Skip to main content

Ghost hunting with Derren

I have to confess Derren Brown has gone up in my estimation. Just based on his shows, I thought this stage magician/mentalist was rather a pain, but his recent series investigating various paranormal claims have shown him to be an effective sceptic and (apparently) quite a nice guy.

Two interesting points came out of his recent piece on ghost hunting. One was a shocking statistic. Apparently nearly 50% of the population believes in ghosts. That doesn't surprise me, it's about what I would have guessed. But was does it that it seems this has quadrupled since the 1950s. Now that is worrying.

The other was when Brown was dealing with an American ghost hunter (or demonologist as he classed himself). I was fascinated by the way Buffy style fiction seems to have taken over people's lives. It's fiction folks! We had a house with demon possession, where the owner was certainly seeing things. But it was also a house with a picture of a demon on the mailbox and the word HATE as a decoration on the sideboard. Might the owner be a teensy bit inclined a certain way?

The ghost hunter, who definitely believed in what he had seen, had two big physical proofs (leaving aside a video of someone having a fit). One was photographs. The one he thought was best 'showed' a human face in the mist in a graveyard. But as Brown later pointed out, you could make out all sorts of shapes from the mist. And given how we are programmed to recognize faces, it's hardly surprising you could see one. (In fact Brown could see another face, and I saw a third.) They were just random shapes.

The other biggy was EVP, Electronic Voice Phenomena. These are produced by asking questions to a voice recorder then leaving a space. When the recording is played back there are strange noises in the spaces. Only these noises sounded like static or wind noise. The ghost hunter interpreted them to be what he wanted to hear - but to the unbiassed ear (including Brown's) there was no information there.

What wasn't pointed out, but I thought was telling, is that there wasn't one recorder present there were two. There was also the recorder used by the TV crew. And strangely that one (which unlike the ghost hunter's handheld hadn't got automatic volume control, so didn't boost the silences) didn't pick up anything. Hmm.

When I first heard about EVPs I was really interested. They sounded like a genuine physical proof of some sort of phenomenon. As Brown claims, though I'm a sceptic, I genuinely would like there to be something to ghosts and such - I've been fascinated by ghost hunting since reading about Borley Rectory in my teens. But if the sort of random noise produced on the show is the best you get, I'm afraid they aren't worth the bits they're recorded on.

Comments

  1. It really impresses me how a very small number of intellectually qualified persons make the affirmation that non-physical persons are not real. EVP is no longer subject to this childish opinions, because it has already been so scrutinized and proved that it has allowed thousands of people to communicated with the ones that left the physical. I wonder how much time for keeping hearing such b.s. that ghosts are unreal and EVP is not hard science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m sorry, but simply stating that something is true doesn’t make it so. However, if there is good scientific evidence ‘proving’ the validity of EVP I would be delighted to see references to the papers that show this.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope