Most people who have watched the television show "Ghost Hunters" on SyFy will probably recognize what has commonly been referred to as the "Flashlight experiment" in the paranormal community. Recently featured in the second season finale of Ghost Hunters Academy (also on SyFy), the "experiment" has been getting a fair amount of publicity.
In case you aren't familiar with it, please allow me to describe the scenario. Typically, several ghost hunters will sit in a darkened room around a flashlight which is normally set on the floor or on a flat surface of some kind, and attempt spirit communication by asking any ghosts present to turn the light on and off. Oftentimes direct questions will be asked. The light turning on or off, seemingly on its own, is then considered to be an answer from beyond.*
Having seen this on television, in person at various "haunted hotspots," and in talking about it's use with friends of mine, it has become clear that a fair number of people believe it is an effective method of talking with ghosts. I am hoping this article today will help provide a very clear non-paranormal explanation.
First, there is the use of the flashlight itself. A friend recently asked me point blank how I would explain the effect. I replied that it is really quite simple: people are using a flashlight incorrectly. You see, before the "flashlight experiment" can be carried out during a paranormal investigation, the flashlight must first be slightly tampered with. In fact, what investigators do, depending on their particular model, is either push the switch or twist the cap precariously between the on and off position, thus making the instrument that much more delicate. At this position, little if any interference from a person or the environment is required to cause the light to turn all the way on, off, or flicker.
A flashlight contains many parts that come together to make the instrument work. Among these parts are contact strips, the switch itself, and the lamp. Batteries, of course, are also essential to the use of most models. According to Enegizer.com, "when a flashlight switch is pushed to the ON position, it makes contact between two contact strips, which begins a flow of electricity, powered from the battery." Activated by the flow of electrons, the filament, or LED, in the tiny lightbulb (lamp) begins to glow, producing light. Disrupting the flow of this electricity, which is exactly what happens when you place the flashlight between the ON/OFF positions, creates an open circuit and, as a direct result, it doesn't work right.*
But what, you may ask, about the responses ghost hunters seem to get from ghosts in regards to their questions? Now that we know the flashlight is being used improperly, and is malfunctioning as a result, these alleged responses become suspect. Furthermore, how can we actually know a ghost is communicating? Using this same method, I've made it appear I am having a conversation via flashlight with anything from an invisible purple dinosaur to a flying spaghetti monster. Even my dirty gym socks joined the party from miles away once. "If my gym socks are present here, please turn the light on." The light turned on. "You are? Wow. Here I was just looking for ghosts!"
One of the major problems with this method is how unscientific it is used in conjunction with a ghost hunt. Paranormal researchers are taking the flashlight only to locations they believe may be haunted and are using the flickering light to prove their case! Why aren't they testing the validity of the method in locations they don't believe to be haunted; a gas station bathroom, next to the litter box in your friend's basement, your own house? If the "flashlight experiment" is attempted in a non-haunted setting and behaves in a similar fashion, why would you believe it would be any different in a place you think is crawling with ghosts?
Another problem ghost hunters have when using this method is they set the situation up for success before they begin by giving the alleged ghost the simplest of tasks to perform. That isn't scientific at all. For instance, when the light is off, the ghost is asked to turn the light on. Well, that's the only option there is! So then, when the light eventually flickers and turns on, it's considered a positive case of ghost communication. That's absurd. Ask this so-called ghost to tap out a sentence in Morse Code. Ask it to turn on at a particular letter of the alphabet. Ask it questions to see if it can give you information you don't already have. The point is, if you ask for only simple results, you're likely to get them. And that proves nothing other than your own lack of creativity.
In conclusion, the "flashlight trick" as used by TAPS affiliated ghost hunting groups on television, and in amateur squads around the country, is a severely flawed method for obtaining scientific validation of ghost communication. It can be explained easily by non-paranormal means as simple manipulation of the flashlight itself and an all too eager community of believers.*
However, if you have doubts about whether or not the flashlight is being used improperly during this phase of a ghost investigation, I will pose you a challenge: Find me a reputable set of Maglite flashlight instruction which say something along the lines of, "For best use, place between an ON/OFF position and attempt to talk with ghosts." Only then will I concede your point. Until then, perhaps it would be wise to abandon this ghost hunting technique as yet another in a long line of failures to communicate.
Thanks for reading.
REFERENCES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_XRe43mhuI
http://www.energizer.com/LEARNING-CENTER/Pages/how-flashlights-work.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry7M1fzKlrE
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Burden of Proof
The Burden of Proof
Skeptics are constantly barraged with the arrows of blind belief. Skeptics are seen as the challengers to status quo, but in reality, they are the upholders of natural law. Simply put, everything is, or was, a blank slate. Let’s use religion as an example. In today’s world, in the US, religion is something that we aren’t ’allowed’ to question. Churches are given a tax-exempt status by the government. Religious officials are often called to consult on political or even medical issues, sometimes with no other credentials other than expertise of their religion. Religion is a human-made concept, imposed upon a natural world.
Skeptics, who question this challenge to the status quo, are constantly told, in crude terms to ‘put up or shut up’. To provide sufficient proof of their skepticism. Skeptics are wrongly assigned the burden of proof. It’s time to set the record straight.
First let me start off by admitting that I am not a lawyer. In fact, researching this article had me reading legal text, consulting an actual lawyer, and pulling my hair out. I keep telling my mother that there was a very good reason I never followed through with law school. Basically, I read some basic articles and book chapters and to find some support for my argument. If you have better information, please share it, because I’d really like to learn more.
Nearly all of us are familiar with burden of proof on it’s most basic legal level: innocent until proven guilty. In US law, the burden of proof is defined as the ‘obligation on a party to prove the allegation made by him against another party.’ In law, there is a saying in latin (why lawyers still get a boner for latin is beyond me) that goes ‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’. This translates into ‘the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.’ This means the person challenging status quo, making a claim, has the legal responsibility of proving it.
In law, there are 2 burdens of proof. First is the burden of persuasion, meaning that the presumption of innocence places all burden on the prosecution, like I said above. The second is evidential burden. This is where things get a bit interesting. Evidential burden is when prosecution presents evidence to challenge the defense. This is where the back-and-forth comes in. To use religion as an example, the status quo is that there is no religion. The religion is the prosecution, they are the ones that have to present evidence to support their claim. The prosecution then gets to examine the evidence and challenge it. Of course, that challenge isn’t accepted, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
This is where Standard of Proof comes in. In law, there are 3 basic kinds. In criminal defense, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, which is the closest to iron-clad as one can get. In civil cases there are 2 types of standards of proof: clear and convincing evidence and preponderance. You see this type of evidence on TV court shows, the basic idea that ‘its more likely than not.’ The reason the standard of proof in a criminal case is so high is because once someone is convicted, it’s there forever. Nobody has to disclose a civil case on a job application, for example. There are no criminal charges in a civil case (although there can be two cases, in each court, for the same issue).
The philosophical burden of proof is very much in line with the US legal burden. In philosophical debate, it is argued that both sides have a burden of proof, but most of the time it will be unbalanced. One side will have more to prove than the other. This too falls in line with US legal burden of proof, in that when evidence is presented, both sides have to either support or refute it.
So how does this apply to, again, our religion debate? Simple. We can accept the lowest standard, the ‘more likely than not’ standard. However, that standard is negated when strong, solid evidence is brought into the discussion. Basically, it’s a weak debate best left to people arguing over cell phone bills on daytime TV.
In science, the burden of proof is empirical and open to falsification. The field understands that it’s ‘proof’ in any claim can, will and needs to be examined by the other parties and challenged if any progress is to be made. Whether this be to search for the truth or to solidify theory and evidence already in place, it needs to be examined. In science, the standard for proof is very strong, and there are set methodologies to examine data. Science looks for connections and avoids the fallacy that there can be a single cause to anything. Science looks for relationships. Those relationships help to strengthen claims and evidence. I would argue that, since science is a method used to explain the natural world, science is the defendant. The burden of proof lies in those who question the natural world. Everything from God to evolution to miracles, the paranormal and back again.
In his book ’The God Delusion’, professor Richard Dawkins discusses a 2006 case in which the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a church in New Mexico would be allowed to break the law and use hallucinogenic drugs in its services and rituals. Furthermore, the church did not have to provide any other proof that this drug worked, rather the US Supreme Court took the line ‘we believe it works’ as sufficient cause to allow them to break the law.
So, if there is a high standard of the burden of proof in US law, then why would ‘we believe it works’ serve as irrefutable evidence? This is obviously a failure of our legal system to uphold its own values. Why is this? Our society has allowed this type of evidence to be ‘good enough’. The notion that religion is untouchable has permeated our society and framed any sort of debate, including legal debates. Suddenly the standard of proof is lower.
Linguist George Lakoff discusses the notion of framing in his book ‘Don’t Think of An Elephant.’ While he talks about debate in terms of politics, the same notion applies to skeptical debates. One of Lakoff’s arguments during a debate is that we not think of an elephant. What does this mean? He means that, in a debate, we can’t argue with a frame, especially a frame set by those who are posing the challenge. If we get caught in that loop, we are no longer examining the evidence. This is when the standards of evidence are lowered and those lower standards are accepted. Soon, we accept belief as evidence enough to change our laws. The very laws that protect us and hold us accountable mean nothing if we believe in something. It’s sad, really.
So what does any of this mean? I argue that since science is the study of nature, which is the defendant, anything that comes to question it has the burden of proof. Be it religion, a psychic, a ghost hunter with an EVP, they have the burden of proof in any argument or debate. Basically, if you don’t have anything to back up what you bring to the table, then don’t bring it. So the next time a skeptic is brought a ridiculous claim, they should be brought the evidence to support it. Hand them a law book, or even a dictionary, and let them get back to you.
Skeptics are constantly barraged with the arrows of blind belief. Skeptics are seen as the challengers to status quo, but in reality, they are the upholders of natural law. Simply put, everything is, or was, a blank slate. Let’s use religion as an example. In today’s world, in the US, religion is something that we aren’t ’allowed’ to question. Churches are given a tax-exempt status by the government. Religious officials are often called to consult on political or even medical issues, sometimes with no other credentials other than expertise of their religion. Religion is a human-made concept, imposed upon a natural world.
Skeptics, who question this challenge to the status quo, are constantly told, in crude terms to ‘put up or shut up’. To provide sufficient proof of their skepticism. Skeptics are wrongly assigned the burden of proof. It’s time to set the record straight.
First let me start off by admitting that I am not a lawyer. In fact, researching this article had me reading legal text, consulting an actual lawyer, and pulling my hair out. I keep telling my mother that there was a very good reason I never followed through with law school. Basically, I read some basic articles and book chapters and to find some support for my argument. If you have better information, please share it, because I’d really like to learn more.
Nearly all of us are familiar with burden of proof on it’s most basic legal level: innocent until proven guilty. In US law, the burden of proof is defined as the ‘obligation on a party to prove the allegation made by him against another party.’ In law, there is a saying in latin (why lawyers still get a boner for latin is beyond me) that goes ‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’. This translates into ‘the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.’ This means the person challenging status quo, making a claim, has the legal responsibility of proving it.
In law, there are 2 burdens of proof. First is the burden of persuasion, meaning that the presumption of innocence places all burden on the prosecution, like I said above. The second is evidential burden. This is where things get a bit interesting. Evidential burden is when prosecution presents evidence to challenge the defense. This is where the back-and-forth comes in. To use religion as an example, the status quo is that there is no religion. The religion is the prosecution, they are the ones that have to present evidence to support their claim. The prosecution then gets to examine the evidence and challenge it. Of course, that challenge isn’t accepted, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
This is where Standard of Proof comes in. In law, there are 3 basic kinds. In criminal defense, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, which is the closest to iron-clad as one can get. In civil cases there are 2 types of standards of proof: clear and convincing evidence and preponderance. You see this type of evidence on TV court shows, the basic idea that ‘its more likely than not.’ The reason the standard of proof in a criminal case is so high is because once someone is convicted, it’s there forever. Nobody has to disclose a civil case on a job application, for example. There are no criminal charges in a civil case (although there can be two cases, in each court, for the same issue).
The philosophical burden of proof is very much in line with the US legal burden. In philosophical debate, it is argued that both sides have a burden of proof, but most of the time it will be unbalanced. One side will have more to prove than the other. This too falls in line with US legal burden of proof, in that when evidence is presented, both sides have to either support or refute it.
So how does this apply to, again, our religion debate? Simple. We can accept the lowest standard, the ‘more likely than not’ standard. However, that standard is negated when strong, solid evidence is brought into the discussion. Basically, it’s a weak debate best left to people arguing over cell phone bills on daytime TV.
In science, the burden of proof is empirical and open to falsification. The field understands that it’s ‘proof’ in any claim can, will and needs to be examined by the other parties and challenged if any progress is to be made. Whether this be to search for the truth or to solidify theory and evidence already in place, it needs to be examined. In science, the standard for proof is very strong, and there are set methodologies to examine data. Science looks for connections and avoids the fallacy that there can be a single cause to anything. Science looks for relationships. Those relationships help to strengthen claims and evidence. I would argue that, since science is a method used to explain the natural world, science is the defendant. The burden of proof lies in those who question the natural world. Everything from God to evolution to miracles, the paranormal and back again.
In his book ’The God Delusion’, professor Richard Dawkins discusses a 2006 case in which the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a church in New Mexico would be allowed to break the law and use hallucinogenic drugs in its services and rituals. Furthermore, the church did not have to provide any other proof that this drug worked, rather the US Supreme Court took the line ‘we believe it works’ as sufficient cause to allow them to break the law.
So, if there is a high standard of the burden of proof in US law, then why would ‘we believe it works’ serve as irrefutable evidence? This is obviously a failure of our legal system to uphold its own values. Why is this? Our society has allowed this type of evidence to be ‘good enough’. The notion that religion is untouchable has permeated our society and framed any sort of debate, including legal debates. Suddenly the standard of proof is lower.
Linguist George Lakoff discusses the notion of framing in his book ‘Don’t Think of An Elephant.’ While he talks about debate in terms of politics, the same notion applies to skeptical debates. One of Lakoff’s arguments during a debate is that we not think of an elephant. What does this mean? He means that, in a debate, we can’t argue with a frame, especially a frame set by those who are posing the challenge. If we get caught in that loop, we are no longer examining the evidence. This is when the standards of evidence are lowered and those lower standards are accepted. Soon, we accept belief as evidence enough to change our laws. The very laws that protect us and hold us accountable mean nothing if we believe in something. It’s sad, really.
So what does any of this mean? I argue that since science is the study of nature, which is the defendant, anything that comes to question it has the burden of proof. Be it religion, a psychic, a ghost hunter with an EVP, they have the burden of proof in any argument or debate. Basically, if you don’t have anything to back up what you bring to the table, then don’t bring it. So the next time a skeptic is brought a ridiculous claim, they should be brought the evidence to support it. Hand them a law book, or even a dictionary, and let them get back to you.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Do Celebrities Die in Threes?
Sadly, Gary Coleman, actor and icon of pop culture, passed away today. And it seems that most anytime a famous person of some sort dies, invariably we'll hear folks start talking about how celebrities always die in threes. But is it true? I'm the Uninformed Skeptic, and today on the Skeptic Squad blog we'll examine that very issue.
I must admit that when I hear the claim that "celebrities die in threes" it just doesn't sound true. I don't know everything, of course, but I believe I do know that the universe doesn't operate in such a way that the fate of famous people would be worked out in such a pattern. Creation doesn't spring from magic and death doesn't have a grand design. Though the claim seems to be without that certain "ring of truth" doesn't necessarily make it untrue, however.
In our examination, we should look at two things: One, what constitutes a celebrity? And two, how do we determind the "threes"? That is, is there a set timeframe we look at to determine if the death fits an agreed upon succession?
Let's look at what a celebrity is first. The problem is many people have a different view on who is or is not a celebrity. Are celebrities actors? Do they have to be on television? Movies? Must they be internationally known? What about musicians? Politicians? Is the person a celebrity if we haven't heard of them but many others have? Surely, in these cases of celebrity deaths which have allegedly happened in three's, who one person considers a celebrity might not be considered as such by another.
For instance, as of this writing, many deaths of noted men and women have occurred in the last week. There was Gary Coleman today but, working backward, I see that television personality Art Linkletter, actress Pat Stevens, musician Paul Gray, Major League Baseball player Jose Lima, screenwriter Simon Monjack, science writer Martin Gardner, and cartoonist Howard Post all passed away. Now, those are just the people who I was familiar with. But there were also dozens upon dozens more who I had not. They ranged from Indian politicians and actors to American athletes and an international group of musicians, poets, and more. So, who do we count as a celebrity and who do we not?
Secondly, and just as important to the claim, is the matter of "threes." As I have noted, dozens of notable figures have passed away within the last week. But what is the timeframe for determining the celebrities which make up one of the mythical three? Do they have to die on the same day? The same week? How about the same month? If they have to die in the same month, there is a host of other notable people who have passed away that will simply leave the concept of threes in the dust.
So therein lies the problem for purveyors of this popular myth. They like to chant the mantra that "celebrities die in threes" but have seemingly not bothered to define the two most important elements of their claim: What is a celebrity, and how do we know which dead celebrity is one, two, or three on the list? Until that is defined, this remains just another silly myth that people like to propagate that, upon examination, ultimately makes no sense at all.
But because I am calling myself the Uninformed Skeptic, I must recognize the limit of my own knowledge. Perhaps you know something that adds to this discussion. If so, or if you would just like to leave your feedback, please comment below. Until next time, this has been the Uninformed Skeptic writing for Skeptic Squad. Goodnight!
Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2010
I must admit that when I hear the claim that "celebrities die in threes" it just doesn't sound true. I don't know everything, of course, but I believe I do know that the universe doesn't operate in such a way that the fate of famous people would be worked out in such a pattern. Creation doesn't spring from magic and death doesn't have a grand design. Though the claim seems to be without that certain "ring of truth" doesn't necessarily make it untrue, however.
In our examination, we should look at two things: One, what constitutes a celebrity? And two, how do we determind the "threes"? That is, is there a set timeframe we look at to determine if the death fits an agreed upon succession?
Let's look at what a celebrity is first. The problem is many people have a different view on who is or is not a celebrity. Are celebrities actors? Do they have to be on television? Movies? Must they be internationally known? What about musicians? Politicians? Is the person a celebrity if we haven't heard of them but many others have? Surely, in these cases of celebrity deaths which have allegedly happened in three's, who one person considers a celebrity might not be considered as such by another.
For instance, as of this writing, many deaths of noted men and women have occurred in the last week. There was Gary Coleman today but, working backward, I see that television personality Art Linkletter, actress Pat Stevens, musician Paul Gray, Major League Baseball player Jose Lima, screenwriter Simon Monjack, science writer Martin Gardner, and cartoonist Howard Post all passed away. Now, those are just the people who I was familiar with. But there were also dozens upon dozens more who I had not. They ranged from Indian politicians and actors to American athletes and an international group of musicians, poets, and more. So, who do we count as a celebrity and who do we not?
Secondly, and just as important to the claim, is the matter of "threes." As I have noted, dozens of notable figures have passed away within the last week. But what is the timeframe for determining the celebrities which make up one of the mythical three? Do they have to die on the same day? The same week? How about the same month? If they have to die in the same month, there is a host of other notable people who have passed away that will simply leave the concept of threes in the dust.
So therein lies the problem for purveyors of this popular myth. They like to chant the mantra that "celebrities die in threes" but have seemingly not bothered to define the two most important elements of their claim: What is a celebrity, and how do we know which dead celebrity is one, two, or three on the list? Until that is defined, this remains just another silly myth that people like to propagate that, upon examination, ultimately makes no sense at all.
But because I am calling myself the Uninformed Skeptic, I must recognize the limit of my own knowledge. Perhaps you know something that adds to this discussion. If so, or if you would just like to leave your feedback, please comment below. Until next time, this has been the Uninformed Skeptic writing for Skeptic Squad. Goodnight!
Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)