The last section was really heavy.
It served its purpose though. It demonstrated the history of science, where it originated, the reason for its existence, its importance to civilization, and its open-correcting nature.
Likewise the NEXT section will also be sort of heavy, with a (lighter) history of the paranormal.
In between, let's look at some of the silly ways that people misunderstand science (as it relates to the paranormal).
(By "silly" we mean like when a group goes exploring and gets freaked out, only to find out that it was nothing, and everyone laughs about it. It's funny because you were all freaked out over nothing, and probably shouldn't have jumped to a paranormal conclusion anyway.)
Note: While skeptics attribute all paranormal reports to these type of answers, APP is open to evidence that these things have been ruled out and an issue still exists. APP and its associated skeptics won't make fun of experiencers, though we may ask if these things can be ruled out.
What Science Says
The article below sums up that science's official standpoint is: It's all power of suggestion. (We're imagining it all.) All snark aside, the article is actually a well-written piece that offers quality insights from another of our favorite Skeptics, Mr. Benjamin Radford.
Ghost 'sightings,' as explained by science. Beth Greenfield. Yahoo Entertainment Senior Editor. October 28, 2019.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/ghost-sightings-as-explained-by-science-131550406.html
Our Favorite Answers:
Commonly Mistaken for Paranormal
1. Seeing a Face Where There Isn't One
This is a common excuse given by skeptics, for people seeing faces where none really exist (like in clouds). The technical name is "pareidolia." Most of the time when we see a cloud that looks like an elephant or something, we know it's not actually an elephant (or something). When people can't tell the difference is when things get interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
One of our favorite science gurus, Bob Novella, wrote a good piece on this and the technical reasons why we can't believe what we THINK our eyes see. It's a short but good read, very informative; includes sources.
Believing Is Seeing. Robert Novella. New England Skeptical Society. January 2011.
https://theness.com/index.php/believing-is-seeing/
There's actually a whole list of (innocent) psychological missteps that can lead to misunderstanding natural phenomena as paranormal. NESS and The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe does a really good job exploring these aspects to the listener/reader. Our section on psychological explanations has details.
Debunking / Self-Debunking / Psychological Explanations - OUR ANSWER
2. Common Hallucinations
Did you know that bad air can cause hallucinations? That's #1 in our debunking section. Carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and a few other things that don't cause hallucinations, are easy to detect if you invest in a few inexpensive gadgets from Walmart or Home Depot (etc). Air Quality Monitors can test for multiple factors at once and range from $20-$350+ depending on things like detection level and data logging. Carbon monoxide and toxic mold kits are available in stores for around $10 and remember that inexpensive AQ monitors exist. Amazon is your friend there.
Our page on AIR QUALITY gives more details and also points to an interesting 100-year-old ghost story.
Debunking / Self-Debunking / Air Quality - OUR ANSWER
3. EMF is a Thing. Are You Doing it Right?
Electro-magnetic fields can definitely affect how you feel, along with infra-sound. (Where is Reddit when you need it, to explain these things??) As with these two, drafts can wreak havoc with a house. These are all covered in-depth in our debunking section.
Debunking / Self-Debunking / EMF - OUR ANSWER
Debunking / Self-Debunking / Drafts - OUR ANSWER
Meanwhile, here is a good article that susses out EMF, etc, from a skeptic's point of view.
The Broken Technology of Ghost Hunting. Colin Dickey. The Atlantic. November 2016.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-broken-technology-of-ghost-hunting/506627/
4. Infra-Sound Will Make You Bug Out
The story of how Vic Tandy discovered this is interesting. It'll make you want to leave a room.
Debunking / Self-Debunking / Infra-Sound - OUR ANSWER
5. Investigations That Don't Use Strict Measurement
Finally our favorite concise explanation of misunderstanding how natural phenomena works. Be warned, the article below is rather snarky. But you can't argue that it makes good points.
Ghost-Hunting Mistakes. Benjamin Radford. Skeptical Inquirer. November/December 2010.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2010/11/ghost-hunting-mistakes/
Conclusion - One Quote
Here is a quote from the Atlantic article above. Wouldn't it be great if paranormal could volley this back with some real evidence?
Finally, notes Hines, plenty of studies go a long way to explain cases of “alleged hauntings,” but other factors may be involved as well. “For example,” he says, “many initially ‘inexplicable’ events turn out to be explicable upon further investigation. The movement of small objects may be caused by vibrations from passing traffic. Just because someone cannot think of an explanation for an event does not mean there isn't one.”
As for why people seem so eager to believe in ghosts and other evidence of the hereafter? That’s easier to explain, says Hines. “The ghost hunting technology has gotten cheap enough so that regular folks can afford it, and with people getting less entranced with mainstream religion, some are looking for some kind of transcendent experience.” Finally, he points out, “We’re all going to die, and most of us would like to think there’s something thereafter.” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-broken-technology-of-ghost-hunting/506627/
For this quote: What say you, paranormal community??
NEXT IN "OUR ANSWERS" SERIES: (Impasse: Why Science Rejects Paranormal)
4. Paranormal Rejects Science - OUR ANSWER
QUICK LINKS - Impasse: Why Science Rejects Paranormal
MAIN / Why Science Rejects the Paranormal
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 1. Start Here - Short Answer
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 2. Scientific Revolution
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 3. Misunderstanding Science
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 4. Paranormal Rejects Science
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 5. Hoaxes
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 6. Failed Studies
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 7. The Amazing Randi
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 8. Bad Science
MAIN / OUR ANSWER 9. Echo Chambers
MAIN / What's Your Opinion?
Home
NOTE: The material in the APP's "Our Answers" sometimes seems elementary and simplistic, yet at the same time long and drawn-out. Yes. It's the beginning foundation for the topic. If you're an expert on a topic, then by all means add your suggestions to the appropriate forums. There can be a steep learning curve for those not already familiar with the many facets (and topics) covered by this project. Our answers are a starting point. (Feel free to help round-out topics if we've missed something.)
If you're in-between a novice and an expert, consider just checking out the several RESOURCES listed within each of our "OUR ANSWERS" posts. Readers don't have to take our word for it. Each part has good external sources/links, so you can get more in-depth and intricate answers from real experts. Remember when you see Wikipedia listed, that it has a ton of references so you can see where the information originated. Wiki is also great for an overview of a subject. And on big topics there's usually a system of organization that gives each facet its own flowchart of information/sources. (And Wiki is free, with no ads, and open to peer review. What's not to like?)
DISCUSSION & FEEDBACK
Share your knowledge. Don't be shy if you have a QUALITY contribution. (But please be polite, and proofread.) Sometimes special forums exist just for feedback on the project. That'll be apparent when looking at the list of a forum's discussions.
There are two ways to add your opinions/content: Either create a reply OR create a new post.
For a quick comment about whatever post you're reading, just REPLY to it. The button is available both above and below the post, and has BRIGHT PURPLE text.
To add a new post of your own to a discussion, use the "NEW TOPIC" button located on every forum's main list of posts. Generally hit the back button from any post you're reading (or use the breadcrumbs up top), to go back a step to the main forum for that discussion. The button is available both above and below every forum's main list of posts, has BRIGHT PURPLE text, and says "NEW TOPIC." (It sounds more formal than it is.)
If you have a nice chunk of GOOD INFORMATION, please choose to add a NEW post in the (most-) appropriate forum rather than a comment-reply. That way you'll generate comments of your own. PLUS it will show up in the list of posts so other interested people will notice it's there. (PLUS we're a new website/project, so we could use all the QUALITY submissions we can get.)
All of your content displays your avatar and tagline (signature). You can edit these in your "user panel" or it will default to generic/blank. BTW, users can include plugs to their own websites or whatever, in their profiles. USERS BEWARE and Google the website name before you actually go there. Make sure you're going to some place legit that isn't going to scam you or give your computer an STD. (Little joke there. I'll see myself out...)
TIPS FOR POLLS: Polls appear on some posts, IF its author has created one. They're open to ALL registered users. All APP-written polls are set to be ongoing and allow you to change your vote later. Feel free to comment your suggestions for improving any poll, ours or others', just be kind and helpful.
CREATING A POLL: When writing any post (not comment replies) look for the option named "Poll Creation" in a TAB below the "submit" button. Fill in your Qs/As and double-check the default options. You can always edit the poll later via editing the POST itself and navigating back to that same tab. (Change whatever and re-submit.) But that sort of defeats the purpose if you change it after people have answered, right? So to start, create an option for ALL POSSIBLE points of view. Lastly, the poll will display below the post after it's published. In "preview" mode it shows on top.
.
.