Each month I’ll bring you a new example of sciencey-ness that falls short of giving us credible knowledge yet fools at least some of the public into thinking that it is the real deal. For this initial go, I wanted to share my realizations about science talk and the people who utilize it like a toupee of credibility to hide the lack of substance underneath. Once you’ve spotted their ways, it’s hard to ignore.

Science.

It is a bit hard to define what that is. Meanings change through time. If you are one who values science as the most reliable way to understand the world, you likely have a much stronger definition of the term than someone who values it less. Science is all these things: a process, a way of looking at a topic, a community, an infrastructure, a career, a set of results, an authority, and more. We can use the word in many ways. That means it can be abused in many ways as well.

Daniel Patrick Thurs’s aptly named book Science Talk is an interesting walk through how we have historically talked about science. He takes us through the terms and rhetoric that the public and purveyors of sciences used through the development of the scientific age and demonstrates how meanings are constructed based on the needs we have at any time.

Popular ideas about science have evolved significantly since the word came to be. At first, it just meant a body of reliable and systematized knowledge. That really general way of referring to “a science” was in use until the early 1800s. When “scientist” became an actual profession—where certain training was expected, amateurs were pushed out, and a unique jargon was developed—boundaries formed (and were actively built) around science.

Constructed boundaries enhanced the reputation of science as a distinctive (perhaps “honored”) way of knowing about the world and excluded that which wasn’t science (conveniently judged by the scientists themselves).

The new and improved version of “science” now encompassed all the activities which, collectively, serve the aim of explaining the natural world and how it works.

As the scientific community organized into an “establishment,” an ethos [group of practices] developed. Certain standards of practice were expected of a “scientist,” foremost of which was the entrance to the club through higher education.

Scientific discoveries contributed to human societies in (mostly) positive ways; therefore, the prestige of being “scientific” grew. “Scientific” was associated with being “more true” and more reliable. The biggest drawback of this prestige—which was derived from the rigor and professionalism of science—was that the scientific community itself and the capacity to understand how science really worked receded from the grasp of the non-science public. Being a scientist was special because not everyone could do it. Being scientific was a high standard. Science was hard.

Use of the scientific method

Science progresses on a path quite different from what the public sees. Regular surveys about the public understanding of science tell us that the non-scientist doesn’t comprehend well the importance of critical concepts like controlled trials, peer review, skeptical criticism, and the holding of ideas as provisional. It’s not a surprise that the public doesn’t get how science works; they aren’t exposed to it. People form their ideas about science from the input they DO get—mostly from basic education and popular culture.

In order to do science and be scientific, we are told, you must follow the scientific method.

Once upon a time, though, “scientific method” was not part of the common vernacular. When it began to be used, in the mid-19th century, it was synonymous with “thorough” and “careful.”

Perhaps your first introduction to science may have been in elementary school, when you were taught the “scientific method” presented as a step-by-step prescription to investigate nature that went something like this: observe and gather facts; derive the question you need answered about those facts; propose an explanation for the facts that answers that question; test that explanation.

Sounds easy enough for anyone to do! But, it’s an oversimplification for today’s complicated world. There really is no foolproof, formulaic method that one can apply to all subject areas. Even diligently using the above process, one can go off the rails immediately and end up with nonsense.

Right off the mark, we are all noticeably poor observers—we assume many “facts” that have not actually been confirmed. Many trip up constructing the proper question in order to get a precise, meaningful answer. People regularly make utterly untestable hypotheses (e.g., invoke supernatural causes) then bias the evidence collection process to support a favored explanation, run bogus tests to confirm it, package their conclusions in an enticing way, and then sell it to others. Indeed, this happens all the time, often under the label of “science.”

Ghost science: no substance at all

Instead of playing by the established rules, fields of study with premises that have been rejected by mainstream science attempt an end run around the scientific process. Working backwards from conclusions to evidence so they can support their pet ideas, they co-opt the symbols and processes of science. Dressing up and acting all sciencey-like is a tactic used by intelligent design advocates/creationists, cryptozoologists, ghost hunters, and UFOlogists, among others. It’s a handy gimmick—one that is frequently effective with the public as laypersons may not notice the missing rigor. That it works so often is a reflection of how shallowly the public understands science.

For example, let’s examine the popular paranormal-based hobby of ghost hunting/paranormal investigation.

About half of all paranormal research groups prominently boast that they use a/the “scientific method.” (Whether they use the definite or indefinite article, you will see, does not matter at all.) They frequently present themselves this way to clients, public audiences, and the media.

Curious as to what they meant by that, I contacted a number of paranormal research groups that specifically said they used a “scientific method” or “science” in their methodology. I picked several that really spread the scienceyness on thick. “Science” was in their name or appeared to be of great importance to them. If they promoted science so strongly, were they, in fact, scientists? Did they have a well-thought-out protocol? Since science is a community activity and you are expected to put your findings out there for others to critique, I expected they would be confident in sharing their work with others and defending their conclusions.

Not so much.

The replies I received, though few, spanned a curious range from haughty self-confidence to realistic admissions of failure.

When asked if any of their group members had experience in scientific research outside the paranormal group, a few said “No” outright but several hyped their personal background, equating their ghost investigation activities, computer science experience, or electronics expertise with “scientific training.” That’s not only odd but disingenuous, stretching even the most generic idea of “scientific.”

What did they mean by a scientific method? As I anticipated from the emphasis on gadgetry on their websites, they defined their methods in terms of objectivity, such as data collection through use of equipment. But, nearly universally, their idea of being scientific was simply to be methodical and systematic. For one group their idea of doing science was only “in depth research and investigation,” harkening back to the original and nonspecific idea of science as the organized study of anything. Nonetheless, many who claim to be objective use various subjective means of investigation: intuitives (psychics), dowsing, pendulums, and even Ouija boards.

One particular group with the word “sciences” in its name offers classes to the community on how to investigate using a scientific method. My respondent replied to the question “What about your methods is scientific?” with the elementary definition: identify problem, form hypothesis, test, and conclude. She also added that they were “creating a model of examined evidence or data then trying out different hypothesis.” That sounds sufficiently perspicacious and purposeful, but according to the investigation results from their fancy-worded website they weren’t producing anything testable or vaguely coherent enough to be called a “model.” Their “facts” were more appropriately labeled “opinions,” “feelings,” or “stories.” Their conclusions were unsupported and biased by their obvious belief in paranormal explanations.

Finally, I queried the host of a local radio show called Paranormal Science (You can’t get much more sciencey than that!) who proved to be both the most vague and the most direct at the same time. The group leader said, “I think what we are referring to is ‘as scientific as possible with the means we have.’” Contrasting this to the use of metaphysical means of investigation (i.e., psychics or occult means), they wish to document “hard” evidence, yet admit they are never in a position to fully control the environment.

I would guess that this is the first time anyone has asked them questions about science as they outright concede, “We by no means are using THE Scientific methods [sic]. Just various “as-scientific” methods or ways of trying to document activity.”

I was puzzled. Calling themselves “scientific” where there was no admittedly no science going on was dodgy, to say the least. When I had asked if they had science training, I got a resounding “Yes!” but no details. When they started talking about quantum physics and “energy,” I figured out they knew enough high-falutin’ sciencey talk to be dangerous to the public, who are often too easily impressed by a cheap tuxedo, so to speak.

I saw them as science poseurs who were playing up a manufactured sense of self-importance. They wanted to “take an intelligent look at all this stuff, or at least a common sense approach. LOL!.”

In a P.S. to my reply, the Paranormal Science show host blew the game by conceding, “The ‘science’ in Paranormal Science just refers to the ‘workings’ behind various topics we will be covering. It has nothing to do with actual science. Just a catch phrase. LOL!”

LOLs indeed…

I observed two things about these sciencey-sounding groups. First, they had little to no idea what modern science is or how to do it. Instead, they were operating on their perceived, old-fashioned idea of what sounded sufficiently sciencey and impressive to them. Second, they were co-opting the memes of science to appear serious and careful. They were perfectly comfortable playing scientists to their clients, the media, and the public, who assumed they were conscientious. But when someone who knew a little more about standards of real science knocked on the door to question them, they shifted their ground. Their methods were not scientific; their work was not science at all.

Calling out counterfeit science talk

I reached Daniel Thurs, the author of Science Talk, via email to ask why he thought these researchers who claim to use science immediately backpedaled from the strong version of the term when I questioned them on it.

The “scientific method,” he said, “seems to be one of the most portable parts of science.”

It works because it’s vague and it sounds prescriptive. Anyone can use it. When one tries to pin down exactly what aspects of science they are practicing and how they achieve each step in a scientific method, the smoky vagueness has to be cleared up. Are they possibly using the term “scientific method” to suppress debate? “Look! We use the scientific method so we obtain reliable results and are superior to that group who is just out to have fun.” If that’s a purpose, the usefulness is diminished by my questioning, which sent them scrambling to places where they were obviously uncomfortable (thus causing random outbursts of acronymical laughter).

But it’s not funny. These researchers claiming to use the scientific method failed to understand that science is powerful in our society precisely because it is hard and not everyone can do it. Instead, they adopted the gimmick of sprinkling “scientific method” and other sciencey-sounding words around because others relate to that and associate that with being more correct or genuine.

It is difficult to talk concisely about the practice of faking science, even though it is so prevalent. The words available to me were just not adequate to express what I was trying to say. I went through books and essays about “stuff” done outside of scientific orthodoxy. It was labeled as pseudoscience. Alternatively, one could be said to be conjuring science [Toumey 1996], constructing a scientific façade, imitating science, etc. The methods and ideas were described as “sciencey” or “scientif-ish.” No one term floated to the top as a succinct way to convey the meaning that claimants were mimicking science, especially when the perpetrators of the ruse may be sincere but misinformed.

One day, while working on the idea of “sham inquiry” as a description of what ghost hunters really do (work backwards from conclusion to evidence), I came across the word “scientifical.” I don’t remember how. Perhaps it popped into my head because it was the word that sounded just as silly as these weekend investigators looked to an actual scientist. It was not widely used although it existed in the Urban Dictionary:

“A term used to describe a situation when someone has mixed up or mispronounced words. It is so used because it is such a word itself. It is normally used to point out the persons [sic] blunder.”

And also,

“A way to make yourself sound intelligent when you have no idea what you are talking about.”

These definitions certainly resonated with me in terms of what I found when looking at amateur paranormal investigation groups. So I used it. Being scientifical means hijacking the authority of science to sound credible and believable by misappropriating the terms, methods, and imagery.

Acting scientifical reflects a desire to be included within the scientific realm as opposed to excluded and ridiculed. This semblance is convincing to the non-science public where real-life experience can be valued more highly than academic credentials.

Everyone wants science on their side. If you can’t get that to legitimately happen, it’s not too difficult to bluff by manufacturing a facsimile. You fool some of the people a lot of the time. Those who play at this also fool themselves. They fail at obtaining useful, reliable knowledge about the natural world. Still, they are certain of their ways—using their scientifical methods, telling the public how serious and important their work is, and succeeding at converting some nonbelievers that there is something to it. That’s dangerous and should be challenged.

References

Carey, S.S. 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method (3rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Thurs, D. P. 2007. Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Toumey, C. P. 1996. Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

After the town lost its appeal in the mid-1900s, guesthouses and hotels were spectacularly restored, making Cape May a unique destination for a romantic weekend or a family vacation.

In a town with unique architecture, history, and ever-increasing tourism, themed walking tours are popular with visitors. One of the most popular is the Haunted Cape May Tour. Billed as “the only authentic walking ghost tour of Cape May,” the brochure advertises “no folklore, no fairy tales, no fantasies.” This is the eighth year of the tour, founded by paranormal investigator Al Rauber.

Rauber only guides the tours himself on occasion. In the busy summer months, you will have a pleasant guide for the half dozen stops on the ninety-minute tour. According to the bio given on the Haunted New Jersey Web site, Rauber is far too busy conducting investigations, serving as the expert consultant for the Sightings TV program (SciFi Network), and appearing as a talking head in paranormal documentaries.

Rauber also is a self-proclaimed expert on electronic voice phenomena (EVP), which he uses to conduct his research. EVP is claimed to be voices from beyond the grave captured by using a fresh, blank audio tape recorded during an investigation. The voices are not heard until the tape is analyzed, sometimes by adjusting the tape speed, enhancing the hiss, or even locating sounds on the opposite side of the tape.

Each stop on the tour is said to have been investigated by Rauber and his team. The “investigation” constitutes interviews with witnesses, EVP taping, photographs, and a hand-held meter to measure electromagnetic fluxes. However, during the tour, you are not given much information about the results of the investigations for each location, just the entertaining story of the alleged haunting.

You may be guided by one of the group members that participated in the investigation. Otherwise, the tour guide uses a scripted talk-she makes it clear that she doesn't know the details of the investigation and, unfortunately, may not be able to answer particular questions. She also begins the tour by stating these stories are entertaining, but never does she state they are absolutely accurate. In fact, during a tour, the guide prefaced the stories with “from what we are told... ” or “witnesses say...”

On a lovely night in July, our 7 p.m. tour consisted of a group of about twenty people. (The 9 p.m. tour is more popular due to the extra ambience created by darkness.) After the introduction, the first stop was the Hotel Macomber (also the location of the tour’s ticket office and gift shop). The weathered, wood-shingled Hotel Macomber was restored in the early 1900s. Restoration apparently triggered specters to reveal their presence-a ghostly waitress in the kitchen and a long-time patron who haunts room number 10.

Remodeling of old buildings serves as the catalyst for many of the hauntings described along this tour, we are told. The guide posed the hypothesis that psychic energy released by an individual from an emotional event can be recorded in the location (on rusty nails or other construction materials, for example) and these are later released upon disturbance to be replayed. Of course, no evidence whatsoever exists for this explanation.

Later, the group stops in a side alley of the crowded downtown street mall. The guide describes the charming purple-painted store as being haunted by the ghosts of two unconventional sisters and a dentist in a white coat apparently still tending to patients long after death. The store is now split into two shops. The owners of one half do not like talk of ghosts associated with their business, but the owners and employees of the Winterwood Christmas store served as witnesses for Rauber and sell the three volumes of local ghost tales (one of which includes their own story) in the store.

Since the tour guide does not take you into the buildings, I visited the Winterwood store later. As I expected, there were no apparitions. Yet, the wood flooring, walls and low ceiling together with holiday decorations on every inch of wall space gave me a hint of claustrophobia. Of course, there is also the sense of anticipation if you've already heard the story. Plus the sound effects from the Halloween decoration exhibit set the mood.

The group next stopped along Jackson Street, arguably the most beautiful street in town. Pedestrians would briefly slow their pace to listen in on the stories about several houses along the block. Not all the owners have agreed to promote their guesthouses via haunting tales, however. Therefore, some ghostly locales were generalized-permission had not been granted to Rauber’s endeavor. In addition, not all the passers-by were interested in what the guide had to tell-it’s not uncommon to get giggles or snide comments aimed at the group or guide.

At the last stop, the tavern/restaurant at the corner of Beach and Decatur currently known as Cabanas bar, the melancholy tale of a child’s accidental death and her mother’s despair and ultimate suicide. This was capped off by a sample of the EVP taken during the investigation. In the brief excerpt you could hear a man and then a woman’s voice give a comment. The woman possibly says “She’s pretty” which was taken to perhaps be a reference to the female investigator with Rauber at the time. If you were not told what the voices supposedly said, it would take many listenings to decipher the low, garbled, ambiguous tones.

Curiously, the night before, I visited the second floor bar at Cabana’s, unaware that it was on the tour route. The two young bartenders were answering a patron who asked if the story given on the tour was true. Had they had paranormal experiences in the house? The pair squabbled a bit about what the true story was. One said she had heard the story of the little girl who ran into the street and, tragically, was struck by a carriage-nearly exactly the story as the guide described. But, she noted, the mother had hung herself in the uppermost room, not near the stairwell as Rauber’s tour guide indicated. The other told of going into the upper storage rooms and getting a "weird feeling” but having no unexplainable episodes. She also told of a supposedly haunted mirror somewhere in the place in which a ghostly person appears in the background if you look into it. She also said she stopped to listen in on the guide one night and commented on how much the occurrences in the building were embellished. Neither could confirm any other spooky incidents at Cabanas but they had heard about them from others.

Along the tour, there had been hints that Rauber and his investigators had experienced strange incidents themselves at haunted sites. I assumed that his findings had been documented somewhere. In the tour gift shop, copies of Haunting Notes, a quarterly newsletter for the tour, were available for free. These one-page flyers have a feature article, the tour schedule, advertisements for the tour and comments from participants. No author is credited for the main article but Rauber is featured in each-quoted about past investigations and various paranormal phenomena.

I searched listings of new and used books authored by Rauber only to come up empty. Rauber has evidently not published his work. The Haunted New Jersey Web site cites only two articles-in New Jersey Living and The InPSIder Magazine (currently ceased publication) but lists numerous publications that contained articles about Rauber or his popular attraction.

The Cape May Public Library had two books of local ghost stories, volume 1 and 2 of Seibold and Adams’ Cape May Ghost Stories (published in 1988 and 1997, respectively). Reading of these small paperbacks, found in various local stores, are amusing pastimes for your beach vacation. But they contain no references for the historical claims within consisting of eyewitness accounts or homeowners hearsay about strange doings in the Victorian mansions, or at local beaches and ponds. The third volume of this series was recently published, attesting to their popularity.

Throughout my survey of Cape May’s spirited legends, a number of common threads ran through the yarns. First, the witnesses and the investigators tended to assume pieces of history to fit their observations. The apparition of the waitress at the Hotel Macomber was described in odd clothing so she must have worked here in the early Victorian heyday of the hotel. The sound of a crying woman at Cabanas must mean she was guilt-ridden, weeping for her lost child. The presence of a chair returning to the same spot at the top of the stairs was her futile attempt even after death to prevent the child from leaving the house to meet her demise. In no case was there documentation presented that these events actually happened. Wouldn't local newspapers likely have reported such a horrific incident as a child’s death on a busy street?

The resident ghosts were not described as violent or threatening. Instead, they were frequently named by the homeowners and referred to in a lighthearted manner. “Oh, have you met Esmerelda, the ghost of a nanny who once lived here?” Qualities bestowed on Esmerelda were passed on in the stories to visitors and guests.

Not every homeowner was keen to discuss their experiences with the team of paranormal investigators. There exists a curious contradiction between the popularity of ghost tours and those people who consider the whole idea ridiculous or something to be left unspoken.

As Charles Adams notes at the beginning and end of his second volume of Cape May Ghost Stories, Cape May looks haunted. The stories of the paranormal blend with the colorful history of the town and give certain locations even more character. Mostly, the effect is positive.

It certainly is positive for Al Rauber, who takes in $10 each from 75 to 100 or more patrons on a summer night. Locals are encouraged to relate new encounters to him and have their establishment added as a tour feature. Rauber also advertises his audio tapes at $10 each- you can own genuine ghostly voices captured by EVP and listen to his commentary. Or, how about just buying a shirt at the gift shop?

There are other fright-themed attractions at Cape May. The rival walking ghost tour does not carry the clout of association with a self-proclaimed "world-renowned paranormal investigator,” therefore it’s not as popular. And then there is the Haunted Mansion tour which makes no bones about being a production rather than a scientific investigation.

While the history presented on this Haunted Cape May tour is interesting, ninety minutes of pure storytelling may not be worth the price of a ticket to everyone. I’d have to disagree with the claims for “no folklore” because most of it obviously is just that. The theme of the tour is summed up with a rehearsed final comment by the guide: “To those of you who believe, no further proof is needed. Those of you who don’t believe, no amount of proof will be enough.”

I undoubtedly did not expect to be a believer but I left with “not enough.” I had hoped there might be more to chew on than campfire tales. Hence, I was highly amused when my digital photos taken at a turn-of-the-century guesthouse on Beach Avenue revealed perfect orbs (hypothesized manifestations of ghostly energy; more likely flash reflection from a normal airborne substance). With this suitable “evidence,” perhaps Mr. Rauber would like to add a new location to the tour.