Yet another clarification on ghosts and ethics
I have been asked to write another clarification by the admin on the ‘Society for Psychical Research (SPR)’ on Facebook group (who does not represent the SPR) regarding my views and opinions on their lack of an formal ethical code.
In response to my original blog post about this the admin posted a link to the SPR membership guidelines as though that was what I was stating was missing. However, it isn’t and I don’t think I have been understood.
I would like to point out here that I am an amateur researcher who has learnt everything I know about paranormal research from books, the internet and other more experienced people. I am not involved in formal research and don’t have expereince with formal ethical codes experienced in such a manner, yet I still do not believe that the Membership Guidelines of the SPR clearly state what is and isn’t ethical behaviour.
In section 6a the guidelines read:
Researchers are advised to consult fully with the subjects of their investigations prior to the start of an investigation, to keep within prearranged protocols unless there is full and free agreement with the subjects to a change of the protocol, and take due account of conditions under which investigations take place that might adversely affect a subject’s performance. They should also establish beforehand the framework for confidentiality and conditions of possible publication (e.g. as a courtesy, tested claimants should be informed about what is going to be said about them in a forthcoming publication). Researchers are advised to familiarise themselves as well as possible beforehand with the specific area they are researching, and to seek advice if in doubt during and after (eg. if there is suspicion of fraud) their research.
The SPR then link to the ‘Ethical and Professional Standards for Parapsychologists’ on the ‘Parapsychological Association‘ website. If this is the code of ethics that all of their investigators and researchers abide by, then I stand corrected, but it does not state this anywhere on the SPR site, and the site only refers to the PA paper as a good resource to read.
I understand that there are committees within the SPR that oversee different areas of research, but I cannot find any information online regarding how they set out their codes of ethics, or how they interpret potential problems. Do all research committees set out ethical codes in the same manner? If so, where is the framework for this taken from?
The SPR membership guideline page also suggests reading the ‘notes for investigators’ page on the SPR website. This outlines good protocol for their investigators to follow, but doesn’t really touch upon the potential for behaviour or research to become unethical.
It also doesn’t state when an investigator should and should not undertake a case. I’m not a member of the SPR (mainly due to the cost), and maybe that information is only available to members – but as far as I can see, as a member of the public, there is no set of guidelines on what constitutes good ethical behaviour and methodology on their site. That is the point I have been making all along.
On Facebook the SPR group admin said:
“The SPR has no power to dictate to investigators when they do not represent the SPR, even if they are members of it, the best thing is to provide guidelines for good practice. Members working through the SCC are often members of professional bodies and adhere to their organisations’ codes of ethics as well.
…I am reminded that the SCC has existed in its present form for over 30 years and has never had any kind of ethical issue during an investigation in all that time (and doubtless long before).”
This is sort of the point that I have been making all along. The person who stood up after my talk and said that the SPR do have a formal code of ethics in place was incorrect, and that was why I made the original clarification blog post – to clarify exactly what they were suggesting, and to clarify what I meant.
Although I am sure SPR research is ethical, I was merely highlighting the fact that there is potential for unethical behaviour and research to slip through the net due to personal interpretation of what is and isn’t ethical.
I should also say it was unfair of me to refer to the SPR as ‘ghost hunters’ along with all manner of ghost hunting groups, but I do refer to anyone that researchers ghosts as ‘ghost hunters’ simply because it seems to be the most universally understood term.
The potential for unethical behaviour to be a problem is more significantly present in unregulated amateur paranormal teams than it is organisations like SPR or ASSAP or similar, but there is still the potential there. I should have been more specific about the examples I was using.
What can grassroots skeptics do about ghost hunting?
I’ve often been asked how grassroots skeptics and grassroots skeptic organisations (such as ‘skeptics in the pub’ groups) can deal with pseudo-scientific ghost hunting teams on a local level. This was also a point raised by the lovely Andy Wilson who hosted the ‘Ghost Investigations Today’ panel at QEDcon in February 2011.
There certainly is potential for such groups to get involved on a local level but the key is taking the right approach, and knowing what to look for. That’s why I’m writing this post in the hope that it can help those wanting to approach ghost teams, or deal with the nonsense and associated fear they often spread.
Clarifying my points on ghosts & ethics
Yesterday I spoke for the ‘Centre for Inquiry UK’ at their ‘Beyond the Veil’ event alongside Chris French, Richard Wiseman, Paul Zenon and Ian Rowland (who has cemented in my mind the idea that glass tastes minty.)
I felt compelled to write this piece just to clarify something said during my talk that was then challenged by an audience member during the short Q&A afterwards.
In my talk I spoke a bit about ethics within ghost hunting and how the field is largely unregulated which allows for all sorts of problems to arise (that often go unquestioned or aren’t dealt with).
I mentioned that the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) don’t have a formal code of ethics, and this was challenged by somebody in the audience who took umbrage at several things I had said.
The fact is that the SPR don’t have a formal code. They do consider ethics (and I didn’t suggest they didn’t). There are committees in place who oversee different areas of research and a lot of their published research is done through universities who will have their own codes of ethics in place for research, but there is no formal code in place within the SPR that members have to comply with. This means that exactly what is and isn’t acceptable isn’t always very clear.
The point I was making by discussing this (and other cases) with the audience at Conway Hall is that ghost researchers are largely unregulated – and only self regulated in those instances where they do opt-in to work with a code of ethics in place.
Some amateur paranormal research teams do have their own ethical codes which shows a good awareness of the vulnerability of the people they may encounter in their research and investigations, but quite often paranormal researchers don’t consider the impact their behaviour may have on vulnerable people (such as the recently bereaved, or those with mental illness). This doesn’t necessarily make them bad people, just bad researchers.
The same audience member also accused me of trying to make ghost hunters sound bad by implying throughout my talk that the majority of ghost hunters believe orbs are paranormal and that the dodgy methods mentioned (such as EVP, table tipping and talking to ghosts through EMF meters) were more widespread than they were.
I do not have statistics of how many ghost hunters do believe orbs are paranormal in nature compared to the number of this who do not believe this, but I know from my own experience that despite evidence to the contrary a lot of ghost hunters still do believe orbs are paranormal in nature – or that some orbs are paranormal in nature.
I didn’t intend to make it seem that this was what every ghost hunter believed, and I didn’t say that, and I hope nobody took that from my talk. The methods I demonstrated and the things I covered in my talk are things that come from the world of modern ghost hunting. They are things done and created by modern day ghost hunters, and for as long as those methods are used by anyone entering a private home as a ghost hunter who is providing some sort of service or expert opinion, then that is a problem. That is the point I made.
Lastly, the SPR member questioned whether or not I had gone from being a closed minded believer to a closed minded non-believer. I haven’t because I’m always willing to weigh up the evidence when and if it is presented to me, but as I stated, the evidence I have seen to date hasn’t stood strong against skeptical scrutiny.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions anyone may have taken away from my talk (not that I believe anyone other than this one person did).
Examples of EVP
Yesterday I spoke at the ‘Centre For Inquiry’ event, ‘Beyond the Veil’, at Conway Hall in London. Part of my talk included some examples of EVP recordings. The plan was to play the EVP recording and ask the audience to see if they could hear what was being said, before revealing what the alleged ghost was thought to be saying as suggested by the ghost hunters who captured the sound and presented it as evidence that ghosts exist.
However, there was a problem with the audio connection to my laptop that meant this was practically impossible. So, I thought I’d put the clips up here for people to listen to. Play each one a couple of times and see if you can hear what is being said. The ‘answer’ is below.
Once it is suggested to you what you are supposed to be hearing, it’s easier to recognise the words. These are auditory illusions. Enjoy!
with number five, you will hear a man say ‘wondering… why are you here?’ – the noise of interest is just before he says this.
EVP Example five (warning: noisy! )
Answers
1 – “About time, help me.. Let me come out”
2 – “Keep out!”
3 – “Just Listen To Me”
4 – “I know those people are with you..”
5 – A horse snorting
I support…
