Koji K.
Skilled Investigator
I decided to kill some time making a list of things that speakers say in the paranormal field that automatically trigger my suspicions. I was hoping to make a big list but didn't get very far - these were just off the top of my head. Can anyone think of any others? These aren't meant to be automatic signs of BS, btw, just things that make me pay a little more attention and become a little more skeptical...
“We're waiting for permission to disclose more.” / “This has to come out piece by piece, it's such a big story.”
Fine. Shut up and come back when you get permission, thank you for wasting our time. No offense, I'm sure you've done great work and are completely on the level, but surely you understand in this field many times that's been said before with absolutely no follow up.
“I can't divulge my sources, but...”
Do you work for the New York Times or the Washington Post? Or in other words, will you benefit more from making up information or a source than you would from fervently protecting an actual source? With “respectable” journalism, a reporter who reveals a source is pretty much ruining his career. Unfortunately memories are much shorter in the UFO/paranormal field, so the benefits to some unscrupulous individuals in making up information far outweigh the risks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that. Of course some sources need protection, but know then that your claims become dependent on your own credence and not the sources – so don't bother to continue with guarantees about how “high level” or “on the inside” your source is.
“You don't know what I know.”
See above. And do tell.
“We have evidence...”
Statements like this should immediately be followed by a sound description of the evidence and instructions on how or where to find it. Understand that the fundamental purpose of evidence is for a jury to evaluate.
“I saw evidence...”
Even worse. Just tell us what you saw, we'll decide if it's evidence or not.
“I use the term X/I call that X”
This just sounds too eager. We all do this from time to time I suppose, but this sometimes can sound suspiciously like an attempt to convey a sense of authority where none is warranted. Especially when the term used is a neologism, or where the phenomena described has already been well described using common-usage terminology by many other experiencers, witnesses, writers, and so on. It's especially odd to hear when not prefaced by some genuine-sounding pondering as to what to call something. It's somehow different when someone says "I *would* call it..", this implies a recognition that they're forced to fall back on some less-than-perfect or subjective description.
The speaker should at least be aware that just maybe he's not the only one who uses those terms. When you say "I call it..." you are *by definition* making something up, you're making up a description, which can be perfectly valid and honest but it still triggers that feeling that we are now leaving the realm of objective-based description (which must exist to some degree in communication) and entering a subjective world where the audience can easily lose track of the reference.
Then again sometimes you do need a new word to describe something, and sometimes you just don't know how else to describe something so you have your own word for it, I guess this is more something I have a problem with from experience than anything else.
"The lab results came back as showing that this could not have occurred naturally/could not be reproduced."
This is just a really, really vague statement which often masquerades as a statement full of meaning and implication. Think about how lab results look (anyone ever had a blood test done? think about how much more complex geological analysis results would appear): Is the speaker qualified to interpret them? What does "naturally" mean? What does it mean for something to be reproducible? Do- or can- labs have databases of all known material configurations? The answers to these questions may not be what you'd first assume.
“We're waiting for permission to disclose more.” / “This has to come out piece by piece, it's such a big story.”
Fine. Shut up and come back when you get permission, thank you for wasting our time. No offense, I'm sure you've done great work and are completely on the level, but surely you understand in this field many times that's been said before with absolutely no follow up.
“I can't divulge my sources, but...”
Do you work for the New York Times or the Washington Post? Or in other words, will you benefit more from making up information or a source than you would from fervently protecting an actual source? With “respectable” journalism, a reporter who reveals a source is pretty much ruining his career. Unfortunately memories are much shorter in the UFO/paranormal field, so the benefits to some unscrupulous individuals in making up information far outweigh the risks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that. Of course some sources need protection, but know then that your claims become dependent on your own credence and not the sources – so don't bother to continue with guarantees about how “high level” or “on the inside” your source is.
“You don't know what I know.”
See above. And do tell.
“We have evidence...”
Statements like this should immediately be followed by a sound description of the evidence and instructions on how or where to find it. Understand that the fundamental purpose of evidence is for a jury to evaluate.
“I saw evidence...”
Even worse. Just tell us what you saw, we'll decide if it's evidence or not.
“I use the term X/I call that X”
This just sounds too eager. We all do this from time to time I suppose, but this sometimes can sound suspiciously like an attempt to convey a sense of authority where none is warranted. Especially when the term used is a neologism, or where the phenomena described has already been well described using common-usage terminology by many other experiencers, witnesses, writers, and so on. It's especially odd to hear when not prefaced by some genuine-sounding pondering as to what to call something. It's somehow different when someone says "I *would* call it..", this implies a recognition that they're forced to fall back on some less-than-perfect or subjective description.
The speaker should at least be aware that just maybe he's not the only one who uses those terms. When you say "I call it..." you are *by definition* making something up, you're making up a description, which can be perfectly valid and honest but it still triggers that feeling that we are now leaving the realm of objective-based description (which must exist to some degree in communication) and entering a subjective world where the audience can easily lose track of the reference.
Then again sometimes you do need a new word to describe something, and sometimes you just don't know how else to describe something so you have your own word for it, I guess this is more something I have a problem with from experience than anything else.
"The lab results came back as showing that this could not have occurred naturally/could not be reproduced."
This is just a really, really vague statement which often masquerades as a statement full of meaning and implication. Think about how lab results look (anyone ever had a blood test done? think about how much more complex geological analysis results would appear): Is the speaker qualified to interpret them? What does "naturally" mean? What does it mean for something to be reproducible? Do- or can- labs have databases of all known material configurations? The answers to these questions may not be what you'd first assume.
Maybe that question deserves its own thread? I can be so naive about such things.
