What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[Pixel42]

Surely we dont need to know every single case in question. How many does one need to be familiar with before they can safely say poltergeists dont happen?

How many volcanoes do I need to personally look inside before I can safely say volcano gods don't exist?

 

[Andyman409]

Wow. You did not even try to understand me, did you? Believe it or not, I am actually an atheist, and a supporter of metaphysical naturalism AKA materialism. I am unfreindly to all forms of paranormalism, and wish for them all to be wrong. But I cant ignore evidence. All I can do is approach it with an open mind and a LOT of skepticism when it's called for

We mean that there are no phenomena that can be verified to have actually happened that need a supernatural explanation.

When Baron said "classic" hypothesis, I thought he meant the "survival hypothesis". See, in the past most people thought poltergeists were ghosts. In parapsychology, however, the new idea is that they are psychic powers. I merely asked him to clarify his position.

Doesn't exist.

I said "do you think its psi", because Baron stated that he rejected
the "classic" poltergeist. Again, in parapsychology, there are two hypothesis- the survival hypothesis and the psi hypothesis. I thought he was referring to the survival hypothesis as the rejected one, so I inferred that he supported the psi hypothesis. I also thought he said "psychically" instead of "phycially". I was clearly wrong, and admiited as much in a later post you clearly did not read.

More than 50% of people who trust verifiable evidence more highly than anecdotes and personal beliefs.

I can't respond to this one, since I cant figure out how to translate what you wrote. For the record, I asked baron what he meant by "most skeptics" out of sheer curiosity. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Since there is no evidence, it leads to the null hypothesis - i.e. no psi, no afterlife.

what are you talking about? Last I checked, Evidence was merely anything that supports a belief. Proof, on the other hand, is factual and undoubtable. poltergeists had evidence in the form of testimony. This IS evidence, isn't it? It's not proof though.

Since cameras and video and tape recorders do not exist...

Yes, the fact that parapsychologists never bothered shooting their work on film is embarrasingly stupid. Rolls book came out in the 70's, where outdoor shooting was possible, even if it was expensive. I use that as evidence against poltergeists.

To which we say, evidence?

No, you say proof. At any rate its irrelevant. I said:

The classic apologetic for poltergeists tends to be: "here are many cases, explain THAT!".

From what I've read, this is what a supporter of the paranormal would say constitutes as evidence for poltergeists. You can say it isn't persuasive, but you cant say it isn't evidence. It is evidence by evidences definition! It isn't proof, however, as it doesn't compell belief.

A flat rejection of unevidenced claims is perfectly honest.

Well it depends on your case. Some literally are unevidenced. Some have testimony from several family members. And some of the testimony is of seemingly impossible things happening. How do you go about analysing it? Well, you can say, as I do, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

How about a perfect question?

Each case is what it is. The case doesn't have to be perfect to be evidence. Of course, the worse the reporting, the worse the evidence. And as I said before, the absence of evidence for poltergeists is overwhelming.

The simple question: Evidence?

Again, wrong use of the word evidence. Read what I said again

Most skeptics attack popular treatments of the paranormal and frauds. Nothing wrong with that if your upfront. Certainly makes investigating the "professional" cases harder though. What recources do you think are best for critically analysing poltergeist cases?

To be frank, I doubt Randi or Shermer consider their work to be an exaustive treatment of the paranormal. Psychologists and scientists like Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Chris French and the members of CSICOP are the ones who really go into the nitty gritty of the paranormal (like whether hauntings are more likely to be from prior expectation or environmental factors). Randi and Shermer "dumb it down". They dont include all the details. They dont carefully cite their references. Their goal is to educate laymen with a brief introduction to the field. And I think they do that very well. I dont think they do a good job refuting parapsychology in general, since they never aim to do so. That would the job of Wiseman et all.

Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

Alan Turing was a genius, yet believed in psi. Clearly his intellect didn't save him from that mistake. In a similiar vein, your credentials dont exuse you from misunderstanding me.

 

[Pixel42]

Andyman: you need to watch the film Ghostbusters, then you'd recognise the quotes from it and stop taking everyone so serously.

 

[Darat]

Wow. You did not even try to understand me, did you? Believe it or not, I am actually an atheist, and a supporter of metaphysical naturalism AKA materialism. I am unfreindly to all forms of paranormalism, and wish for them all to be wrong. But I cant ignore evidence. All I can do is approach it with an open mind and a LOT of skepticism when it's called for

...snip...

Start at the beginning - what evidence can't you ignore?

If you mean the many stories/anecdotes of poltergeists then no one in this thread has ignored that evidence when they have concluded there is no evidence that requires the existence of poltergeists.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wow. You did not even try to understand me, did you?

I understood you fine.

Believe it or not, I am actually an atheist, and a supporter of metaphysical naturalism AKA materialism. I am unfreindly to all forms of paranormalism, and wish for them all to be wrong. But I cant ignore evidence. All I can do is approach it with an open mind and a LOT of skepticism when it's called for

We don't ignore evidence. That's why we keep asking for people to present it. And we have.... Nothing.

I said "do you think its psi", because Baron stated that he rejected
the "classic" poltergeist. Again, in parapsychology, there are two hypothesis- the survival hypothesis and the psi hypothesis.

And both explain events that are not observed to happen and are theoretically impossible in terms of other events that are not observed to happen and are theoretically impossible. They don't need debunking, they need derision.

I thought he was referring to the survival hypothesis as the rejected one, so I inferred that he supported the psi hypothesis. I also thought he said "psychically" instead of "phycially". I was clearly wrong, and admiited as much in a later post you clearly did not read.

Fair enough. Still doesn't exist.

I can't respond to this one, since I cant figure out how to translate what you wrote. For the record, I asked baron what he meant by "most skeptics" out of sheer curiosity. I'm inclined to agree with him.

It's a definition of "most skeptics".

poltergeists had evidence in the form of testimony. This IS evidence, isn't it?

It's not evidence for poltergeists. It may be evidence for particular sociological trends.

Yes, the fact that parapsychologists never bothered shooting their work on film is embarrasingly stupid. Rolls book came out in the 70's, where outdoor shooting was possible, even if it was expensive. I use that as evidence against poltergeists.

Yep. These days, of course, it's just inexcusable.

No, you say proof.

Nope. Never. I said evidence? Because I want evidence and none has been provided.

From what I've read, this is what a supporter of the paranormal would say constitutes as evidence for poltergeists.

Sure. They're wrong.

You can say it isn't persuasive, but you cant say it isn't evidence.

I can. I just did.

It is evidence by evidences definition!

No, it's just stories.

Well it depends on your case. Some literally are unevidenced. Some have testimony from several family members. And some of the testimony is of seemingly impossible things happening. How do you go about analysing it?

By asking for evidence.

Well, you can say, as I do, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Sure. Not true in the most general case, but if a field persists for decades and never once produces any reliable evidence that the thing under study even exists, you have to conclude that the thing under study most likely does not.

Each case is what it is. The case doesn't have to be perfect to be evidence.

No, but it has to provide more than a story.

Again, wrong use of the word evidence.

Nope.

To be frank, I doubt Randi or Shermer consider their work to be an exaustive treatment of the paranormal. Psychologists and scientists like Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Chris French and the members of CSICOP are the ones who really go into the nitty gritty of the paranormal (like whether hauntings are more likely to be from prior expectation or environmental factors). Randi and Shermer "dumb it down". They dont include all the details. They dont carefully cite their references. Their goal is to educate laymen with a brief introduction to the field. And I think they do that very well. I dont think they do a good job refuting parapsychology in general, since they never aim to do so. That would the job of Wiseman et all.

Refuting parapsychology is for the most part a public education exercise, not a rigorous academic one. And that's because there's simply nothing there. You can't take their data and carefully re-analyse it, because... What data? Sometimes there are experiments and you can repeat them, and find that you simply don't get the same results.

Alan Turing was a genius, yet believed in psi. Clearly his intellect didn't save him from that mistake. In a similiar vein, your credentials dont exuse you from misunderstanding me.

I don't have to take this abuse from you, I've got hundreds of people dying to abuse me.

 

[Andyman409]

Start at the beginning - what evidence can't you ignore?

Even better, I'll start at the very beginning

I opened this thread by declaring that I was interesting in discussing poltergeists. I than stated what I understood to be the "poltergeist apologetic", in which the parapsychologist makes a long list of cases, and challenges the naturalist to explain them. I used a lot of rhetoric and sarcasm, which apparantly some people took literally.

I think it is impossible to single handedly evaluate every single poltergeist claim, and oppose anyone who thinks they all must be accounted for.

I do think, however, that a representative sample is sufficient. Now what would be a representative sample be? Well, it would be a sample of cases in which insanity or fraud isn't immediatly obvious, and which is reported by someone who is honest and very knowledgeable about the field. If the author is not knowledgeable of the field, than how do we know they are representing the very best of the evidence?

Such a sample is found in some books, like William Roll's book "the poltergeist". Roll was a psychologist who was thoroughly versed in the books and papers of parapsychology. Therefore, I'd assume his case for poltergeists would be representative of the othe best cases.

Other books, like ghost hunters guides, are simply not as credible, since the writer (S) completely lack any qualifications like this. As I said before, not all claims are created equal. This isn't to say that more qualifications makes them right automatically. Roll makes a lot of stupid calls in his book, like his insistance that Tina Resch is anything but a fraud.

So when I say I cant ignore evidence, I cant say I'm referring to any particular piece. There are undoubtably other books on poltergeists other than Rolls book, and I'm sure baron knows many. I'm just saying I dont like the idea of rejectng a claim unlss I am familiar with its most ompelling evidence

If you mean the many stories/anecdotes of poltergeists then no one in this thread has ignored that evidence when they have concluded there is no evidence that requires the existence of poltergeists.

I'm not sure what specific material everyone here has read, or how credible their authors have been. I certainly don't wan't to discount it a priori a la the no true scottsman fallacy.

 

[PixyMisa]

Such a sample is found in some books, like William Roll's book "the poltergeist". Roll was a psychologist who was thoroughly versed in the books and papers of parapsychology. Therefore, I'd assume his case for poltergeists would be representative of the othe best cases.

Fair assumption. The credibility of the parapsychological literature, however, is zero.

So when I say I cant ignore evidence, I cant say I'm referring to any particular piece. There are undoubtably other books on poltergeists other than Rolls book, and I'm sure baron knows many. I'm just saying I dont like the idea of rejectng a claim unlss I am familiar with its most ompelling evidence

I'm not sure what specific material everyone here has read, or how credible their authors have been. I certainly don't wan't to discount it a priori a la the no true scottsman fallacy.

J. B. Rhine started his research, what, 80 years ago now? And in all that time, with all the disparate claims being investigated by all those who followed him, we have not one piece of reliable evidence of anything parapsychological, paranormal, or supernatural.

 

[pakeha]

...So when I say I cant ignore evidence, I cant say I'm referring to any particular piece. There are undoubtably other books on poltergeists other than Rolls book, and I'm sure baron knows many. I'm just saying I dont like the idea of rejectng a claim unlss I am familiar with its most ompelling evidence. ...

I've snipped your post to focus on a particular point, that of compelling evidence.
Have you ever seen anything you would call compelling evidence for the existence of poltergeists?

 

[Andyman409]

We don't ignore evidence. That's why we keep asking for people to present it. And we have.... Nothing.

I dont think Roll wrote the book to preach to the choir. I think he genuinly wanted to convert skeptics with his book. I think that means he presented evidence to you. It isn't responsible to say you'll only accept evidence if you recieve it personally. I understand it is impossible to review all the data. Too much has been written by people who are too stupid. Thats why I think its best to research from a representative sample. Roll's book is just one sample (although a lot of paranormalists hail it as the best). I'm sure there are others too.

And both explain events that are not observed to happen and are theoretically impossible in terms of other events that are not observed to happen and are theoretically impossible. They don't need debunking, they need derision.

I criticised psi for that exact same reason (being ad hoc) in my subsequent response to baron. Once again, I actually agree with you

Fair enough. Still doesn't exist.

Finally, were seeing eye to eye.

It's not evidence for poltergeists. It may be evidence for particular sociological trends.

Under the definition of evidence I read, yes it is evidence for poltergeists. Anything canbe evidence, and evidence can be of varying stregnth.

Yep. These days, of course, it's just inexcusable

.

Agreed. Michael Cuneo's book against demonic possession is especially telling when it comes to peoples ability to freak out over nothing. Whenever someone saw something paranormal, Cuneo would not see it.

Nope. Never. I said evidence? Because I want evidence and none has been provided.

I accused you of wanting proof instead of evidence, and I still stand by that. If you want evidence, just read the book, or one like it, by someone who is qualified (EX: a psychologist). Doesn't mean they will be right or persuasive.

This is comparable to critiquing evolution by citing Behe. In the same way behe is a bad representative for evolution, many books are bad reprasentatives for poltergeists. Only the most qualified should be considered. And qualified is not a subjective, question begging critereon (as the behe example should demonstrate).

I can. I just did.

Does this mean evidence is whatever you want it to be? This is evidential solipsism!

No, it's just stories.

the people who participated or experienced the events were real. Whether or not they were lying or decieved is another matter.

By asking for evidence.

Yes, you would look for evidence. The evidence would be the testimony, or whatever lingering physical effects occur. We can then see whether or not fraud or delusion is a good explaination.

Sure. Not true in the most general case, but if a field persists for decades and never once produces any reliable evidence that the thing under study even exists, you have to conclude that the thing under study most likely does not.

Happy to see we agree on this point to.

No, but it has to provide more than a story.

When someone claims they witnessed a murder, we dont call it story- we call it testimony

Nope.

how does your definition of evidence work. Do you decide what is evidence.

Refuting parapsychology is for the most part a public education exercise, not a rigorous academic one. And that's because there's simply nothing there. You can't take their data and carefully re-analyse it, because... What data? Sometimes there are experiments and you can repeat them

Some parapsychological data that has been useful was the polls on paranormal belief and experience. These have been elaborated on by secular, non paranormalist anamolistic psychologists to help understand the origin of paranormal belief.

Anyways, I`d have to ask how you know there is no evidenceor data in parapsychology, since you seem to ignore it.

Im going to bed. If there are any glaring mistakes in this post, that`s why.

 

[Mojo]

When someone claims they witnessed a murder, we dont call it story- we call it testimony

Only if it is presented in a court of law, under oath*. If it's just someone saying they witnessed a murder, we still call it a story. Murder isn't special in that regard.



*And even then, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

When someone claims they witnessed a murder, we dont call it story- we call it testimony

..or 'Wasting Police Time' depending on what other evidence is available.

 

[pakeha]

...Thats why I think its best to research from a representative sample. Roll's book is just one sample (although a lot of paranormalists hail it as the best). I'm sure there are others too. ... ..

What possible research can be done on personal accounts given after the alleged event?
Other than that of interest to psychologists and/or sociologists?

 

[Jocce]

When someone claims they witnessed a murder, we dont call it story- we call it testimony

Deja vu...I think this surfaced quite a few times in a UFO debate over several thousand posts. An eyewitness story/testimony is a claim and not evidence. One can always argue how plausible a claim is and decide how much evidence will be needed to accept the claim as a factual representation of reality. However, claims are not evidence.

"I promise mum, it was a poltergeist making that mess in my room"

 

[Croydon Bob]

What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

In the UK believers often claim that The Enfield Poltergeist is the best evidence, a case that skeptics can't explain, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfield_Poltergeist

It is, at best, a very weak case for poltergeists being a real phenomenon. The teenage girl even admitted that she had faked the activities that she was caught faking, but claimed not to have faked the stuff that she wasn't caught faking.

I haven't visited the house myself or interviewed anyone involved, so some woo-merchants would say that I have no right to be skeptical. But I have read much on the subject, seen a talk by a believer, etc. And I would say that if that is the best that they have got then we can dismiss the subject.

In Australia there is the Humpty Doo Poltergeist case which is similarly promoted by the believers despite the very poor quality of "evidence" in favour and the plentiful reasons to suspect (a business promoting) hoax.

Have the US believers got a case better than Amityville?

If there really were such things as "poltergeists" then I would have expected some more recent cases with some decent amounts of evidence.

 

[Resume]

How many volcanoes do I need to personally look inside before I can safely say volcano gods don't exist?

At least one more. It's always the next one that has the goods.


Where yah been?

 

[PixyMisa]

I dont think Roll wrote the book to preach to the choir. I think he genuinly wanted to convert skeptics with his book.

But for that, he needs evidence, which he doesn't have.

I think that means he presented evidence to you.

Nope.

It isn't responsible to say you'll only accept evidence if you recieve it personally. I understand it is impossible to review all the data.

What data?

I criticised psi for that exact same reason (being ad hoc) in my subsequent response to baron. Once again, I actually agree with you

Sure. If someone says that poltergeists may be caused by psi, you can stop taking them seriously on any subject.

Under the definition of evidence I read, yes it is evidence for poltergeists. Anything canbe evidence, and evidence can be of varying stregnth.

That's the problem. Evidence is verifiable information that favours one hypothesis over another. Stories don't qualify.

I accused you of wanting proof instead of evidence, and I still stand by that.

You are, of course, free to stand by whatever you want. You're just wrong.

If you want evidence, just read the book, or one like it, by someone who is qualified (EX: a psychologist). Doesn't mean they will be right or persuasive.

Either the book presents evidence, or it doesn't. If it only contains stories, then it doesn't.

This is comparable to critiquing evolution by citing Behe. In the same way behe is a bad representative for evolution, many books are bad reprasentatives for poltergeists.

That has to be the worst analogy I've seen all day.

Anyway, there are no good representatives for poltergeists, and that in turn is because they don't exist. People who follow the facts and reason coherently don't write books about poltergeists in the first place.

Only the most qualified should be considered. And qualified is not a subjective, question begging critereon (as the behe example should demonstrate).

Well, that leaves nothing at all. Fine by me.

Does this mean evidence is whatever you want it to be? This is evidential solipsism!

No, just snark.

the people who participated or experienced the events were real. Whether or not they were lying or decieved is another matter.

J. K. Rowling is real. Harry Potter is a story.

Yes, you would look for evidence. The evidence would be the testimony, or whatever lingering physical effects occur. We can then see whether or not fraud or delusion is a good explaination.

And there are absolutely zero physical effects.

If you start with a prior plausibility of zero, and then add zero verifiable evidence, you inevitably reach a probability of zero.

When someone claims they witnessed a murder, we dont call it story- we call it testimony

Others have addressed this already, but we don't do do that. We take it as a starting point, then look for evidence - one way or another. We try to confirm or disprove the story. A tale of poltergeistery, in the hands of a competent scientist, would be only the starting point. Instead, it's all we get.

Some parapsychological data that has been useful was the polls on paranormal belief and experience.

That's not parapsychological data, that's psychological, or sociological.

Anyways, I`d have to ask how you know there is no evidenceor data in parapsychology, since you seem to ignore it.

I looked.

Check out the join date and number of posts against my username at left. This is not the first time I've taken part in a discussion like this.

 

[Andyman409]

That's the problem. Evidence is verifiable information that favours one hypothesis over another. Stories don't qualify.

Your definition of evidence is spot on (unsurprising for a scientist ). However, I am not sure why you use this story/evidence dichotomy. Paranormalists offer testimony as evidence of their claims. Testimony is used very often as evidence in day to day life. Keep in mind that paranormalists use testimony from multiple witnesses, sometimes including themselves.

You are, of course, free to stand by whatever you want. You're just wrong.

I think I might be wrong. I initially thought you were just mistakening proofs for evidence, but now it looks like you are just setting your standards of evidence arbitrarily.

Either the book presents evidence, or it doesn't. If it only contains stories, then it doesn't.

Again, it presents testimony from a series of case studies considered to be a representative sample of the poltergeist phenomenon. This included testimony from multiple witnesses, including the parapsychologists themselves. Sometimes, other evidences are offered. In one case, a guy named Julian brought his "poltergeist" into a lab, and performed PK dice tests with slightly above average results. He also caused objects to move break in the lab. Wouldn't that count as evidence?

That has to be the worst analogy I've seen all day.

Anyway, there are no good representatives for poltergeists, and that in turn is because they don't exist. People who follow the facts and reason coherently don't write books about poltergeists in the first place.

talk about question begging. Even amongst creationists, some researchers are more qualified than others. For instance, Behe is more qualified to discuss evolution than Kent Hovind.

And there are absolutely zero physical effects.

You mean verifiable physical effects? Because to be frank, the only thing that defines poltergeists eare their supposed physical effects. The origin of these effects is what we wish to find out.

Others have addressed this already, but we don't do do that. We take it as a starting point, then look for evidence - one way or another. We try to confirm or disprove the story. A tale of poltergeistery, in the hands of a competent scientist, would be only the starting point. Instead, it's all we get.

I agree with you 100%. Lab equipment should be moved into supposedly poltergeist infested homes. Video cameras should be set up everywhere. It should George Orwells worst nightmare in there! Instead, parapcyhologists often use mediums.

That's not parapsychological data, that's psychological, or sociological.

By "parapsychological data", I mean data uncovered by parapsychologists. Parapsychology is like cognitive science, where it relies primarily on the findings of other fields. The difference, of course, is that cognitive science is a reputable field, and parapsychology uses mediums

I looked.

Check out the join date and number of posts against my username at left. This is not the first time I've taken part in a discussion like this.

I don't doubt that. I'll have to read some of them, and see if the light of reason erases all doubt in my mind. Its a win/win for me.

 

[I Ratant]

It's been noted that poltergeist effects occur in the presence of a teen-aged girl.
Remove the girl, the effect no longer manifests itself.
One such was video taped tossing the lamp, and claiming ghost.
The Ghost Hunters "documentaries" seem to be unable to run into poltergeist effects on camera, and they look for them.. I crack me up!

 

[R.A.F.]

Before I talk about the evidence for poltergeists...

Yeah, about that....you've made a lot of declaritive statements about the supposed "evidence for poltergeists", but you haven't actually provided any credible evidence.

Please do so now...

 

[Stray Cat]

It seems I'm not the only one who has noticed we've had this discussion on many occasions albeit in my case, usually about UFOs... but here we go again...

Your definition of evidence is spot on (unsurprising for a scientist ). However, I am not sure why you use this story/evidence dichotomy. Paranormalists offer testimony as evidence of their claims.

They mistakenly offer stories as evidence of their claims.
As had been pointed out already, stories (or testimony call it what you will) are claims themselves. Without any further evidence beyond the story itself, it is nothing more than an objectively unverifiable claim.

Testimony is used very often as evidence in day to day life.

No it's not.
It is used as a basis to investigate things. A starting point at which real researchers will look for objectively verifiable evidence.

Keep in mind that paranormalists use testimony from multiple witnesses, sometimes including themselves.

They mistakenly use testimony as evidence.
But just because they claim it is evidence doesn't make it evidence.
Paranormalists have a blind belief, they then try to find any old guff that appears to support their belief.
Multiple witness accounts mean nothing more than multiple people all sharing the same claim. Remembering that billions of people all claim the existence of a pretend beardy friend who lives in the clouds, how much importance should anyone put on multiple people making an otherwise unsupported claim in something that's never been objectively shown to exist?
That a few people all see a bottle fall over in a kitchen in no way proves a haunting or paranormal event took place, the only thing that it can do is make it more likely that a bottle fell over.

I think I might be wrong. I initially thought you were just mistakening proofs for evidence, but now it looks like you are just setting your standards of evidence arbitrarily.

Though we've also discussed this confusion some people have between evidence and proof... at this point the paranormalists have neither.
Every single haunting, poltergeist story to date has been shown to be seriously flawed in how it's been investigated or reported. Everything from misperception and mental illness to outright dishonesty and fraud can explain every single story.

If the paranormalists want to move the subject forward, they really need to raise their game a lot, instead of relying on the same methods that have got them nowhere since Rhine (and before)... That's over a hundred years of some of the sloppiest research and bad practice in a world that has moved on in leaps and bounds in every other legitimate area.

Again, it presents testimony from a series of case studies considered to be a representative sample of the poltergeist phenomenon. This included testimony from multiple witnesses, including the parapsychologists themselves. Sometimes, other evidences are offered. In one case, a guy named Julian brought his "poltergeist" into a lab, and performed PK dice tests with slightly above average results. He also caused objects to move break in the lab. Wouldn't that count as evidence?

If it could be independently and objectively verified yes.
Sadly it hasn't been, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

talk about question begging. Even amongst creationists, some researchers are more qualified than others. For instance, Behe is more qualified to discuss evolution than Kent Hovind.

And the Pope is eminently qualified to discuss God... but it doesn't make him anymore right about it.
For reference, I only have qualifications in Graphic Design, Photography and a Tufty Club badge for Road Safety, but I am very much open to read and research any evidence for the paranormal that anyone wishes to offer.
When ever people offer what they think is evidence, it turns out to be another flakey story, badly reported inaccurately recorded or logically and physically internally inconsistent... Out of all the thousands of stories not one that has anything of substance really?

You mean verifiable physical effects? Because to be frank, the only thing that defines poltergeists eare their supposed physical effects. The origin of these effects is what we wish to find out.

"supposed physical effects" are not the same as "verifiable physical effects"
And what we need to find out at the moment is if these physical effects actually exists in the first place. Only then can people start looking for where they come from.
But as has already been said, in the vast majority of cases these supposed physical effects already have a valid explanation; misperception and dishonesty being two of them. No ghost story ever to date has needed to reach beyond these explanations and no paranormalist to date has ever presented any reason why anyone should look beyond these, without utilising the usual argument from ignorance "we can't explain it, therefore; poltergeists"

I agree with you 100%. Lab equipment should be moved into supposedly poltergeist infested homes. Video cameras should be set up everywhere. It should George Orwells worst nightmare in there! Instead, parapcyhologists often use mediums.

Of course the best way to try and prove something that has never been shown to exist is to use a method that has never been shown to work.
But again, scientific instruments and cameras have been employed in hauntings and the like... it's just that they never manage to move the investigation forward in showing a paranormal source for the events they are collecting data about. The paranormalists are usually satisfied enough to encounter something they don't understand and just write it up, instead of looking further... they have confirmed their blind belief and that's all they need.

By "parapsychological data", I mean data uncovered by parapsychologists. Parapsychology is like cognitive science, where it relies primarily on the findings of other fields. The difference, of course, is that cognitive science is a reputable field, and parapsychology uses mediums

And therefore ends up with no data... just a circular reasoning in order to justify a blindly held belief.