Joe Nickell's Argumentative Essay

Paranormal activity has been a hot topic worldwide for decades. Horror movies, novels, and television shows have been based on myths, legends, and even stories that are claimed to be true. Since many choose to watch or read about ghosts, there is debate over the authenticity of the stories and the existence of apparitions altogether. Author Joe Nickell, a stage magician, private investigator, and journalist argues that his experience with apparitions proves that paranormal accounts are entirely false, specifically involving notoriously haunted hotels, inns, and other lodgings. He offers several premises to debunk the ghostly accounts of people worldwide, using quotes and analysis from a variety of researchers and also his own personal encounters.
Although the author presents multiple reasons and uses actual paranormal accounts, the article fails to conduct a sound argument with lack of variant premises, credibility issues, and several assumptions.
Primarily, author Joe Nickell fails to offer diverse premises to prove the falsity of apparitions, along with inefficiency to draw valid conclusions.
To begin his argument, Nickell (2009) defines a common type of hallucination that takes place in between the states of consciousness, known as a waking dream. During this type of hallucination, bright lights and unusual images can appear. Because of the nature of this type of hallucination, the author uses a real-life account of a paranormal experience that took place on a former ocean liner. The woman on the boat, A.C., recalls waking up in the middle of the night and seeing a figure dressed in all white leaving her room (J. Nickell, 2009). Nickell simply labels this as “an obvious waking dream” (2009). Since the author failed to offer anymore evidence to support this claim, the premise lacks validity, as this specific example of an apparitional event cannot be proven to be a waking dream. Nickell merely takes an arbitrary account and claims that it is false with lack of any evidentiary support. Similarly, in the next premise, Nickell presents the idea of daydreams. During a daydream, the recipient is triggered by a noise, smell, or other type of stimulus and a mental image is then formed (J. Nickell, 2009). Although waking dreams and daydreams differ slightly, they are still a common form of hallucination. The author then proceeded to use three different accounts at la Posada de Santa Fe, a New Mexico hotel. All three
sightings were from employees of the hotel, who witnessed the spirit of Julie Staab (Nickell, 2009). Because each spectator only saw the spirit momentarily, then vanish altogether, the author states that “Such reports suggest that the apparition is only a mental image that occurs in a kind of reverie” (J. Nickell, 2009). Again, the author draws the invalid conclusion that because the image only lasts for a brief moment, it must be a hallucination. Firstly, the author lacks solid and variant premises to initially establish his argument. Next, the supporting evidence is very similar, in which Nickell chooses random personal accounts to ridicule. To conclude these sections of the article, the author establishes a warrant that is based purely on the definition of each hallucination and a concise ghost story. He connects these two elements in a syllogism, stating that since these stories involve vivid images that last very shortly, they are indisputable cases of hallucination. The author’s lack of logos and differing premises at the start of his argument result in Nickell’s failure to establish a sound argument.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. While introducing the condition of a daydream, the author explains that “In certain especially imaginative individuals the mental image might be superimposed upon the visual scene, thus creating a seemingly apparitional event” (J. Nickell, 2009). If an imaginative person claims to have a paranormal experience, Nickell is concluding that the experience is most likely a daydream that was triggered by a subjective feeling. The author makes the assumption that those who have encountered apparitions that happen to have creative minds just witnessed a hallucination. The author attempts to make his audience jump at this idea. However, there are alternative explanations to these experiences. For example, these experiences could very well be true, considering they cannot be proven to be figments of the percipients’ imaginations. Another assumption the author makes is that the setting of hotels or inns creates a certain ambience that makes employees and guests more susceptible to having apparitional experiences. Nickell determines that “‘waking-dream’ encounters are obviously more likely to be experienced by hotel guests” while “the reverie or daydream type is often reported by [employees]” (2009). Not only is an assumption made, but the qualifying term “obviously” is used in this claim. Qualifiers serve to limit the claim, and in this case, this tends to weaken Nickell’s argument. The author chooses to make the claim that each of these paranormal events was unequivocally the result of a waking dream or daydream. Lessening the claim hinders the ethos of the author. His credibility is damaged because instead of considering the alternative situation, he instead tries to force the audience into believing that this possibility is impossible. The specific type of fallacy used in Nickell’s argument is a hasty generalization. He presents the descriptions for waking dreams and daydreams. Since the witnesses of the apparitional events were subject to the ambience of the lodging or a feeling of reverie or grogginess, they were very likely to experience apparitional events. This syllogism can be rebuked, considering many people are exposed to these types of stimulus every single day and do not report sightings of apparitions. Also, the aforementioned fact that these encounters cannot be falsified still remains. Instead of enhancing his argument, Nickell’s assumptions and failure to provide a fluent connection between daydreams and the existence of paranormal spirits creates fallacies in his work.
While the author’s argument lacks some variation and has issues with evidentiary support, Nickell does have some valid premises to offer. For example, his third and fourth premises propose that the mere suggestion of a hotel or inn being haunted could trigger guests and employees to think they encounter an apparition or believe that the establishment is haunted without personal cause (Nickell, 2009). When someone first witnesses a sight or sound in this environment, others that hear about these types of events pay more attention to those same details and expect to see the same conditions (Nickell, 2009). This is a strong point, however, Nickell still fails to present logos in his argument. He provides a quote from psychologist and “ghostbuster” Robert A. Baker who states, “We tend to see and hear those things we believe in” (2009). This specific quote is not directly related to any of the paranormal accounts explained in the paragraph. Also, stating that people see what they wish to see does not prove that these accounts can be falsified.
The strongest premise offered by the author involves the idea that notoriously haunted inns have better business and higher success than traditional hotel chains. Therefore, businesses will choose to promote paranormal activity, even though it does not exist. For example, “Stories of ghostly events on the Queen Mary [ocean liner] did not surface until after the ship became a tourist attraction in 1967” (Nickell, 2009). The author’s use of logos can link the popularity of the ocean liner to ghostly rumors that surfaced since it became an outlet to make a profit. Nickell also uses his own encounters with notoriously haunted lodging establishments to present his claims and establish ethos. Nickell (2009) recalls an overnight stay in a supposedly haunted hotel. While waiting in the lobby, the lights on the chandelier mysteriously flickered, but was then explained by the lobby clerk’s hand on the switch. Because the author provided a personal account in which an apparitional event was staged for the sake of a hotel’s reputation, the credibility of the author in the field of paranormal activity is established. The premise that suggests the successful business for haunted hotels and its influence on apparitional stories being staged can be supported.
While the author struggles to present sound premises and faulty logic, that is not to say the entire argument lacks a foundation. To strengthen his argument, Nickell should support his premises with research that strongly suggests that apparitions are nonexistent, or not likely to exist. Also, since his personal encounters establish ethos in his argument, he should base each premise on what he has experienced firsthand and use that to build his warrant and assumptions. In his current piece, the assumptions made fail to consider the other side of the argument and contain qualifiers. To gain trust from the audience and show that he is not entirely biased, suggesting the possibility that apparitions exist and eliminating qualifiers can restore his credibility. Although the argument contains several issues regarding variation and proper research, Nickell’s argument could be improved upon.
Overall, the author’s failure to establish a logical argument is based on lack of differing premises, faulty support, and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Nickell should reconstruct his argument in a way that presents both sides of the argument, present significant logic that fuels his claims, and make clearer assumptions without any qualifying statements that may throw his audience. With these specific elements, the author can work towards persuading readers to consider his side on the argument. If Nickell chooses to keep the argument as is, his poorly composed argument may sway readers away from his opinion and
writing.