Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[Daylightstar]

Yep. Exactly. You can investigate the reports of the experience, and how the witness constructed the experience. You can never investigate the experience itself. What you can do is look for themes and commonalities, which may give rise to testable hypotheses as to what is happening. (This is what I'm currently doing btw - having developed a hypothesis, I'm testing it. Results will be in in 27 days )

cj x

Will you be creating correlations from just (self reported) anecdotes?

 

[cj.23]

Yes. In exactly the same way the original paper, praised widely by Wiseman (in Paranormality and the Skeptical Inquirer article) and others as the sceptical masterpiece it is, does. I see no other way to proceed, and curiously no one has critiqued the original paper for relying on self report, or for having a population of 2 (one married couple). In fact it is all over the sceptical literature as part of "explanatory frameworks" for these experiences, much like infrasound was a decade ago cited all over the place as an explanation, or pareidoilia was cited an explanation for the Wem ghost photo. Scepticism rarely dwells on it's embarrassing episodes, but then neither do parapsychologists

If I replicate the research and it holds up, I'm sure my replication will be hailed as a sceptical triumph. And if by increasing the population of the study I find the original intriguing pattern not replicated, well I'm sure no one will pay the slightest attention.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Will you be creating correlations from just (self reported) anecdotes?

or to put it another way: try applying your scepticism to sceptical papers. Look at the references, and pull the original research, and read it. You will VERY frequently find self report underlies those studies*, just as much as any other. It is a commonly used methodology in the social sciences and medicine, and ultimately pretty much any lab report comes down to opinion and a bunch of numerical data too, which si why we use significance levels etc, to try and impose some objective rules on the subjective judgements of the sciences.

Subjectivity in Science was actually a brilliant symposium I went to a few years back: one of the suggestions there was that "science fans" have very low tolerance for ambiguity, "working scientists" higher tolerance of ambiguity. I have been planning to tun some experiments on this theme for a long time now, as I think tolerance of ambiguity may be a fairly critical variable in understanding how some belief systems are culturally mediated.

cj x

* as well as dreadful methodology, etc, etc. That is normal in any paper though -- no one is perfect.

 

[Daylightstar]

Okay thanks, that's clearly a yes.

You may have mentioned in either this or one of the other 'ghostly' threads, but could you say or repeat what your research replication project hopes to accomplish?

E.T.A. In other words, what are you testing for?

 

[cj.23]

I'm testing the hypothesis that once people focus their attention on a purported "haunt" they develop a narrative from perfectly mundane day to day events that turns in to a story of a ghost. Previous researchers claim to have demonstrated this, in a fascinating piece of research that was published in a mainstream journal, but they only used one couple maintaining a diary study as the basis for this study. I'm using more couples and households, but otherwise exactly the same procedure, to see if the same pattern emerges in the data. Feel free to pm me for more details.

 

[Daylightstar]

Thanks cj.23, could you post a link to that research please?

 

[cj.23]

Sure it's Houran, J., and R. Lange. 1996. Diary of events in a thoroughly unhaunted house. Perceptual and Motor Skills 83: 499–502. It's a brilliant paper, but I want to see how it turns out with a bigger population. Wiseman discusses it here -- http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_haunted_brain/ and in his book Paranormality. All credit to Houran and Lange though, their contextual idea is the one i keep returning to...

cj x

 

[Daylightstar]

Thanks cj.23, could you post a link to that research please?

Would you mind posting that link please, cj.23?
Thank you.

 

[cj.23]

Would you mind posting that link please, cj.23?
Thank you.

Er, I'm confused. The research is in post above - H& L (1996). My research has not been written up yet - it's only 4 days in, 26 days before all results in. I'll post link to that once it's completed. If you want an online link to the original paper, I am afraid I have never found one, and had to access it via print journal

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8902024

 

[Daylightstar]

Er, I'm confused. The research is in post above - H& L (1996). My research has not been written up yet - it's only 4 days in, 26 days before all results in. I'll post link to that once it's completed. If you want an online link to the original paper, I am afraid I have never found one, and had to access it via print journal

cj x

It however seems you were not confused at all

 

[Daylightstar]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8902024

Thanks Stray Cat. From the abstract it appears to be strictly a study in human behavior.

cj.23,
The inclusion of the "predicted logistic curve" makes me wonder why you think the paper is brilliant.
The paper appears to cover a very mundane known human behavior, it's not about poltergeists specifically.

... Previous researchers claim to have demonstrated this, ...

...
If I replicate the research and it holds up, I'm sure my replication will be hailed as a sceptical triumph. And if by increasing the population of the study I find the original intriguing pattern not replicated, well I'm sure no one will pay the slightest attention.

cj x

Is it not true that you really are hoping to build a falsification scenario (of the Houran/Lange study) and that it will somehow create an argument for the existence of poltergeists?

 

[cj.23]

Thanks Stray Cat. From the abstract it appears to be strictly a study in human behavior.

cj.23,
The inclusion of the "predicted logistic curve" makes me wonder why you think the paper is brilliant.
The paper appears to cover a very mundane known human behavior, it's not about poltergeists specifically.

Er, how do you come to this conclusion? Here is the Abstract, with the important parts in reference to this highlighted...


Abstract

Two subjects were asked to keep a 30-day journal of occurrences in their residence which are traditionally associated with hauntings and poltergeist-like phenomena. It was expected that the instructions would increase the frequency of perception of unusual or rarely occurring events in their residence, resulting in an attentional and "perceptual contagion effect." As expected, several features of the percipients' observations closely resembled those found in previously reported poltergeist episodes. Most importantly, the distribution of perceived occurrences closely resembled the predicted logistic curve, suggesting that hauntings involve a perceptual process where initial observations "infect" later ones.

Is it not true that you really are hoping to build a falsification scenario (of the Houran/Lange study) and that it will somehow create an argument for the existence of poltergeists?

I'd say I'm hoping it replicates, because otherwise the model I also put forward in '96, that attention and the construction of a narrative from mundane incidents explain how poltergeists are socially constructed is wrong, or at least lacking in experimental evidence to support it. As a model it still does not explain a great deal when it comes to poltergeist events --- I find it impossible to explain say Enfield or the Cardiff Responsive Poltergeist by it, but it certainly will carry us forward a great deal if the predicted logistic curve replicates. Hence I think Houran and Langes research was brilliant - it was a clever idea, well conducted, that showed an interesting possibility. Wiseman and i agree for once it is really important - my concern is that it appears to have been conducted with a population of 2; one married couple. Chance alone could explain the fit. Hence I'm trying to replicate it, with more people involved, who are isolated from the discourse here fortunately or I would not be discussing it.

I don't need to create an argument for the existence of poltergeists. Poltergeists occur, and are well documented phenomena. The question is what underlies at a causal level the phenomena - misperception, fraud, invisible goblins, etc, etc. I don't think anyone doubts poltergeist cases exist as events and are reported do they?

cj x

 

[Resume]

I don't need to create an argument for the existence of poltergeists. Poltergeists occur, and are well documented phenomena. The question is what underlies at a causal level the phenomena - misperception, fraud, invisible goblins, etc, etc. I don't think anyone doubts poltergeist cases exist as events and are reported do they?

cj x

Define your terms. What do you mean by poltergeist?

 

[cj.23]

Define your terms. What do you mean by poltergeist?

See here - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8712415#post8712415


cj x

 

[Resume]

See here - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8712415#post8712415


cj x

Yeah, I just read it.

Don't really have any comments right now. Other than to point out that perhaps the term poltergeist mythology might be more precise.

 

[Stray Cat]

Er, how do you come to this conclusion? Here is the Abstract, with the important parts in reference to this highlighted...


Abstract

Two subjects were asked to keep a 30-day journal of occurrences in their residence which are traditionally associated(1) with hauntings and poltergeist-like phenomena. It was expected that the instructions would increase the frequency of perception of unusual or rarely occurring events in their residence, resulting in an attentional and "perceptual contagion effect." As expected, several features of the percipients' observations closely resembled those found in previously reported poltergeist episodes(2). Most importantly, the distribution of perceived occurrences closely resembled the predicted logistic curve, suggesting that hauntings involve a perceptual process where initial observations "infect" later ones(3).

(1) But a connection with "hauntings" has never been shown. The fact that some people credulously believe there is an "association" or in fact that "tradition" has any bearing on the veracity of such claims is not compelling.

(2) Or: Some people tell stories much like other people's stories when the circumstances of the storytelling are similar.

(3) Without having to face the tricky issue of if either the "initial observations" or the "later ones" are being perceived and recorded honesty or accurately.

I don't need to create an argument for the existence of poltergeists.

Yes you do.

Unless you are trying to rredefine them into existence.

Poltergeists occur, and are well documented phenomena.

No.
Poltergeists are claimed to occur. To date, they have never been shown to occur. Alien Abduction is also a well documented phenomenon.

The question is what underlies at a causal level the phenomena - misperception, fraud, invisible goblins, etc, etc. I don't think anyone doubts poltergeist cases exist as events and are reported do they?

Cases that are claimed to be Poltergeist activity exist of course, in the same way that UFO reports are often claimed to be Extraterrestrial Flying Saucers. What's missing is the evidential link between what is observed and what it is claimed to be.

UFO's can be shown to exist, Alien Space Ships not.
People telling Spooky stories can be shown to exist, Poltergeists not.

 

[cj.23]

(1) But a connection with "hauntings" has never been shown. The fact that some people credulously believe there is an "association" or in fact that "tradition" has any bearing on the veracity of such claims is not compelling.

(2) Or: Some people tell stories much like other people's stories when the circumstances of the storytelling are similar.

(3) Without having to face the tricky issue of if either the "initial observations" or the "later ones" are being perceived and recorded honesty or accurately.

ON point 1. The paper attempts to experimentally analyse how narratives of hauntings and poltergeists can arise. I think it can be useful in some, but not all cases. A "haunting" is here I suspect defined technically, which may confuse - it means something like "a case where the same apparitional figure has been repeatedly reported by witnesses with no former knowledge of the previous experiences" -- or what Erlenddur I believe refers to as a locale based case.

Point 2. Huge amounts of work have been done on this, but by fat the best is Dr. Robin Wooffitt, (1992) Telling Tales of the Unexpected: the Organisation of Factual Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 217. ISBN: Pb: 0-7450-1052-0; Hb: 0-7450-1051-2
You can download the pdf here - http://www.york.ac.uk/media/sociology/documents/staff-papers/Telling%20Tales.pdf If you quickly read through it you will learn a great deal about how Conversation Analysis has been employed to investigate the factual discourse in so called paranormal episodes, and what we have learned in that area. I'd recommend this highly.

Point 3. If you have an issue with the methodology of the study I suggest you take it up with the authors, Dr Richard Wiseman or the editors of The Skeptical Inquirer who have by Wisenamn's article popularised the study asdid his book Paranormality, as being part of an sceptical explanatory framework. I have no such issues given that the ontological status of the events is actually irrelevant to the experimental premise.

(
No.
Poltergeists are claimed to occur. To date, they have never been shown to occur. Alien Abduction is also a well documented phenomenon.

You don't seem to be reading what I am saying. Yes we can investigate "alien abduction" just as we can investigate poltergeists. Yes I accept fully there is an "alien abduction experience". I don't happen to think little grey men are involved, but the use of the label is hardly problematic? I can't see how but somehow you are failing to understand what I am typing here...

Cases that are claimed to be Poltergeist activity exist of course, in the same way that UFO reports are often claimed to be Extraterrestrial Flying Saucers. What's missing is the evidential link between what is observed and the conclusion that it is anything other than mundane.

Right. Exactly. You are the one seemingly insisting that poltergeists as a category involve some paranormal entity. I'm actually very open minded on what they involve. Like the UFO reports, you can study the class of phenomena and seeks explanations. I happen to be a Magonian psycho-social hypothesis favouring person when it comes to the UFO phenomena - I rather think they are socially constructed, and the actually experiences need to be investigated to explain the seed phenomena for any given experience, but the experience is cultutally mediated, as all experiences are. You seem to get it here.

(
UFO's can be shown to exist, Alien Space Ships not.
People telling Spooky stories can be shown to exist, Poltergeists not.

And Poltergeists are a label for a certain class of phenomena, just as UFO's are for another. Both are interesting examples of anomalous experience, and I attempt to understand the underlying causality, but my conclusions as to causes must be strictly evidence led.

I have a rather informed perspective on these things. If you wish to argue specifics, I will happily do so. You seem to be questioning my ideological stance: it is one of honest doubt open minded inquiry and evidence led reasoning. Nothing more, nothing less

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Yeah, I just read it.

Don't really have any comments right now. Other than to point out that perhaps the term poltergeist mythology might be more precise.

I thought about something like that, but "mythology" implies in modern usage a certain outcome or attitude to the alleged phenomena. I want to avoid preconceptions, or implying a hypothesis in my phrasing of the discussion, so try and use a value neutral terminology.

cj x

 

[Resume]

I thought about something like that, but "mythology" implies in modern usage a certain outcome or attitude to the alleged phenomena. I want to avoid preconceptions, or implying a hypothesis in my phrasing of the discussion, so try and use a value neutral terminology.

cj x

But it clearly is not neutral. Saying poltergeists exist certainly implies an outcome, don't you think?