Scientists vs Paranormal Researchers

Scientists vs paranormal researchers why are they at odds with each other?

silhouettes of faces exchanging ideasAt times I pause and wonder what all the bickering is between paranormal researchers and the scientific community when it comes to the study of survival of the soul and life after death. As a paranormal investigator with more than 35 years of field work I have seen a lot of this arguing and posturing take place, which is okay, at least people are talking. It is when personal objectives come into play that the waters of research become muddied and this allows people to push personal agendas with little regard for the subject. It leaves room for people to fudge the data and place personal gain ahead of everything else and this is what causes the most damage. Everyone has seen some paranormal researchers lie and bring forward false information as evidence in hopes of becoming famous or to make some money. Even science and academia will occasionally toss out junk, making wild claims of finding the perfect answer to ghosts, usually for grant money to keep them employed.

The biggest challenges in the paranormal field are bias, personal prejudice, belief systems and a closed mind. The reality is we have to work within the frame work of what we currently know on a subject, basing our findings on that information is how we bring forward our best guess, a theory to be tested and possibly modified over time as new information is discovered.

 “Here, belief means how confident you are in a particular model being an accurate description of nature, based upon what you know. Think of it a little like the betting odds on a particular outcome.”

“While our degree of belief in some mathematical models may get stronger and stronger, without an infinite amount of testing, how can we ever be sure they are reality?”

Geraint Lewis, University of Sydney

Both the serious paranormal researcher and the scientist should remain open on the data being collected, trying to find new ways of study and analysis, otherwise advancement can not occur.

Example: What is the difference?

“I have theorized that an invisible force exists that can manipulate its surroundings. I can not see it, nor can I touch it, I have no proof but I am sure that it is there.”

Statement made by a paranormal researcher with regards to ghosts. This statement was picked apart and made almost laughable by the skeptic. I am sure that the attack had nothing to do with the statement but rather because it was made by a paranormal researcher.

“I have theorized that an invisible force exists that can manipulate its surroundings. I can not see it, nor can I touch it, I have no proof but I am sure that it is there.”

Statement made by a scientist with regards to dark matter in the universe. Interesting to note the lack of skepticism on the scientist’s claim.

The reality is:

“I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”

Richard Feynman, Physicist

If we listened to those who thought they knew everything where would we be?

In 1900, British physicist Lord Kelvin stated “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics, all that remains is more precise measurement.” Within three decades, quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of relativity had revolutionized the field.

What is the norm? Science has little interest in life after death and survival research because there is no money in this work. Anytime academia does get involved it’s normally a ploy, as someone is looking for grant money or they just want to get their name out in the press.

Most scientists refrain from saying anything on this subject but rather use the skeptic as a mouth piece for comment. Most are afraid to comment personally because of fear of ridicule and threat to their current position, credibility and work.

Where and when did this all start, I believe it goes back to Sir William Crookes an English chemist and physicist. Crookes decided that science had a duty to experiment with the phenomena associated with Spiritualism. After years of study he completed a report in 1874 that concluded that certain phenomena could not be explained and that further research would be useful. Crookes’ final report so outraged the scientific establishment that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society.

The only real work being done in the field is by serious paranormal investigators collecting data. I foresee this work being extremely important in the future when science finally comes around to having a serious hard look at humankind’s existence beyond the physical, all they will need to do is take the years of hard data and crunch the numbers to come up with a model of what happens when we die.

Why are ghosts so popular?

I get a lot of questions regarding ghosts, life after death and hauntings, but one of the biggest questions is “Why are ghosts and hauntings so popular?”

My quick answer is who doesn’t want to hear a ghost story or of a haunted location?

However I believe that our mortality and the idea that we might exist in some other fashion after our physical death may just be humankind’s most important question. Its popularity is partially what I stated above, but deeper than that it is because people have a vested interest in knowing what, if anything, comes next. People will look for answers and spiritual guidance. In the past the two best places to look were to the Church or to Science. However in the last couple of decades people have found neither the church nor science were providing the answers that we seek. Both were too busy chasing money and playing politics. Both continually send out conflicting and confusing messages, people have started looking to paranormal research as an alternative.

Some examples of the confusion:

Dr. James Tour can not explain evolution—the evolution that, according to Darwinism, changed entire species, morphed organs, accomplished so many complex developments simultaneously to form human beings and the flora and fauna, and neither can the Nobel Prize winning chemists and National Academy members he’s asked to explain it.

Pope Francis says the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real, and God did not wave a “magic wand” to create the universe.

Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who compared the likelihood of a living cell arising through evolution to “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard” and assembling a working 747.

Pope John Paul II stated that Heaven and Hell were not physical places but rather what you, as an individual made of them.

This is why paranormal research is so very important. The information we bring forward must be truthful and accurate. Who knows in 100 years parapsychology could morph science and religion into one completely new discipline?

In the mean time let’s leave science to pursue other matters, forget the skeptics and continue doing the important work.