Approaching paranormal activity from a research perspective is often difficult because even when the phenomena are seen as real, they may be difficult to explain using existing rules or theory. By definition, paranormal phenomena exist outside of conventional norms. Sceptics contend that they don’t exist at all. Despite this challenge, studies on the paranormal are periodically conducted by researchers from various disciplines. Some researchers study just the beliefs in paranormal phenomena regardless of whether the phenomena actually exist.
This section deals with various approaches to the paranormal including those scientific, pseudoscientific, and unscientific. Modern day investigation usually makes a point of utilising elements of each approach to better gain an understanding of the overall picture.
THE ANECDOTAL APPROACH
Often, the paranormal community focusses on the collection of anecdotal evidence consisting of informal accounts. Anecdotal evidence, lacking the rigor of empirical evidence, is not amenable to 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. It is also subject to cognitive bias, inductive reasoning and other fallacies that may prevent the anecdote from having meaningful information to impart. Nevertheless, it is a common approach to paranormal phenomena.
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 phenomena, though there were no doubt many more than these. Reported events that he collected include teleportation (a term Fort is generally credited with coining); poltergeist events, falls of frogs, fishes, inorganic materials of an amazing range; crop circles; unaccountable noises and explosions; spontaneous fires; levitation; ball lightning (a term explicitly used by Fort); unidentified flying objects; mysterious appearances and disappearances; giant wheels of light in the oceans; and animals found outside their normal ranges (see phantom cat). Fort is considered by many as the father of modern paranormalism, which is the study of paranormal phenomena.
AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Most paranormal investigation is largely conducted in the multidisciplinary field of parapsychology. Although parapsychology has its roots in earlier research, it began using the experimental approach in the 1930s under the direction of J. B. Rhine (1895 – 1980). Rhine popularized the now famous methodology of using card-guessing and dice-rolling experiments in a laboratory in the hopes of finding a statistical validation of extra-sensory perception.
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. That affiliation, along with a general openness to psychic and occult phenomena in the 1970s, led to a decade of increased parapsychological research. During this time, other notable organizations were also formed, including the Academy of Parapsychology and Medicine (1970), the Institute of Para science (1971), the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research, the Institute for Notec Sciences (1973), and the International Kirlian Research Association (1975). Each of these groups performed experiments on paranormal subjects to varying degrees. Parapsychological work was also conducted at the Stanford Research Institute during this time.
With the increase in parapsychological investigation, there came an increase in opposition to both the findings of parapsychologists and the granting of any formal recognition of the field. Criticisms of the field were focused in the founding of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (1976), now called the Committee for Sceptical Inquiry, and its periodical, Sceptical Inquirer.
As astronomer Carl Sagan put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and experimental research into the paranormal continues today, though it has waned considerably since the 1970s. One such experiment is called the Ganzfeld Experiment. The purpose of the Ganzfeld Experiment, like other parapsychological experiments, is to test for statistical anomalies that might suggest the existence of psi, a process indicating psychic phenomena. In the Ganzfeld Experiment, a subject (receiver) is asked to access information through psychic means some target.
DEBUNKING AND DISPROVING
This is a natural response to claims of paranormal phenomena, and consists of finding a “normal” explanation instead of a paranormal one to account for the claims. The basis for this approach is Occam’s razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is the best one. Since standard scientific models generally predict what can be expected in the natural world, the debunking approach presumes that what appears to be paranormal is necessarily a misinterpretation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual anomalous phenomenon. In contrast to the sceptical position, which requires claims to be proven, the debunking approach actively seeks to disprove the claims.
An alternative to debunking is found in the field of anomalistic. Anomalistic differs from debunking in that debunking works on the premise that something is either a misidentified instance of something known to science, or that it is a hoax, while anomalistic works on the premise that something may be either of the above, or something that can be rationalised using an as yet unexplored avenue of science.
PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION
Suggests that by immersing oneself in the subject being studied, a researcher is presumed to gain understanding of the subject. In paranormal research, a participant-observer study might consist of a researcher visiting a place where alleged paranormal activity is said to occur and recording observations while there.