So, you do 'Scientific Investigations', eh?
Alot of people go out there saying how they "scientifically investigate ghosts". Maybe they just want to sound professional? Or maybe they really do think they're doing scientific work?

Now, some people actually go out there and perform the scientific method and do work that can be counted as "scientific". But for most, they're just out there with an EMF meter taking notes and recordings. Just because you use electronic equipment doesn't make it a "scientific investigation". When these people say they're scientifically investigating ghosts, it kind of makes me laugh some. It's like the people who go around saying they're a certified paranormal investigator. There's so little we know about it, and everyone is still learning. How can you be certified in something that isn't even proven exists?

I can understand obtaining the tests just to get another persons ideas on things. I'm all for sharing knowledge and ideas. I even have hundreds of dollars worth of testing books in my closet (at least, that's what they were worth, I didn't pay for them), but I never filled out the tests and sent them in. Why? Because being 'certified' means nothing to me. Sure, you took a test. And got a piece of paper. But you took a test based on someone's ideas and theories. That hardly makes you certified.

To scientifically investigate something, you usually have to put forth some scientific method to base your investigations off of. You have to take your findings and come up with definite results from them. Then back them up by reproducing the results. Alot of what we do isn't that. It's trying to capture results. But what those results are from, peoples best idea is a "ghost". There's nothing definite. Nothing we could take to a court room. And it'll probably be a long time before we can actually have definite proof of ghosts if they exist. Having little knowledge of what you're investigating (since alot of what we do is theory and ideas anyway), and not putting forth much of a scientific method behind it, the results aren't going to be very "investigation worthy". I hate even using the term "investigation" in most cases. We can investigate the history of a location and the land, etc. Sure. (although, "research" would be a better term). But I'm more comfortable saying I'm going to go try and "experience" a ghost, then investigate a ghost.

Sure, we run around with EMF meters and audio recorders and take notes and everything, but that's just using electronic equipment to note changes. And it's not even proven that this equipment is actually picking up "ghosts". It's just an idea.

A spike in an EMF reading? Could it be a ghost? In theory, maybe.
A cold spot, a ghost? In theory, maybe.

So we use this equipment, yes, but just because we use electronic equipment doesn't make it a "scientific investigation".

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying that the only way to do this is by doing it scientifically. There's been plenty of times that interesting discoveries in any field have been made by the layperson. I'm just saying, don't make yourself (and the field) look foolish by claiming you're doing something that you're not.

As for 'investigating' itself.. to investigate something, you tend to need to have decent knowledge of the subject you're investigating. Otherwise, how could you really do a good investigation? I mean, you don't need to have full knowledge. You learn things about the subject through investigating it of course. But if you go to the tombs in Egypt to investigate without having any knowledge of Egyptology or archaeology, how good of an investigation could you really do? You can go and experience the area, take notes of the area, etc. But preform something worthy to be called an investigation? Na. And that's basically what alot of people do in the paranormal world. Not alot of knowledge is known, but we go and take notes, and recordings, and observe/experience. Is that really worthy enough to be called an 'investigation'? Much less a scientific one?