You have to love skeptics.Really.Like most people who’ve spent many years attaining a doctorate, I’m naturally skeptical about many things.One thing that I only temporarily lost (between about 1991 and ’99, if I recall) was an open mind.That is to say, I discounted many things out of hand because people with doctorates don’t countenance such things.I eventually realized the folly of academic arrogance and went back to considering things by actual evidence.The results were interesting.In order to help with my Ed and Lorraine Warren dilemma, I decided to read The Science of Ghosts by Joe Nickell.It’s hard not to like Nickell.He was a stage magician and eventually earned a doctorate in folklore.He then made a career out of being a paranormal investigator.
He begins his book by claiming to have an open mind about ghosts.Very quickly, however, a skeptical reader with an open mind notices his magician’s tricks.He’s very good at misdirection.While putatively not debunking (but actually debunking) ghostly encounters, he time and again comes to the states of consciousness when individual super-impose images from theunconscious mind onto what they’re seeing: when falling asleep, in the middle of the night, when waking up, when doing routine chores, when concentrating, when working.That about covers over 90 percent of human time.During these periods we’re likely to mistake what’s not really there for what is.It could explain much of the driving I’ve witnessed in New Jersey, if not ghosts.And he also picks straw men (and women) to knock over (pardon the violent metaphor).Accounts by the credulous are his favorites to explain away.
What we really need is a middle ground between credulousness and a skepticism that can’t be convinced even by evidence.Yes, ghost hunters use ridiculous methods for claiming “proof.”Yes, some credible people legitimately see incredible things.Nickell never deviates from his definition of ghosts as a form of energy left by the departed.Nobody knows for sure what ghosts are, of course.If they did there’d be little mystery about them.Although Nickell claims openmindedness, he states at several points that at death brain activity ceases therefore nothing can think, walk, or talk afterward.As any experimentalist knows, the results reflect the way an experiment is set up.If the assumption is that there can’t be ghosts, there won’t be ghosts.To get to the truth of the matter something between credulousness and biased skepticism must be brought to the table to see if it really tips.Skeptics are fun, but an actual conversation might be more fruitful.
Ed and Lorraine Warren aren’t easy to figure out.I realize that for someone who holds an actual doctorate from a bona fide, internationally recognized research university this might be something strange to say.That’s because the standard academic response is simple dismissal.Ed, at least, was known to have stretched the truth from time to time, but that’s not the same as never having reported weird things that actually happened.This is why I’ve long advocated academics at least looking at the evidence—rare though it may be—before the simple hand-waving dismissal.Part of the problem is that the Warrens’ books were written by credulous followers who don’t question things nearly enough.Ghost Tracks, by Cheryl A. Wicks, may be the last of this strange genre of hortatory, biographical accounts “by” the Warrens written while Ed was still alive.
Skepticism is very important.But so is listening to people.What I find compelling is that similar weirdness—frequently dismissed out of hand—has been recorded throughout the length and breadth of history and across the entire globe.The problem is that many of these things fall outside current scientific means of testing.While perhaps not widely known, very reputable universities quietly explore these possibilities with actual science.Part of the problem of the Warrens, as well as various other “ghost hunters” is that they use scientific equipment and think that makes them scientists.It doesn’t.Science requires deep engagement and many years of strenuous study.And yes, skepticism has to be part of it.The thing the Warrens have to offer is that they realize(d) that when science does engage the supernatural interesting things emerge.
Sensationalism, however, is the slave of capitalism.Books sell better when they make extraordinary claims and declare they’re based on true events.Trying to make a living investigating the paranormal led the Warrens, it seems, to tip the balance a little too far in the way of credulity.Some of the stories in Ghost Tracks are more believable than others.Some are just plain frustrating.Ed’s interview with George Lutz (of Amityville fame), for example, is full of dropped balls.A good question receives an intriguing answer only to have the subject immediately switched by the interviewer.Even just a little skepticism and a follow-up question would have done scads to improve the believability of the story.This is something a scientist would have known.Someone as smart as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, although his Sherlock Holmes generally foundratiocination led to physical explanations, believed in the supernatural.If only his Holmes might’ve been brought to this discussion we might possibly have learned something.
Before I really knew who Ed and Lorraine Warren were, I watched a made-for-television movie called, I think, A Haunting in Connecticut.Unlike many television movies, it was actually quite scary.Fast forward several years and I find myself writing a book that involves the Warrens.I felt obligated to read all the books they “wrote”—all of them ghostwritten—and I’d been holding off on the one titled In a Dark Place, which is the story behind this television movie which was subsequently made into a theatrical movie.The book is by Ray Garton and the parents of the family involved (Carmen Reed and Al Snedeker) are also credited.The story is indeed a dreary one, not something I expected would bring any holiday cheer.About that I was correct.
Why do I do it, then?A concern with veracity drives me.Throughout history enough people have told stories like this that either we have to lump our species together as a bunch of lying attention-grubbers, or there might be something to what they say.The academic and official responses have long been to state that such things can’t happen, so they don’t.When compared with how we come to know other things about life, we quickly realize that it involves experience.In cases where experience is anomalous we tend to dismiss it.We are great conformers.What if there really was a demon in the Snedeker house?Others have told similar tales.If there’s any reality to it, shouldn’t we know?
As a former academic, I always thought that if we really wish to learn the truth, no subject should be off-limits.That’s not the same thing as credulousness.We don’t have to believe everything overwrought people say, but the subject should be worth consideration.Of course, those who ghostwrote for the Warrens claim that they were given liberty to stretch the truth to make a better story.They also tend to claim that the basic elements of the story are true.When someone’s writing a book, there’s likely some hope of remuneration involved.And sometimes the truth isn’t quite flashy enough for major presses with the bottom line in sight.Still, the question of what really happened is left open.The internet is a place where credulity reigns.We can seek truth there only with great caution.Maybe that is the lesson to apply to books like this as well.Although In a Dark Place is scary, there was money at stake, and as the wise say, money changes everything.
I feel compelled to say that this book was not among the overwritten tomes I mentioned in yesterday’s post.Indeed, although the title reflects the outlook of the author, you need to get to the subtitle to find out what the book’s about.Although I work at an academic press, I disagree with academic book pricing models.Graham Twelftree’s previous book, Jesus the Exorcist, had to be picked up in a paperback reprint edition before it could be affordable to the likes of mere mortals.After reading it I learned that Twelftree had written a more popular book on the topic—Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now.Putting much of the material from the previous book in less technical terms, this version goes on to ask questions that can’t be put into a standard dissertation, such as “should exorcisms still be done?”
The academic is necessarily a skeptic.One of the biggest problems our society faces is the open credulity of those who haven’t been taught to think critically.Twelftree is a rare academic who keeps an open mind while approaching the material with a healthy skepticism.Often it’s too easy to suggest that disregarding that which doesn’t fit a theory is the only way forward for an academic.Sweeping off the table that which we don’t like.The word Twelftree uses is “residue”—that which remains after the majority of possession cases have been explained medically.The usual response is to disregard this small fraction of anomalous material and claim “case closed.”In this book Twelftree dares to go further.
The supernatural has become an embarrassment for many, even in believing communities.An interventionist god, or demons, would set off chain reactions that would distort the known laws of physics, so such things simply can’t exist.Things which we can’t explain only exist because we haven’t got all the variables yet.I recall how cold that made me feel when I first encountered the idea in physics class.“Scientific determinism” it is sometimes called.This little book rehearses the New Testament material covered in Twelftree’s dissertation, but goes on to raise the implications from that study and apply them to modern times.It’s a brave thing to do in an academic world where brushes and brooms are very common.Where residue is wiped up and tossed away without a second thought.Those who stop to think through the implications are rare, which makes them so much the more interesting reading.And not being from an academic press, such books are oftenaffordable.