Editing Paranormal (section)

==Paranormal research==
Approaching the paranormal from a research perspective is often difficult because of the lack of acceptable physical evidence from most of the purported phenomena. By definition, the paranormal (or supernatural) does not conform to conventional expectations of [[nature]]. Therefore, a phenomenon cannot be confirmed as paranormal using the scientific method because, if it could be, it would no longer fit the definition.<ref>In fact, the paranormal is often discussed as essentially something that resides within the human psyche, inherently contingent on its time and place; Ármann Jakobsson, ''[https://www.academia.edu/32484922/The_Troll_Inside_You_Paranormal_Activity_in_the_Medieval_North_Punctum_Books_2017_ The Troll Inside You: Paranormal Activity in the Medieval North]''. Earth, Milky Way: Punctum Books, 2017.</ref> (However, confirmation would result in the phenomenon being reclassified as part of science.) Despite this problem, studies on the paranormal are periodically conducted by researchers from various disciplines. Some researchers simply study the [[beliefs]] in the paranormal regardless of whether the phenomena are considered to objectively exist. This section deals with various approaches to the paranormal: [[anecdotal]], [[experiment]]al, and participant-observer approaches and the [[scientific skepticism|skeptical investigation]] approach.

===Anecdotal approach===
[[Image:Fort charles 1920.jpg|thumb|left|upright=0.8|[[Charles Fort]], 1920. Fort is perhaps the most widely known collector of paranormal stories.]]

An anecdotal approach to the paranormal involves the collection of [[anecdotal evidence|stories]] told about the paranormal.

[[Charles Fort]] (1874–1932) is perhaps the best-known collector of paranormal anecdotes. Fort is said to have compiled as many as 40,000 notes on unexplained [[forteana|paranormal experiences]], though there were no doubt many more. These notes came from what he called "the orthodox conventionality of Science", which were odd events originally reported in magazines and newspapers such as ''[[The Times]]'' and [[scientific journal]]s such as ''[[Scientific American]]'', ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''. From this research Fort wrote seven books, though only four survive: ''[[The Book of the Damned]]'' (1919), ''[[New Lands]]'' (1923), ''[[Lo!]]'' (1931) and ''[[Wild Talents (book)|Wild Talents]]'' (1932); one book was written between ''New Lands'' and ''Lo!'', but it was abandoned and absorbed into ''Lo!''

Reported events that he collected include [[teleportation]] (a term Fort is generally credited with coining); [[poltergeist]] events; falls of frogs, fishes, and inorganic materials of an amazing range; [[crop circles]]; unaccountable noises and explosions; [[spontaneous combustion|spontaneous fires]]; [[Levitation (paranormal)|levitation]]; [[ball lightning]] (a term explicitly used by Fort); [[unidentified flying object]]s; mysterious appearances and disappearances; giant wheels of light in the oceans; and animals found outside their normal ranges (see [[phantom cat]]). He offered many reports of [[Out-of-place artefact|OOPArts]], the abbreviation for "out of place" artifacts: strange items found in unlikely locations. He is perhaps the first person to explain strange human appearances and disappearances by the hypothesis of [[alien abduction]] and was an early proponent of the [[extraterrestrial hypothesis]].

Fort is considered by many as the father of modern paranormalism, which is the study of the paranormal.

The magazine ''[[Fortean Times]]'' continues Charles Fort's approach, regularly reporting anecdotal accounts of the paranormal.

Such anecdotal collections, lacking the [[reproducibility]] of [[Empirical|empirical evidence]], are not amenable to [[scientific method|scientific investigation]]. The anecdotal approach is not a scientific approach to the paranormal because it leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence. Nevertheless, it is a common approach to investigating paranormal phenomena.

===Parapsychology===
{{main|Parapsychology}}
[[Image:Ganzfeld.jpg|thumb|right|Participant of a [[Ganzfeld experiment]] which proponents say may show evidence of [[telepathy]].]]

Experimental investigation of the paranormal has been conducted by [[parapsychology|parapsychologists]]. [[Joseph Banks Rhine|J. B. Rhine]] popularized the now famous methodology of using card-guessing and dice-rolling experiments in a laboratory in the hopes of finding evidence of [[extrasensory perception]].<ref>Hines, Terence (2003). pp. 119–120. {{ISBN?}}</ref> However, it was revealed that Rhine's experiments contained methodological flaws and procedural errors.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Harold O. |last=Gulliksen |author-link=Harold Gulliksen |title=Extra-Sensory Perception: What Is It? |journal=[[American Journal of Sociology]] |date=January 1938 |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=623–634 |doi=10.1086/217775 |s2cid=145317132 |quote=Investigating Rhine's methods, we find that his mathematical methods are wrong and that the effect of this error would in some cases be negligible and in others very marked. We find that many of his experiments were set up in a manner which would tend to increase, instead of to diminish, the possibility of systematic clerical errors; and lastly, that the ESP cards can be read from the back.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Wynn|first1=Charles|last2=Wiggins|first2=Arthur|year=2001|title=Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends... and Pseudoscience Begins|publisher=Joseph Henry Press|page=156|isbn=978-0-309-07309-7|quote=In 1940, Rhine coauthored a book, ''Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years'' in which he suggested that something more than mere guess work was involved in his experiments. He was right! It is now known that the experiments conducted in his laboratory contained serious methodological flaws. Tests often took place with minimal or no screening between the subject and the person administering the test. Subjects could see the backs of cards that were later discovered to be so cheaply printed that a faint outline of the symbol could be seen. Furthermore, in face-to-face tests, subjects could see card faces reflected in the tester's eyeglasses or cornea. They were even able to (consciously or unconsciously) pick up clues from the tester's facial expression and voice inflection. In addition, an observant subject could identify the cards by certain irregularities like warped edges, spots on the backs, or design imperfections.}}</ref><ref>Hines, Terence (2003). p. 122. "The procedural errors in the Rhine experiments have been extremely damaging to his claims to have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Equally damaging has been the fact that the results have not replicated when the experiments have been conducted in other laboratories."</ref>

In 1957, the [[Parapsychological Association]] was formed as the preeminent society for parapsychologists. In 1969, they became affiliated with the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]].<ref>{{cite book|first1=Harvey J.|last1=Irwin|first2=Caroline A.|last2=Watt|year=2007|title=An Introduction to Parapsychology|edition=5th|publisher=McFarland|page=249|isbn=978-0-7864-3059-8}}</ref> Criticisms of the field were focused in the creation (in 1976) of the [[Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal]] (now called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) and its periodical, the ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]''.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kurtz|first=Paul|date=September–October 2006|title=Summing Up Thirty Years of the Skeptical Inquirer|url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2006/09/summing-up-thirty-years-of-the-skeptical-inquirer/|journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]]|volume=30|issue=5|pages=13–19}}</ref> Eventually, more mainstream scientists became critical of parapsychology as an endeavor, and statements by the National Academies of Science and the National Science Foundation cast a pall on the claims of evidence for parapsychology. Today, many cite parapsychology as an example of a [[pseudoscience]].<ref>Stenger, Victor J. (1990). p. 192. "Today, parapsychology is widely regarded as a pseudoscience.... Over a century it has been tainted by fraud, incompetence, and a general unwillingness to accept the verdict of conventional scientific method."</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Massimo|last1=Pigliucci|author1-link=Massimo Pigliucci|first2=Maarten|last2=Boudry|author2-link=Maarten Boudry|year=2013|title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem|publisher=University Of Chicago Press|page=158|isbn=978-0-226-05196-3|quote=Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.}}</ref> Parapsychology has been criticized for continuing investigation despite being unable to provide convincing evidence for the existence of any psychic phenomena after more than a century of research.<ref>Hines, Terence (2003). p. 144. "It is important to realize that, in one hundred years of parapsychological investigations, there has never been a single adequate demonstration of the reality of any psi phenomenon."</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Cordón|first=Luis A.|year=2005|title=Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia|publisher=Greenwood Press|page=182|isbn=978-0-313-32457-4|quote=The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal.}}</ref>

By the 2000s, the status of paranormal research in the United States had greatly declined from its height in the 1970s, with the majority of work being privately funded and only a small amount of research being carried out in university laboratories. In 2007, Britain had a number of privately funded laboratories in university psychology departments.<ref name="Odling-Smee">{{cite journal |last= Oling-Smee |first= L |date= 2007-03-01 |title= The lab that asked the wrong questions |journal= [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume= 446 |issue= 7131 |pages= 10–11 |doi= 10.1038/446010a |pmid= 17330012|bibcode= 2007Natur.446...10O |doi-access= free }}</ref> Publication remained limited to a small number of niche journals,<ref name="Odling-Smee"/> and to date there have been no experimental results that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community as valid evidence of the paranormal.<ref name="Odling-Smee"/>

===Participant-observer approach===
[[Image:Nightshot2.png|thumb|left|A [[ghost hunting|ghost hunter]] taking an [[EMF measurement|EMF reading]], which proponents claim may be connected to paranormal activity]]

While parapsychologists look for [[quantitative research|quantitative]] evidence of the paranormal in laboratories, a great number of people immerse themselves in [[qualitative research]] through [[Participant observation|participant-observer]] approaches to the paranormal. Participant-observer methodologies have overlaps with other essentially qualitative approaches, including [[Phenomenology (psychology)|phenomenological]] research that seeks largely to describe subjects ''as they are experienced'', rather than to explain them.<ref name="Husserl">{{cite book|title=Logical Investigations |last=Husserl |first=Edmund |author-link=Edmund Husserl |year=1970 |publisher=Routledge Kegan Paul Books |isbn=978-0-7100-6618-3}}</ref>{{page needed|date=December 2014}}

Participant observation suggests that by immersing oneself in the subject that is being studied, a researcher is presumed to gain understanding of the subject. Criticisms of participant observation as a data-gathering technique are similar to criticisms of other approaches to the paranormal, but also include an increased threat to the [[Objectivity (science)|scientific objectivity]] of the researcher, unsystematic gathering of data, reliance on [[Subjectivity|subjective]] measurement, and possible observer effects (i.e. observation may distort the observed behavior).<ref name="Becker">{{cite book|title=Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation |edition=Bobbs Merrill Reprint |last=Becker |first=Howard S. |author-link=Howard S. Becker |year=1993 |publisher=Irvington |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8290-3493-6}}</ref>{{page needed|date=December 2014}} Specific data-gathering methods, such as recording EMF ([[electromagnetic field]]) readings at haunted locations, have their own criticisms beyond those attributed to the participant-observer approach itself.

Participant observation, as an approach to the paranormal, has gained increased visibility and popularity through [[reality television]] programs like ''[[Ghost Hunters (TV series)|Ghost Hunters]]'', and the formation of independent ghost hunting groups that advocate immersive research at alleged paranormal locations. One popular website for ghost hunting enthusiasts lists over 300 of these organizations throughout the United States and the United Kingdom.<ref name=ghostgroups>{{cite web |url=http://www.ghostvillage.com/links/links_groups.shtml |title=Paranormal Groups |publisher=Ghostvillage.com |access-date=2014-06-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070102094816/http://www.ghostvillage.com/links/links_groups.shtml |archive-date=2 January 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref>