How not to react to constructive criticism

If you believe in ghosts and you base that belief on ideas that are not rooted in evidence or facts then the chances are that somebody at some point is going to question you about them. If you start making factual-sounding claims based on those beliefs that aren’t evidence based, then it’s very likely somebody is going to question those claims.

When your claims are questioned because they do not seem to be logical and you are not providing evidence to back them up you shouldn’t be surprised, and it is not out of order for someone to question you like that. The ‘burden of proof’ always lays with the person making the claim. It is arrogant of anybody to expect other people to simply accept them at their word without providing any other evidence to support the claims they are making. If your claims are questioned then you should be willing to either back your claims up by providing the evidence they’re based on (and if there is none, perhaps that should speak volumes to you), or be open minded and be willing to accept that you might be wrong.

After all, if you provide the evidence that your claims are based on – and it isn’t flawed or illogical evidence, then that is all the questioner was after and that’s a great outcome.

Asking to see evidence of something is not a bad thing and nobody should be treated as the bad guy for questioning somebody elses claims.

The worst way to react to someone questioning your claims is to go on the attack and to try and censor your attackers. Yet, among belief-led ghost hunters, going on the attack and trying to scare people into shutting up, with threats of legal action, seems to be a very common reaction to any criticism or questioning of their claims.

This is not healthy, and this is not open minded.

I have on numerous occasions been as the receiving end of threats and abuse simply for writing critically about specific ghost hunters and their behaviour or actions. The threats are normally about apparently libelous comments I have made, or about how I have infringed their copyright.

The comments that are allegedly libelous are normally the things I have written that criticise the ghost hunter/s, and the copyright infringement accusations stem from me using photos, footage, audio or similar presented by the team as part of the claim I am criticising.

Although it is possible for critical comments to be libelous, in the context I write things I always try to ensure that my criticisms are based upon available facts, and if not then I will readily admit that I have made a wrong assessment of the available information.
When, and if, I use photos or footage or similar to demonstrate the points I am making I do so knowing that I can use such materials – even in they’re copyrighted –  because the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states that ‘fair dealing’ can be attributed to the use of copyrighted materials for research and private study, criticism, review, and news reporting.

The problem that I want to write about here though isn’t whether or not I break the law when criticising ghost hunters, but the fact that such accusations are the reaction that I am faced with time and time again.

The most recent case of this happened yesterday when Don Philip reacted abusively to an article I wrote weeks ago for the Vigilantes Blog that I co-author. The article was ‘The Worst Ghosts of 2011‘ and Don and his team were mentioned twice in the countdown because of the ludicrous claims they have made in the name of ‘paranormal research’ without any good evidence to support them.

GSI Paranormal appeared at Number 5 for their investigation of a case called ‘The Braunstone Ghost’ in which their behaviour was psuedo-scientific, illogical and ethically questionable. They also appeared at Number 2 with footage called ‘The Wilton Ghost Horse’ in which they claim to have captured an EVP of what is alluded to be the spirit of a horse.

Unfortunately these videos no longer exist on the ‘ Worst Ghosts of 2011′ article as yesterday, in reaction to the article, Don Philip removed the videos from his youtube account so that they would no longer appear on the Vigilantes Blog.

Don also threatened on the Facebook group for ‘The Vigilantes Blog‘ that I had ’24 hours’. I presume he meant 24 hours to remove the article, or the videos.

“Having an embedded youTube video on your online article or website is exactly like having an embedded image – thus permission must also be given from the owner of the youTube video,”

When I didn’t react back or cave in and remove the article or videos Don became even more abusive in his comments.

 ”Haley (NEWS FLASH CHICKEN) there are no shortcuts do some fecking work of your own live life and then you may have grounds to comment on work of others whilst also having the benefit of a small degree of experience instead of trying to trade on the work of others. (P.S) If i was you id go seek an easier target trust me”

“learn about life before you dare to comment on that of which you dont have a clue with ur underhand tactics. Ive no time more idiots and it would a appear i have a prize one here silly little girl you need to live life before you are qualified to comment on it. You are far from qualified to comment on anything other than your guessed opinions.”

His friends and supporters were also abusive on pages that I could not see, but people who are mutual friends told me about the comments being made about me. Another person who posted on Don’s site offering other possible causes for the oddities they had captured was also treated to abusive and rude comments. With one person threatening to ‘splatter’ him ‘with a lorry’.

This is not acceptable behaviour. It’s not mature and it certainly isn’t open minded.

Threatening people, and trying to censor people simply because they do not agree with you, or have criticised your ideas is not a rational response.

Similar behaviour was displayed by another paranormal team who sent me numerous threatening emails and, when I didn’t respond in fear and remove my criticism of them, they too removed the material I had referenced in my original criticism.

Those who cannot stomach constructive criticism, and would rather hide the offending claims being called into question must ask themselves why it is they are reacting in this way.

I can remember a number of years ago when I believed it possible that people could speak to the dead. I watched a live television show in which a man was on stage delivering a psychic reading to a member of the audience. He was so accurate that it was really impressive, and then suddenly it was revealed that his name was James Randi and he was actually a skeptic.

My reaction was to say that he was stupid and closed minded. I dismissed his criticism of what I believed by attacking him because I wasn’t willing to asses my own close-mindedness and because I had accepted my belief in psychics for no good reason – and based on no good facts, I didn’t have a good argument to offer in reply to what James Randi was saying. So I attacked him as a person.

It was all I had.

I should probably explain that when I say ‘attacked’ I mean that I swore at the television. Now I am able to look back and see how illogical I was being, but I can also see why people respond to my criticisms like they do.

If you have to resort to name calling, abuse and threats of legal action in response to valid criticism then it’s a good indication that you might not have a very strong argument in defense of your claims and beliefs.

I may not have been involved with paranormal investigations for as long as Don claims he has (30 years) but that doesn’t make any difference. My criticisms are based on the best understanding I have on the reality of seemingly anomalous experiences and spontaneous phenomena. If my criticisms are incorrect then prove them so. I will happily admit I’m wrong, but that is yet to happen and I will not hold my breath.

Incidentally, Don ought to review his own practice regarding the use of copyrighted materials before accusing others of breaching copyright laws. A quick visit to the GSI website reveals two still from movies that I’m pretty sure he doesn’t own the copyright to being used as banners on the homepage.

 

However, that’s neither here nor there, and I’m not childish enough to use that in attack against Don. It does however demonstrates hypocrisy.

My original criticisms still stand, and in fact I believe that my criticisms have been strengthened by Don Philip removing the videos I had used to demonstrate my points.

Time and time again people threaten me with ‘legal action’ and time and time again I invite them to get a legal representative to make contact with me should they be serious about their accusation. To this date this has never happened.

I believe that speaks for itself.
Note:
Paranormal Activity 3 belongs to Paramount Pictures.
White Noise belongs to Universal Pictures

flattr this!

Posted in: Musings, Paranormal, Skepticism / Tagged: , , , , ,

Hayley is a ghost

When I became tangled up in the web that is ‘paranormal research’ at the age of Eighteen, I did so because I was looking for information and answers. In all the subsequent years I have found information, I have found answers and I have discovered more questions. The more I have learnt, the more I have discovered I do not know.

I am open minded and curious, more than most people involved in paranormal research can truthfully say. Most people have their minds made up one way or another, but I don’t. Some people involved in ‘the field’ have an agenda or are aiming to gain something from it, but I’ve never really aimed for that. Even though some people think I have. It’s concerning that so many people are content to say something is a ghost and be so sure of it when there is no rational way such an explanation is reasonably sound. The main problem with paranormal research is the amount of people who are so sure of their own ability (and not just ghost believers, either).

A lot of people involved in paranormal research need to just chill the eff out.

Since the age of Eighteen I have just been exploring the world we live in through curious eyes, and that has led me to be the skeptical individual I am today. I used to believe a lot of naive things and I learnt better. I still believe a lot of naive things, and over time I will learn better. Being critical of ourselves is the best way in which we can develop our understanding of the very nature of our existence.

I became involved in paranormal research to discover things I didn’t know about, and I continue to do that to this very day. Everything else has just been opportunities people have passed my way that I’ve taken them up on. All the talks, all the writing, all the interviews…

They’ve all been great fun, and they’ve enabled me to discuss my ever changing story with other people who’ve never held the curiosity in the paranormal that I have. It’s helped me make other people think about things, and it’s helped me meet like minded people and be challenged by the questions I’ve been asked.

Over the years I have come to believe that the answers to why people experience strange things lies within psychology and neurology. We (as the human race) are starting to deconstruct myths that have for a long time baffled many, and scientists and researchers are offering up explanations about things masses of people experience.

There is a lot still to be learnt, and a lot of what is being discovered is exciting and confusing, but progress is being made.

It’s why last year I decided to change the way in which I approach my exploration of the subject. I’ve started to study psychology with The Open University in the hope that when I’m much older I’ll be a bit more satisfied with how I understand the world.

The way in which people believe, perceive and think has always fascinated me, and I hope to be able to dig deeper and learn much more over the coming decade as a student.

This does mean I’m not going to have as much time to dedicate to as many projects as I did before, but I don’t see that being an overly negative thing.

I recently revamped the ‘Ghost Field Guide’ podcast and renamed it as ‘Talk About Strange’, I don’t think it will be a regular show but I will update it as and when I can with interesting pieces and interviews (of which I already have some to edit down). The Righteous Indignation Podcast was recently put on hold, but that doesn’t mean it has totally vanished. We’re not sure what will happen in the future with it, and sometimes it’s good for things to not have a long term plan. Life is a spontaneous thing, and I think it should be lived that way too. There are over 104 episodes of RI (if you could the Unlucky Dips) and I am really proud of the show and all it has achieved, and will continue to achieve. I will always be an indignate ;)

Project Barnum is my baby and there are some absolutely fun things coming up for it. On January 5th Project Barnum launched the Monthly Actions for people to participate in with ‘The Horoscope Challenge’ and I’ve seen some really interesting feedback already. I do believe that when I launched Project Barnum I didn’t do so in the most organised of manners, and I let other peoples ideas influence the direction it launched in too heavily. However, this year things should be interesting on the PB front.

There are some really decent people supporting it, and so many people have reported back to me that the site and the resources have genuinely helped them that I think I’ve done something right there (and I’m not just doing a Colin Fry and allegedly blowing my own trumpet…)

I will continue to blog as I always have. Both here and over on The Vigilantes Blog too. I don’t see there ever being a time where I wont share my thoughts with those who follow me on this site. Blogging has been the foundation of everything I have done since the age of Eighteen, and it will continue to be so for as long as I shall live.

I have so many books to catch up on, so many research reports to read, and so much ahead of me to learn. It’s going to be exciting. 2012 is going to be the year in which I step up the quest that the Eighteen year old me started. Things have only just begun.

flattr this!

Posted in: Musings, Paranormal, Skepticism / Tagged: , , ,

The cost of an opinion

What is the cost of an opinion?

It could be a libel case with hundreds of thousands of pounds, or perhaps a smear campaign online trying to discredit you.

It could be nastier – you could be threatened with violence by your peers, your job could be threatened with a well placed and malicious complaint, or perhaps you will be told that someone knows where you live and will kill your family.  This is nothing new, people are often harassed for speaking out against the religions and belief-systems of others, or for doing or saying things that offend the traditions of other people. People have even been killed, imprisoned, harassed, stalked, beaten up, abused and more.

Yet atheists, secularists, non-believers, doubters, agnostics… they don’t go away. They don’t shut up. They don’t stop trying, they don’t stop speaking out, they never will.

Threaten to beat your school peers up, burn effigies, intimidate people by stopping their meetings, get books banned, try to rule other peoples lives through politics, but don’t ever expect those who doubt, who think, who speak out, to go away. The cost of an opinion is high, it’s risky, but it’s never not worth it.

#atheistandproud

*I am aware that I live in an area where I wont be lynched for being atheist so it’s ‘easy’ for me to write, this, but I do so to show support for those currently being targeted by bigots.

flattr this!

Posted in: Atheism / Tagged: ,

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.

flattr this!

Posted in: Paranormal, Skepticism / Tagged: , ,