Debunking the Skeptic: Refuting the Arguments in Opposition of Electronic Voice Phenomena
© Dayna Winters
The skeptical arguments posed in opposition to the validity of electronic voice phenomena are numerous. What is important to remember, however, is that just because many arguments against the validity of evps exist; it does not imply that such arguments are compelling or irrefutable. By examining some of the popular arguments in opposition of electronic voice phenomena, it becomes clear that many arguments do not stand up to open-minded analysis. Let's take a look at some of the most popular arguments posed:
Argument #1: Evps are the result of people deriving meaning out of natural noises and is a form of auditory pareidolia. Pareidolia is the false perception or misinterpretation of an unclear stimulus that is observed as something clear or palpable.
Rebuttal: Although some natural sounds may come across as evps and produce "false positive evidence", such an argument certainly does not explain all evps. During analysis, evps are sorted into three classifications: A, B, and C, respectively. Although it is quite possible to misconstrue evps that fall under the "C" classification, the skeptical argument that Class "A" or even Class "B" evps cannot be clearly identified is nonsense. The reason for the distortion of class "C" evps is twofold. First, such evps are usually whispers, can be either heard in the background of an audio tape and/or over someone else speaking at the time. Second, upon filtering, class "C" evps often require significant noise reduction for clarity. This is not the case for class "A" and sometime class "B" evps. When classifying evps, especially those that fall into the class "A" category, such evps appear on tape as clearly as if an individual was standing next to the researcher and speaking during the time of taping. What's more, producing similar results on a fairly consist basis weakens the argument for obscurity.
 |
 |
