Scientific inquiry into the “paranormal” has been taking place for centuries, though such work has often been limited by the state of science at the time of the investigative process. Certainly the methods employed 100 years ago differ greatly from the methods used today. Yet in one important aspect, they are alike: the technology used is “borrowed” from its original intended use for the purpose of “paranormal research”.

Even the term “paranormal research” is deceptive. There is no definitive method of exploring what may or may not be labeled “paranormal”. The problem is largely one of subjective perception. A skeptic (small “s”) doesn’t look for spirits or hauntings, but rather, unexplained physical phenomena. A believer insists that such phenomena must be evidence of ghosts. (Meanwhile, the Skeptic will insist that any such research is ridiculous because current science does not acknowledge such phenomena; in essence, they completely miss the point of science itself.)

Stripping away the layers of subjective context, what is the point of “paranormal research”? In short, labeling it “paranormal” is in and of itself a problem. “Paranormal” suggests that the phenomena is something above and beyond an objective measure of “normality”, when simple observation of science will demonstrate that such a concept does not exist. The scientist will quickly point out that science itself is merely a model of the natural world, and thus the research is simply the process of observing and studying phenomena that does not fit the current scientific models for physics, chemistry, etc.

Remember that even scientists cannot be comprehensive in their understanding of the natural world. A cosmologist knows details about the Standard Model that a biologist cannot begin to conceive or contemplate. An expert in optics would likely be stymied by the finer points of quantum theory. Yet it is within the boundaries of the very large and the very small that unusual phenomena will be encountered. In a universe where “classical physics” is more of a special case than the norm, it’s foolish to dismiss something unexplained without proper inquiry. Not so long ago, basic chemistry was considered “unexplained”, after all.

However, even as the scientist recognizes that theory may not cover the full range of physical phenomena (and in this case, I refer to both matter and energy), the next step is determining how to measure and quantify something that lies outside conventional theory. Here is where the engineer comes into the picture. If science is about theory, then engineering is about application. It’s one thing to point to what lies outside of theory; it’s another to determine the best means of applying technology to study it. (By “scientist” and “engineer”, I don’t refer to trade or education, but methodology; anyone can apply the basic principles of either profession.)

Some very basic tools are used in the “field”, and all of them are borrowed from other disciplines that cover roughly the same scientific ground. Because there is no definitive phenomena to investigate, there is no technology designed specifically for the purpose of researching or quantifying the unexplained. As a result, objective facts are hard to find on the raggedy edge. The decision to use a particular device is often based on an existing theory, acceptance of which often involves a subjective component.

The scientific method is fairly simple in this regard. A particular phenomenon needs to be studied. The scientist outlines the characteristics of the phenomenon and the requirements of any technology to be employed for detection and measurement. The technology is then applied under the best possible conditions (controlled conditions are clearly the best), and data is collected. The limitations of each device, as well as the conditions of study, provide the necessary context for analysis of the data. The data is then reviewed to determine if any correlations can be discerned, and after much repetition, a theory may emerge if the correlations are strong enough or cause/effect relationships can be firmly established.

In the case of “paranormal investigation”, the situation is less than ideal. Each element presents a particular challenge. In most cases, the researcher cannot be sure what phenomenon is under study. As such, it is unclear how technology should be chosen and applied. Even when choices are made and standardized, the conditions are hardly controlled. Ultimately the data is questionable at best, which makes it hard to understand how anyone could point to such data and draw some definitive conclusion of a “haunting”. (And just what is the accepted definition, in quantifiable terms, of a “haunting”?)

Many “paranormal researchers” utilize technology that looks impressive but gives very little useful information. A perfect example would be the infrared laser thermometer. They are relatively cheap, and during use, they seem very impressive and scientific. However, they are seldom used as intended. Some researchers will point them into the middle of an empty room and declare that the temperature is dropping, thus proving a “cold spot” within the space. Unfortunately, that particular device is used to measure the temperature of a surface, not air. Thus it would only be useful to measure the temperature of material objects. (I would admit, however, that if the beam were to hit a shadowy figure and stop, taking its temperature, then I would find it quite useful indeed.)

Similarly, there are a number of electromagnetic field detectors (EMF detectors) on the market, and some are very cheap. But there’s a small problem. If the nature of the phenomenon is unknown, then the anticipated readings for such a phenomenon is a matter of subjective interpretation of past “data” or previous research. Choosing the right detector means understanding electric and magnetic fields, how they inter-relate, and the linear range for each type of field detection. The EM spectrum is vast, and EMF detectors are designed to detect a very small sliver of that spectrum. Knowing the limitations and design specifications of a device is extremely important in any field of research.

More to the point, even if the device were useful for such an application (say, for determining the temperature of a window to determine the possibility of cooling effects from convection, etc.), there’s the issue of calibration. How many researchers buy the equipment and then have the presence of mind to calibrate it properly, especially over time? Do they read the manual to determine if the device is calibrated, if the anticipated readings are within the linear range of the device, if the sensitivity is fine enough to measure the phenomenon as desired, etc? For that matter, how close does the device need to be to measure the phenomenon correctly? These are all basic questions that must be considered before data is collected.

Most of the technology used is best employed to detect phenomena that can be explained through conventional science. An EMF detector, calibrated for the proper range, can help find sources of electromagnetic energy that might otherwise be overlooked by the casual observer. This helps eliminate those sources as “false positives”. The infrared thermometer can be used to determine where unusual temperature changes originate: thermally poor seals around windows and doors, for example.

As a result, data collected during “paranormal research” is best analyzed for the purposes of ruling out phenomenon that can be explained. Investigation becomes a process of determining root cause of the data trends as collected. That data becomes the objective fact at the heart of the matter. Once the technology is understood, then the data has a clear context, and that can be used as a basis for determining if anything unusual is recorded.

The objective facts are recorded temperature readings, recorded EMF readings, and in similar fashion, audio and video files. Quite apart from the context of why the data was collected, the data itself is objectively “real”. What was recorded was recorded. Any interpretation of that data begins the process of applying subjective “truth” to the objective “truth” of the data. An EMF detector does not prove the existence of a ghost. The researcher interpreting the data is the only one that can make that leap.

So one must ask the question: can a “haunting” ever be proven? From a scientific point of view, it’s next to impossible. Objective “truth” doesn’t provide enough evidence to support that kind of definitive conclusion. For instance, consider this possibility: in an otherwise empty room, a researcher sees a shadow emerge in the center of an empty space. EMF readings are higher than ambient, an analog temperature drops in that space, a digital video camera captures the shape, thermal imaging shows the drop in temperature and also shows the same general shape, and an audio recording picks up a clear voice saying “I’m here.” Isn’t that evidence of a haunting, intelligent spirit? Isn’t that compelling evidence of an apparition?

In fact, the objective facts don’t require that conclusion. One would have to take each and every piece of evidence and determine how that data could be generated under the conditions of the research. Ideally, this would be done independently. The data would only show that a stronger than normal EMF field was present. The data would only show that the temperature dropped. The data would only show that the recorded video file exhibits unusual readings. The data would show that there is a recording of an apparent voice of unknown origin. The objective facts prove only that the phenomenon took place.

It comes down to subjective “truth” to add context and meaning to the data. A believer would look at that data and immediately conclude that an apparition was caught. A skeptic would point out that the evidence is inconclusive. Both, as researchers, should admit that the only way to progress from data collection to the possibility of correlation is to collect more data. And that means questioning and analyzing the conclusions made from the data to determine if there is a particular phenomenon or signature type of data to be collected, thus bringing the process back to the beginning.

As a result, the investigative process is the same for the skeptic and the believer, because in each case, there is something to be explained. The difference is how the objective data is interpreted, and that comes down to subjective “truth”. It’s a very simple principle: objective “fact” is anything that can be independently verified. Once interpretation comes into the picture, subjective differences emerge.