Southwest Ghost Hunter's Association

[FaithlessThinker]

Here is the home page of the Southwest Ghost Hunter's Association. On their home page, they state:

Founded in 1985, the Southwest Ghost Hunter's Association is predominately a research organization. Our mission is not necessarily to prove that ghosts exist, but to investigate all possible explanations using the scientific method. As such, our organization is composed of both skeptics and believers.

This is what their research page says:

The use of scientific method is crucial in studying the phenomena known as ghosts. First a hypotheses must be formulated and then data and other information must be collected to support the hypotheses. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory.As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory. The articles and hypotheses on this page have either a direct or indirect influence upon our research. Our research efforts adhere to scientific method and operate on many different hypotheses and methods.

More links:
Procedures & Methods.
Hypotheses. (Check out their EMP theory. They discuss the possibility of survival beyond death.)
Investigations.

Now the question: Science or pseudoscience? Please state why.

 

[lrkun]

What is your assessment of the said association?

Do you think this is similar to self deception?

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I'd say pseudoscience. I haven't read everything they present, but I saw them stating a law of thermodynamics somewhere.

Oh that video is a worthy watch, I'm watching it a second time. Thanks. Yes it should be self-deception. And the 70% degraded picture explains a lot.

I mean I read one of their "investigations" in Texas and they're like whenever the ghost they're expecting comes into view, their photographic and video equipments shut down. Isn't that bizarre? I'd say yes, not because (according to them) the ghost is doing it, but because apparently their temperature instrument (or something like that) worked just fine.

 

[lrkun]

I'd say pseudoscience. I haven't read everything they present, but I saw them stating a law of thermodynamics somewhere.

Oh that video is a worthy watch, I'm watching it a second time. Thanks. Yes it should be self-deception. And the 70% degraded picture explains a lot.

I mean I read one of their "investigations" in Texas and they're like whenever the ghost they're expecting comes into view, their photographic and video equipments shut down. Isn't that bizarre? I'd say yes, not because (according to them) the ghost is doing it, but because apparently their temperature instrument (or something like that) worked just fine.

Well, it's okay to be skeptic with respect to this sort of thing. ^^

 

[DeusExNihilum]

The use of scientific method is crucial in studying the phenomena known as ghosts. First a hypotheses must be formulated and then data and other information must be collected to support the hypotheses.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds methodologically incorrect, or at least flawed.

usually, though not all the time (mathematics, i think, is where the exception is), observational/preliminary data is collected first. I'm fairly sure that it would be poor science to simply pluck a working hypothesis out of the air without even a semblance of a reason for doing so. In this case sightings, spooky things, anecdotes and creaking floorboards would be said data.

also, I'm pretty sure I could validate ANY hypothesis if I only collected data that supports it, the methodology is backwards. Conclusions are meant to be drawn after the evidence and detailed data is in; You don't draw a conclusion then go looking for the evidence.

This picture sums up what I mean

If their science was rigorous then they would simply collect ALL available data, whether it supported their hypothesis or not and what's more they would be actively trying to disprove their hypothesis. A hypothesis that can stand up to merciless attempts at invalidation is an hypothesis that deserves the title of "Valid".

These people are playing scientist, but are not being nearly rigorous enough considering they are (essentially) trying to validate a WHOLE new level of Science, a level which would fundamentally alter how we see the reality.

If you hear hoof-beats, think Horse before zebra and zebra before unicorn.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

@DeusExNihilum
I agree with most of what you say. Except your bit about hypotheses, conclusions and evidence. It seems that you are confused between hypothesis and conclusion. Hypothesis is a theory created by thinking mind(s), based on a preliminary or initial observation. This theory needs to be backed-up by evidence. It is true that in real science, we don't limit our search for evidence to that which only supports the hypothesis.

However, we use the hypothesis as a guide or pointer to look for evidence related to it. By related, the evidence is something useful for either proving or disproving the hypothesis. Once enough evidence is collected to confidently prove or disprove the hypothesis, a conclusion is drawn (which may lead to more hypotheses being formed).

Now the SGHA is wrong because they state that once they had formed their hypothesis, they search for evidence that supports it. This is not real science, as you have noted, because you are only collecting supporting evidence and are not attempting to falsify your hypothesis. And in the subject of ghosts and such, anything can become a "supporting evidence" whereas it could become quite hard to find falsifying evidence (but not impossible if you look hard enough, since ghosts don't exist anyway).

 

[DeathofSpeech]

...

Now the question: Science or pseudoscience? Please state why.

I've actually dealt with this bunch and a couple of others.
I wandered into a forum that sprung out of the Sci-Fi Channel and just couldn't keep my mouth shut.
They were carrying on that day about "shadow people," shadows of people allegedly appearing where no light source and no person could explain the shadow.
I suggested that if it was possible to record this event that the image could be extrapolated using 3D modeling and that it would be pretty easy to construct a 3D image of the rough size and shape of the physical object causing the shadow.

They were absolutely tickle to death. The idea of "capturing" a 3D image of a shadow person made them totally wet.

I explained that a 3D camera like commercial contractors use could map a building out very quickly and allow the building to be represented in a video, architectural records checked... say the house used to have gas lamps, It would be likely the pipes would still be in the walls and stubbed off, making it possible to isolate where potential "spectral" light sources might be.

I explained that even "light sources that were no longer there" could be accounted for... and they had a collective orgasm of delight.

I offered to set them up with equipment, and software... they went into a mad frenzy of ecstasy.

When I told them that they would also be able to eliminate sightings that could be attributed to unusual lighting conditions like a coat rack and a mirror in the hallway casting a shadow where no actual light source or person was evident...

I became an instant apostate. ROFL

I didn't have the heart to tell them that I was an apostate when I walked in.
These folks are interested in waving infrared thermometers around and gasping when they detect that a damp basement wall is cooler than the surroundings.
Half of them are a sort of fundy cult of gotta-believers and most of the rest are delusional to the point of creating evidence and then being genuinely amazed by it.

A small fraction of them are parasites who feed on the willing delusion. Contributions always happily accepted toward carrying on their "metaphysical research."

I suspect that this whole thing revolves around a deep-seated fear of their own mortality.
So long as they can believe in ghosts, then they have all the argument they need to believe they won't ever "really" die.

 

[DeusExNihilum]

@anon

I say that they have already drawn a conclusion, not because of their hypothesis, but because of their warped methodology, the way they present themselves and the various pages of information on their website. They may say that they are sceptical but I see about as much evidence for that as I do for the existence of ghosts I'm sorry, I should of made that clearer.

I've seen their pattern repeated almost every time I've come across a "Ghost Hunter" society or some such similar organisation; They claim scepticism but it's a shallow statement that seems to fulfil a PR issue rather than a pragmatic one.

For example

They say

Our mission is not necessarily to prove that ghosts exist, but to investigate all possible explanations using the scientific method.

But contradict it with

First a hypotheses must be formulated and then data and other information must be collected to support the hypotheses

And, IMO, it's in this same vein of Contradiction whereby they say that their organisation is composed of both believers and sceptics (I think it's composed of believers and believers who think they're scientists because they take EM readings)...but unfortunately their contradiction isn't so neatly laid out in a quote, it's in their behaviour, presentation and methodology.

I hope that somewhat long-winded explanation clears up where I've drawn the opinion that they've started with conclusions from If i'm still mistaken, I apologise.