skeptisim of EVPs

[mercury451]

Recently I've been present when several EVPs were captured on mini tapeless recorders. I am skeptical of this evidence but havn't quite figured out how these EVP's were produced. I would like to get feedback of some plausible explanations and also what I need to look for in the future to possibly debunk these recordings.
Thanks for any feedback

[Ducky]

Need info on the recording device. Manufacturer and model will help. There are some mini digital recorders that use software compensation for low digital conversion rates that will produce sounds errantly. Panasonic has several models that do this.

[The Master Cat]

It depends on so many factors.

For starters, are these 'ghost voices' fully comprehensible words which sound as if being uttered from a human mouth? Or are they simply noises which you are able to attribute words to after close scrutiny?

I find that the general 'theory' is that spirits are capable of recording themselves directly onto the medium of the tape. Therefore, their 'voice' is not an acoustic waveform.

Following this train of thought, I find it odd that the majority of 'evidence' seems to consist of noises which reverberate within their environment, something only a waveform is capable of. Clear hoaxes.

[mercury451]

thanks for the responses,

I will try to find out the model number and make of the recorder being used.

I feel like the EVP is totally understandable. Its been uploaded to youtube and you can listen to it here:

(can't post the youtube site...am told I need post 15 X before I'm able...but it you go to youtube and search for HPI, Jamestown you should find it)

the footage including the audio is raw not enhanced. I have the audio person put his mic down next to the recorder and its played back.
I've heard that one possibility for EVPs is that they are pick up of a radio transmission...but I don't think this fits as an explanation.
the man who recorded the EVP is in the dark when its supposedly recorded. I know him personally and don't believe that he has the technical ability to pre-record and EVP and play it back.

I wanted to debunk this in a few ways but am having problems. One thing is if you hear him ask "Is there anyone here" then when its played back...the inflections in his voice sound slightly different...like it may HAVE been recorded at another time. But I might be too skeptical at this point. It may just sound slightly different through the recorder.

[The Master Cat]

Hmm, I can see what you mean about the reply. The original voice is deeper and has a different inflection. But to be honest, I don't think I could take anything like that as evidence. It's evidence that someone has put a voice on tape, that's all.

[blutoski]

Hmm, I can see what you mean about the reply. The original voice is deeper and has a different inflection. But to be honest, I don't think I could take anything like that as evidence. It's evidence that someone has put a voice on tape, that's all.

That's the big problem with attempts to independently verify the nature of sounds claimed to be EVPs. How are we certain that the sound wasn't produced normally by somebody in the room?

I was present during a case where several hand-held digital recorders were active, and one person reported an EVP at a certain point during the vigil. We all reviewed our recordings and found the same voice - does this mean that it was spoken by somebody present or that the spirit implanted the EVP simultaneously in all the devices? Hard to say.

Generally, EVP is not very good for convincing skeptics of anything because the key fact that needs to be demonstrated is that it's "impossible" for a person to have produced this sound intentionally or by accident. I can't see that happening.

[blutoski]

Generally, EVP is not very good for convincing skeptics of anything because the key fact that needs to be demonstrated is that it's "impossible" for a person to have produced this sound intentionally or by accident. I can't see that happening.

Adding: your colleague may very well be sincere and may not have done anything to produce a counterfeit EVP - he may simply be a victim of a prank, or even an innocent misunderstanding with an unknown bystander.

I'm not a professional magician, but most of my best tricks have been opportunity, and there are many that have involved strangers, for which I have never taken credit.

Just to give you one example: I had a friend with a Polaroid, and slipped an acetate with an illustration in it - the image appeared on the photo. I removed the acetate between the time they took the photo and the time it developed. Classic spirit photo.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've heard that one possibility for EVPs is that they are pick up of a radio transmission...but I don't think this fits as an explanation.
the man who recorded the EVP is in the dark when its supposedly recorded. I know him personally and don't believe that he has the technical ability to pre-record and EVP and play it back.

I think you've dismissed the possibility of picking up radio signals prematurely. It needn't be that the guy who did the recording did anything dishonest. I'm not sure of the reasons, but various things can receive the radio signals that are pretty ubiquitous. I once had a small amplifier that picked up radio stations quite clearly.

If what you're talking about is recording "nothing" and then playing it back with the gain as high as possible and amplified, you could be hearing weakly received radio stations (picked up by either the recorder or the amplifier), or you could just be seeing pareidolia based on the over-amplified white noise. Have you seen these YouTube videos where you listen to a song, for example, but they display words for you to read? When you're reading the words, you really seem to hear those exact words, but then you find out that's not what they were singing at all.

That's why someone earlier in the thread asked which sort of voices you're talking about--a very clear and obvious voice or something on the margin of discernibility in the white noise?

[Cavemonster]

Over and above that, let's assume that EVP supporters have the best case possible.
1)The sounds were not recorded from the room, or faked.
2)They were not radio signals.
3) They are clear, unmistakable voices with clear messages.

Giving them every benefit of the doubt, this proves one thing, a voice appeared on the tape through unknown means. To jump from that fact to the existence of ghosts or spirits, isn't rational, there's no evidence to make that leap even if you clearly have a recording that can't be explained by conventional means.

As much evidence that there is that such recordings are "ghosts" you could equally say that they are aliens, or the voice of GOD, or that broadcasting devices from the future send signals back in time. All of these are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

The best you could say of EVPs, if all were conducted with honesty and conventional explanations were all ruled out, is that voices appeared on a tape for unknown reasons.

[JoeTheJuggler]

(can't post the youtube site...am told I need post 15 X before I'm able...but it you go to youtube and search for HPI, Jamestown you should find it)


Is it this one?

mosqpEJftGM

I'm less than impressed. I don't hear any voice at all. I hear a little sound of the device being turned off.

What's on this YouTube is a video recording of the live time of the recording (nothing is audible at all after the guy says "Is there anyone here?") which is then played back into the mic which is either a separate amplifier or just connected to the camera. I think it's a separate amp because everyone in the room reacts as if they hear the louder version--which probably means what we're hearing is what's picked up by a condenser mic on the camera.

Seriously--have them record nothing with that same device and turn it off. Then play it back under the same conditions. I think that little sound is what the device makes when you press "stop recording". Under ordinary circumstances, it's barely audible. You only think it's a voice if 1) you've got a really active imagination and 2) you amplify the thing a lot.

ETA: Another possibility is that as the person is turning off the recording device he moved or covered the mic. (If it's a mini device, the mic is probably a built in condenser mic, and may have put his finger or hand right over it.) It sort of sounds like that to me. At any rate, given how fast he replayed it, I think it's something caused by turning the device off.

For that matter, we don't see the recording device during the recording on the video. Was he holding it in his hand? If so, you could get quiet sounds like that just moving it around. If it's sitting on his lap, just shifting a leg might make that sound. If it's sitting on a table or something, the sound could have been made by picking it up to turn it off.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why are ghosts so much shyer now than they once were? They used to make full-blown appearances, throw things around, rattle chains, shout, write on the walls, and so on. Now they make a tiny, fleeting sound undetectable to human ears that gets picked up on sensitive recording devices.

[mercury451]

thanks for all your responses. I realize completely that from your perspective, this could be easily hoaxed. an audio dub could have been edited into the video. So I'm not presenting this as "evidence". I am the person who is holding the camera. and I have the raw tapes. but I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word that this wasn't hoaxed in the edit room. I've only posted here to try to find out what may have caused this. so far I've taken this away from the thread:
1. Don't discount it being a radio transmission
2. It may be something rubbing over top of the record mic
3. Could have been a prank unknown to me

All something to keep in mind. I want to continue to be a skeptic on this stuff....and yes absolutely you can't jump from a voice to ...OMG a Ghost! And that isn't what I'm doing either.

[Uncayimmy]

That's the big problem with attempts to independently verify the nature of sounds claimed to be EVPs. How are we certain that the sound wasn't produced normally by somebody in the room?

I was present during a case where several hand-held digital recorders were active, and one person reported an EVP at a certain point during the vigil. We all reviewed our recordings and found the same voice - does this mean that it was spoken by somebody present or that the spirit implanted the EVP simultaneously in all the devices? Hard to say.

Generally, EVP is not very good for convincing skeptics of anything because the key fact that needs to be demonstrated is that it's "impossible" for a person to have produced this sound intentionally or by accident. I can't see that happening.

Why were the mics enabled if the entitity can record it directly?

[JoeTheJuggler]

thanks for all your responses. I realize completely that from your perspective, this could be easily hoaxed. an audio dub could have been edited into the video. So I'm not presenting this as "evidence". I am the person who is holding the camera. and I have the raw tapes. but I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word that this wasn't hoaxed in the edit room. I've only posted here to try to find out what may have caused this. so far I've taken this away from the thread:
1. Don't discount it being a radio transmission
2. It may be something rubbing over top of the record mic
3. Could have been a prank unknown to me

All something to keep in mind. I want to continue to be a skeptic on this stuff..
I don't think it was hoaxed.

I think they're just make a lot out of a very minor little sound that coincided with the guy turning off the recorder.

..and yes absolutely you can't jump from a voice to ...OMG a Ghost! And that isn't what I'm doing either.
You also can't jump from a tiny little sound to "a voice" either.

[makaya325]

Ghosts can never be proven because either:

1. They can not be caught

2. They just dont exist

I side with option 2

[Azrael 5]

It's not an EVP of someone who worked at NASA I hope? :)

[jasonpatterson]

The problem is, as many have noted, is that we are good at picking up patterns, even when there isn't a pattern to be picked up. Add into that the fact that as soon as you are told that the noise was a voice saying, "I'm here," that's all you're ever going to hear again. I heard a weird whoosing noise the first time that sounded nothing like words. The second time around I'll admit that (probably because it was louder) it sounded more like words, but I still didn't actually hear anything intelligible. After the guy said, "I'm here!" I played it again and that's all that I hear now...

So what we have seems to be a group of 'ghost investigators' who are already convinced that there is a ghost present turning a strange whooshing noise into a message from beyond the beyond.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the timing is the strongest clue. After the guy says, "Is there anyone here?" there's about a 5 second pause. In the live-time and first playback, there isn't much more than that time between the two, so I think the sound coincides with turning the recorder off.

It doesn't sound even remotely like a voice. It sounds like an airy sound, like moving one's hand near the mic or even moving the recorder as he's turning it off.

If you think this sounds like a voice, put the recorder out in a windy area and record "nothing", then play it back amplified. You'll be able to hear all sorts of "voices". That's just pareidolia.

[bryan]

Hello...

You are correct about the pareidolia. The "Class A" EVP's ( yes there is a rating system )
that people claim to have are usually sent with an explanation of what is being said in them. This allows the listener to "understand" what being said on the recording.
There are even wilder stories about some of these different types of recording devices such as "there are only 30 people who can translate the voices" so it allows for an "Expert" to tell you what the spirits are saying without any way to confirm what the recording might have said.

If you look at the origins of E.V.P. you will find that the person who discovered this type of recording was recording bird song. I would like to conduct a study to see how many different types of bird can emulate the human voice. Maybe this entire E.V.P. thing is based on a recording of a bird mimicking a human voice?

The problem that you will run into when trying to discuss any of this type of "Evidence" is that the people involved call themselves researchers but because they want it to be real so badly it has become a belief system.

[blutoski]

Why were the mics enabled if the entitity can record it directly?

It's not being claimed that they are recorded 'directly'.

[Uncayimmy]

It's not being claimed that they are recorded 'directly'.

Then why is it called Electronic Voice Phenomena?

[blutoski]

Then why is it called Electronic Voice Phenomena?

Why does it matter what they're called?

I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I dunno, but this one in particular seems to be a claim of directly recording to the media since nothing was audible in the live time (as recorded by the video camera), but only on the recording device during playback at extreme amplification.

In other words, I don't think they're claiming it was merely a sound picked up by the mic and not by people's ears (or by the mic on the video camera). If that were the claim, their reactions are way over the top. In fact, I think it was indeed a sound that was only picked up by the mic on that device, and that the sound was caused by whatever movement or contact the guy turning the device off had with it. It sounds about like what a hand approaching the mic would sound like.

[blutoski]

I dunno, but this one in particular seems to be a claim of directly recording to the media since nothing was audible in the live time (as recorded by the video camera), but only on the recording device during playback at extreme amplification.

In other words, I don't think they're claiming it was merely a sound picked up by the mic and not by people's ears (or by the mic on the video camera). If that were the claim, their reactions are way over the top. In fact, I think it was indeed a sound that was only picked up by the mic on that device, and that the sound was caused by whatever movement or contact the guy turning the device off had with it. It sounds about like what a hand approaching the mic would sound like.

Perhaps I misunderstood: I thought UncaYimmy was referring to my anecdote.

Also: one protocol is to ask questions, and listen to recordings afterward for answers. The tapes would be recording the questions for framing.

[Denver]

Perhaps I misunderstood: I thought UncaYimmy was referring to my anecdote.

Also: one protocol is to ask questions, and listen to recordings afterward for answers. The tapes would be recording the questions for framing.

This sounds interesting, though there are also a couple things to be careful of. For one, if the question is yes/no, unfortunately static in a recording has a lot of 'ssssssss' in it, and it doesn't seem to take much to hear a 'yesss' in there, if you are expecting a yes or a no.

Also, there is confirmation bias: what about all the questions that have no answers given to them? Would the EVP researchers note that, or ignore that?

Maybe someone can put together a protocol where the tapes are interpreted by a third party, while not listening to the questions for framing, since the questions themselves can set up expectations on what the interpreter hears.

[blutoski]

This sounds interesting, though there are also a couple things to be careful of. For one, if the question is yes/no, unfortunately static in a recording has a lot of 'ssssssss' in it, and it doesn't seem to take much to hear a 'yesss' in there, if you are expecting a yes or a no.

Or hearing a 'no' pronounced "sbssss" - which suggests this ghost speaks Urdu with a French accent. (wow, that's exciting!)





Also, there is confirmation bias: what about all the questions that have no answers given to them? Would the EVP researchers note that, or ignore that?

I'm suspect they'd do whatever suits them, to be honest.




Maybe someone can put together a protocol where the tapes are interpreted by a third party, while not listening to the questions for framing, since the questions themselves can set up expectations on what the interpreter hears.

That would be a good idea, although it doesn't completely eliminate the cultural component of the cognitive biases that lead to pareidolia.

[blutoski]

That would be a good idea, although it doesn't completely eliminate the cultural component of the cognitive biases that lead to pareidolia.

Just to elaborate on this a bit... thanks to Hollywood, if you were to get ten completely isolated psychics/intuitives to visit a house and locate a trouble spot, they'll probably find the same places because they use the same criteria: cold, dark, dank, spooky.

By the same token, 'fshessh' sounds like 'yes' even if it really is static, and ten out of ten objective people will identify it that way.

[Uncayimmy]

Why does it matter what they're called?
If they were called "Purple Puppy Doo Doos" I would be looking for small turds purple in color.

I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced.

http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc.html#What_is_EVP/ITC

"The message, itself, is then thought to be telekinetically impressed into the recording media."

Hence, my question: Why the mic?

[The Master Cat]

and an even bigger question.. given that these messages are directly recorded onto devices.. why haven't all the recording studios in the world, professional and bedroom, had this phenomena crop up? Professional studios use high-quality audio devices which could easily allow them to isolate such a 'voice', even within heavy background noise - even though their recording environments are designed to eliminate background noise. I have a bedroom studio setup and in all the years I've been recording I have yet to hear anything that wasn't supposed to be there.

Also, does dying give you an intimate knowledge of digital audio? Digital audio is made up of binary code. I'm sure there are some smart people out there, but the majority of us surely wouldn't know how to inscribe binary data onto the surface of a digital recording medium without a machine. I guess ghosts are all nerds.

[Uncayimmy]

Also, does dying give you an intimate knowledge of digital audio? Digital audio is made up of binary code. I'm sure there are some smart people out there, but the majority of us surely wouldn't know how to inscribe binary data onto the surface of a digital recording medium without a machine. I guess ghosts are all nerds.

Fourier's ghost taught them?

[The Master Cat]

fourier's ghost taught them?

lol!!!!!!!!!!! :d

[arthwollipot]

I just went and hunted for the Skeptoid (http://www.skeptoid.com/) episode about EVP only to find... there isn't one!

The one I was thinking about was the Reverse Speech (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4105) episode, which has a very thorough discussion of audio pareidolia. Listen to it, and you'll be amazed. It's the only Skeptoid I've listened to over five times.

[The Master Cat]

I just recorded and sped up the aforementioned EVP.. sounds like birdsong!

[Sparhawk]

Ask it what 2 times 3 is, or the square root of 4356.:)

[blutoski]

If they were called "Purple Puppy Doo Doos" I would be looking for small turds purple in color.

Well, podcasts like Skeptic's Guide are recorded electronically, too. That doesn't mean it's paranormal in origin.

It sounds like you're deliberately playing word games, and you need to appreciate that I don't have time for that.





http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc.html#What_is_EVP/ITC

"The message, itself, is then thought to be telekinetically impressed into the recording media."

Hence, my question: Why the mic?

Because that's what our group chose to do?

When I said "I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced," that would be your cue to ask "OK: what do your colleauges who set up the experiment think about EVPs?"

Instead, you went to some quote on the internet, which evaded the issue of the specific claims in my example. That's a pretty good example of a strawperson.

[blutoski]

and an even bigger question.. given that these messages are directly recorded onto devices.. why haven't all the recording studios in the world, professional and bedroom, had this phenomena crop up? Professional studios use high-quality audio devices which could easily allow them to isolate such a 'voice', even within heavy background noise - even though their recording environments are designed to eliminate background noise. I have a bedroom studio setup and in all the years I've been recording I have yet to hear anything that wasn't supposed to be there.

The problem with this question is that a lot of the people who are 'into' EVPs are professional recording engineers &c.

(ie: people who should know better)



Also, does dying give you an intimate knowledge of digital audio? Digital audio is made up of binary code. I'm sure there are some smart people out there, but the majority of us surely wouldn't know how to inscribe binary data onto the surface of a digital recording medium without a machine. I guess ghosts are all nerds.

My impression is that there isn't a consensus theory about this among paranormalists. They're really more excited by the mystery of it, really.

Now, Skeptics: we have a consensus around a few plausible natural origins that I think explains all examples of which I'm aware.

[Uncayimmy]

Well, podcasts like Skeptic's Guide are recorded electronically, too. That doesn't mean it's paranormal in origin.
In a podcast we know what happens. Acoustic energy is converted into electricity and recorded. EVPs are said to not have acoustic energy and to alter the media directly through unknown means.


It sounds like you're deliberately playing word games, and you need to appreciate that I don't have time for that.

No, I'm not playing word games. EVP has an accepted definition. It means the voice is electronic in origin. People cannot hear the voice until it is played back by a device. It mysteriously appears on the recording media electronically.

If it were called AVP as in Acoustic Voice Phenomenon, then I would expect people to be able to hear it as well as record it with a microphone, provided both were in the right location.

Thus, if I am going to try to pick up EVPs, I would not use a mic at all. All the mic does is introduce acoustic noise through which I will need to detect the EVP. Turn off the mic and the noise level will be incredibly low. I'm talking orders of magnitude lower.

Because that's what our group chose to do?

Is that how much thought you put into it? You did it that way just because?

When I said "I think the question is about how the claimants believe they're produced," that would be your cue to ask "OK: what do your colleauges who set up the experiment think about EVPs?"

Instead, you went to some quote on the internet, which evaded the issue of the specific claims in my example. That's a pretty good example of a strawperson.

I'm sorry you don't understand what is happening here. I will try to explain.

Sound pressure levels follow the inverse square law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html). Every time you double the distance from source to receiver, the SPL is reduced to 1/4. As an example, hold your hand right next to your ear and rub your fingers together lightly. Pretty loud, huh? Now keep doubling the distance. By the time you are arm length's away you can barely hear it if it all.

So, how loud in decibels is your finger rubbing?

This is confusing to most people because people hear about sound being X number of decibels without any mention of distance. For example, a jet engine is said to be 130dB. The obvious question is, "where?" Is it 130dB an inch away from the source? Ten feet away? 100 feet away? Same goes for something being quiet.

If a dishwasher is said to be 50dB, where is it measured at 50dB? Let's say it is 50dB @ 1m. If you move 4 meters away it will be 37dB. Same sound, different dB level. The farther away, the less energy reaching the listener (or listening device). The closer you get, the more energy. Sounds obvious, but it's very important.

My point is that the microphones in your system make the experiment a waste of time. There's a video camera say 3 meters away (rough estimate). If someone generated a noise 2cm from the microphone, that would be pretty loud from that mic's perspective. At the camera that sound would be completely swamped by the background noise of the camera and the room (roughly 73dB vs 29dB). It's why we whisper in someone's ear.

This is assuming that the camera and the recorder were equally sensitive as human ears are (roughly). The reality is that by using gain, one can make the difference in sound levels even more dramatic by changing the sensitivity. Truth is, unless you take steps to calibrate the sensitivity of the devices, they will record the same sounds at different levels.

Simply put, the tiniest of sounds right next to the mic (moving a finger or cloth over it) will be inaudible to people and devices just a few feet away. So, with a mic connected, you are definitely recording all sorts of acoustic energy. You will also be recording ordinary physical energy (bumps) and quite possibly electronic interference.

If one is trying to detect EVPs then no mic is needed because the story is the sound is recorded directly onto the media. If you were trying to detect acoustic sounds, then don't have people holding the mics and shuffling around. A good start would be to mount them in a room and leave them alone (everybody leave).

The whole video is something I would expect a 12 year old to do.

[not daSkeptic]

If one is trying to detect EVPs then no mic is needed because the story is the sound is recorded directly onto the media. If you were trying to detect acoustic sounds, then don't have people holding the mics and shuffling around. A good start would be to mount them in a room and leave them alone (everybody leave).

I'm surprised nobody has ever tried this before, but I suppose that's because they fear they'd end up with a completely silent recording. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I suppose one might argue that the microphone is necessary as it is what is being electronically manipulated. I would suggest then that one remove or otherwise disable the microphone's diaphragm so as to eliminate the acoustic while maintaining the electric.

[blutoski]

No, I'm not playing word games. EVP has an accepted definition. It means the voice is electronic in origin. People cannot hear the voice until it is played back by a device. It mysteriously appears on the recording media electronically.

Dude: I'm well aware of it. Been working with paranormal investigators for 20 years (as a token skeptic).

You're missing my point: paranormal investigators are amateurs and have their own independent theories of everything.

This is why, for example, the JREF asks the applicants to be specific about their claim in their own words instead of assuming we know what they mean.

I think you're mistaking my report of what investigators do for some sort of justification that the practice was scientific, correct, or made any sense.

It's called 'electronic' because it's recorded on electronic media. The mechanism is unknown, but I would say it's allegedly recorded 'paranormally'.






Is that how much thought you put into it? You did it that way just because?

No, as mentioned earlier, there are several reasons for using active mics, not the least of which is framing questions asked by the investigators.

In addition, there is the past experience of it just not working when the mics are off, so the protocol is often to leave them on. The reasoning is that it is best to start by collecting data, then come up with an explanation for mechanism later.

There are different ways to record the information, too. Back in the old days, it was on cassette with those tape recorders that had built-in mics - when the record button was activated, it was not possible to independently disable the mic without cracking open the case and pulling the wires (an option). Many EVPs were recorded this way.

The digital age has altered the procedures somewhat. It has also made it more difficult to detect hoaxing/tampering.

One protocol that has been carried from the cassette days is that we used to have to purchase new cassettes and open them in front of witnesses before loading into the tape recorder. They would be removed in front of witnesses afterward, inventoried, and kept visible in front of several people at all times. Nowadays, my advice is to continue to use this protocol, but using those SD cards or whatever.





I'm sorry you don't understand what is happening here. I will try to explain.

I really don't think we're having the same conversation.

[blutoski]

I'm surprised nobody has ever tried this before, but I suppose that's because they fear they'd end up with a completely silent recording.

No, that's actually a common protocol: ask questions in a bunch with the recording device off, then lay down the recorder, press 'record' and leave the room. Come back when the tape would be finished, and listen.

SGU did a version of this on one of their podcasts. I believe they did this after reading a report from a local investigation group.




Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I suppose one might argue that the microphone is necessary as it is what is being electronically manipulated.

Basically. Also explains why the sounds are in real-time, and also explains why they're framed by questions the investigators ask.





I would suggest then that one remove or otherwise disable the microphone's diaphragm so as to eliminate the acoustic while maintaining the electric.

Plenty of variations. Why not just leave a fresh SDmicro card laying out on the table?

&c.

[Uncayimmy]

I'm surprised nobody has ever tried this before, but I suppose that's because they fear they'd end up with a completely silent recording. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I suppose one might argue that the microphone is necessary as it is what is being electronically manipulated. I would suggest then that one remove or otherwise disable the microphone's diaphragm so as to eliminate the acoustic while maintaining the electric.

If the mic is what is being manipulated, that makes it much easier to deal with.

Speaking about a dynamic mic specifically, you have a diaphragm attached to a coil around a magnet. Sound waves make the diaphragm move. This in turn moves the coil. This in turn induces a voltage in the coil. It's those voltages we record to some medium.

Now reverse the process. Put voltage into the coil. This makes the coil move in relation to the magnet. This in turn makes the diaphragm move against the air. This device is commonly known as a speaker.

If voltages are being induced in the coil by some paranormal means, we will see the diaphragm move. The laws of physics say it has to move. That means we would have a visual confirmation of what is happening. With this basic knowledge I'm sure many people could devise some good tests.

However, this begs a very obvious question: If EVP is a matter of spirits or whatever inducing a voltate in a coil, how come our home speakers never make any noise on their own? It's the same principle.

Then again, if the spirits can record "directly to the media" why does a recording device have to be involved at all?

[Uncayimmy]

Dude: I'm well aware of it. Been working with paranormal investigators for 20 years (as a token skeptic).
Dude? I guess you started when you were a toddler.

It's called 'electronic' because it's recorded on electronic media. The mechanism is unknown, but I would say it's allegedly recorded 'paranormally'.
Well, that's just wrong. You're making up your own defintion of EVP. The "E" does not represent the media, which is often magnetic (attempts were made with vinyl records as well). E represents the means. For example, some EVP experiments involved recording a radio tuned to an empty frequency.

In addition, there is the past experience of it just not working when the mics are off, so the protocol is often to leave them on. The reasoning is that it is best to start by collecting data, then come up with an explanation for mechanism later.
What? It doesn't work when you don't have people bumbling around with microphones picking up all sorts of acoustic energy that's always in the air?


The digital age has altered the procedures somewhat. It has also made it more difficult to detect hoaxing/tampering.
I would think it would make it easier to detect tampering these days. In the old days I could add a bunch of noise to a tape just by handling it. Likewise tapes could add noise to themselves must by sitting there wound up on a reel.

The digital noise floor is incredibly low compared to tape (-90dB vs -60dB or so). All those sounds that were buried in the noise on tape should be crystal clear now. Unless, of course, the new EVPs reside around this new noise floor (how convenient).

How many experiments have been run by sending the same analog signal to multiple ADACs, each recording at a different bit depth and therefore different noise floor?

I really don't think we're having the same conversation.
I asked why the mics were hooked up since the common definition of EVP is that it goes directly to the media itself. Since people were handling the mics, all sorts of noise was introduced making the whole thing a waste of time.

[not daSkeptic]

Why not just leave a fresh SDmicro card laying out on the table?

A problem with this approach is that it assumes a great deal. EVPs have supposedly been recorded on both analog and digital media, as well as both sequential (tape) and random-access (disk / memory-card) media. But the manner in which these all work are very different. An analog recording needs only basic manipulation of a signal. Digital tape recording requires the ability to manipulate a signal in such a fashion as to render it compatible with the digital recording format being used. Digital disk/card recording requires the ability to properly manipulate filesystem formats, directory structure, and audio file formats (e.g. WAV, OGG, MP3). Thus, for EVPs to be directly recordable to media in isolation from recording devices, ghosts would have to be able to do all of the above. It isn't even established that ghosts exist let alone have such capabilities.

It requires far less assumption (and is much more testable) to say that the source of EVPs is acoustic in nature, not electronic. If one controls for acoustics and EVPs suddenly disappear ... well ... I suppose we might have to start calling it AVP. But then Twentieth Century Fox would get involved and there would be lawyers and it would be messy ..........

[blutoski]

Dude? I guess you started when you were a toddler.

I was trying to keep it friendly. Lesson learned.




Well, that's just wrong. You're making up your own defintion of EVP. The "E" does not represent the media, which is often magnetic (attempts were made with vinyl records as well). E represents the means. For example, some EVP experiments involved recording a radio tuned to an empty frequency.

?

I'm telling you once again: most investigators don't care about internet definitions. Everybody seems to have their own theories and their own protocols.




What? It doesn't work when you don't have people bumbling around with microphones picking up all sorts of acoustic energy that's always in the air?

? Obviously.



I would think it would make it easier to detect tampering these days. In the old days I could add a bunch of noise to a tape just by handling it. Likewise tapes could add noise to themselves must by sitting there wound up on a reel.

The digital noise floor is incredibly low compared to tape (-90dB vs -60dB or so). All those sounds that were buried in the noise on tape should be crystal clear now. Unless, of course, the new EVPs reside around this new noise floor (how convenient).

How many experiments have been run by sending the same analog signal to multiple ADACs, each recording at a different bit depth and therefore different noise floor?

Regarding detecting tampering, what I meant was that I believe digital storage media makes it easier to tamper with as a hoax.





I asked why the mics were hooked up since the common definition of EVP is that it goes directly to the media itself. Since people were handling the mics, all sorts of noise was introduced making the whole thing a waste of time.

I think in the field, the definition is whatever the investigators agree it is.

It's amateur hour.

[Uncayimmy]

I was trying to keep it friendly. Lesson learned.

The lesson to be learned is that "dude" is not a universally or even widely acknowledged term of endearment. Some find it insulting. In popular media it is associated with teenagers who are not all that bright.

I'm telling you once again: most investigators don't care about internet definitions. Everybody seems to have their own theories and their own protocols.
This is not an "Internet definition" as you put it. The AA-EVP was established in 1982. They are a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit.

The term used in thread title is EVP. I used the widely accepted definition and asked a simple question. All I'm getting from you is the runaround about how people make up their own defintions. I got no problem with that as long as they make up their own words.


Regarding detecting tampering, what I meant was that I believe digital storage media makes it easier to tamper with as a hoax.
I'm not sure I agree. If we're talking about introducing noise, it's much easier to do it on something like a tape. It can even happen accidentally. ETA: During and AFTER the fact.

By contrast if you take a digital file and encrypt it, it's going to take a lot of work to get to that file. If you've made an exact copy and kept it somewhere else, it is incredibly easy to tell if one has been altered.

If you don't know the provenance of the recording, then I would agree that digital makes it easier to introduce spooky sounds. But if you don't know the provenance, then what good is it anyway?


It's amateur hour.
From what I saw, it wasn't even that.

[blutoski]

A problem with this approach is that it assumes a great deal. EVPs have supposedly been recorded on both analog and digital media, as well as both sequential (tape) and random-access (disk / memory-card) media. But the manner in which these all work are very different. An analog recording needs only basic manipulation of a signal. Digital tape recording requires the ability to manipulate a signal in such a fashion as to render it compatible with the digital recording format being used. Digital disk/card recording requires the ability to properly manipulate filesystem formats, directory structure, and audio file formats (e.g. WAV, OGG, MP3). Thus, for EVPs to be directly recordable to media in isolation from recording devices, ghosts would have to be able to do all of the above. It isn't even established that ghosts exist let alone have such capabilities.

Yes, but to the true believers... ghosts work in mysterious ways, and it seems to make about as much sense that they can lay down a pattern on magnetic tape as to say that they can lay down a pattern in iTunes format.

The principle is the same as anything else in the true believers' world: if the spirit world can project the appearance of voices by mapping some kind of mysterious changes nicely to mediums' brain tissue, why not encode bits on a memory chip in MP3? It's probably simpler, and the format is public domain.




It requires far less assumption (and is much more testable) to say that the source of EVPs is acoustic in nature, not electronic. If one controls for acoustics and EVPs suddenly disappear ... well ... I suppose we might have to start calling it AVP. But then Twentieth Century Fox would get involved and there would be lawyers and it would be messy ..........

My impression is that the investigators are in a perpetual state of data collection, rather than controlled testing. The 'right' way is the way that gets examples to share with others.

[blutoski]

This is not an "Internet definition" as you put it. The AA-EVP was established in 1982. They are a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit.

The term used in thread title is EVP. I used the widely accepted definition and asked a simple question. All I'm getting from you is the runaround about how people make up their own defintions. I got no problem with that as long as they make up their own words.

I hear what you're saying, but one thing I've learned in a couple decades of working with paranormal investigators is that they all think the other group is nuts.

In Canada, none of the groups I'm aware of respect the AA-EVP. Here in Canuckistan, the preference is for PSICAN standards.

[arthwollipot]

The lesson to be learned is that "dude" is not a universally or even widely acknowledged term of endearment. Some find it insulting. In popular media it is associated with teenagers who are not all that bright....I use "dude" all the time. And I'm fast approaching 40.

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the d'uh files:

So we just declare it's a ghost voice without any validation of the tool? That's my gripe about all these electronic measurements. What substantiates these electronic measurements, be they EVPs or EMR or infrared or other temperature readings, are evidence for supernatural anything?

If these pretend scientists wanted evidence, instead of acting like children with toy tesla coils, they could start by doing real science. That is, at a minimum confirm whatever phenomena they are measuring is only present where ghosts are suspected. Of course the step after that is to rule out other explanations, but I doubt the believers could even get that far.

So fake some EVPs by moving the mike, carefully matching typical EVPs. Collect recordings in random locations no ghosts are expected and locations one believes supernatural readings were obtained.

Get a number of test observers. Train them in the same way. No test observer is to hear the interpretation of any other observer and the 3 types of sample recordings are of course, double blinded.

If you can provide evidence the true EVPs are even distinguishable from the controls you have at least the rudimentary elements of actual science. Anything else is make believe before you even hit the ground.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hear what you're saying, but one thing I've learned in a couple decades of working with paranormal investigators is that they all think the other group is nuts.

In Canada, none of the groups I'm aware of respect the AA-EVP. Here in Canuckistan, the preference is for PSICAN standards.PSICAN standards (http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/Paranormal-Canada/PSICAN-F.A.Q/) you say. Have they done any preliminary work establishing the measurements they collect are measurements of anything other than background levels one finds randomly in non-supernatural expectation situations? I don't have time to look through the web site.

[Dr B]

This link, and others on this site might be useful for both psychological reasons for EVP and the underlying acoustic physics

http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Analysing%20audio%20EVP.html

[Dr B]

also

http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Analyzing%20EVP.html

[Uncayimmy]

...I use "dude" all the time. And I'm fast approaching 40.

No way, dude!

[blutoski]

PSICAN standards (http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/Paranormal-Canada/PSICAN-F.A.Q/) you say. Have they done any preliminary work establishing the measurements they collect are measurements of anything other than background levels one finds randomly in non-supernatural expectation situations? I don't have time to look through the web site.

PSICAN doesn't do experiments. They review the body of research conducted by members or outsiders, evaluate, and share best practices. Their members agree to use these best practices to maintain good standing.

[blutoski]

So we just declare it's a ghost voice without any validation of the tool? That's my gripe about all these electronic measurements. What substantiates these electronic measurements, be they EVPs or EMR or infrared or other temperature readings, are evidence for supernatural anything?

Well, it's the same as psi in general: it's defined by elimination of natural explanations.




If these pretend scientists wanted evidence, instead of acting like children with toy tesla coils, they could start by doing real science. That is, at a minimum confirm whatever phenomena they are measuring is only present where ghosts are suspected.

The problem is that it's circular reasoning: EVP is a way to detect ghosts, so if there's EVP, that's 'a location where ghosts are suspected'.

The assumption is that ghosts can be anywhere.




Of course the step after that is to rule out other explanations, but I doubt the believers could even get that far.

So fake some EVPs by moving the mike, carefully matching typical EVPs. Collect recordings in random locations no ghosts are expected and locations one believes supernatural readings were obtained.

Get a number of test observers. Train them in the same way. No test observer is to hear the interpretation of any other observer and the 3 types of sample recordings are of course, double blinded.

Again, though, I've warned against this. If the static just happens to sound like a voice saying "the walrus is paul", all 3 will report they heard a voice saying "the walrus is paul."

It's the same problem we find with psi transmissions. If I transmit a 'random' number that I chose myself, I probably chose 3 or 7. The recipients are probably disproportionately imagining they're receiving 3 or 7 too - because they're from the same background - and we get a false positive because of shared culture.



If you can provide evidence the true EVPs are even distinguishable from the controls you have at least the rudimentary elements of actual science. Anything else is make believe before you even hit the ground.

I think it's reached this stage, unfortunately, and will not progress beyond it.

The problem is that it's very likely to produce a false positive, even with the blinding protocols you suggest.

[Skeptic Ginger]

PSICAN doesn't do experiments. They review the body of research conducted by members or outsiders, evaluate, and share best practices. Their members agree to use these best practices to maintain good standing.So why haven't they noticed the glaring problem with the underlying premise electronic phenomena are the result of supernatural events or are even more common where ghost activity is suspected?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, it's the same as psi in general: it's defined by elimination of natural explanations.As if any of these guys actually ever do rule out natural explanations. :rolleyes:

The problem is that it's circular reasoning: EVP is a way to detect ghosts, so if there's EVP, that's 'a location where ghosts are suspected'.Just because these guys make this apology for not using proper scientific process while claiming they are using scientific process does not make their measurements any more valid.

Again, though, I've warned against this. If the static just happens to sound like a voice saying "the walrus is paul", all 3 will report they heard a voice saying "the walrus is paul."It doesn't stop these guys from having observers interpret static independent of each other to see if they even get standardized results.

It's the same problem we find with psi transmissions. If I transmit a 'random' number that I chose myself, I probably chose 3 or 7. The recipients are probably disproportionately imagining they're receiving 3 or 7 too - because they're from the same background - and we get a false positive because of shared culture.And you can't generate a number randomly rather than you choosing it?

I think it's reached this stage, unfortunately, and will not progress beyond it.

The problem is that it's very likely to produce a false positive, even with the blinding protocols you suggest.No, it's likely to debunk this make believe science.

[Uncayimmy]

Again, though, I've warned against this. If the static just happens to sound like a voice saying "the walrus is paul", all 3 will report they heard a voice saying "the walrus is paul."
You've done this where none of the three people had any contact with one another, and they all came to the same conclusion about the noise? Did you include any speakers of foreign language?

It's the same problem we find with psi transmissions. If I transmit a 'random' number that I chose myself, I probably chose 3 or 7. The recipients are probably disproportionately imagining they're receiving 3 or 7 too - because they're from the same background - and we get a false positive because of shared culture.
If you choose a number, it's not random.

The problem is that it's very likely to produce a false positive, even with the blinding protocols you suggest.
I read most of the page on EVP as presented by psican. It was a joke, really. I see where you got the notion that analog is somehow superior to digital. They are wrong.

That said, setting up protocols for EVP would not be all that hard. It's not rocket surgery. Skeptigirl has the right idea, though she didn't include ABX testing as part of it. In short you play A, then B, then X where X is either A or B. The listener has to tell you whether X was A or B.

Of course, you'll have to eliminate any other sources of sounds in the room and use multiple recording devices. For good measure, include ones with no external mics. And synch the separate recordings. And ensure the chain of custody including preserving the originals and distributing digital copies.

Not that I would waste my time doing it. It's much more fun to fumble around in the dark holding little recorders and giggling.

[mercury451]

One thing I didn't mention in my original post (and I should have) is that they went on to ask more questions to try to get more responses but gave up after 5 minutes of not receiving any more EVP's.

One other thing I'd like to respond to is that you can (if you have decent computer speakers) hear the EVP when it is first played back. The second time its played back is much louder because I had the audio person hold the mic over the recorder. But no gain was added to the audio clip.

Again, thanks for this conversation. I posted the same question on the TAPs website but got no responses. I'm not sure why...maybe just the grade of people.

[blutoski]

So why haven't they noticed the glaring problem with the underlying premise electronic phenomena are the result of supernatural events or are even more common where ghost activity is suspected?

I don't understand the question, sorry.

[blutoski]

As if any of these guys actually ever do rule out natural explanations.

Well, they do, but we disagree with them. Ergo the different worldviews.




Just because these guys make this apology for not using proper scientific process while claiming they are using scientific process does not make their measurements any more valid.

? I think I was explaining that your proposal won't work because the assumption can't be confirmed - there is no baseline for calibration. I don't understand your response.




It doesn't stop these guys from having observers interpret static independent of each other to see if they even get standardized results.

What guys? I don't understand. I think the conversation is getting confused.




And you can't generate a number randomly rather than you choosing it?

That would be the correct way - that was my point.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. It was a way to illustrate why getting independent people to listen to a recording does not eliminate bias and is not actually disconfirmatory and therefore not scientific.




No, it's likely to debunk this make believe science.

? I don't think so. These false positives common, and are a huge problem because some skeptics think this protocol would be disconfirmatory.

[blutoski]

You've done this where none of the three people had any contact with one another, and they all came to the same conclusion about the noise?

Not me personally: this protocol has been done many times by investigators over the decades.




Did you include any speakers of foreign language?

Depends on what you mean: do you mean are all the documented cases in English? (no)

Or do you mean did the experimenters get people of different languages to listen to the same recording? (I don't know of any done this way).





If you choose a number, it's not random.

Obviously. That's my point.

I really really think there's some confusion here.

In the situation of a ghost investigation, we are in the circular situation where we can't control the 'send' - my point was that cultural inertia will make 'reception' cluster around certain results more than you would expect from random chance.

Many magic tricks pivot on this fact.




I read most of the page on EVP as presented by psican. It was a joke, really. I see where you got the notion that analog is somehow superior to digital. They are wrong.

That said, setting up protocols for EVP would not be all that hard. It's not rocket surgery. Skeptigirl has the right idea, though she didn't include ABX testing as part of it. In short you play A, then B, then X where X is either A or B. The listener has to tell you whether X was A or B.

Of course, you'll have to eliminate any other sources of sounds in the room and use multiple recording devices. For good measure, include ones with no external mics. And synch the separate recordings. And ensure the chain of custody including preserving the originals and distributing digital copies.

Not that I would waste my time doing it. It's much more fun to fumble around in the dark holding little recorders and giggling.

I don't think it's fair to make fun of them: most don't care whether it's all that scientific. It's a hobby. Other people take up golfing.

Be cautious not to project.

[Uncayimmy]

That would be the correct way - that was my point.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. It was a way to illustrate why getting independent people to listen to a recording does not eliminate bias and is not actually disconfirmatory and therefore not scientific.


If that was what you were trying to do, I totally missed it. I'm not at all clear what points you are trying to make. I'm not even clear if you believe EVP to be real or not.

As skeptics we need to be very strict about protocols. Every time we participate in a test without proper controls - even if we voice our dissent - we're doing a disservice to the ultimate goal of teaching critical thinking.

[Uncayimmy]

Not me personally: this protocol has been done many times by investigators over the decades.

Maybe I'm just not up on the pseudoscience literature.

Or do you mean did the experimenters get people of different languages to listen to the same recording? (I don't know of any done this way).
Don't you think this would be an important thing to test?

Obviously. That's my point.
You used "I" to say "I would choose" some number. If you meant they, say they. It's not rocket surgery to get a random number.

In the situation of a ghost investigation, we are in the circular situation where we can't control the 'send' - my point was that cultural inertia will make 'reception' cluster around certain results more than you would expect from random chance.
By "we" who do you mean? Certainly not the collective we that would include me. Are you talking about yourself? Are you saying you cannot eliminate cultural bias? Or are you saying you can't get others to agree to a protocol that would do it?

The confusion in this thread is coming from your end.

Many magic tricks pivot on this fact.
Because the magician sets the protocol. Let a rat design the maze, and he'll always find the cheese.

I don't think it's fair to make fun of them: most don't care whether it's all that scientific. It's a hobby. Other people take up golfing.
What do you mean you don't think it's fair? What forces are you trying to balance? They make claims, I refute claims. They post videos, I comment on the videos. It's not like I'm watching them on hidden camera. They put it out publicly, so expect public comments.

Be cautious not to project.
Don't know what you mean.

[blutoski]

Don't you think this would be an important thing to test?

I do think it's important to test, but I don't think the protocol that was suggested is sufficiently disconfirmatory, which is why I recommend against it. Too many false positives.




You used "I" to say "I would choose" some number. If you meant they, say they. It's not rocket surgery to get a random number.

It was in context of a suggested protocol, and I provided two other examples as illustrations of the problem.




By "we" who do you mean? Certainly not the collective we that would include me. Are you talking about yourself? Are you saying you cannot eliminate cultural bias? Or are you saying you can't get others to agree to a protocol that would do it?

'we' in my sentence in that post meant anybody interested in critical analysis of proposed protocols - basically, people in this thread

'we' cannot control against cultural bias with this specific protocol, so I recommend against using it





Because the magician sets the protocol. Let a rat design the maze, and he'll always find the cheese.

The point is that there is a cultural inertia. Because of this, I believe that the proposed protocol of having independent people listen to the same recording and see if they 'hear' the same words has too many false positives. They will often hear the same words because they speak the same language and neutral sounds that resemble words will be mistaken for actual words by many people.




What do you mean you don't think it's fair? What forces are you trying to balance? They make claims, I refute claims. They post videos, I comment on the videos. It's not like I'm watching them on hidden camera. They put it out publicly, so expect public comments.

I'm not talking about public comments - I'm talking about ad hominem. It's just as wrong when skeptics do it.

[blutoski]

If that was what you were trying to do, I totally missed it.

skeptigirl recommended a double-blinded technique that I felt would actually result in too many false positives, so I was recommending against it.




I'm not at all clear what points you are trying to make.

skeptigirl recommended a double-blinded technique that I felt would actually result in too many false positives, so I was recommending against it.



I'm not even clear if you believe EVP to be real or not.

What difference would that make? I thought we were evaluating protocols on their own merit, rather than based on whose idea they were?




As skeptics we need to be very strict about protocols. Every time we participate in a test without proper controls - even if we voice our dissent - we're doing a disservice to the ultimate goal of teaching critical thinking.

Absolutely. skeptigirl recommended a double-blinded technique that I felt would actually result in too many false positives, so I was recommending against it.

[Uncayimmy]

Blutoski, you're just making things more confused. Here is what Skeptigirl wrote:

Get a number of test observers. Train them in the same way. No test observer is to hear the interpretation of any other observer and the 3 types of sample recordings are of course, double blinded.

If you can provide evidence the true EVPs are even distinguishable from the controls you have at least the rudimentary elements of actual science. Anything else is make believe before you even hit the ground.

Her only conclusion was that you would end up with the "rudimentary elements of actual science." She's absolutely right. Just because double-blinding may not result in 100% elimination of false positives is not a reason to recommend against it. She offered an extremely important first step that will eliminate a significant portion of the false positives found in the same test done without the blinding.

I offered other steps. One was to introduce ABX testing to prove that people can even tell the clips apart. Another was to introduce people listening for voices in a foreign language in order to demonstrate how we hear what we want to hear. That's not to mention all the suggestions I made regarding making the recordings in the first place.

I have no idea why you are resisting these things. Is English not your primary language? I ask that not as in insult but to indicate to you that I am really struggling to understand you.

[blutoski]

Her only conclusion was that you would end up with the "rudimentary elements of actual science." She's absolutely right. Just because double-blinding may not result in 100% elimination of false positives is not a reason to recommend against it. She offered an extremely important first step that will eliminate a significant portion of the false positives found in the same test done without the blinding.

I offered other steps. One was to introduce ABX testing to prove that people can even tell the clips apart. Another was to introduce people listening for voices in a foreign language in order to demonstrate how we hear what we want to hear. That's not to mention all the suggestions I made regarding making the recordings in the first place.

I have no idea why you are resisting these things. Is English not your primary language? I ask that not as in insult but to indicate to you that I am really struggling to understand you.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'these things'.

I'm recommending against the types of testing proposed because of:


my personal experience evaluating and designing scientific experiments for about 15 years (give or take)
my personal experience as a paranormal investigator over the last 20 years (I am a director of BCSkeptics, which is loosely affiliated with - and shares founders with - CSI)
the opinion of other paranormal investigators who have considered and critiqued these (or similar) approaches over the years (eg: Ray Hyman, Joe Nickell, Susan Blackmore, Paul Kurtz, &c)
the specific concerns, as described in earlier posts

[Uncayimmy]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'these things'.

The recommendations I made in the preceding paragraphs.


I'm recommending against the types of testing proposed because of:
my personal experience evaluating and designing scientific experiments for about 15 years (give or take)
my personal experience as a paranormal investigator over the last 20 years (I am a director of BCSkeptics, which is loosely affiliated with - and shares founders with - CSI)
the opinion of other paranormal investigators who have considered and critiqued these (or similar) approaches over the years (eg: Ray Hyman, Joe Nickell, Susan Blackmore, Paul Kurtz, &c)

All arguments from authority. They are not worth the electrons used to display them.


the specific concerns, as described in earlier posts

What specific concerns? Compare and contrast the following:

Double-blinding vs No Blinding

ABX Testing vs No ABX Testing

Using Speakers of Foreign Language vs. Speakers of One Language

Handling the Mics vs Mounting Them

Staying in the Room vs Leaving the Room

Making Digital Copies vs Letting People Handle Originals

Using Digital Gear vs Using Analog Gear

Using Devices Without Mics vs Using Only Devices With Mics

I argue that these things will reduce the number of false positives.

[blutoski]

The recommendations I made in the preceding paragraphs.


All arguments from authority. They are not worth the electrons used to display them.

If you say so.

See: [Skeptical MythConceptions - part 1 - Authority (http://blog.bcskeptics.info/?p=7)]




What specific concerns? Compare and contrast the following:

Double-blinding vs No Blinding

ABX Testing vs No ABX Testing

Using Speakers of Foreign Language vs. Speakers of One Language

Handling the Mics vs Mounting Them

Staying in the Room vs Leaving the Room

Making Digital Copies vs Letting People Handle Originals

Using Digital Gear vs Using Analog Gear

Using Devices Without Mics vs Using Only Devices With Mics

I argue that these things will reduce the number of false positives.

I agree.

Still doesn't solve the problem of the remaining false positive rate being too high. My experience is that these protocols, when followed, very often produce positive results. My concern is that psi advocates will use these results to justify their claims.

Let me rewind a bit... my impression is that you haven't bounced these off other investigators to see if they would find the results persuasive one way or another. For example, when I produce a protocol for a clinical trial, I shop it around. In particular, I ask the people whom I'm trying to convince what they would consider convincing. The protocols you design must be designed to address specific questions.

The key challenge in paranormal investigation is mitigating the concept of agency.

[Uncayimmy]

If you say so.

See: [Skeptical MythConceptions - part 1 - Authority (http://blog.bcskeptics.info/?p=7)]


You wrote, "I'm recommending against the types of testing proposed because of:" and then listed a bunch of names. A bunch of names are not a reason. Had you explained what they said and why along with their credentials, you'd be on to something.

Still doesn't solve the problem of the remaining false positive rate being too high. My experience is that these protocols, when followed, very often produce positive results. My concern is that psi advocates will use these results to justify their claims.

You don't understand what argument from authority means. For example, among bass players there is a common belief that aluminum cone speakers sound "tinny" - something I consider a myth.

If I say they don't sound tinny, that's an argument from authority (long-time bass player).

If I say I ran a test and proved it, that is still essentially an argument from authority.

Now suppose I lay out my experiment. I recorded four different speaker cabinets (one was aluminum) using the same gear and conditions except for the cabinet. I normalized the sound levels. I presented the WAV files to a discussion board comprised of experienced bass players. Of the 15 people who participated, only one was able to pick out the aluminum cone speaker. Almost half the people picked the aluminum cone speaker as sounding the best.

Is that an argument from authority? Not really. Sure, you have to trust that I am not lying or omitting key details. You have to assume I was competent enough to make quality recordings or introduce bias. You have to assume that I played the riffs the same way for each recording.

So, if you're going to say that there are "too many false positives" I want to know more details. I want to know how the studies were done. How many is too many? How many false positives come up without the controls?

Let me rewind a bit... my impression is that you haven't bounced these off other investigators to see if they would find the results persuasive one way or another.
To be honest, I don't care what paranormal investigators think is satisfactory. I've seen what a mess most of their experiments are, so they have little credibility. I care what critical thinkers say about it.

For example, when I produce a protocol for a clinical trial, I shop it around. In particular, I ask the people whom I'm trying to convince what they would consider convincing. The protocols you design must be designed to address specific questions.
I prefer to argue with them regarding what scientists would find convincing. I'd say more is learned by building a good protocol than by actually performing the test.

The key challenge in paranormal investigation is mitigating the concept of agency.
On that we agree.

[Cuddles]

I agree.

Still doesn't solve the problem of the remaining false positive rate being too high. My experience is that these protocols, when followed, very often produce positive results. My concern is that psi advocates will use these results to justify their claims.

Let me rewind a bit... my impression is that you haven't bounced these off other investigators to see if they would find the results persuasive one way or another. For example, when I produce a protocol for a clinical trial, I shop it around. In particular, I ask the people whom I'm trying to convince what they would consider convincing. The protocols you design must be designed to address specific questions.

The key challenge in paranormal investigation is mitigating the concept of agency.

I'm with UncaYimmy here, I'm really not sure what your point is. It seems as though you are saying that because the various suggestions won't necessarily eliminate all sources of error there's no point implementing them at all, and that since most of the people involved are promoting pseudoscience as a hobby that we shouldn't bother criticising them. If that is what you're saying, then to be honest I find that a rather bizarre attitude, and if that's not what you're saying then I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.

[blutoski]

You wrote, "I'm recommending against the types of testing proposed because of:" and then listed a bunch of names. A bunch of names are not a reason. Had you explained what they said and why along with their credentials, you'd be on to something.

Well, at this point, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, really. There are other people who read the thread, they can evaluate this statement as they see fit. There's only so much I can do.



You don't understand what argument from authority means.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.








To be honest, I don't care what paranormal investigators think is satisfactory. I've seen what a mess most of their experiments are, so they have little credibility. I care what critical thinkers say about it.

I'm talking about critical thinkers who are paranormal investigators. The list of authors I cited are precisely these people. Are you unfamiliar with CSICOP?






I prefer to argue with them regarding what scientists would find convincing.

Why would you care what scientists think, if you believe authority is meaningless?

In any case, you appear to have dismissed my concerns, along with those of others I listed. So: as a scientist, I am under the impression that you're not interested in what scientists would find convincing.






I'd say more is learned by building a good protocol than by actually performing the test.

I think it's necessary to identify the hypothesis before designing the protocol. The hypothesis is derived from the claim.

Consider the way the MDC works: start with the claim, and the protocol will follow.

Engagement with the claimants is critical to avoid spinning wheels with a strawman.

[blutoski]

I'm with UncaYimmy here, I'm really not sure what your point is. It seems as though you are saying that because the various suggestions won't necessarily eliminate all sources of error there's no point implementing them at all, and that since most of the people involved are promoting pseudoscience as a hobby that we shouldn't bother criticising them. If that is what you're saying, then to be honest I find that a rather bizarre attitude, and if that's not what you're saying then I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.

Yes, I appreciate that at face value it seems like I'm recommending against improving the protocols, but this isn't what I'm saying: what I'm saying is that in this case better is still not very good.

I do think that it's better not to do an experiment at all, if it's not going to make an impact on resolving a specific hypothesis. What I look for is disconfirmatory power, which is especially sensitive to what hypothesis, exactly, is being tested.

While EVP per se is new, it's really just a current version of the time-honoured attempt to evaluate physical evidence offered in defense of paranormal claims. These types of experiments have been conducted for something like 150 years, and I see a lot of reinventing the wheel. I advise that those who are serious about designing protocols examine which have been discarded, and why, and decide if they accept the reasoning.


Regarding paranormalists, yes I'm saying we shouldn't criticize the paranormalists - we should criticize their experiments. I don't know why recommending against ad hominem attacks would be controversial among skeptics.

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, I appreciate that at face value it seems like I'm recommending against improving the protocols, but this isn't what I'm saying: what I'm saying is that in this case better is still not very good.
And I'm asking for evidence. Have you tried all of the things I suggested in prior posts all in experiment? If so, what was the result?

While EVP per se is new, it's really just a current version of the time-honoured attempt to evaluate physical evidence offered in defense of paranormal claims. These types of experiments have been conducted for something like 150 years, and I see a lot of reinventing the wheel. I advise that those who are serious about designing protocols examine which have been discarded, and why, and decide if they accept the reasoning.
And I have been asking which protocols have been attempted and why they were discarded.

Regarding paranormalists, yes I'm saying we shouldn't criticize the paranormalists - we should criticize their experiments. I don't know why recommending against ad hominem attacks would be controversial among skeptics.
I made no such personal attack. They were bumbling about performing a joke for an experiment. Ridiculing an experiment is not a personal attack.