Often in today’s main stream media an article will be written comparing and contrasting people from the paranormal investigation world with views from someone from a scientific or a more mainstream discipline. Nearly everyone of these articles seem to really slant toward the skeptic point of view by the fact they usually select a paranormal person that is a psychic instead of a group that is trying to capture video and audio or looks to disprove a haunting first.

At first I thought this article by a TV station web site in Pittsburgh was different because the paranormal group were people from The Pittsburgh Paranormal Society. Reading this groups web site they state:

Our goal and purpose is to learn about spirits scientifically and paranormally. We also serve to help our clients better understand the paranormal activities in their lives. We are a group of people who take our work seriously, and with an open mind.

Clearly a group that takes a scientic approach to gathering evidence. The skeptic of the article was a psychology professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Usually the skeptic argument is “This so-and-so psychic is not credible because you can “feel anything”. Here the professor’s tactic was:

“…these people are not qualified to find it, because they don’t have the scientific training to know how the mind works and how physics works and all the other things you need to know in order to do it,”

So it’s “attack the people that they don’t know what they are doing” when they are taking a scientific approach instead of an easily attacked psychic. It’s not a fair article because the professor was allowed to just take the cheap shot and be done.

I’d rather see the professor attack their evidence that they collected.

That would be fair.