The Truth With an Agenda
By Chad Wilson
Publisher
www.paranormalunderground.net
My question to our readers this month is this: If you go into a given situation trying to prove your point, claiming that point as the truth, is it still the truth? In other words, if an agenda is involved, does that color facts to that individual’s belief to the point that the truth then becomes only a personal opinion and nothing more?
The reason I ask is because I have noticed for some time that there are many individuals in the paranormal community who throw out their opinion as if those opinions are inarguable truths.
So, at what point does the truth wander from the territory of unbiased fact into the realm of personal opinion?
To me, there are very few known facts about the paranormal. Yes, you can apply a scientific viewpoint to any phenomena experienced, but there is obviously a point when we begin to deal with unknown variables that, as of yet, have not been satisfactorily quantified.
That is when we begin to venture into shaky territory, and the truth reverts from that which we know into the realm of that which we have supposed in our own minds.
The problem in all this is when each separate viewpoint is pushed as fact. The victor of this battle of viewpoints touts what they consider as irrefutable evidence of their claims around as a badge.
It is very difficult to go into a situation with an unbiased and neutral stance. Our vision is more often than not colored by events that have happened in our life.
But to me, neutrality is key. Realizing that we don’t have all the answers and working together toward a common goal, the understanding of the paranormal, should be at the forefront of our minds, instead of the petty squabbling that oftentimes goes on in the paranormal community.
We need to put our personal agendas aside and together try to seek a better understanding. That way, we can share in the truth of whether an afterlife exists . . . or not.
We welcome your comments to this topic: Please visit our forum at http://www.paranormalunderground.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=427 and tell us what you think!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=44ce433b-5720-4ee1-b42e-374611980449)
Paranormal Underground Magazine, Edition May 2013 
Paranormal Underground Magazine, Edition Apr 2013 
Paranormal Underground Magazine, Edition Mar 2013 
It all stems from speculation and the inability for investigators to say, “That was weird, but I have no good explanation for it.” The paranormal community is riddled with assumptions, opinions, and beliefs. Because there is little fact, there is rivalry as groups try to push what they see as the truth. With facts, there is only one way to push it as long as you don’t twist the facts. When it comes to beliefs, assumptions, and opinions, those can be pushed many directions.
Remaining neutral is hard. Especially when groups contaminate investigators perception by telling them what is suppose to happen, or telling them any of the paranormal dogma. Many investigators do things like associate cold spots to spirits. So far, there’s no data to support that, and what’s worse is when they make that assumption based on personal experience and do not even verify a temperature drop with a thermometer.
That’s why I advocate science, and more stringent methods of collecting data. Data that is co-incidental is a dangerous thing as far as the truth is involved as well. It is yet another assumption until it can be repeated numerous times, with a good degree of successful positive results. Without using protocols that are setup in such a way as to discover the truth, the paranormal community will continue down the path it’s been on for more than 100 years, which is nowhere, and can be seen when looking back to find nothing has changed in over 100 years, except the tools. We know no more now than we did then.