• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Amateur Paranormal Investigators: Role; Motive; Ability; Value

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
33,608
(This discussion has been spun off from the Loch Ness Monster thread, where it originated in response to the 2019 "Storm Loch Ness" campaign.)

This sounds like a joke. WTF would this "hunt" accomplish? Even dumber stuff than invading Area 51 which is super dumb but at least you aren't underwater where you can't see a meter in front of you. I guess what the most annoying aspect is that (formerly) legit news media cover this stuff now. A monkey could do just as well. Journalism sucks.

No offence but you don't 'do' dreamers do you .. to be fair though, that's a healthy thing for dreamers to pay attention and listen to you to stop, to anchor or at least slow them down occasionally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No offence but you don't 'do' dreamers do you .. to be fair though, that's a healthy thing for dreamers to pay attention and listen to you to stop, to anchor or at least slow them down occasionally.
I would not consider these people "dreamers". I'm not sure how this proposed event could be spun positively but you can look at a number of ways. Since it JUST came up as a CNN news alert on my phone 10 minutes ago, I see it mainly as the absurdity of the media to attend to frivolous news. I mean, there is plenty of interesting and feel-good news stories that could be done but this gives unhealthily irrational people the wrong ideas.
 
I would not consider these people "dreamers". I'm not sure how this proposed event could be spun positively but you can look at a number of ways. Since it JUST came up as a CNN news alert on my phone 10 minutes ago, I see it mainly as the absurdity of the media to attend to frivolous news. I mean, there is plenty of interesting and feel-good news stories that could be done but this gives unhealthily irrational people the wrong ideas.
I consider myself a dreamer in that it would be a dream come true if we could all one day discover the The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens etc were proven scientifically to exist ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
I consider myself a dreamer in that it would be a dream come true if we could all one day discover the The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens etc were proven scientifically to exist ..
I interpreted "dreamer" as one who spends too much time on lost causes. I don't think that's the case here -- people are trying to be adventurous or funny or just role-playing to get through their otherwise dull life. But, you're right, I'm a pragmatist via nature and nurture.
 
....... people are trying to be adventurous or funny or just role-playing to get through their otherwise dull life ....
I can definitely recognise those qualities can be a factor for some people going out to investigate the paranormal (as in actually get in car and going somewhere) .. I relate to the adventure part, I mainly do my invests for enjoyment. I've already firmly decided that ghostly activity isn't all just wishful thinking so anything extra is a bonus for me at least. I can't speak for other people but my day to day life isn't dull so I don't do it for those reasons. I'm going to settle for the adventure reasons personally. Joking around as tension or boredom breaker comes naturally .. because we're standing round in remote places and trying to remain silent .. weirdly, when you all forget why you're there for a moment and start dicking around? .. for some reason that's when we find 'stuff' starts happening.

I haven't settled on a reason yet for that, wishful thinking would be that 'ghosts' draw from that kind of group energy or that perhaps they just don't like being ignored. Or it's all just a string of coincidences.
 
I interpreted "dreamer" as one who spends too much time on lost causes. I don't think that's the case here -- people are trying to be adventurous or funny or just role-playing to get through their otherwise dull life. But, you're right, I'm a pragmatist via nature and nurture.

I think there's a certain dichotomy inherent in many participants to this forum, Sharon.
Speaking for myself, I can still occasionally don my anti-Ockham's Razor hat, when I would love to see imagination and wonder triumph over the tyranny of the mundane.
As each potential Fortean case is systematically debunked though, I inevitably feel obliged to embrace cold, hard reality and even to scoff at those who still believe in the "Cumberland Spaceman" or that the star of the PG film is anything other than a man in an ape suit.
 
Last edited:
I can definitely recognise those qualities can be a factor for some people going out to investigate the paranormal (as in actually get in car and going somewhere)

I don't think this applies to the majority, but there are many ghost, UFO, and cryptid investigators who relish being treated as an "authority" with little effort on their part on very complex topics that the media and most other people misunderstand. I talk about this in my book - it takes no college degree or even special training to declare oneself a ghost hunter, ufologist or cryptozoologist. It is understandable that many of the people I saw, particularly doing ghost hunting, were underemployed, unemployed or stay-at-home parents. They needed other meaningful work which is an important part of the human condition.
 
I don't think this applies to the majority, but there are many ghost, UFO, and cryptid investigators who relish being treated as an "authority" with little effort on their part on very complex topics that the media and most other people misunderstand. I talk about this in my book - it takes no college degree or even special training to declare oneself a ghost hunter, ufologist or cryptozoologist. It is understandable that many of the people I saw, particularly doing ghost hunting, were underemployed, unemployed or stay-at-home parents. They needed other meaningful work which is an important part of the human condition.

You make a very valid point. Particularly when the expert can use an impressive title like "cryptozoologist" without being challenged. Their task is so much easier in this era of Google, copy, paste or paraphrase journalism.

However, I'm not sure many stay at home parents would agree that being quite interested in ghosts or flying saucers is more meaningful than bringing up children.
 
You make a very valid point. Particularly when the expert can use an impressive title like "cryptozoologist" without being challenged. Their task is so much easier in this era of Google, copy, paste or paraphrase journalism.

However, I'm not sure many stay at home parents would agree that being quite interested in ghosts or flying saucers is more meaningful than bringing up children.
Speaking for myself, it was awful to lose intellectual stimulation and adult interaction when staying home with infants and toddlers.
 
Speaking for myself, it was awful to lose intellectual stimulation and adult interaction when staying home with infants and toddlers.

I'm sure that's the case. My wife says the same. However, I was making a different point. I hope you believe that bringing up the kids as well as you are able, and seeing each stage of their development, is about as meaningful as life can get, even though it may sometimes be lonely, repetitive, frustrating and even boring.
 
.. It is understandable that many of the people I saw, particularly doing ghost hunting, were underemployed, unemployed or stay-at-home parents. They needed other meaningful work which is an important part of the human condition.
To be honest, you've just pretty accurately described our group Sharon. I think I work the most hours out of all of us so I can't always go on invests. I've been asked to work late tonight at the last minute so I've had to bail on a pub meeting tonight for one example.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a certain dichotomy inherent in many participants to this forum, Sharon.
Speaking for myself, I can still occasionally don my anti-Ockham's Razor hat, when I would love to see imagination and wonder triumph over the tyranny of the mundane.
As each potential Fortean case is systematically debunked though, I inevitably feel obliged to embrace cold, hard reality and even to scoff at those who still believe in the "Cumberland Spaceman" or that the star of the PG film is anything other than a man in an ape suit.
Of course the perception of "cold hard reality" varies from person to person, as we see sometimes on this forum. Myself, I'm interested in differing views as to what constitutes "reality" for some people and is there really anything too terrible about believing in the Cumberland Spaceman or the PG film? I would suggest not, unless of course there is so much reality distortion that beliefs become potentially dangerous (as we saw in the case of one individual now banned twice from these illustrious pages).
 
I'm sure that's the case. My wife says the same. However, I was making a different point. I hope you believe that bringing up the kids as well as you are able, and seeing each stage of their development, is about as meaningful as life can get, even though it may sometimes be lonely, repetitive, frustrating and even boring.
She did say "other" meaningful work. Both are meaningful.
 
I don't think this applies to the majority, but there are many ghost, UFO, and cryptid investigators who relish being treated as an "authority" with little effort on their part on very complex topics that the media and most other people misunderstand. I talk about this in my book - it takes no college degree or even special training to declare oneself a ghost hunter, ufologist or cryptozoologist. It is understandable that many of the people I saw, particularly doing ghost hunting, were underemployed, unemployed or stay-at-home parents. They needed other meaningful work which is an important part of the human condition.

Yet dogs have played on sandy beaches and have uncovered important historical treasures without any intent to do so. It’s fair to say we never know where crucial evidence could turn up up from.
To point out that there’s a certain socio-economic group here researching stuff smacks of and reinforces a sneering attitude, especially as there’s a reluctance from proper science to have a go. Why shouldn’t ordinary people have a go?
While I could use an argument that argues that in the whole history of film and millions of miles of footage shot, there’s no real evidence of spooky shit happening, it doesn’t mean that some amateur, whether they’re unemployed or not, may come up with something worthy of analysis and investigation one day.
 
Yet dogs have played on sandy beaches and have uncovered important historical treasures without any intent to do so. It’s fair to say we never know where crucial evidence could turn up up from.
To point out that there’s a certain socio-economic group here researching stuff smacks of and reinforces a sneering attitude, especially as there’s a reluctance from proper science to have a go. Why shouldn’t ordinary people have a go?
While I could use an argument that argues that in the whole history of film and millions of miles of footage shot, there’s no real evidence of spooky shit happening, it doesn’t mean that some amateur, whether they’re unemployed or not, may come up with something worthy of analysis and investigation one day.
I don't wish to stay on the tangent - although many Nessie proponents and most people searching for cryptids are not professional zoologists or have any biology training - but the fact that most paranormal investigators are self-taught is an important feature of these communities. The fact they often portray themselves as doing "science" is where my interest lies. I have no qualms with people and their hobbies, whatever floats your boat is your business. But when they present their evidence in an authoritative way, and make a conclusion in public, or call their work "scientific", I have a problem with that. There is some data to support the socio-economic claim re: ghost hunters. You can also make your own observations on it and see that it is inevitably not a community of parapsychologists or physicists. https://sharonahill.com/scientifical-americans/
 
I consider myself a dreamer in that it would be a dream come true if we could all one day discover the The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens etc were proven scientifically to exist ..

I interpreted "dreamer" as one who spends too much time on lost causes. I don't think that's the case here -- people are trying to be adventurous or funny or just role-playing to get through their otherwise dull life. But, you're right, I'm a pragmatist via nature and nurture.

I can definitely recognise those qualities can be a factor for some people going out to investigate the paranormal (as in actually get in car and going somewhere) .. I relate to the adventure part, I mainly do my invests for enjoyment.

I spun this line of discussion off into a separate thread because it touches on the very foundations of paranormal / Fortean interests and pursuits.

It strikes me that three key themes reflected in the quoted passages above merit highlighting and comment:

- Interest in those things that are "extraordinary" / "paranormal" (outside or beyond the "ordinary" / "normal",
- The unavoidable intersection between the paranormal and everyday life / experience, and
- The problems in studying or investigating phenomena mainstream science dismisses and ignores.

Essentially by definition, the Fortean / paranormal realm concerns those phenomena or experiences that don't fit the "normal" mold. They involve things distinct from, or even contrary to, whatever we take as "normal". In another sense of "normal", these things lie outside the purview, the grasp, the methods, and / or the agenda of "normal" science.

In contrast to cutting-edge issues and discoveries in the "normal" sciences, paranormal / Fortean evidence isn't limited to neat results from formally designed experiments. It presents itself from out of the blue - to anybody, anywhere, and at any time. The people who experience it and those who study it only rarely come from the ranks of "scientific" observers or researchers. It's essentially laypersons' phenomena described in laypersons' terms, and mainstream science leaves it to laypersons to explore.

Paranormal evidence is by definition anomalous, and it's most often transient (non-invocable / non-reproducible on demand), ill-defined, and / or subjective. It's almost never amenable to trial by experimentation. The most one can do is describe and suggestively interpret rather than explain or demonstrably prove. It strikes me that the role of a paranormal investigator is more akin to that of the natural historian or "gentleman naturalist" of yore than what we currently think of as a scientist.

It's therefore not surprising that the paranormal / Fortean realm is populated with a diverse mix of (e.g.) serious scholars, mad scientist wannabes, hobbyists, dabblers, and casual browsers.

By the same token, it shouldn't be a big surprise that any such field that attracts masses and offers little means for sorting wheat from chaff would also attract (e.g.) profiteers, snake-oil marketers, charlatans, and drive-by pranksters.
 
...The fact they often portray themselves as doing "science" is where my interest lies. I have no qualms with people and their hobbies, whatever floats your boat is your business. But when they present their evidence in an authoritative way, and make a conclusion in public, or call their work "scientific", I have a problem with that. There is some data to support the socio-economic claim re: ghost hunters. You can also make your own observations on it and see that it is inevitably not a community of parapsychologists or physicists.

I totally agree with this and for this reason alone I stopped all my interaction with a Paranormal Investigation group. The group was made up entirely of people with low educational merits and all were suffering from physical and/or psychological health problems. They had all experienced things they couldn't explain and sought to find answers. Unfortunately, they were all strangers to scientific method and lacked even basic understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. Any attempts I made to qualify, replicate or even correctly observe were dashed because they simply lacked the methodology or intellect to go through with it. I couldn't stand for anything they produced as "evidence" as it was so tainted and twisted.

I know this sounds like I'm being snobbish but I'm not. I think anyone who wants to chase spooks and bigfoots should go for it and have a great time doing so. I know I had a great time. However, as soon as somebody starts saying that an angel/demon made them shiver (rather than acknowledging that they may have had a dip in blood sugar at 3.00am in the morning) then I have to question whether the group will ever gather any "evidence". Waving an EMF meter around without even knowing what it's for doesn't help anybody.
 
I think where this discussion started was with the "storm Loch Ness" thing, which followed on from the "Storm Area 51" thing and is likely to be followed by Storm Bigfoot, or Storm Borley Rectory.

The problem with such crazes is that they may bring in people with no background knowledge or interest in the subject, and then attract reportage which (further) discredits a field which is already vulnerable to mockery.

The ordinary general public make little or no distinction between the person with an abiding interest in, and deep knowledge of, a Fortean subject, and the people who will excitedly report every photograph of a bow wave, drifting log, or diving cormorant, as the Loch Ness Monster.

If the newspaper prints a blurry picture of a stick, most of the readers assume it's a stick, and then move on to assuming that all photographs of the LNM are sticks — and that all people interested in the LNM are gullible idiots.

This is not intended to be an elitist attitude on my part, not least because I am not in any sort of elite. However, it is a genuine worry that a sudden influx of people in response to a craze can leave a scene damaged "when the tide goes out". I've seen it happen in connection with other interests that I have.

Everyone should be entitled to follow their interests and hobbies as they wish. It is not for me to say that one way is inherently better or worse than another.

For each individual concerned, getting excited about Area 51, or the LNM, or Bigfoot, or ghosts, for a week or two is harmless fun. However, when it's thousands and the media get involved, it may not be completely harmless.

The people who contribute this forum have sufficient interest in Forteana to have made the effort to find the forum, join, and participate. We are a minority.

However, even within this small community, we have a range of views and approaches. There are those who read the popular literature on their chosen subject; those who actively research reports; those who actively conduct investigations and field trips; and those who just have a general interest, like myself.

There are also those who are determined to prove that something (LNM, Bigfoot) exists in a certain form; those who wish to explain the phenomena but have no preconceptions about what that explanation may be; those who seem determined to debunk every report; and those who are perhaps "dreamers" in the sense that they do not dig too deeply, but they would quite like to discover that LNM/Bigfoot/aliens exist.

How many of these people are scientific? That all depends on how we define "scientific". As these subjects fall outside of scientific orthodoxy, they may never be 'scientific" in the sense of achieving publication in peer reviewed journals. However, that is only one definition of scientific.

I am sure there are many who are systematic, rigorous, and honest, who keep detailed and accurate notes, try to verify and validate their sources, and genuinely try to keep their own preconceptions out of the equation when considering the evidence. That's surely scientific enough for our purposes.
 
I don't wish to stay on the tangent - although many Nessie proponents and most people searching for cryptids are not professional zoologists or have any biology training - but the fact that most paranormal investigators are self-taught is an important feature of these communities. The fact they often portray themselves as doing "science" is where my interest lies. I have no qualms with people and their hobbies, whatever floats your boat is your business. But when they present their evidence in an authoritative way, and make a conclusion in public, or call their work "scientific", I have a problem with that. There is some data to support the socio-economic claim re: ghost hunters. You can also make your own observations on it and see that it is inevitably not a community of parapsychologists or physicists. https://sharonahill.com/scientifical-americans/

Just a quick distinction.

Experts are people who have participated in their field of interest over many, many hours. Nick Redfern, for example, is an expert in the paranormal. He is written scores of books and during interviews and talks is able to draw parallels between cases and can recount thousands of pieces of information. Like him or not he is an authority on his many subjects.

He isn't as far as I'm aware formally trained in Cognitive Neuroscience, which would be the closet scientific approach to the paranormal, (I sort of discount Parapsychology), I don't think that lessens him or what he has to say or should exclude him from voicing his opinion.

As long as he doesn't go around stating his conclusions were gained through scientific discipline then what he says is still worthwhile.

Put it more simply Quint wasn't a Marine Biologist but he sure as hell knew a lot about sharks.
 
He isn't as far as I'm aware formally trained in Cognitive Neuroscience, which would be the closet scientific approach to the paranormal, (I sort of discount Parapsychology), I don't think that lessens him or what he has to say or should exclude him from voicing his opinion.
Why do you discount Parapsychology?
 
Put it more simply Quint wasn't a Marine Biologist but he sure as hell knew a lot about sharks.

He also needed a bigger boat.

I agree with your point as regards Nick Redfern being a knowledge bank but an expert in case cross-referencing is not the same as active scientific research. I'm not banging on about scientific method as the only valid approach as I've been on countless investigations and I'm not an expert/scientist. I was part of the problem although I always knew that something was wrong with the whole thing. Unless any of this can be measured or recorded under stricter conditions then it will always be just hearsay and fringe science. And until investigators approach this with a more serious attitude then it will always generate worthless data. We need investigators from different scientific fields to band together.

For example, how many investigations take place in the evening when everyone is fatigued after a long day? Or all night long? I know all of ours did, usually from about 18.00 - 05.00. How many investigators are hopped upp on caffeine or energy drinks? How many people know exactly how their brain waves change when they are sleep deprived and how to recognise the signs of this happening? How this can affect their eye sight, hearing or sense of smell? How many people on investigations know about thermal dynamics? How humidity effects wood from the 17th century? How many people can recognise the smells of different types of creosote/paint/leather heating up or cooling down? Or know about how boilers work and sound in concrete/wood buildings? Or how different outdoor flowers/bushes/shrubs smell at different times of the year? How ventilation works? How infrasound is actually generated? Resonant frequencies? etc etc

In order to really investigate a paranormal claim then we would need a team of experts in many different fields - not just a bunch of people who have watched Most Haunted and Ghost Adventures.
 
He also needed a bigger boat.

I agree with your point as regards Nick Redfern being a knowledge bank but an expert in case cross-referencing is not the same as active scientific research.

Exactly. Redfern doesn't do much on obtaining original knowledge, he ties a lot together. He's a good paranormal folklore collector. I like his stuff but it's usually just another means of examining an old topic. It's not scholarly.
 
How many of these people are scientific? That all depends on how we define "scientific". As these subjects fall outside of scientific orthodoxy, they may never be 'scientific" in the sense of achieving publication in peer reviewed journals. However, that is only one definition of scientific.

About half claim they are "scientific" (Hill. 2017. Scientifical Americans. McFarland & Co) but their idea of scientific means being "systematic", using equipment, speaking in specialized jargon, being serious, doing investigations, and claiming expertise in the area. No matter how you slice that, it's pretending to do science; it's not science. Science is a body of reliable knowledge, a method to obtain that knowledge, and the community of people who do it. The key is reliable knowledge - it's tested. Peer review is a critical part of that process.

Science has a strict process in order to generate that knowledge, which takes a ridiculously long time. Consider the following:
  • Paranormal investigators have no working definition of a "ghost". Hypotheses are all over the place.
  • There is no organization, and therefore no standards of investigation, no established methods of research that everyone uses. They use dubious gadgets and rely heavily on subjective evidence like feelings and EVP, often with no controls - fundamentally unsound practices. Therefore, no cohesive process to obtain reliable knowledge. Following on that, there is no formal error correction, no peer review, no records (no journals - not counting the parapsychology journals because those are mostly academics who publish there, not the majority of active paranormal investigators). They often do not share data.
  • Ghost hunters frequently employ special pleading - skeptic negative energy inhibits activity, only psychics can see/hear ghosts.
I used Merton's (1942) ideals of scientific ethos in my analysis of amateur paranormal groups because there isn't one "scientific method" - it's more complicated than that but the norms were suitable: communalism/communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and skepticism (and originality he added later). I won't get into specifics, but the amateur paranormal investigators fail every one handily. Most all of them have an agenda to prove the paranormal exists which scuttles the credibility of any investigation - they are biased. Scientific processes are designed to reduce bias. That fundamental concept is entirely missed by amateurs because they have no scientific training. Even many people with science degrees never learned proper research methods and the core philosophy of science. How in the world could amateurs know it - they get their ideas about science and scientists from the media who also fail miserably in their portrayal.

Amateur paranormalists are effective at sounding sciencey. The jargon, actions, use of stereotypes, etc. effectively fool a non-scientific public into believing they are authorities in paranormal topics. The same sham works for selling beauty products, for alternative health practitioners, cancer quacks, and quantum-babbling gurus. It's generally a product of poor science education.
 
I'll qualify the above post with the observation that some groups are turning to academic advisors who help them set up better investigation techniques. This is more the citizen science approach which I think is a great one. The groups are shown how to properly collect data on anomalies. There is that extra set of critical eyes. But the groups must be open to change. Since many are getting a reward for playing pretend scientists in their community or the media, they likely won't change. Science is hard; that's why most people don't do it.
 
The thing is, there's no money in it so how are you ever going to get serious scientific types to investigate something so nebulous? By it's very nature it's only 'amateurs' who have the time/inclination but lack scientific methodology who are going to do it.

Very few are likely to approach things in a way satisfactory to you.
 
How do ghosts suck up energy from humans anyway? And what energy, specifically, are they sucking up? It doesn’t look like calories judging by some of the mediums you see.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top