Often when I read some new author on the mysteries of the universe, I start out excited and impressed with all of their research and creative analysis.  Then along the way, their great ideas start to become more and more convoluted.  At some point, it is clear that they are reaching a long way for a conclusion that is only one of many possible explanations.

We are the blind men trying to identify the parts of the elephant.  We each have a small piece to the puzzle but we can’t see the final image.  If there is some greater purpose to the universe and the pursuit of the mysterious, then I suspect it is to give us this challenge.  If we could learn to work together, the answers would become clear.  So, in the interest of collaboration and seeking truth, let’s try to see if we can pool our knowledge and research to find a way forward.

I would like to see the larger community of investigators into the unexplained work more collaboratively.  It occured to me that while the traditional scientific method of lab testing is not so useful for spontaneous events, there might be another approach that would help lay some groundwork for a meta-analysis.  Perhaps we can even work toward a full unification of the unexplained as one larger fabric of forces and related events.

So what if we borrow the Mythbuster’s approach and apply it to paranormal research?  I don’t mean to just blow stuff up, although it does sound like fun.  I was thinking more like presenting one concept at a time and inviting researchers and experiencers to find holes in the idea.  If I begin by presenting a set of ideas that to me are substantiated and convincing, then other folks can respond with research or examples that highlight a weakness and help me refocus the idea.  That is supposed to be the way the peer review process works in academia, but unfortunately it often falls short of a true constructive critique.

Aother way to look at the process would be panning for gold.  In order to find the few grains of value, a great deal of mud and decoys need to be carefully washed away.  If we can use this approach to set a basic framework, then we can keep sifting each layer for something that can’t be reasonably eliminated.  Once we have the most substantial information in one place, perhaps the larger picture will start to emerge.  How can you help? First provide strongly supported information with a source. Second, review the concepts that are already presented to show some weakness that should eliminate one of the ideas under consideration.