Debunking Paranormal Investigations: Are Scientific Investigations Necessary?

What every paranormal investigator hopes to capture during an investigation.

When I talk to paranormal teams, they always claim they do "scientific investigations." Another term I hear paranormal investigators throw around is “skeptical.” Does every investigation need to be scientific? For me, the answer is no. Does every investigator need to be skeptical? Yes, but the definition I assign to the word 'skeptical' as a trained Philosopher and the definition the rest of the paranormal community assigns are very different.

I do think that during an investigation, the Scientific Method should be used whenever possible. Waving around equipment does not make an investigation scientific. The Scientific Method is a rigid standard used by academia to validate the outcomes of experiments and scientific claims. It’s a process that allows others to duplicate your findings. Whoever conducts the same experiment under the exact same conditions should obtain the same outcome and be able to draw the same conclusions as you did. Following the Scientific Method makes your investigation scientific, not the number of gadgets you use.

There is a problem with applying the Scientific Method to paranormal investigations: the conditions are never the same. Therefore, you cannot duplicate the exact same conditions of an investigation, which is the hallmark of the Scientific Method. We are not dealing with inert matter. We are dealing with a spirit. Something that is cognisant. A spiritual being that can think, make decisions, and is intelligent. Given what we are dealing with, there are simply too many variables to account for.

There is also another side of an investigation that cannot be solved with the Scientific Method: the research side. The site's history and the reasons why it’s haunted. The side of the investigation that answers the who, what, when, and why questions of a haunting. Waving equipment around may help answer some of these questions (in the form of responses), but never entirely.  

I also want to address the practice of “Debunking.” How many times have you heard investigators say they were “skeptics,” because they debunked everything first? This isn’t skepticism; this is bias. I understand that the investigator is trying to establish the legitimacy of their investigations by taking the position that nothing is paranormal until everything else is ruled out. But this is a very closed-minded approach. A true skeptic doesn’t have a position on the onset of their evidence review. They are open-minded and willing to examine and consider everything before taking a position. I have seen paranormal investigators skew the results of their investigations through the practice of debunking. I’m not saying that evidence shouldn’t be ruled out. I’m saying that every piece of evidence should be examined with an open mind first. Evidence should never be examined from a biased position. By ruling out every possibility first, you're not really proving something is paranormal. What you are really saying is “I can’t explain it, and there is a chance it could be paranormal.” This isn’t proof; it’s probability.

I applaud everyone in the community who is trying to advance the field of paranormal study. I also feel that our community often hinders itself in its quest for acceptance. I have witnessed firsthand how the practice of debunking and the use of pseudo-scientific methods causes infighting in the paranormal community. This continued conflict only serves to delegitimize our profession and aids our detractors.