How Does One Define Mainstream Scientific Views?

[CLD]

I've been following a discussion in the Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) article at Wikipedia. I've read some rather strange arguments regarding how mainstream scientific views (i.e. consensus of the scientific community) are defined. A sampling:

You can't claim "the mainstream" does not accept EVP because that directly implies rejection of the idea. There is no mainstream rejection of EVP; rejection requires experimentation, analysis and a statement of rejection - none of these exist.

Furthermore, if we can't state EVP is "speech or speech like sounds" then the page on Gravity cannot state "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other." - if one can make this kind of statement (remember that gravity is not proved, just widely accepted as the best explanation given so far) then so can the other, as they are of equal magnitude in their assumptions. Neither has proof. The only difference is that one has research to show it's currently the best description of events while the other has a couple of reports.

Mainstream science has ignored EVP, therefore we can't say it rejects it. Mainstream science hasn't established a consensus on EVP or done peer reviewed studies that reject it. (Mainstream science) might have thought about EVP, but if they didn't publish, that isn't really scrutiny, because science is done in the open. Again, unless you can cite majority and minority, we don't know what is the majority view(of EVP is) but it is probably paranormal.

Mainstream science doesn't know about EVP, and so it does not accept it. It doesn't reject it, either, because it doesn't know about it. If you can cite any source at all saying that most scientists have an opinion about EVP and that that opinion is negative, then we can say that the majority opinion is negative concerning EVP.

Personally, I'd always thought that the reason the scientific community does not formally comment or publish judgement on every new paranormal fad is because the simplest explanations for it (via Occam's Razor) are always non-paranormal. However, except for generalized discussion in Sagan's DHW, I don't see any sources that confirm this is indeed the case. Can those here from the academic and scientific community comment?

[blutoski]

I've been following a discussion in the Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) article at Wikipedia. I've read some rather strange arguments regarding how mainstream scientific views (i.e. consensus of the scientific community) are defined. A sampling:



Personally, I'd always thought that the reason the scientific community does not formally comment or publish judgement on every new paranormal fad is because the simplest explanations for it (via Occam's Razor) are always non-paranormal. However, except for generalized discussion in Sagan's DHW, I don't see any sources that confirm this is indeed the case. Can those here from the academic and scientific community comment?

They have a point in that I doubt there is an official 'rejection' position/consensus paper published about EVP. There is such a thing regarding other issues. For example, The APA has published position papers on quackery such as recovered memories. But it had to become a 'problem' worth their time and effort.

I think there is a challenge regarding identification which field of science would be the 'mainstream' responsible for reviewing the claims. If such a field were to be identified, the next step would be to determine who would be an authority, and seek her opinion.

I think you are also correct in that there are simply so many mundane explanations available that established scientists aren't interested. There was a time when stuff like EVP in previous generations was taken seriously, but this is a once-bitten-twice-shy thing. Consider EVP's technological predecessors: spirit photos, Kirlarian photograpy, and so on. I'd even include N-Rays here, although this was a purely naturalistic claim.

Modern technological cousins of EVP include ghost investigation tools such as temperature differences on location, electronic equipment failures, EMF quirks, and hey - resurrected - spirit photography now in the form of orb hunting and video anomalies.

If you go back further to non-tech predecessors, we're looking at anything that finds pattern in randomness, such as cloud pictures, tea leaves, &c.

[blutoski]

I've been following a discussion in the Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) article at Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I assist a team of ghost & haunting researchers, and one is a strong advocate of EVP. He is the only one in the group right now that harbours this view.

You seem to talk about this subject more than others on this forum, so my impression is that this is a subject you may actually be an expert in.

I have a question for you: do you think EVP advocates are disproportionately represented by males? Or is it an even mix of men and women?

[CLD]

Incidentally, I assist a team of ghost & haunting researchers, and one is a strong advocate of EVP. He is the only one in the group right now that harbours this view.

You seem to talk about this subject more than others on this forum, so my impression is that this is a subject you may actually be an expert in.

I have a question for you: do you think EVP advocates are disproportionately represented by males? Or is it an even mix of men and women?

In the last year or so, I have looked rather closely at the ghost hunting culture and the industry that supports it, so while I may be more familiar than some with their specific woo beliefs and practices, I am no means an expert. From what I've seen, there is no gender, educational, regional, or religious skew for EVP advocates. They range from people with EE's and technical degrees (the Edgar D. Mitchell effect) to teenager horror-movie buffs.

[pgwenthold]

Your friend has double-talked themselves into a corner,.

The first sentance:
You can't claim "the mainstream" does not accept EVP

The first sentance of the last paragraph
Mainstream science doesn't know about EVP, and so it does not accept it.

So what is? Can we say that mainstream science does not accept EVP, or can't we?

Well, of course we can. In fact, he just did, so he knows full well we can. He doesn't even believe the first sentance.

EVP is not discussed in the mainstream scientific literature. Thus, we are completely accurate to say that it is not part of mainstream science.