Do the Ghost Hunters lose any credibility for being on a station dedicated to science fiction?

Question

Do the Ghost Hunters lose any credibility for being on a station dedicated to science fiction?

Answer 1

Not in my opinion...the science community doesn't regard the paranormal as something worth investigating. Many discard it as mere superstition, so I think they have to be on a network that opens doors to other possibilities.

Answer 2

Did Bill Clinton loose any credibility when he appeared on MTV back in the '90s?

Answer 3

They lose credibility by being ghost hunters who have a popular TV show.

Answer 4

The question seems to hold the assumption they had credibility in the first place. Yes they are on the science-fiction channel. Should that play into their credibility? Absolutely. Reality-TV is far from reality. Many shows utilize scripting, including Ghost Hunters. Prime examples can be found in the first season. For example, the haunted location would unexpectantly call them and they would "act" shocked as to who they were. They knew exactly who was calling. Why? It was already written on Donna's white board behind her desk. If they could be faulted with any more loss of credibility, it would be this; I have yet to see a member of their group operate their equipment with such expertise as they would find in the instruction manual. For example, one episode involving a light house, they utilized an infrared thermometer that seemed to be fluctuating wildly. To them, it was a sign of paranormal activity. To the instruction manual, it was due to the 1:8 distance/spot ratio and the fact they were aiming at an exterior wall with window at a distance of 25 ft.

I will give them credit for this, the are plumbers (who already make alot of money in their own right) and managed to become tv celebrities (making much much more money) just because they enjoy looking for ghosts. How awesome is that.

Answer 5

The ghost hunters don't lose credibility for having the luck to be carried by one of the only stations that might be able to fit them into its format. But the underlying reasons for this restriction may be a self-generating condition (also called a "self-fulfilling prophecy") which ultimately costs them credibility by simply bringing their credibility into question.

The ghosts that they have found (especially the startlingly clear one in the lighthouse) are the main reason they're on the air. However, ghosts don't operate on cue, so skeptics use this as justification of a lack of evidence, accusations of fraud, or whatever other accusation they want to throw out there.

I find it interesting that skeptics are permitted to be irrationally skeptical, but believers aren't allowed to believe (whether rational or not). Skeptics are allowed to dismiss evidence as being invalid without ever examining the evidence in question.

Likewise, believers keep trying to make footage so that others can believe, and frauds keep trying to make money off of both skeptics and believers alike for the sheer fact of belief (whether in favor of or against the paranormal). The JREF "prize" is as fraudulent as it gets... while it's real money, there just isn't a way to win the prize if you're honest (and can demonstrate a real paranormal event, but don't try to make money on it as a general rule). Had the prize been legit, TAPS would have won that prize several times over with their evidence.

Do we know what the paranormal is? No. It's for this reason that Ghost Hunters loses credibility. Skeptics can criticize, dismiss things without examination, and in all ways decide that being skeptical in the name of skepticism is okay, but the fact is that the only credibility that either side of the argument has lies in whether or not TAPS can maintain their honest and relatively scientific approach to ghost hunting.

It would be nice if someone like TAPS could get actual scientific backup for analyzing their findings, because in all honesty I've noticed at least two occasions where the evidence was compromised and not caught by members of the team (and I'm not a regular watcher of the program, by virtue of not having a television).

As a long-time paranormal investigator myself, I hold TAPS in extremely high, almost reverent regard. However, my goals and theirs are divergent, but even so: I think there are a lot of directions that might be pursued that aren't being considered, all the while having to deal with pithy comments that don't bother with examining the show.

Answer 6

i dont really know but i like scifi :-)

Answer 7

No, but they lose credibility for never actually finding a ghost!

Answer 8

No, I think their crediblilty speaks for itself.  If I were offered a show and would in turn help my group, I would take it, even if it was a Sci-Fi type channel.  

Answer 9

Aside from the humor aspect of it, no, I don't think so. I do see some absurd unscientific conjectures and conclusions on that show from time to time (regarding EVPs, temperature, EMF, etc), but they usually do a fair job at looking for the likely explanations first and are usually pretty thorough. For example, they went to research that haunted bar which the owners completely rigged up, and they found each mechanism and revealed what it was and what it did. That's good work. The Most Haunted crew would have just screamed and ran around like chickens with their heads cut off. Paranormal State would have had a demon exorcism. :)

Answer 10

You know I asked myself that years ago, why Sci-fi? But no, TAPS' credibility is undeniable. I think even some spketics have notice they stand out from the rest of the crowd. I said some, not all.