After 35 years I suddenly find myself asking myself if Paranormal Researchers are actually doing any real research. To find the answer I turn back to a lesson I learned in college; to answer the question, you first have to look for a definition of the word “research.”  According to Webster, the authority in such matters:

re·search (ri sûrchÆ, r"Æsûrch), n.

      Diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.: recent research in medicine.

Well, on the face of it, I have my answer.  Virtually every group I know is involved in some sort of inquiry into the subject with hopes of further defining the paranormal, so perhaps I am using the wrong terminology.  Maybe what I really want to know is whether we are really involving ourselves in a, “systemic inquiry” but with an eye toward proving the existence of the paranormal.   The real bugaboo centers on a roadblock placed by scientific skeptics, who introduced the concept of “empiric” proof in the outcome of our research.

In the case of my own organization, the ASUP, our stated goal is to seek proof of the survival of human intelligence after death, which in theory should be provable, but not to the empirical test methods science would suggest are an imperative. Skeptical inquirers say that to be valid our research must be reproducible under controlled conditions and on demand. But where is it written that we have to meet these limits?  Ironically, turning back to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary once again, we find that the standard we have been told we must meet is not really the definition of the term to begin with.  According to Webster:

          em·pir·i·cal (em pirÆi kÃl), adj.

1.           derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2.           depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3.           provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Well, that is interesting! Webster tells us that we are, as a group, meeting the first two definitions of empirical testing, and that the third, “Provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.” Is also well within reach… there is no suggestion of being “on demand” or “reproducible.”

But let’s get past that for a moment. Let’s look a little closer at the task at hand, which in theory, we all aim to prove and must now ask, how to prove it.  Let’s be honest with each other, do we really have any guidelines that allow us to work together toward our stated ends?  I freely admit that many groups are cut from the same mold, have similar aims and follow more or less the same methods, but not all.  We have failed to accept the need for a central reporting system; the closest we have come is the WWPRC, which at least compiles some information for all to see.

Once again, I look at UFO organizations that consider documentation to a central location as an imperative. Even cryptozoologists share data, which within our own area of interests is, at best, spotty.  But why?  Why wouldn’t everyone subscribe to the WWPRC concept?  As it is now, you could have an active major case in one part of town that is unreported and virtually unknown to everyone else, even as collateral information may already exist in another group’s file that could be of vital importance.  In many cases we are more secretive than the CIA!  It certainly is not to protect research funding, there is simply not enough to make the effort practical. Publishing rights? I can’t believe that; the money is too small an amount to even consider. So, what is the problem?

I think the conclusion might better be left to the reader, but I do have some suggestions for consideration in the meantime. Organizations like the TAPS Family network have the opportunity to correct this problem, at least among like-minded groups. While there will always be holdouts, for whatever reason, real researchers will understand the need for cooperation and collaboration and the TAPS network already exists to collect basic information on what everyone is doing. Likewise, access to the network can be controlled by the forum organizers, should any real plagiarism be found. 

To return to the original question; are paranormal researchers really doing research? I think that the answer is certainly yes. We are learning to take historic references into account, utilizing the best technology available and creating new tools as they are needed and we all seem focused on the key elements central to our quest.  We share, weigh and comment on each other’s ideas in places like the TAPS sight and for the most part keep an open mind.  All that seems missing is just a little trust and a willingness to shed our age old paranoia.

To paraphrase one of our nation’s greatest presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, it is better to attempt great things and fail, than to never attempt them in the first place, to which I can only add, “And the critics, naysayers and skeptics be damned!”

© 2008 ASUP, Inc.  The contents of this blog may be reproduced in whole as long as proper credit is given.