Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers

by Sharon A. Hill

In the 21st century, reality television and the Internet have fed public interest in ghosts, UFOs, cryptozoology and other unusual phenomena. By 2010, roughly 2000 amateur research and investigation groups formed in the U.S.--ghost hunters, bigfoot chasers and UFO researchers, using an array of (supposedly) scientific equipment and methods to prove the existence of the paranormal. American culture's honorific regard for science, coupled with the public's unfamiliarity with scientific methods, created a niche for self-styled paranormal experts to achieve national renown without scientific training or credentials. The author provides a comprehensive examination of the ideas, missions and methods promoted by these passionate amateurs.

Genres: Nonfiction

254 pages, Paperback

Published December 8, 2017

Reviews

[Benjamin Radford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amateur paranormal investigators, such as Bigfoot buffs, UFO investigators, and ghost hunters, are all over the place, in virtually every large or medium-sized city. They may hold “informational talks” at local libraries on the paranormal, or offer ghost tours and ghost hunts. They often appear on local TV and radio shows, claiming to be doing cutting-edge research into “the unknown.”

But who are these people, really? What are their goals? And are they using science or pseudoscience to research these topics?

Sharon Hill, the creator of Doubtful News and the podcast 15 Credibility Street, takes a look at these Amateur Research and Investigation Groups (ARIGs) in Scientifical Americans (the title is kind of a play on Scientific American magazine, but Hill uses “scientifical” and “sciencey” to denote methods that appear (to many people, including the public) as legitimate science but in fact has little or no resemblance to real science.

Hill is a skeptic, but not necessarily a debunker: she makes this clear on the very first page: “I love the idea of ghosts, Bigfoot, and UFOs. I expect I always will.” I think everyone loves the idea of these things, even if some ridicule or dismiss the idea out of hand. Certainly ARIGs share Hill’s love for these topics. But Hill goes beyond interest to ask for real evidence. After all, that’s supposedly what ARIGs are after too: hard evidence of ghosts or Bigfoot or whatever.

But as Hill explains in the book, they are almost always going about it the wrong way. Topics range from ghost hunting gadgets to psychics to how scientific processes work. Scientifical Americans looks at how, where, and why ARIGs go wrong on their (usually) well-intentioned quest to find real answers to timeless paranormal mysteries. Highly recommended for skeptics and believers alike.

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

A promising effort, but I was more frustrated than satisfied. I bought this book after attending a lively and informative talk by the author[0] about the culture of "Amateur Research and Investigation Groups" (ARIGs)---your ghost hunters, Sasquatch seekers, and UFO spotters. The key is that they're amateurs, rather than academics, and Hill points out that this difference is especially stark in the case of ghost hunters, where there is a deep body of research in parapsychology (n.b. still a fringe science!) that amateur ghost hunters completely ignore. Hence, ghost ARIGs and academic parapsychologists, though they claim to be investigating similar things (the persistence of consciousness after death, the potential for 'psi power' to 'imprint' on the environment and 'play back' as a 'ghost') they use completely different techniques and admit completely different kinds of evidence. Did you know that parapsychologists think EVPs ('electronic voice phenomena'---alleged ghostly voices within audio noise) are bogus as evidence? If you're a ghost hunter, maybe you should!

Hill's project is a commendable one. Fellow skeptic Daniel Loxton writes[1] that the skeptic movement is an interdisciplinary effort uniquely suited to treating questions of paranormal phenomena---but it is not a well traveled road, and more and varied viewpoints are always welcome. Certainly few people have examined the modern, mass-media-driven subculture of paranormal investigators.

Unfortunately, the book itself is a minor disappointment. As I noted in an early update, it has certain characteristics of a "fix-up" job, where one or more prior short works got stitched together into an ostensible whole. This can work, in theory---several of the more famous "Golden Age" sf novels are fix-up jobs, and then there are classic works of science communication (Gould, Feynman, etc.) that are "merely" collections of essays---but doesn't here. Paragraphs often lack conceptual momentum and chapters contain repeated information (or somewhat worse, repeated opinion statements). The citation system confused me, too---fairly general statements would often include a citation, but it wasn't clear why there needed to be one or how that statement was particularly relevant to that referenced work. However, that may just be a style I'm unfamiliar with.

There are still things to recommend: the bibliography is juicy and includes a wealth of sociology-of-weird-shit (my term) that I didn't know existed and definitely would have taken a long time to uncover. But I think Hill's talks, or articles[2][3][4] and podcast episodes[5] clearly demonstrate her much-needed enthusiasm for weird shit and the people who think it's all true. "Movement" skepticism, where people actually go out and investigate claims of the paranormal with a skeptical mindset, needs to be enthusiastic, not a parade of finger-wagging snobs.

So it's 2.25 stars for me. It's a bit too academic to be a good introduction for skeptical newbies to the wild world of weirdness, but it's stretched a bit too thin otherwise.

0. Recorded here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hgmT...
1. "Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?" (2013) https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why...
2. Doubtful News, https://doubtfulnews.com/
3. Spooky Geology, http://spookygeology.com
4. Doubt and About, Sharon's Hill's personal blog, http://sharonahill.com/doubt-and-about/
5. 15 Credibility Street podcast, https://doubtfulnews.com/podcast/

[Eric Wojciechowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

“ARIG participants are mostly believers in the mysteries they seek.”

If one sentence sums this volume up, it’s this quote from Sharon A. Hill’s excellent, “Scientifical Americans”. As one who’s participated online, snail mail and real life with Amateur Research Investigation Groups (ARIG), I can attest that subjectively speaking, the above quote is true. Hill argues the ARIG is primarily made up of “Belief Buddies”, people who have a shared view of the topic of interest. In other words, there are no ghost, UFO or bigfoot groups made up of people who don’t believe in ghosts, UFOs or bigfoot. An Amateur Research Investigation Group is a research group who’s already made up its mind and now they’re out to prove it by going about it all wrong.

In my own field of interest, that of ufology and ancient astronauts, I started out from the believer side; that is, persuaded alien craft are flying through the skies that remain elusive to human comprehension and they’ve been here a very long time. I think that’s how everyone comes to the ARIG table, looking for others who share their persuasion. Not finding scientists interested anymore in spirits, ghosts, UFOs, having long ago dismissed these fields as woo-woo, the only place to turn for those believing in these things are the ARIGs.

Motivated reasoning is what separates the ARIG from the truly scientific groups. Whereas the ARIG will cherry pick what confirms that which they pursue (confirmation of ghosts, flying saucers, Bigfoot), the professional scientist will withhold judgment of the data until the facts are in. But as Hill notes, confirmation bias exists even among the most professional. Another thing that separates the ARIG from the professional organization is members of the ARIG may be all too willing to join in the confirmation bias of one or more of its members; whereas, a professional organization will more likely point it out among their members during peer review. Real science corrects mistakes. The ARIG may amplify them.

Part of the problem with an ARIG is membership doesn’t require any training in how to conduct a proper scientific investigation. The ARIG tends to be made up of people without any actual expertise in the fields they investigate. Thinking of my own ARIG, I can’t think of one actual archaeologist or ancient historian with an accredited degree that was championing ancient astronauts.

In the end, we have to ask as in all matters of bad beliefs, what’s the harm? Is there really any problem believing in bigfoot or UFOs? Well, for the most part, no. Most people chat around the camp fire and get together to discuss these subjects forming more of a community feel. The ARIG is a place you can go if you harbor one of these beliefs without feeling ridiculed. Where else can you discuss your belief you were abducted by aliens than a UFO group without feeling judged? The ARIG is mainly an organization where believers can feel appreciated and not outcast. It’s more of a club of like-minded folks, a place where the “weird” can hang out together. It’s mostly harmless fun until it’s not.

Bad beliefs can cause harm. One only needs to review Heaven’s Gate to see that. And ghost hunters who “confirm” a house is haunted or possessed could really send the home owner into a state of panic and stress. And there’s always a charlatan in the waiting to make up claims of divinely revealed truths or some UFO contactee looking for followers. When does an ARIG become a cult? Perhaps that’s the biggest concern here. For the most part, what I’ve experienced and what the ARIG have produced is usually just a sense of community of the weird and a lot of fun.

My only nitpick about this book was Hill stayed the course with primarily UFO, ghost and bigfoot groups. These are relatively small compared to say, Bible study groups. Couldn’t we say most of them are Amateur Research Investigation Groups as well? I think we could look at most churches and active members of every religion as an ARIG. It would have been interesting to have a section on acceptable ARIGs that are propped up by the community at large, promoted by governments and society versus ARIGs that lie more on the fringe of acceptable community standards. As an example, why is Scientology given tax breaks when it’s just an ancient astronaut group?

Scientifical Americans is an excellent work examining those who fly Fox Mulder’s famous poster from the X-Files television show reading, “I Want to Believe”. It’s a good look into who joins for what reasons and ends with a recommendation on what to do if they want to do real scientific investigations.

[Matt Bille · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book stuffed with information and useful thinking for all those who seek a scientific approach to paranormal phenomena or have an interest in those who do. Hill, a geologist by training, has spent years researching oddities and oddity-seekers. (I've interviewed her before for my blog.) She reports here on her study of amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGs) concerned with UFOs, ghosts, and cryptozoology. Hill draws a distinction between paranormal phenomena (what might be proved/resolved by science) and supernatural (what cannot). She argues strongly that groups saying they are “scientific” usually are not doing good science. While Hill emphasizes that there is no simple definition for science or the scientific method, there are many sound principles scientific endeavors have in common. Her analysis of what is and is not scientific, and why a lot of intelligent Americans have trouble with the distinction, is worth the price of the book by itself. Hill suggests some science educators view the public too simplistically, as mere receivers of facts, while a good chunk of the public views science as a static collection of facts and rules.
Hill’s chapters on cryptozoology are good but necessarily leave out a lot. The Bigfoot-focused chapter on cryptozoology doesn’t mention the influential John Napier. I wish the book were longer: the brevity of these chapters and the book itself doesn’t allow Hill to tell us much about individuals, aside from a short piece on two skunk ape hunters. (Hill mentions “uniforms,” noting, “Cryptozoologists typically require a hat…” both humorous and true.) Hill does think amateurs have a role to play in scientific investigations. She cites the unknown-primate DNA study of Professor Bryan Sykes, in which amateurs worldwide contributed samples to an expert: the negative results don’t invalidate the approach.
It all adds up to an excellent book,

[Victoria McVay · Rating 1 out of 5]

Honestly, this book is garbage. Among the books I have read on this topic, this one was a waste of time. She rehashes the same information over and over, while repeating what others have already said. She renames old ideas by labeling them as something new, for example she coins Shermer's Scientific Language as "scientificity." She subjectively criticizes ARIGs, their websites and how they look, and paints this ugly picture of skeptics as the fun killing brigade that shows up to parties (e.g., paracons) solely to rain on other's parades by pointing out inconsistencies and falsehoods.

If you want a rehashed summarized history on UFO groups and others, by all means, enjoy. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and read something worthy of your time. If you're looking for this type of book, I recommend Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and Wiseman's Paranormality.

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book reads like a master's thesis. A poorly written, painfully unorganized and woefully repetitive master's thesis. If you read one chapter, you have read them all. In fact, it really doesn't matter what order you read the chapters in. The end synopsis is the same..."Scientists"=Winners, paranormal researchers=losers. At first, I thought the author should update this 8 year old book in light of the failure of "scientists" throughout COVID, concerning "manmade climate change" and the admission of our federal government that UFO's actually do exist. In the end, I think it would be better use of the author's time if she gathered up all outstanding copies of this dismal "book" and burned them.

[Travis Webber · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. Thorough, consistent and well-constructed but lacking charisma. I'm not sure who it's written for: it's too high-handed to change anyone from a believer to a skeptic (although the author does make a decent effort to connect in some parts), and doesn't bring a new perspective for the skeptical side: I'm not terribly surprised ghost hunters aren't being scientifically rigorous. Would have been greatly aided in both or either directions by the inclusion of more real-life examples and case studies.

[Vladimir Burtsev · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth that most professional skeptics are telling you BS stuff. This book is a good example of ignorant scepticism claimed to be a “scientific”. Its not a “scientific enquiry” but pseudoscience really.

[David Berry · Rating 1 out of 5]

Consider using for kindling and/or toilet paper