I wrote this last week and posted it on a different paranormal website and thought I'd add it here. Let me prface this blog by stating that I do not consider myself an expert in the paranormal as I have only been investigating the paranormal since earlier this year. I offer this only from a perspective of one who investigates the "normal" as my full time job and I believe that some of those skills or methods can be easily inserted into this type of research as well.

I'm a rookie when it comes to investigating the paranormal. Yes, I'll admit it - I'm a "post-Ghost Hunters" paranormal geek. Although I have held an interest in the paranormal since I was young, I'm afraid that I fit that category by proximity. I am not, however, new to the investigation process, reviewing evidence, and making judgements based on testimony and such evidence review.

I currently work for the Public utility Commission of Texas as an investigator. I investigate allegations of violations of state utility rules and statutes. I gather evidence by a variety of methods, primarily through the issuance of requests for information (RFIs) or what is known in civil law as interrogatories. In the event it is found that a particular utility is found in violation of state rules or law, I prepare the Notice of Violation and prosecute. Also in my tenure with the PUC, I arbitrated contract disputes between telephone carriers such as AT&T and Verizon. Arbitrations are conducted in the form of a formal hearing in which the arbitrator listens to the arguments and evidence presented by both parties and then bases his or her decision based on the terms of the contract and prevailing law.

No, I'm not fishing for a job. I'm simply laying a backdrop to illustrate how I investigate the paranormal and how I draw conclusions based on the evidence I aquire and if in the process you pick up anything that you find useful apply it as required. However, just like anything else in life, take what you find useful and disregard the rest.

In my studies of the paranormal thus far, I have found that it is commonly presumed that there are two classes or people that you will encounter in this field - the believer and the skeptic. However, I would offer a third classification - the objective observer. This idea conflicts with many lines of thought in the paranormal field because it is often implied that a skeptic is objective. This is not necessarily true.

American Heritage Dictionary defines a skeptic as:

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

By definition, the skeptic has a motive when reviewing evidence. The skeptic's objective, in general, is to disprove that which the believer holds as true. By interjecting motive into the evidence review process, conclusions tend to shape the evidence as opposed to the evidence forming the conclusions. In essence, the skeptic is either the prosecutor or the defendant.

The same holds true for the believer. The motive for the believer is obvious. The believer often, not always, will come to some conclusion in total absence of evidence, thus rendering any evidence offered irrelevant, in their view.

I'm not placing any judgements on either types. There are varying reasons one would consider themselves either a skeptic or a believer. The believer usually enters an experience which has given rise to a particular conclusion. The skeptic may hold other assumptions or beliefs as true and would demand proof showing that these assumptions are false before deviating from such assumptions. While it is understandable that certain environmental factors help to shape one's beliefs or disbeliefs, it is my opinion that when reviewing evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence, one must strive to gradually depart from either extreme and move toward the middle, which would ideally lead to objectivity.

I am a Ghost Hunters fan. I find it very entertaining and, at times, educational, but I sometimes question the investigative techniques deployed by TAPS. Now before you click the close button or leave me a nasty comment, allow me to justify my statement. TAPS claims to investigate with the purpose of disproving alleged paranormal activity. If you take that at its face, TAPS has undertaken an impossible task. By setting that standard, what TAPS has in effect done, is placed the burden of proof on TAPS. While people have been studying the paranormal for decades, it is still a relatively new science. As such there are no agreed upon laws. In absence of such laws, there is nothing by which you can measure evidence and make a determination whether something is paranormal or not. Physics can prove that a particular activity can be explained by natural law, but one can not prove that the activity can not also be explained by paranormal law - because there is no such law.

Now is TAPS making a legal claim? No - probably not. While they claim that they are trying to disprove the paranormal, what they really mean is that they make every attempt to find alternative explanation for experiences that are allegedly paranormal. But many paranormal groups take this statement and run with it, not fully understanding what it is that TAPS is truely trying to achieve. Both Jason and Grant claim to have had paranormal experiences, so I believe it is unlikely that they are true skeptics. However, I have found many investigators pride themselves as being expert debunkers without going through the discplined process of gathering substantive support for their claims.

Since there are no laws in the paranormal, you must work on reasonable assumptions when gathering evidence. For instance, when conducting evp sessions, it is of utmost importance to avoid whispering, speaking clearly and loud enough to be easily identified. If an investigator whipsers, it should be immediately noted. If this is done on a consistent basis, then it will be a reasonable assumption that any whispers captured during an investigation would be from some other source other than an investigator. Without such assumptions, any evidence containing a whisper, logically must be thrown out. Prior to acquiring and reviewing evidence determine what your base assumptions should be and then do everything within your ability to ensure the integrity of those assumptions. You may need to modify or dismiss assumptions as appropriate.

Try to go into an investigation without motives. As humans, we are inclined to view or even alter evidence to support a predetermned conclusion. This is neither objective or scientific, and while making a determination that paranormal activity has occured without legitimate evidence may provide you a sense of euphoria, it will likely not be viewed as credible when offering that conclusion to a third party.

As an investigator for the PUC, when reviewing evidence, I keep in mind that my testimony must withstand the scrutiny of both the defending attorney and the judge. The defendant (the skeptic) will do everything possible to punch holes in your testimony. He will find deficiencies you may not have known were there. Aggressive defendants may even attempt to question your expertise and character as support for his defense. The judge (objective observer) should seperate himself from the emotion attached to the testimony of the petitioner and the defendant and draw conclusions based soley on the evidence and constraints of the law. While it is the petitioner's goal to present to most credible evidence and testimony to the judge by which a sound conclusion can be drawn, he has to keep in mind that the evidence must be defendable against the scrutiny of both the judge and the defendant. The judge, on the other hand, also must ensure that his judgement is sound enough to endure the scrutiny of an appellate judge.

So with all of this in mind, it is important to first scrutinize your evidence carefully and attempt to uncover the deficiencies before presenting it to your audience (client or lead investigator). Try to understand what the skeptic's first line of attack will be and decide whether it is defensible. This is where the integrity of your assumptions and investigation techniques become extremely important. For example: you and another investigator pick up an evp. It is in the form of a whisper which sounds female in nature. First of all, rely on the assumption that as investigators, it is protocol not to whisper during evp sessions. With this assumption in mind, assuming it is valid and reasonable, logically the whisper should not be attributable to either investigator. The skeptic will then question the integrity of that assumption and may even question your motives. So don't stop at that assumption. Were both investigators male? If so, this further bolsters your argument as the voice clearly sounds female. If one of the investigators is female, was she speaking at the same time as the evp? Do you have a video of the investigators taking the evp session to synchronize voices with faces? If you have gone through this exercise and feel strong enough to submit your evidence for that level of scrutiny, then you may have defensible evidence. While the true skeptic still may not be conviced, hopefully someone who is legitimately objective will.

In this field, you will often be confronted with those subscribing to the theory of Occam's Razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Many skeptics use this idea to "disprove" paranormal activity. However, in my brief experience in this field and in reading articles and journals, I have noted one fatal error. All things are not equal. In otherwords, conclusions were derived in absence of any reasonable assumptions which would set the particular circumstance as an anomoly. Going back to our example of the evp: Occam's razor would suggest that if you heard a whisper on a recording that you have no memory of hearing at the time of the recording, when deciding whether that whisper was caused by natural forces (an investigator whispering) or paranormal (evp) one would logically conclude that it must have been an investigator whispering. However, an experienced team would put in place certain protocols to maintain the integrity of certain reasonable assumptions so that it can be said that not all things are equal and that this certain set of circumstances are unique and warrant consideration. Another error in using Occam's Razor when trying to determine whether something is paranormal is that, again, there are no laws for the supernatural so there can not be two competing theories of law by which to measure practicality. I use the example of the evp only because it is the most common situation found in the field, but this can apply to any alleged paranormal phenomena.

Just as in the judicial system, the skeptic and the believer both have their purpose and this is not meant in any way to disparage either type. In fact, I would submit that both are necessary to further our understanding of the paranormal. There are many people out there who claim to be a skeptic, but by the true definition of the word - they are not. They are simply objective. I think it's important to know the difference. While the skeptic and the believer play an important role in learning about the paranormal, it is my opinion that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle and only discoverable through objectivity.