption based investigation model. Any fourth grader can tell you what happens when you assume...
Here are a few (overly simplified) assumptions:
- Spikes EMF readings detect ghostly activity.
- Drops in temperature readings detect ghostly activity.
- Mediums can contact ghosts.
- Ghosts are (or were) people too.
- We call out in EVP sessions because ghosts can hear us.
- Ghostly voices can be captured on modern recording equipment.
- Baseline readings measure what is normal without “activity”.
- We love full spectrum photography because activity in the IR and UV ranges is paranormal as opposed to normal.
- Battery drain….
Many take “ass-outta-you-and-me” things a step further:
Knocks on the wall that have no physical explanation must be caused by a ghost—even when no one saw the ghost knock on the wall (assumption 1). That wall-knocking ghost is a dead person (assumption 2). A former owner of the home died in the home. Therefore, that dead person is the former owner of the home (assumption 3). That former owner was murdered in the room in which the knocking takes place and is therefore the cause of the knocking (assumption 4).
Really?
Really?
OK so I have exaggerated a little. I just ask you pay attention to the next television show that you watch or the next investigation that you conduct.
Did you assume? Bet you did. Did you acknowledge the assumption before formulating a conclusion? Bet you didn’t. I know am guilty of it. Is it any wonder paranormal research has made little headway over the years while using the assumption based model.
Guess that makes us figuratively Blond(e) on IR©.
What I need to do right now (and I would love if you do the same) is take a step back and test as many assumptions that means will allow.
I will start with origins of Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVPs). If we can isolate how EVPs are created, we may be able to trace it back to its source.
And yes, I am a blonde.
Blond(e) on IR©, Blond(e) in IR©, Blond on IR©, Blond in IR©, Blonde on IR©, Blonde in IR©
