According
to a leading academic expert in paranormal research, the age of ghost hunting
is drawing to a close. Dr Caroline Watt works as a paranormal investigator at
the Arthur Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh University. She has
recently done an interview with New
Scientist in which she predicts that academic parapsychology will simply be
absorbed into existing psychology and neuroscience; perhaps something like Prof.
Chris French’s “anomalistic psychology”, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rob-brotherton-and-psychology-of.html.
She says that all spooky experiences, from ghosts to precognitive dreams to
ESP, will soon all be explicable within the parameters of conventional science.
She states that none of her team have ever found any evidence for any of the
subjects they have investigated and perhaps it’s now time to call it a day. I have
not read Dr Watt’s original interview, but this is a commentary of it, see: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/science-ghost-hunting-parapsychology-will-eventually-disappear-1498709.
If it is an accurate commentary, it strikes me as intellectually lazy on her
part. Dr Watt is not really saying anything original; this premise has been the
basis of Skeptic anti-supernatural science
for decades. It’s the same line Prof. Richard Wiseman lays out in his book Paranormality, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/paranormality-by-prof-richard-wiseman.html. It’s also
very simplistic. It’s “all in your head!” Her studies of supposedly haunted
places like Hampton Court and the Edinburgh Vaults have revealed that these locations
create strange experiences due to non-supernatural factors; she said: “We built a map of the ghostly hotspots and
then we took physical measurements, such as the light level, draughts, temperature,
humidity and so on; and tried to find if there were any physical factors that
might be leading people to have strange experiences. We found that aspects of
the physical environment were associated with people's spooky experiences.”
I’m guessing she also means things like magnetic fields, infrasonic vibrations
and other phenomena that can effect brain function. However this doesn’t
explain the recent BBC programme filmed in the Edinburgh Vaults that picked up distinct
electronic voice phenomena- EVP, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExS6GBgCfX8. As regular
HPANWO-readers will know, I take a healthy interest in all things that go bump
in the night, see background links below, and I have to question why it is that
institutions like the Koestler Unit are not achieving the same results that
their non-academic counterparts are. Amateur ghost-hunters and media
personalities involved in psychical research do the same studies, sometimes
very professionally and scientifically, and gather a massive amount of positive
data. In the background links below is a HPANWO Radio interview with Don
Philips and Steve Mera who are producing a new mainstream TV show about a
proper scientific investigation into spectral phenomena. One of the two sides
has made a big mistake. The conventional gut reaction is to assume that it’s
not the academic experts who have erred; after all, they are the ones who sit
in the seat of knowledge, whose job it is to know as much as possible about the
subject, isn’t it? I would say no. I’ve discovered that there are distinct cultural
and political reasons why a university institution might deny a reality of this
kind even if it is very obviously true, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/helen-duncan-wartime-psychic-jailed.html
and: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/proof-of-life-after-death.html.
This would mean that being institutionalized at a university or laboratory acts
as a burden, not an empowerment. Therefore independent investigators are
essentially operating in a state of comparative liberation. It’s unfair and
arrogant to dismiss non-academic researchers, as some have tried to do, because
they don’t have an academic qualification in the subject, after all nobody ever
questions James Randi’s lack of formal education; this is because he delivers
the culturally and politically correct message. These highbrow scholarly types
also seem to have a vested interest in keeping their opponents quiet, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/down-with-skeptocracy.html.
I have no problem with people like Dr Watt saying whatever she likes; I even
read books by people like her and attend Skeptic events and conferences. Therefore
I suspect that, based on its commentary post above, the New Scientist interview in question gives a misleading and confusing
view of the subject of ghosts, ESP and precognitive dreams etc. I recommend that
everybody who reads it also goes off and investigates more diverse sources. There
they will see a very different story.
See here for background: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/programme-135-podcast-don-philips-and.html.
3 comments:
Dear Ben. I like this post and like you I also have an interest in all things para-normal.
There is no-thing 'para-normal' or mystical here FUNDAMENTALLY, nor are we re-defining terms because theory of 'normality' as basis is extricated. If - like the retiring-skeptics say that 'all these things are in the mind' then how can they explicate confidently the so called normal world which is a product of this very same mind? One can never see the full potential or brevity of mind in the objective environment, even if we hypothetically could it would only be mind reflected in the objective sphere via consciousness which is ambivilant. there is however an intuitive portal that science techniques such as evp are beginning to identify.
The layers of the paranormal world are there as much as our so called 'normal' world. What is 'Para-Normal' insinuates that what we experience is 100% normal, how wrong we have been proven to be over the centuries Ben!.
I hope Don and Steves evidence will start opening some eyes Ben. Cheers
Thanks, X. Glad you found this one interesting. I suppose the word "paranormal" is not a good one. There was a time when thunder and lightening were paranormal because we didn't know about electric discharges. It's a word for things we don't yet understand. Interesting thought there, X. Cheers
Post a Comment