The "Scientific Approach"
by Joe Wetterling
Many investigators describe themselves as taking a "scientific approach". This isn't quite accurate, if the investigator is implying that they follow the scientific method. Developing something that could be called a law or even a theory of the paranormal requires that we control the variables, so that we could demonstrate, for example, that a device registers no reading when a ghost is not in the room and does when one is introduced.
We cannot achieve this at present because paranormal phenomena cannot be recreated on demand. The task of any scientist is to use raw material - the basic facts of their field - and existing products (concepts, principles, etc.) to develop new products of greater complexity and sophistication. The ultimate goal, then, is to reach the top of the "knowledge hierarchy" and generate proven laws of their field.
In order to claim that we take a scientific approach to the paranormal, we must necessarily accept a more liberal view of "scientific approach". This typically involves the use of electronic equipment, such as EMF detectors and video recorders, though not necessarily. This approach to investigation uses some of the same practices as the scientific method. It should include:
- avoiding biases caused by presupposition, hysteria, and suggestion
- making recordings and/or observations to evaluate what is happening during an alleged paranormal event
- performing a cycle of theorizing and testing to eliminate normal causes for phenomena
This is, thankfully, not a surprising set of practices for many "scientific" investigators, though I suspect it is for some. I would not dare call this the scientific method - there are steps and goals that are lacking. For paranormal investigators, these aims are an important part of being both realistic about the current state of our field of study and yet still as formal and "scientific" as possible at present.
We shouldn't hold up the scientific method as the only way to prove something - this is it, or something doesn't really exist. There are things you can prove philosophically (and perhaps study scientifically) that cannot be proven by the scientific method. You cannot prove that your mother or father love you. You cannot prove that someone is beautiful or ugly. You cannot prove that your life has any meaning. These are things we all experience, even though we cannot study them by the scientific method.
These things are often proved philosophically or, less formally, proved anecdotally - through experiencing them. (Many times I have heard the expression "they won't believe until they have personal experiences".) Things that cannot be proven by quantitative ("hard") data and the scientific method can still be proven. Qualitative, narrative data can be collected and studied. Experiences and reports can be verified and "triangulated" - compared for similarities and differences - all with the critical eye and in the spirit of objective, scientific inquiry.