One thing that came up in a blog over on PUG (ParanormalUnderground) by Kim Kowalczyk, of GhostBreakers, was a discussion about standardization of methods in the paranormal community. Kim makes some very good points in this blog, and much they say mirrors what I’ve said over the years. One of the things they touch upon is the resistance of groups to want to conform to standards since it makes them feel controlled. I too have seen this in the paranormal community and it amazes me how there are a set of standards that have emerged. EVPs, EMF detectors, and others. While not totally standardized, the basic concepts have become the norm with many groups, especially since ParaTV has made it’s debut.

But these standards are a far cry from the point that Kim is noting. There are no real standards or rules of evidence. Each group has it’s own way that it sets up equipment and collects data. Most of what I’ve seen simply consists of photos, videos, and audio recordings. There really isn’t much in the way of data logging other than some groups are now using EMF detectors that log measurements made by the device, but without any sort of control in place, and much of the time is the only device of its kind. This makes it virtually impossible for groups to compare notes. Without standards of how data is collected you cannot compare what one group found and compare it to what another group found at the same location, especially if the equipments capabilities differ. Take for instance audio recorders. If one group catches an alleged EVP with a cheap voice recorder while another does not this creates a conundrum when it comes to examining evidence. Was the EVP simply created from distortion caused by poor sampling rates and compression that alters ambient sound?

Another good point that Kim brings up is “Who would oversee these standards? There are no experts in this field.” This is very true. There are no experts in the field of paranormal investigation. In order to be considered an expert one has to have vast knowledge about the subject. Considering everything concerning the paranormal is up in the air and no facts have been established, there cannot be any experts. There may be many who claim to be, and they may have a lot of knowledge when it comes to folklore, but for them to claim to be experts in the field of paranormal investigation is a lie. They are simply experts in the folklore associated with the paranormal. So, who would oversee these rules or standards? And again I have to give kudos to Kim for the suggestion of having experts in various fields be those who govern over these rules, and I would go a bit further and say that the rules that the scientific community be the standards. For if those rules are what is used then there will be little reason for them to reject the evidence that an investigator collects.

Kim also notes a key issue in wrapping up his blog, and that is getting buy in from others in the paranormal community. In fact Kim notes something I have often wondered which is why is it so hard to get buy in from the so called professionals, and what’s their motivation to ignoring the issue. I’ll take it a step further and lump the ParaCelebs in there. To me it seems that the experts and ParaCelebs would be out of business if theories were tested, standards were set, and true knowledge were gained. They thrive on being able to spew untested theories and make broad statements that appeal to the masses who are caught up in groupthink. If they couldn’t offer these lofty ideas then I highly doubt they’d survive long since the overwhelming majority of them haven’t a clue as to go about investigating using methods that the academic community would accept. Obscurity is their friend and ally, just as are generalized statements that can be interpreted to fit any situation so they never appear to be wrong. Thus is the world of pseudoscience.

But I digress a bit. I think that there are several ways that a standard can begin to take root. In fact it seems to be. More and more I run into investigators such as Kim, or ones who have stumbled across a blog such as this or Kim’s. More and more I see the light bulbs begin to come on as investigators who have read these types of materials begin to think about what is said and look at their own methods. Granted there are going to be those who will fight tooth and nail to stick with the failed methods they’re currently using, primarily because they feel like they are accomplishing something whenever they capture some unexplained anomaly, but quite frankly I believe it’s because following the rules of academia are tedious, boring, and slow to produce results. Americans don’t like to wait for anything anymore. They want instant gratification, and science generally doesn’t provide that. But I think that if a group were to produce evidence that were accepted by academia, even if it was something small that didn’t provide definitive proof of the paranormal but did provide an answer to whether or not one of the countless theories out there was true or false, we would then see the tide begin to change.

So, in closing I would like to thank Kim and PUG from bringing up the issue. And I ask of those who read this and are paranormal investigators, “What are you going to do. Continue down the path of obscurity and never gain anything from it other than a collection of anomalies, or are you going to be a true contributor and work with others in the community to develop methods and tests to answer questions and gain knowledge? It’s your choice.”