On March 9, 2023, Paul Ganon Tweet:
“Not a single TV network that manages ghost hunting offers you want a program from a skeptical perspective. There is no single chain to try to uncover something frightening and explain the common misconceptions. Networks want to calm the believers. It is really shameful. It can be useful.
Paul received a few fine tweets, in response to this after his comment, he was replaced by Haunted magazine editor, Paul Stevenson, who to reply A TV program should attract its fans for 45 minutes. It is possible that a kind of cross show is needed after the TV program is justiceable.
Stevenson, who describes himself as “supportive of the standard”, was not alone in this thinking process, as others also answered that the skeptics and their approach to superpowers would not attract the audience to supernatural TV programs, and that this will not make good television.
I think this response reveals something that he says: These people do not know what skeptical investigation of superpowers appears. The only skeptical acting they know is what is presented on the current famous ghost TV programs that are not at all accurate. The skeptical head of the conversation is usually presented at the end of the show to counter the arguments supporting the natural materials that were performed during the episode. Or, an investigator skeptical of a distinction with the rest of the ghost hunting team will participate and “science” will participate with the lack of a lot of essence through interpretations. Or, at least, not the explanations that are dealt with or present as reliable in the offer.
These skeptics are present to play lip service for science. This is something I mentioned in A previous blog post for me The supernatural media depends greatly on the fallacy of the wrong balance, as it provides pro -hypothetical claims as well as the same as the scientific knowledge in force. The spoiler: They are not equal. This is an honorable way to treat the audience and I think we all know it.
In fact, the responses to the post that I wrote about the wrong balance showed that many people who describe themselves as believers in the paranormal cannot prove a good understanding of what is doubtful. Partly, it is due to the distortion of the media search for current ghosts, and it shows that the reactions from some to the question of Paul are misleading.
The investigation of superpowers that I pledge does not seem to be anything that you find on the ghost fishing TV. Using scientific doubts, skills of critical thinking, and a humanitarian, comprehensive approach, my goal is to find these facts, then use these facts to solve mystery. Over the years, this included anything from feeding water foxes and examining the microfilm, to the sidewalk, and going to the museum. Smredist paranormal researchers, such as Kenny Bidel and Blake SmithYou have similar stories about the deep adventures you pledge to solve puzzles using a similar approach.
In fact, as a person used to be a fisherman of ghosts, then developed a more rational approach to mysterious supernatural allegations, I can say that the skeptical approach is more exciting and interesting and the productivity of this ghost hunting. Ghost hunting includes the use of the same equipment and the same methods in each site. Be a skeptical investigator, I had to learn things and explore the topics that I did not think I would face. I must reconsider my supposed knowledge and accept that I was wrong in things, and learn new things all the time. They are difficult and wonderful parts.
So, although the Ghost Hunting TV fans may demand it, the display of skeptical ghost research will be unattractive and boring, most likely a lot about them says more than what is doing skeptical ghost research …
