When investigating claims of the supernatural, whether allegedly they originate from a divine, demonic, or apparitional source, it is imperative to establish proper methodology for evaluating the credibility (or lack thereof) of any particular case. Whether or not one is proselyte of the otherworldly, it is undeniable that there exists a great number of frauds and counterfeits that have natural explanations. For every compelling case of the paranormal, there are a thousand fraudulent counterfeits that are results of either sincere misunderstanding or deliberate hoax.
Given that the supernatural would consist of immaterial agents that transcend the natural world, one must distinguish their proposed properties with those of physical entities. Namely, given that supernatural things do not accord with natural law, one cannot expect them to be replicable under controlled conditions in the same way that most of the physical sciences operate. This is not all that surprising; most of the social sciences like anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, etc. rely heavily on the indeterminism of humans as agents, and are extremely difficult to replicate for this reason. Hence why the term “replication crisis” has become prominent in describing the current environment of such fields. If we cannot with ease reproduce the results of experiments within the social sciences, where we have a basic understanding of human behavior and social interaction, how much better would we expect attempts at repeating actions by allegedly supernatural agents, of whom we know even less about?
Such inquiries, then, should be propounded on a case study approach, where individual manifestations are looked at after the alleged fact. Though controls cannot easily be placed beforehand since the event itself is unpredictable, one can set retroactive guardrails to lower the probability of alternate explanations. This acts as a sort of epistemic filter, weeding out the events with highly probable natural explanations with ones that check off all of our boxes and yet still remain elusive.
The following is a comprehensive list I have compiled as a proposed method for assessing alleged accounts of the supernatural. We can only speak in probabilities; the answer to whether event X was natural or supernatural is not a definitive “yes” or “no”, but rather “probably” or “probably not.” While it is not necessitated that all of these criteria are met, the more that can be satisfied will raise the probability of an event being considered “likely supernatural.”
The following is meant to be a quick list of criteria to employ when looking into claims of miracles, ghosts, or the paranormal. Feel free to utilize this as a source to reference in future investigations.
Criteria for Assessing Eyewitness Testimony of the Supernatural
The person(s) reporting the event has a track record of honesty and reliability, not being known to otherwise be credulous or dishonest and does not seek fame, sex, power, or monetary reward for their report.
The event did not happen extremely quickly where details can be misrembered, but was either observed on multiple occasions or occurred fairly slowly
The event did not occur where observation conditions are limited, like in an environment with poor lighting or from a far away distance.
The event involved people familiar to the witness, as strangers are more likely to be misremembered.
The event did not involve a highly stressful situation (involving a weapon, someone dying, etc.) where adrenaline could get in the way of remembering secondary details.
The event was not mundane but was significant to where the person would put effort into recalling it later on.
The event is public and has a fairly high number of witnesses.
The event is not reported only among people already prone to believe (believers reporting things that already align with their belief system) but there are also third-parties and/or skeptics to corroborate their observations.
The event is reported shortly after it occurred, with minimal time in between the event and its recollection. To substitute, the event is not passed down second or third hand, but is attested to be the direct witnesses of the escapade.
The event is not reported in an area or country far away from when it originally occurred, where investigation would be made more difficult to undergo.
The event is not something that can be replicated under controlled conditions (by a scientist, magician, etc.) but stands as unique and naturally unreplicable.
Criteria for Assessing Faith Healing
The ailment is severe and unlikely to remit naturally
The healing is instantaneous and not gradual
The healing is complete and not merely partial
The healing is permanent and not temporary
The healing is organic and not psychosomatic
The healing cannot be attributed to treatment or medicine
The healing occurs directly within a religious context (prayers, shrines, etc.)
Comparable recoveries of the disease are not observed in secular contexts
The healing is accompanied by medical documentation diagnosed by a professional(s), or involves a condition that cannot possibly be misdiagnosed (a missing limb, cataracts, an open wound, etc.)
 |
| The pre and post radiology reports of Carl Cocherell, an example of providing medical evidence for alleged cases of faith healing. Carl was instantly healed of a shattered ankle bone after allegedly having a vision of Jesus. |
Criteria for Assessing Demonic Possession
The “possessed” person has previously seen a medical doctor and a mental health professional, with no improvement.
Medicine and treatment is ineffective in relieving the person’s symptoms.
The person shows an aversion to religious objects, and had the ability to discern between holy and unholy things (ie they can differentiate between holy water and regular water, they know whether or not someone is concealing the Eucharist in their pocket, etc.)
The person exhibits clearly supernatural abilities like levitation, crawling on walls, or supernatural strength, and cannot easily be subdued.
If the person exhibits xenoglossia (speaking in a language they do not know), see the criterion listed under the “Speaking in Tongues” section.
Criteria for Assessing Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
The NDE occurs when there is no measurable brain activity
The NDE contains information that can be verified or falsified later on, such as descriptions of dead relatives not previously known, or observations of earthly events that occur in or outside of the hospital. Witnesses present at the time of the details described should be interviewed in order to coorboate such claims as either accurate or inaccurate. The details foretold by the patient should be consistent and not contain anachronisms.
Patients suffering cardiac arrest or brain death who did not undergo an NDE or OBE (out of body experience) are unable to accurately recount resuscitation efforts or other details in ways comparable to those undergoing an NDE or OBE. This serves as our control group to rule out possibilities of chance, awareness, or faulty memory.
Criteria for Assessing Veridical Apparitions and Visions
Veridical information is received during an apparitional encounter, with such information being verifiable and unknown at the time of the experiences.
If an apparition is witnessed by multiple individuals at the same time, their descriptions of said apparition are consistent and not contradictory.
Alleged apparitional activity like EVPs (electronic voice phenomenon), thermal readings, poltergeist activity, etc. cannot be comparably replicated by natural means.
While not required, it is noteworthy if an apparitional encounter leaves behind a physical effect (a healing, a reading on a device, etc.) that cannot be explained nor replicated naturally.
 |
| An EVP, a device supposedly able to detect the voice of spirits |
Criteria for Assessing Speaking in Tongues
For glossolalia (speaking in an unearthly language):
The language conventions of normal dialect, having structure, rhythm, and proper syntax.
The tongues share similar dialectical attributes across all cultures who engage glossolalia, showing minimal variance.
Those who claim to be able to interpret such tongues should independently be able to give similar interpretations when hearing a recording of glossolalia.
For xenglossia (speaking in human languages unkown to the speaker):
It is verified that they truly did not study the language prior to exhibiting xenoglossia.
Someone fluent in the language is present to observe the act or hear a recording of it.
The person exhibiting this is fluent and is able to have conversations in the language, rather than just reciting memorized lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment