There are those who dismiss all witness testimony as
'anecdotal' and consequently of no scientific value. If this is true
then we are all wasting our time studying anomalous phenomena as most of
our evidence comes from witnesses. At the other end of the spectrum,
there are some people who accept almost any paranormal anecdote they
hear at face value. This last course is likely to lead to a confusing
and inaccurate picture of anomalous phenomena. So is there a case for
accepting at least SOME anecdotal evidence concerning the paranormal?
Firstly, a high proportion of reports of anomalous phenomena are found, on close examination, to be most likely caused by
misperception or
hallucination.
The latter is almost entirely subjective and former largely so. In such
cases, our only realistic form of access to such material is through
witness testimony. Even when considering such subjective factors, we
are dealing with a real experience, with specific causes, rather than an
'overactive imagination' or delusion.
Secondly, the witness testimony we have for various anomalous
phenomena is consistent across locations and through history. Ghost
reports, for instance, are reasonably consistent across huge numbers of
independent witnesses over many centuries, countries and cultures. Even
more interesting, ghost reports consistently differ significantly from
their well-known fictional and cultural representation. In the case of
hauntings, for instance, the same phenomena may be reported at the same
location by independent witnesses over a long period of time, indicating
that there must be factors involved independent of the witnesses
themselves. This gives rise to
'haunting hot spots', a remarkably consistent feature of real hauntings, though not of their well-known fictional and cultural counterpart.
So, I believe there IS a case for accepting anecdotal evidence
but only if it is rigorously collected. I would NOT consider the
following as useful sources of such evidence:
Legends - it is said that legends are usually
based on some germ of truth. This may well be so but it means that most
of the tale is essentially invented. Even worse, we don't know which
bits of the story are real and which are not!
Media reports - anyone reading a media report
of a ghost sighting, for instance, will immediately be struck by the
fact that it invariably raises more questions than it answers. Such
reports tend to be brief and often contain irrelevant background
information. For instance, a report of a ghost sighting may include
speculation about the historical identity of the apparition. This is
despite that fact that there is frequently little or no relevant
information pointing to any particular individual.
Personal anecdotes - most people have a real
life 'ghost story' to tell from their personal experience. Unless these
incidents were investigated by competent researchers reasonably soon
after the incident, however, such testimony is unlikely to be
sufficiently accurate or detailed to be of scientific interest. As well
as the universal problems of misperception and unreliable recall, many
witnesses tend to 'form a view' on their experience, especially with the
passage of time, which can bias their retelling of the incident. It is
interesting to note that such anecdotes typically differ markedly in
their content from carefully investigated cases. This suggests that
memory drift and witness interpretation may often affect such accounts.
FOAF - friend of a friend (FOAF) stories are
like personal anecdotes but even less reliable. This is because the
person relating the story is not the original witness. This inevitably
introduces 'Chinese whisper' effects making the material highly likely
to be changed, albeit unintentionally, from its original form.
Furthermore, you cannot question the original witness for further
details.
Most vigil reports - a great many 'ghost vigils' these days use
'assumption-led' techniques.
Since such techniques cannot ever question their own assumptions, and
since they are perfectly capable of producing 'positive' results
anywhere, whether at a haunted location or not, they have little or no
value in producing useful evidence.
So what kind of anecdotal WOULD I consider scientifically useful?
The most useful witness testimony comes through a formal
investigation by competent paranormal researchers. Such researchers will
use cognitive interviewing techniques to gain the highest proportion of
reliable information from original witnesses. They will also interview
any other witnesses who were either present at the time or saw the same
phenomena at a different time or place. They will examine the site of
the experience to check if it corresponds with witness testimony and if
any obvious
xenonormal
causes for the report are apparent. They will also look for other, less
obvious, possible xenonormal causes as well as trying to reproduce the
events described by the witnesses. They may well consult with experts in
relevant fields who may suggest further xenonormal causes to consider.
They may hold a vigil but only if it is considered relevant or likely to
be useful and never using assumption-led techniques.
So, when I say that there is little compelling evidence that
ghosts are spirits or that they cause hauntings, that's the kind of
evidence I'm thinking of. There is an expanded version of this post
here.