The Education Lab
This page is a continuously growing source of knowledge that can be used for education or brushing up on the scientific principles involved with paranormal research. In this area you will be able to study and test your knowledge. We are constantly working to ensure that best information is presented in an easy to read format. Enjoy!
Study Guides:
EHS (Electro-magnetic
hypersensitivty)
Understanding Digital Cameras
Investigation Photography (Coming
Soon)
Understanding Audio Recorders
(Coming Soon)
Audio Analysis (Coming
Soon)
Environmental Measurements (Coming
Soon)
Data Collectors (Coming
Soon)
Data Collection (Coming
Soon)
Client Interaction (Coming
Soon)
Testing
The following is just one of what will eventually be a series of Exams geared toward those who wish to test their technical knowledge of various aspects of scientific paranormal research. Each of the questions were chosen by Michael Baker and represent actual scientific principles and theories. Study material for this an other tests will be listed in the study guide area above. *NOTE - This is for eduactional purposes ONLY. - N.E.C.A.P.S. does not claim to provide official certification in these or any other subects.
The following video was sponsored by NASA in the hopes of understanding magnetic fields. Based on actual readings, an artistic rendition of electromagnetic waves were placed over video footage. The result was a peek inside an invisible world. What you will see is what magnetic fields would look like if you could see them with your eyes.
Paratheology
(Paratheology:
the rational and systematic study of paranormal influences and of
the nature of paranormal truth)
The videos in this segment represent various
scientific principles which may propose hypotheses or theories regarding
an afterlife existence or paranormal energy. Please use this information
as a foundation for any perspectives you may develop regarding the
paranormal world. - This page will always be under construction
and more videos will be added soon - please check back!
Food
for thought – Using the principle of Carl Sagan’s “Flatland”,
imagine if paranormal beings were simply part of a fourth
or fifth dimension. Like in the video, they would have the
ability to interact with our world in a way that is beyond
our comprehension and we would only be able to see the parts
of them that are “third” dimensional. Based on the thousands
of paranormal claims each year, do you think this perspective
shows promise? |
|
If energy can behave
differently when we observe it, what does that say about our
ability to discover an unknown energy? There is a basic scientific
principle that states "Anything we study, we also change."
Just the very act of being there can change the field. |
|
Much of the popularity
of EMF measurement started with this very study. Investigators
started using EMF ifelds to debunk paranormal occurrences,
figuring that if the mind can be triggered into paranormal
experiences, perhaps excessive EMF fields on a location can
possibly be the cause of some experiences. However, over time
investigators failed to do thier history research and new
ideas came forward suggesting that EMF fields were affected
by (not the cause of) paranormal activity...and so the EMF
meter became somewhat of a ghost detector. The question here
is, what did Persinger discover? Did he find the "source"
of paranormal activity? or simply the portion of our brain
that reacts to paranormal energy? |
|
Eddy Currents can
occur when the flow of two separate currents colide. The effect
is much like you see when two streams of water converge in
a pool, tiny swirls of water (or maelstrsoms) occur...these
are known as Eddy Currents. The energy version of this effect
is present in the human body since we possess several different
forms of energy. These currents can have effects on anything
conductive and emit a field that is detectible by our EC-150
monitor. Since Parnoarmal energy moving through our envirnoment
is indeed a convergence of two energy fields, perhaps paranormal
energy can produce these currents as well. |
|
Here is another
example of Eddy Currents at work. As you can see intersecting
a conductor with a large magnetic field causes the "non-magnetic"
can to spin. It also produces a tremendous amount of heat
in the alluminum ring. This is a process known as induction
heating. |
|
Vandegraff generators
like the one you see here work by collecting IONs and storing
them in the large metal collector at the top, when these IONs
fill the chamber they produce an electric field and can cause
a variety of things to occur. ION's are present everywhere
in our environment and can not only cause these interesting
and physical affects, but can also effect the awy we feel
and cause various states of paranoia. Simply brushing your
hair, walking across a rug, or even putting on a sweater can
charge the atmosphere with IONs... is it possible that some
paranormal claims can be caused by the effect of ION's in
the atmosphere? |
Scientific or Pseudo-Scientific?
Check your teams methods against these guidelines
to find out if your methods are pseudo-scientific.
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
• Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
• Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them). (See also: Reproducibility)
• Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's razor)
• Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
• Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.
• Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
• Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: falsifiability)
• Assertion of claims that a theory predicts
something that it has not been shown to predict. Scientific claims
that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures",
or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g. Ignoratio elenchi)
• Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be
true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)
• Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).
• Presentation of data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims. This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
• Reversed burden of proof. In science, the
burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic.
"Pseudo-scientific" arguments may neglect this principle
and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that
a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic
technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal
negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof
on the skeptic rather than the claimant.
• Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of pseudoscientific
claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy
and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism"
to explain negative findings.
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
• Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science
by press conference").Some proponents of theories that contradict
accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer
review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards
established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions
cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods.
By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents
forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.
• Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so that others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.
• Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary
knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested.
Absence of progress
• Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.
Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed
very little in the past two millennia.
• Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.
• Statistical significance of supporting
experimental results does not improve over time and are usually
close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental
techniques improve or the experiments are repeated and this gives
ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve,
this typically shows that the experiments have just been repeated
until a success occurs due to chance variations.
Personalization of issues
• Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression
of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that
have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs,
the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims
Use of misleading language
• Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims
and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false
or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water
by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO)
and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions
to show how easily the general public can be misled.
• Using established terms in idiosyncratic
ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in
the discipline.
Absence from citation databases
• One way of assessing whether a subject is accepted as part of
the scientific mainstream is to examine citations to it and its
proponents in citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and
Web of Science. These databases record how many times the topic
or person is referred to in scholarly publications that are peer
reviewed. A subject that is accepted as part of the mainstream is
likely to have many citations, one that is not accepted very few.