Questions Skeptics Need to Answer
I have a lot of criticism for skeptics and for the most part I think it is warranted. If you are a skeptic by any definition, but I am especially interested in responses for scientific skeptics, I have some important questions for you:
1. Using the scientific method tell me how I can definitively prove the existence of ghosts?
2. If a correlation exists, what methodology could prove this correlation between ghosts and EMF meters or EVPs?
3. If every rational (science-based) explanation is proven to be incapable of demonstrating all of the characteristics of a given phenomenon, where does that leave us?
I believe these questions illustrate the fundamental bias of scientific skepticism. I believe it is in fact impossible to prove the existence of ghosts even if they were 100% real. The scientific method simply does not allow us to give any validity to a claim that cannot be proven in a strictly controlled environment. Even if we were to disprove all alternates it would still not allow the possibility of an explanation that something unknown is occurring. If the method itself if incapable of proving the existence of anything a few steps beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, how is this an effective way to judge claims of the paranormal?
I am genuinely interested to hear some responses and if there are any good articles out there on these topics please share them!
Here are my answers from the objective investigator:
1. It is impossible. The scientific method require controlled conditions and other variables to be known. It also requires an established way to measure the phenomena. There are no proven ghost detectors.
2. To validate a correlation it would require extensive testing of the equipment in a variety of scenarios. This testing should be conducted by many independent groups and involve experts in the field. Testing should be done to determine all possible causes of “unknown” readings. This is to learn what influencers could cause a false positive. From this work a set of guidelines would have to be established governing the use of these devices for the detection of anomalous phenomena.
3. If no rational hypothesis can account for all characteristics of a given paranormal phenomenon, the possibility that an unknown cause is at the root of the phenomenon becomes more likely. Other hypotheses should be re-evaluated to ensure there are no other possibilities that may have been overlooked.