|
There is
much evidence on the Internet about
the causes of orbs. However,
the sticking point is what
constitutes 'scientific evidence'.
Use the
links, below, to be taken to various
sections:
What
Science is Not - and what is Not
Evidence
What
Science is
Should you Accept the Scientific
Evidence?
What
is the Scientific Evidence?
Download the Original Research
Article in PDF format
What
Science is Not - and what is Not
Evidence
Many
people mistake 'science' and
'logic'. Whilst logic is a
strong element of the scientific
method, with the controls of
science, logic can easily be faulty.
Every
'Internet experiment' encountered
has been scientifically flawed.
In many cases the experiments do not
consider 'chance'. So for
example someone fluffs a cushion and
takes a photo, producing an orb.
The theory is declared proven with
no consideration of other factors
that might have caused the orb or
whether an orb would have been
present whether or not the cushion
was fluffed. There are dozens
examples, online, of experiments
that make conclusions that have not
applied the scientific method.
It may
seem picky, but unless the
scientific method is applied some
very fundamental mistakes can be -
and in the case of orbs, have been -
made.
What
Science is
Whole
books cannot define what science is,
but there are some useful rules that
can be described briefly:
Scientific experiments should
'control extraneous variables'.
For example there is little use
conducting an experiment across very
different rooms, or with very
different cameras, or in different
environmental conditions. The
reason is because any of these
'varying' factors could interfere
with what you are studying.
This is made especially difficult as
not many people know all the
'variables' that could interfere
with whether orbs are produced or
not.
Scientific experiments should have
'control conditions'. This is
because it is important to know
whether something would have
happened 'anyway'. For example
taking a photo when dust is produced
compared to taking a photo when dust
is not produced. Similarly, in
the case of orbs, conducting
experiments in both places said to
be haunted and said to not be
haunted.
Experiment results should be
'statistically significant'.
This is because one, two or ten
repeats could be the result of
'fluke'. For example this is
why opinion polling companies ask a
set number of people, which is
usually quite high, rather than just
asking 100 people for their
opinions. Certain 'tests'
should be applied to results, to
ensure they are not the result of
'fluke', in order to adhere with the
scientific method.
Should you Accept the Scientific
Evidence?
The
purpose of publishing 'scientific
research' is to let others judge for
themselves whether your method - and
therefore your results - is really
scientific. Again, it can be
difficult to judge this with limited
knowledge of the scientific method.
However
if you accept the method as
scientific then - if you believe in
science - you should accept the
evidence.
The
scientific method also tries to
ensure that results from one place
and one study can be applied to
other places and other
circumstances.
Because
of the difficulties with this
process science tends to make it as
easy as possible to accept methods.
So most research is conducted by
professional academics in
Universities and then all the
details are checked by other
academics before studies are
published. Then other
academics can publish problems they
find with the research.
PSI are
not professional academics, but
several academics in UK Universities
did assist with, and oversee, the
design and the conduct of these
experiments.
What
is the Scientific Evidence?
In order
for a study to be scientifically
credible it must pain-staking
provide all the necessary
information in a way that follows
the conventions of science.
Unfortunately this tends to result
in research articles that the
general public do not feel are
'accessible'.
This is
the purpose of this website, to
present the theories in a way that
is accessible to the general public.
However we also have provided the
original article, below, which
people can study and scrutinise.
The
basic results were as follows:
1. The
number of orbs captured in places
that were 'haunted' was not
significantly different to numbers
capture in places considered to be
'not haunted'. This suggests
that the presence of a 'haunted
environment' makes no difference, so
orbs have nothing to do with
'haunted places'.
2. When
all variables were forced to be
constant there was no significant
difference between the number of
orbs captured when using different
rates of megapixelage.
3.
Digital cameras captured
significantly more orbs than 35mm
cameras.
4. An
enhanced 'depth of field' lead to
significantly more orb photographs
than a normal depth of field.
5.
Significantly more orbs were
photographed where the flash was
closer to the lens of the camera.
6.
Significantly more orbs were
photographed when the flash was
activated compared to not.
The
experiments demonstrated that
mundane factors, like camera type,
depth of field and flash distance,
correlated significantly with orb
numbers. By contrast, whether the
location was haunted or not had no
significant effect. It therefore
follows that orbs are caused by
normal, rather than paranormal,
causes
This
still leaves the question of exactly
how orbs are photographed, this is
addressed in the
explanation section.
Some
researchers may still believe that
'fake orbs' are natural but 'real
orbs' are paranormal. This is
addressed in the
questions section.
Download the original research
article in PDF format*
*As
published in varying formats in the
Journal of Investigative Psychical
Research, the Journal of Paranormal
Research and is currently under
review by the Journal of the Society
for Psychical Research. |
