{"id":499,"date":"2021-07-28T21:32:26","date_gmt":"2021-07-28T21:32:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/?post_type=chapter&p=499"},"modified":"2021-08-09T16:05:11","modified_gmt":"2021-08-09T16:05:11","slug":"4-4-how-to-prove-ghosts-exist-synthesis","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/chapter\/4-4-how-to-prove-ghosts-exist-synthesis\/","title":{"rendered":"4.4 How to prove ghosts exist (synthesis)"},"content":{"raw":"

September 2020<\/h3>\r\nFrom\u00a0The\u00a0Exorcist<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0Paranormal Activity<\/em>, there\u2019s no denying that the success of these films\u00a0was largely fueled by the crave of the audiences to be terrified by\u00a0phantoms and ghouls\u00a0alike. Hollywood understands that the supernatural sells, but do they know why?\u00a0In contrast to\u00a0other mythical creatures like\u00a0dragons\u00a0and\u00a0vampires,\u00a0phantoms are viewed upon much more seriously\u00a0by\u00a0most\u00a0people.\u00a0Whether\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0for religious reasons or from paranoia,\u00a0millions of people\u00a0consider the possibility of phantoms existing.\u00a0It is\u00a0for this reason alone that shows like\u00a0Ghost Adventures<\/em>, which investigates\u00a0sites famous for their history and\u00a0witness\u00a0accounts of\u00a0supernatural occurrences,\u00a0are viewed and binged\u00a0the same\u00a0as other hit shows.\u00a0But isn\u2019t there some good\u00a0old-fashioned\u00a0science to put\u00a0this\u00a0phantom scare to rest? Well, that depends\u00a0what\u00a0kind of\u00a0\u201cscience\u201d\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0looking at.\r\n\r\nCredible science that is\u00a0monitored and backed by the scientific community\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0really have any material evidence\u00a0that suggests phantoms exist. But\u00a0to\u00a0pseudoscientists that simply means\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0no evidence that suggests phantoms\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0exist.\u00a0On\u00a0Ghost Adventures, the evidence the crew finds\u00a0are not\u00a0revered highly by certified\u00a0scientists\u00a0nor is it\u00a0adequate\u00a0to suggest the\u00a0existence of phantoms.\u00a0So\u00a0if\u00a0it\u2019s considered\u00a0pseudoscience by the community\u00a0then\u00a0how is it that\u00a0viewers of these ghost hunting shows genuinely believe the evidence presented?\u00a0This can be attributed to how paranormal investigators, or simply ghost hunters,\u00a0gather\u00a0and present their evidence\u00a0so convincingly as if it was the real deal.\u00a0Both televised\u00a0and private ghost hunters share this\u00a0approach to ghost hunting.\u00a0It could be viewed as a\u00a0method of keeping up the ruse, but that\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0the case for\u00a0some\u00a0ghost hunters.\u00a0This way that ghost hunters approach the supernatural is very much akin to the\u00a0principles and standards credible scientists employ.\u00a0Other pseudoscientific\u00a0communities\u00a0like the flat earthers\u00a0would rather discredit factual scientists\u00a0than\u00a0adopting their standards, so why\u00a0would ghost hunters\u00a0have this kind of approach.\r\n\r\nTo understand why ghost\u00a0hunters\u00a0use this kind of approach\u00a0means\u00a0understanding\u00a0the \u201cidentity\u201d of the ghost hunter.\u00a0But what\u00a0do I mean by \u201cidentity\u201d? Do I refer to\u00a0the cultural and\u00a0national identity of the ghost hunters? Something like that.\u00a0In\u00a0order to\u00a0comprehend this idea\u00a0requires, as random as it may sound,\u00a0a more in-depth understanding\u00a0of what\u00a0literacy is.\u00a0\u201cWhat is Literacy\u201d by James Gee explores how people define themselves through these \u201cidentities\u201d\u00a0they have formed, or rather \u201cdiscourses\u201d as Gee prefers.\u00a0These \u201cdiscourses\u201d can range from, in Gee\u2019s words,\u00a0having a nationality, your gender, career and even your hobby (Gee 18). A \u201cdiscourse\u201d\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0limited to the genetics\u00a0nor the cultural identity of a person, it\u2019s broader than that. Gee defines \u201cdiscourse\u201d as\u00a0way of utilizing language\u00a0and values\u00a0that society\u00a0is able to\u00a0identify and distinguish (Gee\u00a018).\u00a0Gee also makes a distinction between a primary \u201cdiscourse\u201d and a secondary one.\u00a0He states the distinction between the two as the primary being the one that\u00a0acknowledges and operates with familiar people at a personal level\u00a0and the secondary treating everyone, familiar or not, at an informal yet socially appropriate\u00a0way (Gee 22). It is through this definition that\u00a0ghost hunting\u00a0is classified as a secondary discourse.\u00a0So\u00a0what is the\u00a0ghost hunter\u2019s discourse\u00a0composed of?\u00a0And could\u00a0such a discourse be utilized for a different purpose?\u00a0Well\u00a0firstly, their discourse\u00a0involves\u00a0both\u00a0some\u00a0components of\u00a0pseudosciences\u00a0and regular sciences.\r\n\r\nOf these components for their discourse is the array of technology and equipment used to capture evidence of\u00a0phantoms.\u00a0In \u201cContemporary ghost hunting and the relationship between proof and experience\u201d by Lynne S. McNeill,\u00a0overviews the vast amount of equipment used by ghost hunters\u00a0while interviewing a few crews.\u00a0McNeill states how these crews\u00a0rely heavily on technology to capture these specters,\u00a0tools like night vision cameras and\u00a0electromagnetic\u00a0field meters are a common sight for these ghost hunters\u00a0(McNeill 97).\u00a0These tools\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0inherently\u00a0illegitimate to\u00a0credible\u00a0scientists either, but ghost hunters do use these tools in a manner to detect anomalies they could coincide\u00a0with evidence of ghosts.\u00a0It\u00a0is also worthy to note that\u00a0while there are tools\u00a0that could be considered as pseudoscientific, like dowsing rods, many of these ghost hunters, according to McNeill, bring along this\u00a0equipment familiar to scientists in order to bring some degree of professionalism and credibility to their findings (McNeill 98).\u00a0Ghost hunters take some principle ideas from the scientific\u00a0discourse which is the importance of the equipment used for finding empirical evidence, to some extent.\r\n\r\nMcNeill also refers to the nature and approaches the ghost hunters he interviewed\u00a0have that is more in relation with how scientists operate.\u00a0McNeill\u00a0suggests that ghost hunters really\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0attempting to fabricate a ruse\u00a0as he brings up the situation on the commodification of ghosts. He\u00a0brings up\u00a0how the hunters he is interviewing genuinely believes they\u00a0are giving plausibility that\u00a0phantoms could exist\u00a0with the various investigations they have conducted (McNeill 99).\u00a0While the stigma of ghost hunting shows may hold some merit, it would be largely\u00a0misleading to\u00a0invoke that same view on all hunters.\u00a0The way ghost hunters approach their\u00a0investigations and findings also acknowledges their close following with the scientific\u00a0discourse. McNeill emphasizes how the hunters\u00a0follow closely to the procedures and terminology\u00a0which\u00a0are developed from an\u00a0adherence to science (McNeill 100).\u00a0The level of professionalism ghost hunters\u00a0have\u00a0for their evidence is much akin to a scientist\u00a0conducting an experiment.\u00a0Unfortunately, this is where the\u00a0line is drawn between\u00a0the similarities towards credible scientific practices as ghost hunters\u00a0employ\u00a0techniques, for gathering evidence,\u00a0not just\u00a0from more credible resources\u00a0but from pseudoscientific ones as well\u00a0(McNeill 103).\u00a0While the case may vary for\u00a0some ghost hunters, there are still many that would consider\u00a0psychic readings as valid testimonies to the evidence of ghosts (McNeill 103).\u00a0It may have sound like ghost hunters were simply scientists trying to prove the plausibility that ghosts can exists, but their discourse still involves\u00a0some pseudoscientific values to coincide with their evidence.\r\n\r\nWhile\u00a0they might use a level of scientific integrity\u00a0in order to\u00a0validate\u00a0their evidence, that isn\u2019t the sole reason they adopt a\u00a0combination of both\u00a0a false and factually\u00a0scientific\u00a0approach.\u00a0Sarah J.\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Catherine Paul\u2019s\u00a0\u201c\u2019Make Me Believe!\u2019: Ghost-hunting technology and the postmodern fantastic\u201d\u00a0explores much more on the\u00a0reason as to why ghost hunters, especially televised ones,\u00a0rely on much more questionable explanations.\u00a0The duo\u00a0explains\u00a0how\u00a0the\u00a0uncanniness works by\u00a0introducing elements that are grounded enough to be\u00a0seen realistically, which is how TV ghost hunters\u00a0invoke the realistic and uncanny nature to their findings (Lauro\u00a0and Paul 224).\u00a0In retrospect,\u00a0ghost hunters outside of television\u00a0may not realize they are adding a\u00a0feeling of\u00a0uncanniness to their\u00a0investigations but\u00a0doing so is a core in their discourse. Back to Gee,\u00a0he defines another term, \u201cacquisition\u201d,\u00a0which is subconsciously taking\u00a0something\u00a0that\u00a0correlates with the discourse\u00a0(Gee 20).\u00a0It is through acquisition that these hunters gain this\u00a0skill, but it\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0explain why they do.\u00a0This\u00a0is\u00a0since\u00a0ghosts\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0something that could be proven by scientists, since they are belong to a concept, according to\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Paul, that is outside of\u00a0empirical evidence\u00a0(Lauro\u00a0and Paul 224).\u00a0Ghost hunters inherently acquire\u00a0adopting uncredible sources like\u00a0psychic readings because the idea of ghosts is already a pseudoscientific idea.\r\n\r\nThese pseudoscientific concepts merge with\u00a0the professional\u00a0and\u00a0scientific\u00a0stance ghost hunters\u00a0take to validate their narratives.\u00a0A device called the\u00a0SPIRICOM, which produces sounds and radio signals,\u00a0is an example of the merger between\u00a0the two components that make up\u00a0the ghost hunter\u2019s discourse. The device is claimed to be able to speak with the dead\u00a0by translating the voice of the deceased into\u00a0radio waves,\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Paul note that examples like these\u00a0combine the supernatural with science\u00a0(Lauro\u00a0and Paul 227).\u00a0The\u00a0amount of evidence some ghost hunters claim as being\u00a0valid is always seen as being dismissible,\u00a0noted\u00a0by\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Paul,\u00a0not all ghost hunters have the same\u00a0look to their evidence since even the hosts of\u00a0Ghost Hunters<\/em>\u00a0believe a majority of the evidence they have is debunkable\u00a0(Lauro\u00a0and Paul 229).\u00a0Returning to Gee\u2019s article, he claims that a discourse can be ideological\u00a0which means they can\u00a0have various perceptions and values relative to the discourse (Gee 19).\u00a0For ghost hunters, their ideology would be the\u00a0discussion around\u00a0whether\u00a0their evidence is good enough, but that largely hangs on their dependence to the supernatural.\r\n\r\nWhile it can be summed up that ghost hunters use this mixture between the two, supernatural and natural, to allow some extent that ghosts exist, there is a\u00a0quality to such a discourse that can help students\u00a0understand how\u00a0scientists speak and conduct.\u00a0\u201cReasoning,\u00a0Science, and The Ghost Hunt\u201d by W.\u00a0John\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Timothy Hansel look to see if the\u00a0literacy found in ghost hunting can be utilized as a way to help\u00a0students\u00a0understand and engage with the practices scientists do\u00a0(Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 202).\u00a0For students, the activity of ghost hunting can be seen as a\u00a0fun activity, due to the\u00a0array of pop culture that surrounds it\u00a0like films and shows,\u00a0that could\u00a0also potentially involve the students learning and acquiring\u00a0scientific discourses (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 203).\u00a0Let\u2019s\u00a0be honest,\u00a0most students\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0look like\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0having\u00a0a great time\u00a0at chemistry labs.\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Hansel\u00a0implemented ghost hunting with their course\u00a0in order to\u00a0make a more accessible connection for their students, they would go to\u00a0two sites and investigate the area (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 206).\u00a0Most of the time there was nothing happening, but some strange things have occurred,\u00a0but it was the critical thinking that\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Hansel were looking for in the students to develop, not the ghosts (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 206).\u00a0To their surprise the students did just that with the \u201cevidence\u201d, they analyzed\u00a0every possibility of the cause of the occurrence and narrowed it down to the reflection of light, in the end debunking it (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 208).\r\n\r\nGhost hunting may not be apart of real science, but they do act like\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0one.\u00a0In a way,\u00a0ghost hunting is a way of introducing amateurs into the\u00a0world of how science is examined, conducted, and finalized.\u00a0It can even be utilized as a mock trial for students\u00a0to acquire some skills that are found in science discourses as\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Hansen have done.\u00a0But there are many sides to ghost hunting and thus various ideologies\u00a0that reflect\u00a0pseudosciences.\u00a0In conclusion, the approach ghost hunters have towards their craft is a mixture of both the natural and supernatural, either to persuade people or to validate their claims\u00a0, but\u00a0its natural aspect could help students develop skills for a science discourse.\r\n

Works Cited<\/p>\r\n

Gee, James Paul. \u201cWhat is Literacy?\u201d\u00a0Journal of Education<\/em>, Vol. 171, No. 1, 1989, pp. 18-25.<\/p>\r\n

McNeill, Lynne S. \u201cContemporary ghost hunting and the relationship between proof and\u00a0 experience.\u201d\u00a0Contemporary Legend\u00a0<\/em>n.s. 9, 2006, pp. 96-110.<\/p>\r\n

Lauro, Sarah Juliet and Catherine Paul. \u201c\u2019Make Me Believe!\u2019: Ghost-hunting technology and the\u00a0 postmodern fantastic.\u201d\u00a0Horror Studies<\/em>, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013, pp. 221-239.<\/p>\r\n

Koolage, John W. and Timothy Hansel. \u201cReasoning, Science, and The Ghost Hunt.\u201d\u00a0Teaching\u00a0<\/em>Philosophy\u00a0<\/em>40:2, 2017, pp. 201-229.<\/p>","rendered":"

September 2020<\/h3>\n

From\u00a0The\u00a0Exorcist<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0Paranormal Activity<\/em>, there\u2019s no denying that the success of these films\u00a0was largely fueled by the crave of the audiences to be terrified by\u00a0phantoms and ghouls\u00a0alike. Hollywood understands that the supernatural sells, but do they know why?\u00a0In contrast to\u00a0other mythical creatures like\u00a0dragons\u00a0and\u00a0vampires,\u00a0phantoms are viewed upon much more seriously\u00a0by\u00a0most\u00a0people.\u00a0Whether\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0for religious reasons or from paranoia,\u00a0millions of people\u00a0consider the possibility of phantoms existing.\u00a0It is\u00a0for this reason alone that shows like\u00a0Ghost Adventures<\/em>, which investigates\u00a0sites famous for their history and\u00a0witness\u00a0accounts of\u00a0supernatural occurrences,\u00a0are viewed and binged\u00a0the same\u00a0as other hit shows.\u00a0But isn\u2019t there some good\u00a0old-fashioned\u00a0science to put\u00a0this\u00a0phantom scare to rest? Well, that depends\u00a0what\u00a0kind of\u00a0\u201cscience\u201d\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0looking at.<\/p>\n

Credible science that is\u00a0monitored and backed by the scientific community\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0really have any material evidence\u00a0that suggests phantoms exist. But\u00a0to\u00a0pseudoscientists that simply means\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0no evidence that suggests phantoms\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0exist.\u00a0On\u00a0Ghost Adventures, the evidence the crew finds\u00a0are not\u00a0revered highly by certified\u00a0scientists\u00a0nor is it\u00a0adequate\u00a0to suggest the\u00a0existence of phantoms.\u00a0So\u00a0if\u00a0it\u2019s considered\u00a0pseudoscience by the community\u00a0then\u00a0how is it that\u00a0viewers of these ghost hunting shows genuinely believe the evidence presented?\u00a0This can be attributed to how paranormal investigators, or simply ghost hunters,\u00a0gather\u00a0and present their evidence\u00a0so convincingly as if it was the real deal.\u00a0Both televised\u00a0and private ghost hunters share this\u00a0approach to ghost hunting.\u00a0It could be viewed as a\u00a0method of keeping up the ruse, but that\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0the case for\u00a0some\u00a0ghost hunters.\u00a0This way that ghost hunters approach the supernatural is very much akin to the\u00a0principles and standards credible scientists employ.\u00a0Other pseudoscientific\u00a0communities\u00a0like the flat earthers\u00a0would rather discredit factual scientists\u00a0than\u00a0adopting their standards, so why\u00a0would ghost hunters\u00a0have this kind of approach.<\/p>\n

To understand why ghost\u00a0hunters\u00a0use this kind of approach\u00a0means\u00a0understanding\u00a0the \u201cidentity\u201d of the ghost hunter.\u00a0But what\u00a0do I mean by \u201cidentity\u201d? Do I refer to\u00a0the cultural and\u00a0national identity of the ghost hunters? Something like that.\u00a0In\u00a0order to\u00a0comprehend this idea\u00a0requires, as random as it may sound,\u00a0a more in-depth understanding\u00a0of what\u00a0literacy is.\u00a0\u201cWhat is Literacy\u201d by James Gee explores how people define themselves through these \u201cidentities\u201d\u00a0they have formed, or rather \u201cdiscourses\u201d as Gee prefers.\u00a0These \u201cdiscourses\u201d can range from, in Gee\u2019s words,\u00a0having a nationality, your gender, career and even your hobby (Gee 18). A \u201cdiscourse\u201d\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0limited to the genetics\u00a0nor the cultural identity of a person, it\u2019s broader than that. Gee defines \u201cdiscourse\u201d as\u00a0way of utilizing language\u00a0and values\u00a0that society\u00a0is able to\u00a0identify and distinguish (Gee\u00a018).\u00a0Gee also makes a distinction between a primary \u201cdiscourse\u201d and a secondary one.\u00a0He states the distinction between the two as the primary being the one that\u00a0acknowledges and operates with familiar people at a personal level\u00a0and the secondary treating everyone, familiar or not, at an informal yet socially appropriate\u00a0way (Gee 22). It is through this definition that\u00a0ghost hunting\u00a0is classified as a secondary discourse.\u00a0So\u00a0what is the\u00a0ghost hunter\u2019s discourse\u00a0composed of?\u00a0And could\u00a0such a discourse be utilized for a different purpose?\u00a0Well\u00a0firstly, their discourse\u00a0involves\u00a0both\u00a0some\u00a0components of\u00a0pseudosciences\u00a0and regular sciences.<\/p>\n

Of these components for their discourse is the array of technology and equipment used to capture evidence of\u00a0phantoms.\u00a0In \u201cContemporary ghost hunting and the relationship between proof and experience\u201d by Lynne S. McNeill,\u00a0overviews the vast amount of equipment used by ghost hunters\u00a0while interviewing a few crews.\u00a0McNeill states how these crews\u00a0rely heavily on technology to capture these specters,\u00a0tools like night vision cameras and\u00a0electromagnetic\u00a0field meters are a common sight for these ghost hunters\u00a0(McNeill 97).\u00a0These tools\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0inherently\u00a0illegitimate to\u00a0credible\u00a0scientists either, but ghost hunters do use these tools in a manner to detect anomalies they could coincide\u00a0with evidence of ghosts.\u00a0It\u00a0is also worthy to note that\u00a0while there are tools\u00a0that could be considered as pseudoscientific, like dowsing rods, many of these ghost hunters, according to McNeill, bring along this\u00a0equipment familiar to scientists in order to bring some degree of professionalism and credibility to their findings (McNeill 98).\u00a0Ghost hunters take some principle ideas from the scientific\u00a0discourse which is the importance of the equipment used for finding empirical evidence, to some extent.<\/p>\n

McNeill also refers to the nature and approaches the ghost hunters he interviewed\u00a0have that is more in relation with how scientists operate.\u00a0McNeill\u00a0suggests that ghost hunters really\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0attempting to fabricate a ruse\u00a0as he brings up the situation on the commodification of ghosts. He\u00a0brings up\u00a0how the hunters he is interviewing genuinely believes they\u00a0are giving plausibility that\u00a0phantoms could exist\u00a0with the various investigations they have conducted (McNeill 99).\u00a0While the stigma of ghost hunting shows may hold some merit, it would be largely\u00a0misleading to\u00a0invoke that same view on all hunters.\u00a0The way ghost hunters approach their\u00a0investigations and findings also acknowledges their close following with the scientific\u00a0discourse. McNeill emphasizes how the hunters\u00a0follow closely to the procedures and terminology\u00a0which\u00a0are developed from an\u00a0adherence to science (McNeill 100).\u00a0The level of professionalism ghost hunters\u00a0have\u00a0for their evidence is much akin to a scientist\u00a0conducting an experiment.\u00a0Unfortunately, this is where the\u00a0line is drawn between\u00a0the similarities towards credible scientific practices as ghost hunters\u00a0employ\u00a0techniques, for gathering evidence,\u00a0not just\u00a0from more credible resources\u00a0but from pseudoscientific ones as well\u00a0(McNeill 103).\u00a0While the case may vary for\u00a0some ghost hunters, there are still many that would consider\u00a0psychic readings as valid testimonies to the evidence of ghosts (McNeill 103).\u00a0It may have sound like ghost hunters were simply scientists trying to prove the plausibility that ghosts can exists, but their discourse still involves\u00a0some pseudoscientific values to coincide with their evidence.<\/p>\n

While\u00a0they might use a level of scientific integrity\u00a0in order to\u00a0validate\u00a0their evidence, that isn\u2019t the sole reason they adopt a\u00a0combination of both\u00a0a false and factually\u00a0scientific\u00a0approach.\u00a0Sarah J.\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Catherine Paul\u2019s\u00a0\u201c\u2019Make Me Believe!\u2019: Ghost-hunting technology and the postmodern fantastic\u201d\u00a0explores much more on the\u00a0reason as to why ghost hunters, especially televised ones,\u00a0rely on much more questionable explanations.\u00a0The duo\u00a0explains\u00a0how\u00a0the\u00a0uncanniness works by\u00a0introducing elements that are grounded enough to be\u00a0seen realistically, which is how TV ghost hunters\u00a0invoke the realistic and uncanny nature to their findings (Lauro\u00a0and Paul 224).\u00a0In retrospect,\u00a0ghost hunters outside of television\u00a0may not realize they are adding a\u00a0feeling of\u00a0uncanniness to their\u00a0investigations but\u00a0doing so is a core in their discourse. Back to Gee,\u00a0he defines another term, \u201cacquisition\u201d,\u00a0which is subconsciously taking\u00a0something\u00a0that\u00a0correlates with the discourse\u00a0(Gee 20).\u00a0It is through acquisition that these hunters gain this\u00a0skill, but it\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0explain why they do.\u00a0This\u00a0is\u00a0since\u00a0ghosts\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0something that could be proven by scientists, since they are belong to a concept, according to\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Paul, that is outside of\u00a0empirical evidence\u00a0(Lauro\u00a0and Paul 224).\u00a0Ghost hunters inherently acquire\u00a0adopting uncredible sources like\u00a0psychic readings because the idea of ghosts is already a pseudoscientific idea.<\/p>\n

These pseudoscientific concepts merge with\u00a0the professional\u00a0and\u00a0scientific\u00a0stance ghost hunters\u00a0take to validate their narratives.\u00a0A device called the\u00a0SPIRICOM, which produces sounds and radio signals,\u00a0is an example of the merger between\u00a0the two components that make up\u00a0the ghost hunter\u2019s discourse. The device is claimed to be able to speak with the dead\u00a0by translating the voice of the deceased into\u00a0radio waves,\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Paul note that examples like these\u00a0combine the supernatural with science\u00a0(Lauro\u00a0and Paul 227).\u00a0The\u00a0amount of evidence some ghost hunters claim as being\u00a0valid is always seen as being dismissible,\u00a0noted\u00a0by\u00a0Lauro\u00a0and Paul,\u00a0not all ghost hunters have the same\u00a0look to their evidence since even the hosts of\u00a0Ghost Hunters<\/em>\u00a0believe a majority of the evidence they have is debunkable\u00a0(Lauro\u00a0and Paul 229).\u00a0Returning to Gee\u2019s article, he claims that a discourse can be ideological\u00a0which means they can\u00a0have various perceptions and values relative to the discourse (Gee 19).\u00a0For ghost hunters, their ideology would be the\u00a0discussion around\u00a0whether\u00a0their evidence is good enough, but that largely hangs on their dependence to the supernatural.<\/p>\n

While it can be summed up that ghost hunters use this mixture between the two, supernatural and natural, to allow some extent that ghosts exist, there is a\u00a0quality to such a discourse that can help students\u00a0understand how\u00a0scientists speak and conduct.\u00a0\u201cReasoning,\u00a0Science, and The Ghost Hunt\u201d by W.\u00a0John\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Timothy Hansel look to see if the\u00a0literacy found in ghost hunting can be utilized as a way to help\u00a0students\u00a0understand and engage with the practices scientists do\u00a0(Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 202).\u00a0For students, the activity of ghost hunting can be seen as a\u00a0fun activity, due to the\u00a0array of pop culture that surrounds it\u00a0like films and shows,\u00a0that could\u00a0also potentially involve the students learning and acquiring\u00a0scientific discourses (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 203).\u00a0Let\u2019s\u00a0be honest,\u00a0most students\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0look like\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0having\u00a0a great time\u00a0at chemistry labs.\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Hansel\u00a0implemented ghost hunting with their course\u00a0in order to\u00a0make a more accessible connection for their students, they would go to\u00a0two sites and investigate the area (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 206).\u00a0Most of the time there was nothing happening, but some strange things have occurred,\u00a0but it was the critical thinking that\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Hansel were looking for in the students to develop, not the ghosts (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 206).\u00a0To their surprise the students did just that with the \u201cevidence\u201d, they analyzed\u00a0every possibility of the cause of the occurrence and narrowed it down to the reflection of light, in the end debunking it (Koolage\u00a0and Hansel 208).<\/p>\n

Ghost hunting may not be apart of real science, but they do act like\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0one.\u00a0In a way,\u00a0ghost hunting is a way of introducing amateurs into the\u00a0world of how science is examined, conducted, and finalized.\u00a0It can even be utilized as a mock trial for students\u00a0to acquire some skills that are found in science discourses as\u00a0Koolage\u00a0and Hansen have done.\u00a0But there are many sides to ghost hunting and thus various ideologies\u00a0that reflect\u00a0pseudosciences.\u00a0In conclusion, the approach ghost hunters have towards their craft is a mixture of both the natural and supernatural, either to persuade people or to validate their claims\u00a0, but\u00a0its natural aspect could help students develop skills for a science discourse.<\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n

Gee, James Paul. \u201cWhat is Literacy?\u201d\u00a0Journal of Education<\/em>, Vol. 171, No. 1, 1989, pp. 18-25.<\/p>\n

McNeill, Lynne S. \u201cContemporary ghost hunting and the relationship between proof and\u00a0 experience.\u201d\u00a0Contemporary Legend\u00a0<\/em>n.s. 9, 2006, pp. 96-110.<\/p>\n

Lauro, Sarah Juliet and Catherine Paul. \u201c\u2019Make Me Believe!\u2019: Ghost-hunting technology and the\u00a0 postmodern fantastic.\u201d\u00a0Horror Studies<\/em>, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013, pp. 221-239.<\/p>\n

Koolage, John W. and Timothy Hansel. \u201cReasoning, Science, and The Ghost Hunt.\u201d\u00a0Teaching\u00a0<\/em>Philosophy\u00a0<\/em>40:2, 2017, pp. 201-229.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"menu_order":9,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["anonenglish102"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[68],"license":[],"class_list":["post-499","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-anonenglish102"],"part":71,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/499\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":500,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/499\/revisions\/500"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/71"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/499\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=499"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=499"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}