July 30, 2009
Discover Magazine: GH Is Best Science Show
by Oubliette
OK, I must admit that I am a bit confused by this article and the point the writer is trying to make. But what viewer of the show, skeptical or not, would not be enticed to take a look at this intriguing statement and wonder (as I did) how anyone could possibly make such an arguably untrue and perhaps absurd claim?
The article begins by indicating that GH is into its 5th "preposterous" season on SyFy/SciFi-a good choice of descriptive adjective on the writer's part. He also presents pretty funny and, in a roundabout way, decent descriptions of Jason and Grant. It really gave me a chuckle to read that Jason looks like and has the same day job as Joe the Plumber (and yes, the similarity in looks is definitely there). Grant is portrayed as being "a slighter, stooping man with a Dickensian underbite and a permanently queasy expression, as if he’s about to be hanged for stealing a sheep….". A hilarious description indeed. The writer also debunks his own theory that perhaps this dynamic duo are closet intellectuals, using as an example a somewhat brainless remark from Jason when he first noticed the size of Edith Wharton's home: “Yeah. I’m thinking she was a pretty good author". His remark that the fact that Grant hasn't yet quite figured out the difference between "phenomenon" and "phenomena" is probably also spot on. We are not dealing with Rocket Scientists here, folks.
But onto the meat of the story. Mr. Maddox goes on to give us a light-hearted description of the show, how the teams stumble around in the dark, the importance of EMF meters in detecting a ghostly presence, even though this remains a baseless theory since the link between EMF readings and paranormal manifestations has never actually been proven to be the case. In fact, this is a hotly debated topic without really one solid piece of evidence to indicate it has any validity, at least in any kind of scientific way. But that's a discussion for another day.
Speaking of science, Mr. Maddox admits that:
"The key scientific concepts of falsifiability and repeatability are missing from the Ghost Hunters’ arsenal."
This is an opinion that I'm sure 99% of us here at Skeptical Viewer would certainly second. But to be fair, this is true of any and all attempts to prove the existence of anything that could even remotely be included under the paranormal umbrella. The oft trotted-out excuse that "ghosts don't appear on cue" will probably, at least in the foreseeable future, preclude these endeavors from attaining any serious approach that depends upon the solid foundations upon which scientific research, inquiry and theory rest.
Another point the author makes is: why go lights out? After all, he writes, most people experience alleged paranormal happenings while sitting in the living room watching TV. Good point, indeed. I know there have been a number of discussions as to why investigators feel it imperative to move around, bumping into furniture and stubbing their toes in total darkness. But the article is right–if this is not really the sort of environments that people find themselves in when experiencing the paranormal, why use it as the venue in which to investigate the stories that so many honest, puzzled and frightened individuals have related about strange noises, apparitions, poltergeist activity and other manifestations of the supernatural?
Despite all this, or perhaps because of it, the author concludes that, in fact, people DON'T watch GH in order to find out if they capture evidence of ghostly doings. In his opinion, we watch the show for the drama of it all, even though that isn't quite how he puts it. But this seems to be the point he is ultimately trying to make. It is also the lure and mystery of the dark that in his opinion is something that is extremely compelling in its own right. In his words:
"…how easily and thoroughly any humdrum human existence can be transformed if you wrest your attention from the tawdry Technicolor scenery of life and train it instead upon the murk and gloom and the shadows that surround us."
Perhaps he does have a point, and has made it in an almost poetic fashion. There is still a number of hard core viewers who are drawn in to the show, hanging onto every knock and hiss of static, waiting and hoping that some one will capture that single piece of verifiable evidence (although I fail to see this happening, since GH never allows anyone else to take a good look at anything they happen to capture on the instruments they so terribly misuse). But is the search for any evidence of the paranormal the main reason why Ghost Hunters has graced the airwaves for so long?
Actually, I don't have a problem going along with most of Mr. Maddox's analyses of the show, but his reasoning that it's the best science show on the airwaves escapes me:
"Ghost Hunters is the best science show on television because unlike the fastidious drones of CSI or that frizzy savant on Numb3rs, the Ghost Hunters never win, and they don’t care."
What may be confusing me is, at least according to my own interpretation, the article's title doesn't quite describe what the author is trying to convey. Maybe it's just me. But for those interested, you might want to take a look at this somewhat confusing piece of writing about GH and other science shows. Perhaps someone can better grasp the writer's point. His choice of what constitutes "science" on TV is not quite the same as my own; in fact, it is far from my own viewpoint on this type of programming. But I thinkthis is an interesting read and he does raise some valid viewpoints as to why the show, just like the Energizer Bunny, keeps going…and going…and going.
Filed under Ghost Hunters, Posts by Oubliette
 |
| ^ Please Support our Sponsor |
Comments on Discover Magazine: GH Is Best Science Show »
alicat @ 6:14 pm
Thanks Oubliette for your article.
First, I would never equate GH with science. I'd rather watch Bill Nye on Planet Green. Even cooking shows have more science than GH. I'll give him this, he did "get" the phrase "there is this theory"!
This writer is apparently famous for his sense of humor. Maybe equating science with GH was supposed to be funny or ironic? With that in mind, I'd like to share a little biography of Mr. Maddox with a link to a Wiki biography. He hardly seems like a guy who, as he writes, would "subscribe to various high-end periodicals":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Maddox
I'd like to share my "theory" to the question he poses in the last sentence of this article: "Why, then, must the Ghost Hunters work in darkness?" My theory: because that's when it's easiest to pull the scam and reap the rewards.
Revenant @ 2:28 am
Well, I think Bruno Maddox is supposed to be funny, witty, and thought-provoking. Personally, I've never cared for his articles. I have nothing personal against him or anything negative to say about his writing ability. To use a British colloquialism; "It is not my cup of tea."
With that being said, I do not believe that he actually watches the show. Or I should say, he didn't watch from the beginning. His examples are only from this past season. Also, here's something rather odd:
"For Jason and Grant there is clearly no greater thrill than reporting back to the owner of some massively atmospheric and turrety castle that the voices he’s been hearing are from his glitchy clock radio and that the place is as haunted as a tube of toothpaste."
First, exactly what "massively atmospheric and turrety castle" did Jason and Grant go to and determine that it wasn't haunted? Perhaps he is confusing GH for GHI?
Second, and as respectful as possible…is he out of his mind? There is no greater thrill for Jason and Grant to tell an owner that their place isn't haunted? According to the wiki link that Alicat provided, Mr. Maddox is a Harvard English grad. Great. Maybe he should contact someone over there in the Psychology dept. in order to learn how to read people because he got this one completely and utterly wrong. The argument against his sentiment is so strong that I hardly feel a need to state it.
Oubliette, thank you for bringing this rather curious article to our attention. Much like yourself, I'm not seeing the point behind writing this article. Then again, like I stated before, I've never cared for his material. His humor is lost upon me.
Patrick @ 8:47 am
Admittedly I have not read the article yet, but the quote where he compares GH to CSI and Numb3rs tells me all I need to know. He is putting GH in the same category as fictional science dramas. He didn't compare GH to say Survivorman or Histories Mysteries, or hell not even MonsterQuest or Destination Truth.
Oubliette @ 8:56 am
Thanks so much for your comments. I was hoping that others could provide some clarification as to what this author was trying to get across.
@alicat-same thought occurred to me regarding at least their insistence on investigating in the dark. Perhaps "Moonie" would not stand up to the light of day, so to speak. And it only works until a crew member or other very solid human forgets there is filming going on and decides to step out from behind a pillar for a better look
In any case, I am glad that others are as confused as I am about this article. British humor is usually fine with me but frankly Mr. Maddox has missed the mark. Although IMO the high points of this were his spot on descriptions of Grant and the fact that it quickly becomes apparent that the top two players are not Harvard graduates.
The writer's mockery of the show, such as the way they get excited over any knock or thud, certainly rings true. And he does bring up some very pertinent questions that have been addressed here and elsewhere: why always investigate in the dark (I'm referring of course to honest and sincere investigators)? Who started the theory that high EMF readings may indicate paranormal activity? How could one possibly prove that there is a correlation between the two? Good questions in any context.
But no bullseye here for Maddox. I agree with Revenant that it seems he only watched the early episodes of GH. The show was on the air in the UK a couple of years back, with the season running far behind what was being shown here in the US. Perhaps that is what he has based his article on, and it makes me think that the "castle" he is referring to might be Leap in Ireland.
Be that as it may, whatever the writer set out to do sort of fell flat. It has the feeling of needing to go back to the drawing board for a re-write. Since "GH" and "scientific" doesn't really equate, there is validity to what he says. I was actually surprised to read this in the same magazine that has an excellent piece on Stephen Hawking. But it was a confusing way of interpreting the continued popularity of the show, another salient question that many folks are asking after five years of Jason and Grant stumbling around in the dark (both literally and figuratively).
alicat @ 10:44 am
Oubliette,
This writer has been living in the US since 1992 when he graduated Harvard (with 2 yrs. later in Moscow) so I don't think it has anything to do with broadcasting the show in the UK. Originally I thought it might be because Discover Magazine was once part of the Disney family which included SciFi but they sold it off in @ 2005 to Discover Media, LLC, owned by Bob Guccione, Jr. but that would be a stretch. Perhaps he wrote a portion of this at one point after GH started when they were owned by Disney and he never submitted it or it was turned down. He could have gone back, updated the article and decided to resubmit it. Obviously he wanted to distance Harvard from GH big time but that bit of humor fell flat for me as it was no big news. I like English humour as well but this article was, as Revenant said, "not my cup of tea".
I am totally confused as to the purpose of this article. Was it meant to be a compliment, a swipe, serious, humorous or just a filler piece? There was really no purpose or direction but then again, the same can be said about GH and GHI.
CrowTRobot @ 12:25 pm
@ Oubliette
Not sure what to make of the article. It really just reads as a bit of filler on a slow day. Still, entertaining.
I think, however, most of us would agree the reason GH/GHI work at night is that it makes for better TV – nothing more, nothing less. Although, true, it is easier to pull a fast one in the dark.
StanTheMan @ 10:56 am
My read is that the article is a sarcastic swipe at scientific TV in general. I think he was trying to say that GH is the best and then by listing a few of their many faults implying the rest are even worse. His compliments are backhanded ones at best.
Oubliette @ 5:48 pm
Thanks everyone for your comments. This article just had my head reeling as to what the author wanted to say that I needed to get some feedback. Did he like GH? Was he making fun? Did any of his comments have any validity?
Your insights were very helpful. If this is Mr. Maddox's brand of humor, I'll have to pass and maybe stick with Monty Python when it comes to British comedy. On the other hand-and I still feel this way-I think the article needed a rewrite simply because of its confusing nature.
Wonder if Jason and Grant noticed they made Discover magazine and if so, what were their thoughts. Now that's something to ponder.
Leslie @ 8:34 pm
He was being a smartass. And I loved it! I started reading the article because I couldn't believe that Discover would cover them ,much les lable them best science show. It really got my curiosity, and I was not dissapointed. Thanks for the write-up Oubliette.
Oubliette @ 8:54 am
OK, now I finally get what this guy does. But he accomplished his goal in a puzzling manner. The article seems to need a re-write. I know I'm far from the world's greatest writer, but my initial feelings were that if I were the editor I would have sent it back for some tweaking. Maybe they were pressed by the deadline and stuck it in, as is. And frankly, I'm surprised that it appeared in Discover magazine.
My thinking was this wasn't of enough interest to post as a topic, but now I realize that it did interest people here and I'm glad I did decide to write it, both to alert folks of its existence and also to get some help in figuring out exactly what the writer was trying to say.