By Russell White
P.I.T.T. / Paranormal Investigation Team of Tulsa

This article originally appeared in the June, 2004 online issue of Ghost Magazine in the Spirited Science: Mainstream Science Meets Paranormal Studies column. Posted with permission of Russell White.

About two years ago, a staunch paranormal skeptic stepped into his first “haunted “location. This man was working on an experimental psychology class project. He wanted to see what the types of people were that chase “ghosts” and how they differed from normal people. He used to look at websites online and laugh and laugh and laugh. He used to listen to people's personal testimonials of alleged paranormal activity and giggle madly. He understood nothing but science and numbers, and that everything in the universe boils down to these two categories. Now he’s not so sure.

As I'm sure you've guessed by now that man was me. A day spent in an old abandoned mental hospital totally shook all that I believed in. Notice I said “I believed…” That day I got absolutely no data that I could even dream of turning in as scientific proof of what happened. (Although I did get some hella good EVP) Today I still don’t believe in “ghosts’, but I do feel that there is some type of anomalous energy interacting with our human energy fields. As to how the paranormal community should go about proving this, I am still undecided. As I have mentioned before mainstream science still views what we do as a pseudo-science, and even were someone to manifest an apparition in the middle of an M.I.T. laboratory the skeptics would more than likely not change their collective minds. For the simple fact that a one time occurrence DOES NOT prove the existence of “ghosts” when adhering to the scientific method.

So in a quest to see which direction I need to go I spent some time talking with a very learned psychologist and nationally known skeptic Dr. Bryan Farha. The transcript of our discussion is included in this article, but first I would like to touch on a few things that I feel are important to us as researchers.

Most people in the paranormal community feel that skeptics are our worst enemies. This simply isn't true. Skeptics in fact ensure that ANY effort to study a phenomenon keeps a healthy perspective. Probably one of the biggest weaknesses of the paranormal communities is that most researchers are believers in the paranormal. This effectively shoots down or skews any data you obtain using the scientific method for the simple fact, that experimenter bias can effectively skew the data. This coupled with the fact of so many researchers being “live in the moment” types of researchers, will keep paranormal research classified as a pseudo-science.

By “live in the moment”, I am referring to people who are happy getting that possible anomalous photo or EVP from a specific location and declaring that proof of a haunting. This mindset, while exciting, is in no way scientific. In fact it would take many instances of getting the same phenomenon in the same place by many different people before you could even begin to claim that “something is going on” as my old statistics professor was so fond of saying.

So you might be asking “What exactly is meant by pseudo-science?” It's pretty simple, a pseudo-science is anything that claims to be scientific when it fact it is not. “Well then what is science?” you ask. Science IS the scientific method. I outlined this in the April issue.

Another trap that is easy to fall into is that some people will confuse science and technology. They feel that just because they have 7 cameras with night shot, EMF meters, temperature gauges, boom mics, digital and analog recorders, thermal cameras and an electro-static scalar gradiometer, that they are being scientific. Wrong. The equipment is good for collecting data, but only when used in conjunction with the scientific method. The scientific method can be followed using only a pencil and piece of paper, if need be. It’s about the method not the equipment.

Another way of thinking that goes hand in hand with the scientific method, is a philosophy known as Ockham’s Razor. Ockham’s Razor finds it origins in Aristotelian philosophy but was brought into “modern” times by an English Franciscan monk named William of Ockham (ca.1285-1349). It it’s original Latin form it reads; “Pluraltalis non est ponenda sine necessitate”. Which translated means “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. In other words, keep it simple. We shouldn't add too or further complicate that which we study. By adding possible variables or things that aren't actually needed to our studies we run the risk of causing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies. This line of thinking is the basis for science and deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning we start with the simplest reason and replicate and extend from there.

For instance say I take a picture of a dark room and in this picture is a bright round light source. Now by applying logic and deductive reasoning does it make more sense to (a) run amok screaming I just got a picture of a ghost (of which no proof exists), or (b) take another picture and see if this one shows the same thing, assuming some type of camera glitch. Then, stepping into the room, I notice a mirror which was hidden in the dark and reflecting the flash from my camera.

Now personally I don’t feel that the phenomenon which we study is testable given our current understanding of our universe. But that in no way means I think I should abandon the scientific method. Rather, it means that I just need to refine and redirect my tests. Whether I like it or not, when the day comes that I obtain proof of the paranormal it will be those argumentative, finger pointing, doubting skeptics that I will have to present my data to.

The Dr. Farha Interview

I met Dr. Bryan Farha in a chance meeting at my job. We spoke at length and have had many spirited debates and conversations in the intervening months. Ironically I had quoted him quite often as I continually run across his work in my research on various topics, and this was before I met him. Plus he is an Ed.D in psychology which is my chosen field of study, so we have lots to talk about. He was recently asked to become a science and technical consultant for the organization CSICOP www.csicop.com. The following is an interview he agreed to do for me in its entirety, which took place over a couple of days via email.

Russell White How does the scientific community view present paranormal research methods?
Bryan Farha The scientific community takes research methods seriously from either "hard core" scientists or neutral scientists. Science justifiably has a problem with research conducted by "parapsychologists" because they mostly tend to be strong believers in the paranormal before they conduct the research.

RW What areas should be focused on to help bring legitimacy to the research?
BF Get truly neutral people, who are well educated to conduct the research. A case-in-point: MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) is comprised primarily of people who are staunch believers in UFO's as alien spacecraft and representing advanced technical civilizations from other worlds. MUFON conducting its own research diminishes the validity of any positive conclusions.

RW You said that the paranormal community should get someone non-partial to do the research. Dr. Gary Schwartz to my knowledge was a skeptic until he embarked on his research into the surviving human consciousness. He is now being prodded pretty hard by the skeptic community, even though, at least to my humble eyes, his methods are valid. Doesn't it seem that ANYONE who attempts research into this area can expect hyper-scrutiny, more scrutiny than say, someone researching more mainstream scientific subjects?
BF If you think Gary Schwartz' methods are valid, at least take a peak at Ray Hyman's article about him at http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-hyman.html. Yes, everyone doing this research will get hyper scrutiny. That's why they have to conduct the research employing absolutely the most exhausting control measures possible. So that if we get positive results, we can be sure that they are due to paranormal ability. Why would a researcher leave room for question?

RW I've read that article. Isn't it true that holes can found anywhere if enough scrutiny is applied? Look at Mendel's genetics research and it is still considered valid.
BF I disagree. If Schwartz is a valid researcher, why doesn't he invite skeptical scientists to construct the methodology and design with him? THEN, if they get positive results, the skeptics will have nowhere to hide.

RW I believe he did that didn't he? It was my understanding that a panel of skeptics and a panel of mediums designed all the tests except the first one for HBO?
BF Can you show me that somewhere? Provide a link? Do you know who the skeptics were?

RW They wouldn't allow their names to be used. I'm reading "The After-life Experiments" right now I'll look in the references and let you know.
BF Wow.

RW I looked in the acknowledgments, the skeptics were from the University of Arizona and were referred to as the "Devil's Advocate Committee" they aided in designing all the protocols beginning with the Russek (sp) Protocol, they refused to have their names acknowledged.
BF Ya, but do you see the problem? All researchers were from the University of Arizona. This is the University that is employing the person in question.

RW There are three main types of "evidence" being offered by most groups; video, pictures and EVP. What are the weaknesses of this type of "evidence"?
BF In videos and pictures, the lack of detail is probably the biggest weakness. The use of the digital camera diminishes the validity of interesting results because that type of advanced technology is capable of creating just about anything. The EVP is too vague and nebulous to make out anything specific. If ghosts exist, why can't they just speak plainly and be clearly seen pictorially?

RW What is your personal motivation to publicly debunk claims of paranormal?
BF I'm not motivated to "debunk." I'm motivated to educate the public on how to draw conclusions based on available evidence. Also in teaching people the importance of suspending personally comforting feelings, hopes, and desires when evaluating evidence.

RW If you were to embark on a research project involving the paranormal, where would you start? What is the first thing you would do?
BF I would begin with a very testable claim. It makes little sense to research something that we won't be able to draw conclusions from.

RW What example would you give as a testable claim?
BF If someone claims to be able to communicate with the dead, for example. I have a standing challenge to have them contact my dead grandfather and ask him the color of his last car before he died. No takers. It's not testable to contact my dead grandfather and ask if he's "OK" or "happy." We can't test the validity of the claim. But we can test the color claim--or better yet--where was the most prominent birth mark on my grandfather's body? My family likely knows the answer and might be able to validate that sort of thing.

RW Have you ever had anything unexplainable happen to you?
BF I've had many things happen to me that were unexplainable. Recently I heard a noise outside that I couldn't explain. But how can I jump to the conclusion that the noise was a would-be intruder when so many other possibilities present themselves (animal on the roof, loose gutter, wind blowing something around, etc.)? Most people will agree with what I just stated. But why, then, do so many jump to the conclusion that a ghost is in the building just because they can't explain a noise, flickering light, or temperature fluctuation in a 100 year old structure?

RW What would you consider as "proof" of surviving human consciousness?
BF Tangible evidence. Not signs, feelings, or unfounded beliefs. I actually have no problem believing in the possibility of life after death. I have a problem in believing we've had tangible evidence of such. Isn't it possible that if life after death exists, that only the dearly departed can know about it? The possibility exists--but the convincing evidence doesn't.

RW Define "tangible evidence".
BF Evidence that leaves no doubt about its origin, cause and effect. Evidence should also be reproducible under controlled testing conditions. If a ghost is residing in a home and is able to be clearly picked up by videotape, then it should be able to be clearly picked up upon testing replication. If they live there, they live there.

RW What if there are atmospheric conditions that only allow this type of manifestation to occur at certain times or even at random?
BF I'm not a meteorologist, but an atmospheric condition that only allows this type of manifestation at "random" is implausible. As far as allowing it at "certain times," the burden is on the people making the extraordinary claim to show this correlation. Then we can conduct the replication only during those certain, specific times and conditions.

RW What I'm trying to say is that lightning is a phenomenon that occurs under only certain conditions and involves energy. What if this is something similar? We certainly can't make it lightning at our discretion to test it, but it still happens nonetheless.
BF I hear these kinds of examples often, but they are not good analogies because — in this example— lightening is so easy to measure. Its reality is not questionable. We can precisely say that lightening occurs under "X" conditions--but we KNOW lightening exists and occurs. We don't "know" ghosts exist. First, prove ghosts exist at all, AND THEN figure out under what conditions they "appear."

RW So you would define yourself as a skeptic as opposed to a cynic?
BF I'm cynical too — because a cynic is often distrusting of the motives of others. I definitely do not trust the motives of most self-proclaimed psychics.

RW Dr. Farha I appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to talk with us, is there anything else you would like to add?
BF Yes. The word "skeptic" doesn't mean disbelieving. It means "questioning." Many so-called skeptics don't believe in God, the paranormal, etc., but true skeptics simply question (just as anyone would question everything about a used car they were considering for purchase)--and then report experimental results for what they are.

Dr. Farha’s Bio
I'm a professor Oklahoma City University and skeptic regarding paranormal claims. I hold a master's and doctoral degree in counseling psychology and a license as a professional counselor. I've published numerous articles (see faculty Web page at: http://www.okcu.edu/petree/education/faculty.asp?type=3) in this field, teach a college course called "Psychology & Skepticism," and am on the astrology subcommittee for CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). I've given many interviews for television, radio, magazines, and newspapers including the inaugural television season of The Unexplained (A&E) on an episode called "Questioning Astrology." The article topics include psychics, UFO's, astrology (including the dangers of astrologers practicing counseling), ghosts, media integrity, and number manipulation. Many have been published in SKEPTIC and Skeptical Inquirer magazines.

I've written several articles about Sylvia Browne, exposing her for what she is. You can see my articles on her in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer magazines or at: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/browne.html.