Apparently, in the UK the government can recognize an organization as an “official entity” and has done so for the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP).
Henceforth, the ASSAP is a “Professional Body.”
The Association’s website explains that such a body “exists to further the interests of a particular profession, its clients, [and] the public at largeâ€, adding that professional bodies often set standards for their members. In the UK, for example, the British Psychological Society represents psychologists, the Institute of Civil Engineers represents civil engineers, and so on.
Well, good, they’ll have standards, then!
This does not imply government funding. Here’s a writeup of the news.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
UK Government Backs ESP Research? is very useful news for us, I really get some thing from this article. and It is helpful UK citizens.
Northwood Estate & Letting Agents
568 Mansfield Road
Nottingham
Nottinghamshire
NG52FS
United Kingdom
0115 969 3456
ASSAP is one of the better “paranormal” groups out there. They have contributed more to the effect of disproving most of the hogwash that has been floating around as “paranormal” in the last decade due to popular television programming and pseudoscientific idiots running around with cameras. They have several very well researched and tested write ups on natural phenomenon that is often misconstrued as “spooky” by people who just don’t know any better and spend too much time on YouTube or television seeking reality. I’m not sure I agree to the implications of becoming a “professional” organization, but of any organization in that field, ASSAP would probably be the closest to those standards.
I knew you were going to say that!
But seriously, that is very interesting. Would you classify them as a skeptics group, though?
I’d say skeptical within the arena of that field of “study” but not perhaps from a mainstream point of view. They tend to keep the question open regardless of how much of the phenomenon they falsify. There is a public interest in the subject, however, and a high degree of “anti-skeptic” mentality that views skeptics as simple nay-sayers or “closed-minded” and builds a wall against any level of reason. They are more apt to accept an explanation from “one of them” than from an outside skeptic, so I find value in their existence. In my experience, most of the “serious” groups who pride themselves on logic, reason, and scientific methodology display almost nothing as “evidence” and even what is shown is simply claimed as “unexplainable”. Their main goal is to find plausible explanations for what phenomenon their “clients” experience and may fear with the side project of satisfying their own desire to discover something previously unknown. That is not the case for a vast majority of so-called ghost hunters and the results are not only ridiculous but alarming in their fanatical devotion. I respect those few “skeptical” teams in that they are educating from within.
I just found out about the ASSAP today and I find their organization interesting. It’s funny that someone had asked if they would be considered a ‘skeptic’ group because as I was reading their website, that’s the impression I left with.
I understand and compliment their scientific methodology; however, it seems like they are dogmatic in their approach to disprove the populist opinion.
For instance, they pretty much say that they do not believe that ghosts are spirits as their ‘research’ does not support that evidence. Yet, I see absolutely no evidence that disproves this possible theory either. To me, they seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one.
Before I would expect anyone to disprove that “ghosts are spirits” I would first like to have some evidence in favor of the existence of “spirits” or even a clear definition of that term. Of course you would also need to have some evidence of “ghosts” in order to say that “ghosts are spirits”. Any statements about “ghosts” or “spirits” or their relationship is pure conjecture since there is no evidence other than anecdotes which tie any sort of phenomenon to those two terms, and in almost every case the reported phenomenon is related to natural phenomenon. Everything else is simply unexplained. It’s a common failure among “paranormal investigators” to imbue the phenomenon they encounter or are attempting to research with the label of “ghost” or “spirit” and therefore seek evidence to support these labels without actually figuring out what the evidence is. In extreme examples, perfectly common photographic artifacts such as “orbs” and “light streaks” suddenly become ghosts because that is what they were studying. This is why this field is considered a pseudoscience. From my observations, those investigators with their heads on straight usually find no evidence at all or at least evidence they are unsure of and therefore gather outside opinions, but never associate directly with such a label as “ghost” and especially to a specific “spirit” of a dead individual. That is a leap that the evidence does not support. So, the actual problem with their belief that “ghosts are not spirits” is that they pretend to have any evidence in favor of “ghosts” at all. In that statement, they are assuming that any unexplained phenomenon they may have recorded is a “ghost” which is dangerous because the probability is that peer review of the evidence will show a the evidence to be a naturally occurring phenomenon. Replace the term “ghosts” with “fairies” and “spirits” with “sprites” and the evidence is equally unsupportive of either claim. The difference here is the emphasis of study. So, essentially, they aren’t even giving the baby a bath at this point.
Well thank you for proving my point Justin.
I never said that “ghosts were spirits.” I said that the possibility that they are should never be ruled out. If you are unclear over what a spirit is, then welcome to the world of every one else. No one is claiming with absolutes what anything is, but it’s clear that you have your own biases. Just like those “paranormal investigators” that you speak so downly on. It’s ironic really.
You’re investigating the “unknown” yet will only accept answers that fit into your “known” belief system. And if it doesn’t, you make it fit until it does.
Good luck with that.
You seem to have missed the point and furthered it with your own statements. When investigating the “unknown” you must first eliminate the “known”. If photographic “orbs” are an effect caused by dust, moisture or other artifacts within a specific focal range resulting in circles of confusion and high luminosity from the proximity of the flash, then this is a known factor and must be considered when evaluating evidence. Yet many (and I never said “all” mind you) “paranormal investigators” convert a perfectly benign and common phenomenon into a specific supernatural phenomenon. Now, this same “evidence” is used to justify a broad range of paranormal phenomenon including but not limited to: angels, UFOs, power of prayer, animal spirits, etc. So, were I even to attribute this evidence to an “unknown” phenomenon, which it most certainly isn’t, then I would have to take my pick of phenomenon for which to apply this evidence. If I pick the claim that I have in my head at that time then THAT is bias. In fact, to apply any label onto supposed evidence of the “unknown” would represent bias because to the extent of my knowledge I may have collected evidence of just about any paranormal claim even that which we have no claim for.
Unfortunately, from years of searching, I have found that every piece of “ghost” evidence I’ve seen has been either faked or had a natural explanation. Trust me when I say I wanted to believe, and still do, but not at the risk of accepting a lie as truth. And if appropriate skepticism and scientific methodology is “biased”, then I’m guilty as charged.
Besides, one of the dictionary definitions of “ghost” is “spirit” ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost) so technically a ghost is a spirit. My point was that the science isn’t even sufficient enough to talk about ghosts. Just because the claimant fits a specific phenomenon or activity to their own interpretation of a “ghost” does not mean we should be looking for ghosts but rather for the specific phenomenon that led the claimant to this conclusion, rule out natural causes, and if we are lucky enough to capture something truly amazing, truly “unknown” then we can begin to quibble over ghosts, goblins, or interdimensional squid creatures from Ryleh. If you’d rather narrow your interpretation to a knee-jerk classification based on the superstition and fear of the claimant, then, well… Good luck with that.
Justin,
Well, I suppose we are both missing each other’s points then.
Under no circumstance do I believe that anyone should ignore a scientific explanation for a phenomena. Obviously, that should be the first thing that any investigator looks for when determining the cause of a certain phenomena.
What I am referring to specifically, is the scientific bias that this organization and those like yourself seem to have. In your pursuit for scientific explanation, even when there is none, you do the same thing as those ‘Angel and UFO’ hunters do and assume that ‘if we can’t explain this phenomena then it must have some unknown scientific explanation that we haven’t figured out yet.’
And since, to you, spirits are not considered ‘scientific’ enough to talk about, then they obviously can’t be considered a cause.
For many I suppose that is a fine stance to take, if not somewhat naive in thinking that science will reveal all the mysteries of the universe. Personally, I believe that our level of understanding and our scientific knowledge is still in its infancy. For me to rely solely on that is like relying on a bike to peddle myself to the moon.
But again, if your beliefs are that there is no such thing as a spirit or soul, at least I now know where you’re coming from.
All paranormal evidence has a scientific explanation, and those that don’t, eventually will.
“spirit” or “ghost” may very well be the scientific explanation, I’m not disputing that. I’ll admit that I don’t believe in the supernatural, namely for a lack of evidence, but if such a phenomenon as a ghost is observable as reported, namely in those auditory and physical manifestations that constitute the typical “haunting”, then such a phenomenon is provable within the purview of science. Most paranormal “theories” consider “ghosts” or entities, spirits, what-have-you as organized energy. Energy is susceptible to the laws of physics and therefore can be explored scientifically.
I didn’t say we couldn’t talk about spirits, Conjecture can, after all, be fun. I was simply explaining that before we can apply evidence to these ideas, we must be sure the evidence is truly “unknown”. If we discover a corpse in a field, we’d better be damned sure it isn’t a raccoon or dog before we call it a chupacabra. If someone’s sink is turning on by itself, we’d better call a plumber before we bring in Egon Spengler.
What I fail to grasp is if science cannot explain all the “mysteries of the universe” (this is rather vague, could you be more specific?), what exactly do you think can? Or, rather what do you think science is? If we cannot observe it, then does it exist? Or if we can’t observe it and it does exist, what does it matter to us, and how could we possibly be able to define such phenomena if not by observation? (By observe I of course mean by all senses, all sensory extensions, and indirect observations via resulting phenomena). I’m not nitpicking, I’m simply wondering if you’ve thought much about these “mysteries”. I know I have, and it has led me down a meandering path to my present state of mind. Science is the pursuit of understanding our universe, and may the mysteries abound! For what fun would it be to simply know everything? There are answers we can’t possibly know (such as how many tuna are swimming in the ocean right this second), but there are answers. Applying superstition and those terms which follow from it into the gaps is simple intellectual dishonesty.