Three very difficult words to say in paranormal studies... apparently...

Tweet

Ever asked a man who APPEARS to be lost and won't ask for directions if he truly knows where he is? We all know the joke... The last thing he'll admit is the same three words... "I don't know." In terms of paranormal investigations, these three words also seem very difficult to admit or say for those who appear to be "investigating" (I'm using this term VERY loosely) things... The so-called sceptics (read: non-believers/deniers) desperately grasp and grasp for a "natural, scientific" answer to anything... even when it defies answers... assuming that we (apparently) know everything there is to know. They'll have pelicans that fly faster and with more coordination than any known jet-aerobatics team, Venus rising to the North, mass hallucinations at different times to different groups, the masses having an extraordinary pre-knowledge of history before an experience, all witnesses have sleep disorders... and one "so-called sceptic" put forward the thought that all witnesses were brain damaged. They will pound, and pound, and continue to pound away at the square peg into the round hole until they are either right or another "convenient hypothesis" is "accepted" as fact in the situation. They call this "science". It isn't. The one thing they will never say is... "We don't know." The too-true believers (or those who need no "proof") will accept almost anything at any time as an example of paranormality... usually, however, it will be skewed to their own hypothesis or faith and the concept of anyone questioning their beliefs is abhorrent. They are "right" and everyone else is either "wrong" or "misguided". They refuse to look into the inconvenient facts of things in favour of their own concepts and everything, to them, is perfect... they know the answers... they have the answer... they don't need to examine... They call this "investigation"... It isn't. The one thing they will never say is... "We don't know." Real scientists/investigators/researchers will admit to the concept that a hypothesis might be proven to be wrong. That, occasionally, there may not be a ready answer and that only through progressive and neutral experimentation and observation may a proper answer actually be accomplished. They will, as a rule, realise that no challenging hypothesis should be completely discounted without examination and should still be noted... and possible extrapolation of the "competing hypothesis" combined with a little effort might just lead to, if not an answer, the ability to say that 'X' hypothesis is "unlikely". They will, when unsure, answer with those three little words... "We don't know...", but a really good investigator/scientist may add one word to the end of that... "...yet." Think of it this way... "X" person experiences a ghost. Okay, who made this determination? Usually, it's "X" person... Are they "wrong"? Possibly... Are they "right"? Possibly... What's person "X's" definition of "ghost"? What's your own? Are you so sure that your definition matches person "X"? If you feel that "X" is not "hoaxing", "lying", or "defrauding" in some fashion, than you should acknowledge that "X" experienced something. If "X" experienced something, was that something "paranormal" in nature? Only PROPER investigation would answer this... and to be truthful, unless "X" has captured the ghost in a jar or can give you, the investigator a schedule of the ghost's appearances and allow you to monitor it properly, the only thing most of us can do is eliminate (or find) possible natural causation. If (and that's a big "if") you can eliminate possible natural causation, but were unable to "map", set up infallible protocols to observe for patterns and do repeated observations from a neutral standpoint with multiple participants, or genuinely capture the "ghost", the best you really can say is... "You experienced something... but I don't know what it was. There is a possibility it was paranormal... but we can't say for sure." Sorry, but it's the truth. Was "it" a ghost? Who knows... we didn't capture it nor did we manage to do a complete, proper, scientifically controlled observation... Was "it" NOT a ghost? Who knows... we eliminated all other possibilities... and although one could argue "improbability", improbability should never be put forward as an ultimate answer. A lot of "so-called sceptics" (again, read that as non-believers and deniers) pull out Occam's Razor as their response to this... "The simplest most straight forward answer is usually the correct answer." Fine... but not accurate. Sometimes the simplest answer is not the correct answer. I can't help but wonder, as well, if Occam doesn't bother the "so-called sceptics" as Occam was a monk... who used his "razor" to also point out that there's no point to question things as "God" made them happen... and many in the "so-called sceptical" camps are secular humanists... I digress... REAL science accepts the concept that "we" may be wrong... or at minimum, a theory or hypothesis, through work, may need to be corrected... Anything else is strictly "faith". Ergo: Too True Believers and So Called Sceptics are really no better than one another... they both preach a faith... they are both "right"... and neither like looking into the inconvenient facts of a matter if it might wrankle their philosophies or ideas... and both can never say, "I Don't Know." because, of course, they are all infallable and we... well, we're just ignorant mouth-breathers who dare question on occasion their "greatness".