When I wrote and shared it for the first time Ethics Blog I am used as a paranormal researcher, and it was directed towards field research. I shared it so that the other paranormal researchers can steal and adapt to their own uses and I know that many have them. The update is scheduled to be completed in the document by the end of this month (February 2019).
With this in mind, I was thinking a lot about what should and should not be adapted, and what obstacles I had to overcome as a researcher was not necessarily covered in the document, and what He is There I did not use it, and so on. For example, I decided to include a section in the updated ethics code that will cover the use of social media in terms of cases after I recently seen what I consider immoral behavior from the alleged skeptical in the United States. Think about it as a warning story …
The man claims a question that a member of the public sent him a picture of the analysis. The photographer believed that the photo showed a ghost – perhaps from his deceased wife. For me, this will be an automatic indication that this condition was sensitive to accurate treatment due to the bereavement that the scenario involved. However, this skeptical chair, however, saw the occasion to share the image on social media, allowing hundreds of people to predict what was the cause of the strange imagined in the image.
(By the way, I do not use the term “skeptical on an arms chair” in a rejecting way, but instead that the names of the type of people who rarely leave the relative safety of their keyboard, yet they miraculously know the exact cause of the situation without the foot step on the site, or talk to any of the witnesses of the eye. At all.)
When I wondered whether the person who sent the photo gave approval of the image to discuss publicly, I never received an answer, which was in itself the answer I was looking for. Such a lack of respect for the person who entrusted them with the picture is disgraceful, and although the photographer was not called, not even in the picture themselves, there is still a breach of secrecy here. All cases must be dealt with at the same level of secrecy and respect regardless of the level of possible damage. Additional precautions may be used for those who are really difficult, but I think it should never be reduced from the boundaries of your ethics blog. You should set the boundaries you place on yourself as a stone researcher.
The least that the questioner can provide a person is dignity and respect, and if you cannot bring yourself to do so, you need to stop dealing with the audience as a person they can contact. It may be really tempting to show the fact that you have an issue, or something to be investigated, but in the end no person helps and makes you guilty of modest pride, my friend.
Many people who know that they are skeptical also fall into the trap of thinking that they are immune from the illogical and immoral behavior they see in others simply because they know this. This could not be far from the truth at all! I previously wrote about how to know the shortcuts made by the brain and the mind do not make them less strange when trying them (The rainbow was disrupted: by chance and worship of death – August 2018). You may be skeptical, friends, but you are still human.
The main reason for this type of confidence (regardless of arrogance) is how easy it is to make yourself accidentally in an echo room by only surrounding yourself with the people who agree with you. Both believers and non -believers in all kinds of nervous and strange ideas can be guilty of this, but this makes me a little superior when people who claim to be “rational”, “skeptical” and “scientific” fail to realize what they do exactly like the image of ghosts that they try.
Ultimately, skeptical researchers need to ensure that they keep the same level of accountability in our field of volatile mediators and form ghost hunting. It is difficult to evaluate your behavior in an objective way, which is why you have the Code of Conduct or Ethics Code is very important.