[SKEPTICAL INQUIREE Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and author or coauthor of six books, including Tracking the Chupacabra: The Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore.

Paranormal Qualifications

How do you handle people who think they are worthy of respect because of “knowledge” of an unproven field such as ghosts or : Bigfoot? Q —C. Brown

The issue of expertise or ghost does not explain anything, ally are. experts must be and authority in para- as no one knows that Bigfoot or very honest about what they do and : normal subjects is an ghosts exist, much less their nature. do not know, about distinguishing fact It’s basic logic: You can’t claim to important question, and positively identify something with- from speculation. There are countless A the answer depends on out knowing the specific nature of self-proclaimed experts in paranormal how you de fine the topic and what as- that thing. Correctly identifying X fields; sometimes they have meaning- pect you are studying. Sociologists and necessarily means you must know less diploma-mill degrees in esoteric economists, for example, are experts what X is, what established charac- or metaphysic studies. I often read teristics distinguish it from Y and on intangible and abstract subjects. It Z; there’s no way around it. Thus is quite possible to be an expert on the labels like chupacabra, ghost, fairy, folklore or concept of something that Bigfoot, and so on are useful only as Where “experts” get into may not exist. A priest, imam, or rabbi, descriptive shorthand; for an investi- for example, is a legitimate expert on gator is it more accurate and useful trouble is when they pretend to think of them as descriptors for an a specific belief system that may or experience. Once the mystery is ap- or assume (or allow others may not be objectively valid or “true.” proached from this angle, it becomes I am an expert on many areas of the potentially solvable. A scientific to assume) that these paranormal, including the chupacabra paranormal investigator can no more topics are proven or more and ghosts, in terms of the history, test, analyze, or examine a Bigfoot or ghost than a botanist can study a factual than they really are. evidence, and arguments offered for wahoozle or a car mechanic can run a them—but not as proven entities. test on a frammis. The investigation Part of the issue is a common mis- becomes one not of identifying the understanding of what exactly is being Bigfoot or ghost but of trying to un- investigated. I discuss this topic in my derstand what the eyewitness experi- biography blurbs of ghost hunters or enced, what the person interpreted as book Scientific Paranormal Investigation: a Bigfoot or a ghost. This step is one paranormal investigators that begin How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries: of the most important, and a com- with a phrase like, “I have investigated mon reason why investigations fail, Often in discussions of paranor- ghosts for forty years . . .” but the ques- or end up with ambiguous results. mal topics, the subjects themselves tion is not how long you’ve been doing You must use meaningful labels to (ghosts, Bigfoot, etc.) are treated as if something, but whether you’re good at understand the phenomenon. there was a universally agreed-upon it. What exactly has that person been definition of what these things are, or Where “experts” get into trouble is doing for four decades? Wandering what their nature is. But these terms are simply names for specific experi- when they pretend or assume (or allow around abandoned hospitals with cam- ences, not discrete objects or entities. others to assume) that these topics are eras and voice recorders? Appearing at Simply calling something a Bigfoot proven or more factual than they re- ghost conventions shilling his DVDs?

Skeptical Inquirer | November/December 2013 25 [SKEPTICAL INQUIREE BENJAMIN RADFORD

Has he actually solved any cases or in- lem is that, with a few exceptions, none expertise. Some ghost and Bigfoot vestigations or has he simply added to of the authors has any background in hunters, for example, charge the pub- the pile of ambiguous and inconclusive logic, investigation, or science. They lic for their “services” as paranormal results that he and his ilk compile with may be writers, but they do little or no experts to expel demons from houses such eagerness and proficiency? actual investigation. Merely collecting or spend a weekend searching for Sas- There are thousands of people in the ghost stories or Bigfoot reports is not quatch. world who call themselves paranormal investigation. In short, most “experts” Part of the original question was investigators, ghost hunters, or some- on the paranormal have little if any about people who feel entitled to re- thing similar. Paranormal investigation credibility; they are simply folks who spect as an authority because they know requires no certificate; anyone can do it have an interest in the topics and have something about the paranormal. In with no training, knowledge, or exper- decided to write books that mostly ig- my opinion respect is earned through tise whatsoever. Whether he is effective nore the skeptical, rational explanations genuine accomplishment—not simply or not—if he actually solves any mys- in favor of mystery-mongering. Readers from knowing something about a topic teries—is another matter entirely. should research the authors to evaluate from reading books and magazines or There are even some “paranormal their credibility and history of success- watching television but by making real investigation” handbooks claiming to ful investigation and solved mysteries. contributions to the body of knowledge instruct readers on how to look into The situation becomes murkier when about these topics through original re- ■ ghosts and the . The prob- people try to profit from their alleged search and investigation.

26 Volume 37 Issue 6 |