I know well what it is to play the game of Debunker Tug-o’-War. On one end of the rope are the Skeptic paranormal researchers and on the other end are the paranormal proponents. Each team pulls and pulls and occasionally the other side are forced to take a step towards the line. Each step is considered a victory by the other team. Yet, ultimately, nobody actually gets anywhere.

Boy, did I feel foolish when I let go of the rope and noticed that there were whole groups of other people not taking part…

Most people know me as a ghost researcher who doesn’t believe in ghosts, who uses good old-fashioned sceptical inquiry to root out the explanations for oddities which may not be apparent at first. I enjoy solving a good puzzle and I enjoy this approach to researching paranormal claims and reports. I like to think I’m pretty good at it, too.

As a researcher, I respect the burden of proof – that is, anyone making a claim should be able to back it up with reasonable evidence. However, more and more, I ask myself what exactly would count as evidence for these claims? We routinely (rightly) dismiss photos and videos of alleged paranormal activity as evidence because they are unreliable, and eye-witness testimony is only as accurate as the brain recalling it – which is to say: not very. This means that there isn’t really any particular way that people who claim to have had a paranormal experience can possibly prove it to anyone who questions the truth of the experience.

One could argue that this is a closed case. This person says they saw a dust sheet levitate in a building said to be haunted*, but there’s no evidence other than their word and we cannot be sure they’ve recalled accurately what happened, or indeed that they were witness to everything happening in that moment. It is a subjective experience.

This means we have a number of choices; we could dismiss the case a priori because it is subjective. Or, we could claim that although there’s no objective evidence, other people have seen strange things which are similar in nature which means this occurrence could be more than just a one-off, and could be paranormal.

Or, we could take a third and fourth approach, which I prefer. The third approach is to properly investigate the case. This could involve a visit the location to try and determine common causes for what happened – and getting those who witnessed the occurrence, or who live/work there to help out can be a useful process for them, too. An investigative approach doesn’t always have to involve a site visit as you might be able to work out the cause from the information presented to you instead.

The fourth approach is a humanistic approach, or as I like to term it – a holistic approach. In 2018, I wrote a post titled I’m a Holistic Ghost Detective explaining this further. We could pause to recognise that the reported experience happened within the context of human experience. Two different people could witness the same thing, but could report completely different experiences. The dust sheet levitated, or was it pulled away by unseen hands? Each of us experiences life differently and therefore interprets the world around us in different ways accordingly. We also recall memories differently, especially as more time passes between the occurrence and the recollection.

When your hands are holding on tightly to the rope during the game of Debunker Tug-O’-War, you don’t have time to consider this. All you can do is focus on pulling the rope and winning the game. That is neither humanistic, nor is it decent investigative work and I see it all too commonly from skeptic investigators.

It’s also important to remember that some people don’t want to prove anything to a ghost researcher, they just want someone to acknowledge that something strange has happened in their presence. Offering a listening ear and your honest opinion is a great form of dialogue because you’re still honest about your non-belief and can offer alternative explanations about what they witnessed, but in a more engaging way which is likely to help somewhat. It gives you insight into the rich tapestry of the human experience.

There was a time when I could be found trying my hardest to debunk the latest claims being made by the latest jerk trying to have their 15 minutes of fame by styling themselves as a ghost hunter, psychic, exorcist, or something equally as tacky and ludicrous. By being so caught up in this ballet, I sometimes failed to recognise the difference between the jerks and the regular people I was coming into contact with. I came to realise that this approach to paranormal research doesn’t actually do very much and those who participate in this pantomime of debunkery just run the risk of preaching to the converted and not much more.

As paranormal researchers, we have to be careful to not lose sight of the human element of the stories we come into contact with when we research claims or when we tackle misinformation. It’s possible to be a good, decent sceptic researcher without jumping on every bandwagon that presents itself. On the other hand, being a debunker who shoots from the hip and rushes to be the first to debunk a story, or attempts to publish the more articles debunking the latest paranormal claims than the next debunker can be as irrational as someone claiming they married a ghost pirate, or have goblins in their garden. Plus, with this ‘it moves, you shoot’ approach, you run the risk of seeing bogeymen when there are none, which is quite ironic when you think about it…

*example taken from an actual case of mine with permission from the eye-witnesses involved prior to publishing.