People confuse the use of technology with doing science. This is often the case on "ghosthunter" type shows. The use of infrared, EVPs, etc. may be useful in collecting evidence of one's experiences, but the use of technology is NOT science in itself.
Science is a process, a methodology. Technology, no matter how good, is simply a tool. It may be used in scientific inquiry, it may be created or improved through science. But technology is not science.
Science requires the construction of falsifiable hypotheses, preferably multiple working hypotheses. Nothing can be proved in science, only disproved. This is why the only thing that really approaches real science in most paranormal research is debunking.
I have not yet seen any paranormal groups in my own experience do real science. Sure, a lot of investment in technology, but not real scientific methodology using that technology (repeatable, falsifiable hypotheses).
Science is the best tool for empirical and material existence. It is not meant for the immaterial. I think in paranormal research, science is excellent for debunking, however it will never be able to prove the existence of life after death, unless that life after death is empirical and material.
I respect people's personal abilities in sensing such things. Spiritual people in all times, places and cultures have experiences that cannot be explained, yet can see deeper into the nature of existence. Science isn't always/necessarily the final word on ALL "truth" but it is the most useful tool in understanding the material world. As spirits may not be material, science may have limited applicability.
That being said, if it is a genuine investigation, and the desire is to approach it scientifically, then the scientific method should be used. However, if you are just trying to "see what turns up" or have an experience, then I don't pretend to be scientific :-)
I think that "proof" is in the eyes of the seeker. Some are satisfied with things, while others may not be. I agree, it is ultimately in the hands of the Creator.
I would like to see more open discussion about the place and value of science in investigations. As it is, there are often two "camps": those investigators who use technology and believe that use of technology is by definition a scientific approach, and dogmatic materialists who ridicule all things paranormal. I don't find either approach very useful, just IMHO.
I do think approaches might be best fitted depending on the objectives of the case. Is it a case of looking for evidence at a haunted location and that's all that is aimed for? Or is there a request to "make it stop"? Or are people just fishing, looking for new locations to check out?
Science is a process, a methodology. Technology, no matter how good, is simply a tool. It may be used in scientific inquiry, it may be created or improved through science. But technology is not science.
Science requires the construction of falsifiable hypotheses, preferably multiple working hypotheses. Nothing can be proved in science, only disproved. This is why the only thing that really approaches real science in most paranormal research is debunking.
I have not yet seen any paranormal groups in my own experience do real science. Sure, a lot of investment in technology, but not real scientific methodology using that technology (repeatable, falsifiable hypotheses).
Science is the best tool for empirical and material existence. It is not meant for the immaterial. I think in paranormal research, science is excellent for debunking, however it will never be able to prove the existence of life after death, unless that life after death is empirical and material.
I respect people's personal abilities in sensing such things. Spiritual people in all times, places and cultures have experiences that cannot be explained, yet can see deeper into the nature of existence. Science isn't always/necessarily the final word on ALL "truth" but it is the most useful tool in understanding the material world. As spirits may not be material, science may have limited applicability.
That being said, if it is a genuine investigation, and the desire is to approach it scientifically, then the scientific method should be used. However, if you are just trying to "see what turns up" or have an experience, then I don't pretend to be scientific :-)
I think that "proof" is in the eyes of the seeker. Some are satisfied with things, while others may not be. I agree, it is ultimately in the hands of the Creator.
I would like to see more open discussion about the place and value of science in investigations. As it is, there are often two "camps": those investigators who use technology and believe that use of technology is by definition a scientific approach, and dogmatic materialists who ridicule all things paranormal. I don't find either approach very useful, just IMHO.
I do think approaches might be best fitted depending on the objectives of the case. Is it a case of looking for evidence at a haunted location and that's all that is aimed for? Or is there a request to "make it stop"? Or are people just fishing, looking for new locations to check out?
0 comments:
Post a Comment