Mass Misinterpretation of the Paranormal

Whether or not one believes in the preternatural, the insistence of its reality is omnipresent and fundamental in the human experience in terms of culture, mythology, pseudohistories and pseudosciences, theology, philosophy, etc. Something innate in humanity apparently accepts mystery or wonder as some conditional aspect of the universe.

Supposing, if only for just a moment, that this is the case -- that supernaturalism is an existential integrant to any extent -- paranormal occurrences would have to be better categorized. Given that this obviously is not yet the case, the only way to be able to begin interacting with some supernatural claim with any respect to truth would be if it transcended hearsay, oral folklore, and urban legend. If the paranormal exists, in other words, phenomena labeled as such most likely suffer from mass misinterpretation of their origin and nature.

Let's say, for instance, both ghosts and telekinetic abilities exist. How could one necessarily differentiate between poltergeist activity and subconscious telekinesis? If an object is projected across the room without any apparent force to propel it, who's to say its cause is not attributable to a spirit, or psychokinetic powers, or even people from an alternate dimension bleeding into our own?

Without any immediate scientific or logical reason, the imagination runs rampant. This creates the potential for paranormal hypothesizing, which can be endless because there has yet to be any standardized methodology by which to define these things. So how, then, can we determine which is which? Is it ghosts, alternate dimensions, or superpowers? Or does this automatically nullify preternaturalism as a source for explanation? Or, even taking a step further, is the paranormal even meant to exceed myth into something more classifiable?

If one is open to the prospect of a supernatural occurrence, the most obvious and effective way to begin developing a methodology from personal experience with the paranormal would be to ask questions. Could I have ingested something hallucinogenic? Am I sleep-deprived? Am I taking any medications that could possibly cause a hallucination? Can I corroborate what I saw with other witnesses? If so, can I find evidence of any shared psychosis?

It is difficult to build any standards around this because with the supernatural comes unfalsifiable hypotheses and, according to some conspiracy theories, widespread cover-ups. So engaging with phenomena of this nature with a purely evidential or scientific approach is probably insufficient -- as is the essence of science. This mode of study deals with the observation of nature, after all, not supernature, which is definitionally beyond it.

So perhaps mitigated by a loose method of inquiry, the only way to accurately examine anything of the unobservable realm (scientifically speaking) is through reasoning. If, for instance, one believes in God or gods, then there must be at least one unseen dimension. In addition, if one believes in an immortal soul, then the existence of ghosts is entirely plausible. Or if the U.S. government has historically covered things up -- and they have (MKUltra, Operation Snow White, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, among others) -- in the interest of national security or other reasons, it isn't too tinfoil-hat-crazy to say they may be covering up aliens.

All this said, reasoning does not provide evidence, but merely the logical plausibility of the paranormal. Evidence itself may be what is meant to stay unrevealed. Maybe belief in the supernatural is meant to be just that -- believed, not known. And maybe this is a supernatural cause in and of itself. The paranormal remains paranormally unproven. Maybe more than science, more than reasoning, it takes faith.

Because again, what can you prove in the supernatural world?