BEYOND THE BLOG

I've moved to anthonynorth.com

  • Introduction

    I've now moved to a new website and blog. Click 'Anthony North', below.
  • Stats:

    • 711,475 hits
  • Meta

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Calendar

    May 2008
    M T W T F S S
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  

SCIENCE’S GREATEST FEAR

Posted by anthonynorth on May 28, 2008

The paranormal and science have an uneasy relationship. The occasional scientist is courageous enough to take the plunge into researching the paranormal, but in the main, the subject is anathema.
This has led to what could be called a ‘paranormal phobia’ amongst those who claim to be rational. The world is explained through individualism, atheism, materialism and specialization.

The paranormal doesn’t fit into any of these, so forget it.

And science does a marvelous job at doing so. Indeed, many scientists become evangelical in their manic need to show that they are right, and paranormalists – well, mad.
They’ve even recruited an army of groupies – non-scientific types who nonetheless have absolute belief in the wrongness of the paranormal. Forming sceptic societies the world over, they do a marvelous job of publicizing paranormalists, even being responsible for some careers.

This manic need is interesting.

They doth protest too much, me thinks. And when someone exhibits this kind of fundamentalist mentality, we really must ask if the reason is not ‘rationality’ based, but an exhibition of fear.
If we go into the history of science, it is clear that it grew out of mysticism and philosophy. Even just over 400 hundred years ago, many scientists were of a mystical bent. Think Keplar and Newton. Even in the 19th century, it was a monk – Mendel – who defined genetics.

But somewhere along the way, science crossed the line.

It divorced itself from mysticism, and the absolute idea of inquiry it entailed. This seriously reduced the things it could study – namely, the definite physical world, if such a thing actually exists.
At first, they could be comfortable with this, for society was still religious enough to allow science a repository for things they could not explain. Some things could still be the preserve of God.

But as God was banished from the universe, it had to change.

And the repository for awkward ‘bits’ was taken away. And once this occurred, science did something that was the exact opposite of the rational.
It created what I call ‘anti-superstition’. You can see it at work all the time in statements from scientists such as: ‘There is no evidence for this.’ Now, think about what is being said here.
The vast majority of people accept science as the last word on an issue. Science itself accepts the world works based upon their theorizing. But the above statement suggests that what ‘is’ is defined by what science can investigate and explain.
All else is non-existent. Thus, the world becomes not a reality, but an image created by the ‘thought-form’ which becomes scientific consensus. Only as a scientist sees a place for other things do those other things exist.
But the reality is, those things still existed. It is just that science was not yet up to the task of explaining them. Which leaves us existing in a world virtually ignored through science’s fear of non-explanation and superstition.
The paranormal is just one casualty of this mentality. Who knows what dangers may be creeping up on us through their fear.

© Anthony North, May 2008

68 Responses to “SCIENCE’S GREATEST FEAR”

  1. Brian said

    One thing about science is that the quest for knowledge has always been about rules. Yet as we all know, the deeper into quantum reality you get, the less rules there seem to be. Why can’t the paranormal actually be quantum characteristics?

    Take courage scientists and bring forth your inner alchemist.

  2. Hi Brian,
    Absolutely. Certainly, philosophically the paranormal is almost a perfect fit. It makes total sense.
    As for their inner alchemist, they all know him and go ‘ssshhh’.
    His name was Isaac Newton.

  3. Jim said

    Mr. North attacks science for the same reason creationists do, because science says some things about the world that he doesn’t want to believe. Despite what he says, the paranormal has been dispassionately and extensively vetted over a long period by scientists who have found no evidence supporting it. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, repeated failures to find something greatly decreases the probability that it exists (e.g., weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Scientists (I’m one) have to be skeptical to do their job. That doesn’t mean we are close-minded. I can guarantee you that if someone presented clear evidence of something paranormal the scientific community would accept it. However, we need a bit more than Mr. North’s wishful thinking. To say scientists fear the paranormal is ludicrous.

  4. john ryan said

    I think we become wise when we finally realize we can’t know everything. The “paranormal”, in whatever guise, may just be what we need to remind ourselves that science does not have all the answers. But an answer implies a question. Science has become politicized, and only by asking the right questions via the appropriate funding authority does any real science get done. If we can ever get politics out of science, then any research of the paranormal can move in from the backyard and into the lab.

  5. Jim your wrong you state:
    “been dispassionately and extensively vetted over a long period by scientists who have found no evidence supporting it.” This is just not true The engineers and scientist at Princeton have again and again proved something is happening with this. When they pointed out flawed analysis int debunking scientist papers they were ignored. If there anomalies were ever recorded in another type “normal” test they would have been given proper funding. It’s like saying well you have something but we won’t give you money to investigate further because it is not there.
    Joe Capp
    UFOMM

  6. Hi Jim,
    You say you’re a scientist. Well done, you! Now, if you don’t mind, I’ll call you Mr Jim. I’ll do this for a simple reason. You’re talking like a layman, not a scientist.
    Now, you’re accusing me of wishful thinking. If you’re being scientific, you’ll have researched my thoughts on this blog thoroughly. Have you? If you had you’d know I’m not into wishful thinking, and that many people class me as a bit of a sceptic myself.
    Why is this? Because I don’t accept classical explanations. I think there’s something more reasonable involved. As to what this is, Ive got theories of my own.
    Which brings me to your claim that the paranormal has been dipassionately and extensively vetted. Now, I take it you’ve personally been part of this. No? There’s Mr Jim again. Of course, I may be wrong and you have. That’s my open mind giving you the benefit of the doubt.
    But in making your statement, you’re forgetting a fundamental aspect of science. Data is only half of it. Science marries data with theory. So where’s the theories from scientists, Mr Jim? As one famous scientist said: ‘Without a theory, facts are a mob, not an army.’
    So where’s the theories, Mr Jim? Where’s the theories? Show me the theories that are essential to the scientific process – show me that some serious scientists have thought about it – and you may have some authority to say what you do.
    Where’s the theories that have been proposed, Mr Jim? Without them – without an attempt to rationally analyse the subject – your claims about science are so much hot air.

    Hi John,
    Absolutely right. There are, infact, very few scientists in the history of science. True scientists are rebels, pushing the paradigm. What we class as scientists today are ‘yes men’, married to a consensus.

    Hi Joe,
    I’m with you there. Well said.

  7. Jones said

    i don’t think that Scientists do ‘lash out’ at the paranormal or supernatural. Science is a study of natural phenomena and doesn’t have the methodology to study that which claims to be beyond nature. If there is scientific proof for ghosts and such then the science of it will stand on it’s own. despite what one poster stated here, the vast majority of scientists are not rebels. That is a romantic notion.

    I have a good friend who is an immunologist. She believes in ghosts and precognition. However she admits that there is no science behind these things. As she states science provides tools to study observable and measurable phenomena some things don’t lend themselves to scientific study.This doesn’t exclude the existence of things beyond the scope of science, but science isn’t against the supernatural any more than accounts are against plumbers.

  8. Hi Jones,
    I wish what you say could be true, but from 25 years research, i n my experience scientists either speak out against the paranormal, or keep quiet. One is anti-scientific, the other bowing to the consensus.
    Paranormal actually means ‘beyond normal’, not beyond ‘nature’. An important difference.
    It is true that most scientists are not rebels, which is my point. As I see it, the vast majority of today’s science relies on funding that lies within a consensus, or is simply validation of existing science.
    I’m not sure that is truly scientific. More managerial.

  9. john ryan said

    Hi Jim– I have the utmost respect for anyone involved at an academic level with science. You say a scientist has to be skeptical to do his or her job; I wonder why society has become skeptical of science. But then I suppose the answer is this: it’s not taught very well at the grade-school level, at least here in the States. We (society) have become ignorant due to the lack of emphasis that this field of study deserves, either from a historical/philosophical basis or actual experimentation and fieldwork. So when something “scientific” comes to the public domain, it has often been vetted by the main stream media so as to reinforce the cultural iconography that exists at the time. All we need to do is to look at the global warming debate to see how politics can influence science which may result in dire social and economic consequences. There are, to be sure, scientists who remain “skeptical” over man-made global warming (now called Climate Change, which in itself is interesting), but the skeptics, the rebels, can’t push the paradigm, to paraphrase Mr. North. It’s the guys who do their research in their garage or cellars who more often than not are the scientists, in the classical sense, for today.

  10. There is more than meets the eye to Mr. Tony. He has an ability to get to the bottom of a subject by picking it up and turning it round and round. Then he smacks it with a hammer. 😉

  11. Tim said

    The fact is, if you limit your inquiries to the mainstream journals and the skeptical literature, you will buy into the pseudoskeptical rubric that there is no good evidence for psi or the paranormal. The a priori bias of the mainstream scientific community precludes that they will take paranormal research seriously.

    The result is a circular reasoning trap: because most scientists fear or irrationally disbelieve in psi (at least publicly), they will not accept research results for peer review. Thus, most skeptical scientists have no access to the research as they assume their colleagues would publish it if it were valid. Thus they have no reason to check out the non-mainstream journals and publications, which show a vast body of evidence and exceptionally well-designed experimentation. Ignorant, they spread the “there’s no evidence” meme wider, influencing more peer reviewers. The result is a self-reinforcing thought bubble that’s further reinforced by confirmation bias, the need to be “right.”

    I suggest that Jim or anyone on the fence do what I did back in my days as a dogmatically skeptical investigative journalist: read the research by rigorous researchers like Dr. Dean Radin, who is what I consider (as Tony is) a truly demanding, “show me the evidence” but open-minded skeptic. It’s very convincing, and it blows massive holes in the lie that there is “no good evidence for the paranormal.”

  12. James Webb said

    One thing that i often find annoying about these science vs paranormal arguments is the denigration that people give science as though it is a belief. Science is formost a method; observation, hypothesis, and testing. However these arguments always turn to a personal assault creating a “them and us” mentality. Science is a process, a method, not a belief, and anyone who aplies this process is a scientist. As such both “them” and “us” should use scientific method. If such hypotheses stand up to rigorous testing, and provide a predictable outcome, then they become accepted as an apparent rule until we can disprove it and come up with a better explination.

    At the end of the day, if you cannot test it, then there is no point in arguing about it because it cannot be proven right or wrong. As such it is a personal belief and each person should be allowed to air their own view for discussion, but not be ridiculed for purely subjective reasons, that’s being a dickhead.

  13. Good morning John,
    A well balanced assessment there.

    Hi Goesdownbitter,
    Well, I’ve never had my methodology described like that before, but I like it 🙂

    Hi Tim,
    I couldn’t have put it better myself. The evidence IS out there.

    Hi James,
    I can only speak for myself here, but as this thread shows, time after time I put out reasonable posts, only to be then insulted by a ‘science’ type. I then respond in kind, though with a touch of humour, and then someone else comes along to say the personal attacks are what spoils it.
    But always begun by those ‘for’ science. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

  14. Linda Gerber said

    I’ve enjoyed your entries on this site that I have read over time. As a nonscientist (but a logical & sceptical thinker) I agree with your premises. Theory is just that & over the ages most scientific theories evolve &/or are replaced.
    For the general public, I think the biggest problem is that while in school, science is taught as fact– not as the most current understanding of the physical world. As a result minds become closed & theories accepted as fact/dogma.
    The scientific theory which currently bothers me most is the “big bang” theory. It contains so many unknowns & assumptions I am surprised it is called a theory- it is at best, in my humble opinion, a proposition.
    Have you written on the big bang theory? I would really enjoy reading your perspective on it.

  15. Hi Linda,
    Thanks for that comment, and I’m pleased to know you’ve enjoyed my work in the past. I always like feedback. And you’re quite right in what you say.
    As for Big Bang, happy to oblige:

    A Black Hole In Big Bang

  16. bluewaveted said

    Personally. I believe that the paranormal and the scientific can hold hands. Someday.

  17. George Botha said

    I am a scientist and I know that both the normal and paranormal exists. However, I regard these opposing terms as unfortunate. The more essential difference for me is between predictable and unpredictable events, as James Webb suggests. As far as forms of existence are concerned, I distinguish between fourdimensional (material) and non-fourdimensional (spiritual) existence, which means that both exist within the total spacetime continuum.

    About non-spacetime existence I know absolutely nothing, and find it hard to contemplate. I personally believe that the big bang never happened, that the expansion we observe is a localized phenomenon in a universe which is infinite in both space and time (since always till forever). This is simultaneously linear and cyclical, although the latter conclusion is not immediately obvious, which is often the case when dealing with infinity.

  18. Thomas M. Barnes said

    Actually…one can be both rational and irrational at the same time. Look at the scientist who at 65 years old marries the dancer from the local strip club. Look at Oppenheimer…a solid scientist and a student of Sanskrit scripture with a poet’s heart. Look at Michelangelo, DaVinci, and all the medieval artist/scholar/engineer types. A scientist is SUPPOSED to stay in the rational at all times. A poet is SUPPOSED to see the unseeable. Neither is completely correct in his paradigms, neither is completely wrong. Scientists have families, fall in and out of love, die, get depressed, divorced and some go to church or temple. They have an irrational side to them because they are human and we all need that side to make us complete. Their JOB is to be a walking question mark. That is why we have hard science. The event can either be replicated or it cannot. It can be observed and measured or it cannot. I like scientists. But I am smart enough and know enough of them personally to realize that they have a corner on ONE SIDE of the human experience, not all sides.

  19. Hi Bluewaveted,
    Absolutely. I’m ready now.

    Hi George,
    I’d put it more as the normal and mis-understood. We’re too captivated by classical explanations of the paranormal and ideas of a supernatural. I think what we class as paranormal is just the extreme, and coming together, of the normal, causing a kind of emergence that becomes more than the sum of its parts.
    This is a very basic explanation. I think I’ll try to put my thoughts in better form in my next unexplained post this Sunday.

    Hi Thomas,
    I cannot disagree with any of that. But I do feel that many scientists try too hard to be in the material, maybe out of fear of seeming irrational. Which suggest there may be a severe problem with the system.

  20. George Botha said

    Hi Anthony
    I think you phrased exactly what I was trying to say. The two different sides of the same coin. From personal experience and the experiences of others, I don’t see any need for doubt. From a philosophical perspective, it balances all equations perfectly. I understand the difficulties of conformation for economic reasons experienced by scientists on a professional level. I have much regard for Thomas M. Barnes’s comment. I think what we need to get back on track is just a relatively minor but important change in the way we describe things we think about.

  21. Hi George,
    As I see it, the thinking world today is only specialised. Now, this gives us great benefits, but it is not all there is. I think the secret is to ‘adjust’ the way we grasp knowledge without changing specialisation per se, but adding to it.
    This forms the centre of my writing. But how to achieve it? Well, on my About page I explain my methodology. I’ll repeat it here, and you may understand where I’m coming from:

    ‘At the centre of my work is a discipline I call P-ology, or Patternology. The world is full of specializations, but could vital knowledge be lost in the gaps between them? Patternology is a holistic train of thought that looks at the specializations in their entirety, searching for patterns that the specialist may have missed.
    ‘Patternology can be seen as a bedfellow to specialization, keeping an eye on the specialist as well as the world. It can never offer truth, but patterns for the specialist to consider, placing them in a holistic jig saw that constantly remodels the picture.’

    The paranormal is, I think, the front line of this approach. Which is why I write about it so much.

  22. George Botha said

    Spot on. If the combined intellect of the world is a brain function, then your mission is a very important part of that brain.

  23. Ruddee said

    Here, here!, Anthony. I believe early and even ancient scientists used a lot of imagination in there quests for knowledge. Today we have reached advancements in many disciplines that it would appear there is no more need for this imagination that led early scientists to there discoveries.

    Thank goodness for philosophical science. For it is there that imagination is still running wild.

  24. Hi George,
    Thanks for that. And I look forward to the day when science, in general, can accept the need for such an approach. Especially as I don’t see that it is a threat – merely an addition.

    Hi Ruddee,
    Very true. I suppose there is a sense of complacency in science at the moment. There was a similar attitude in the late 19th century – just before quantum and relativity theory appeared on the scene.

  25. George Botha said

    thanx Anthony.

    I agree with Ruddee. I understand that the world in the past 200 odd years have developed technology, which is an offshoot from science, and that this has dramatically changed the world and the woldview, and that therefore we have to be exceptionally cautious on the philosophical watchfront. I know that most scientists don’t need to realize this because they are specialists. The survival of the species (all species on the planet), however, needs frontrunners to look into the future.

  26. Hi George,
    Absolutely. We also need to understand something about those frontrunners. Some times – maybe a lot of the time – they will get it wrong. In this sense, we need to move away from the in vogue idea that a single failure devalues the source. This, I’m sure, puts off a lot of theorists from openly saying what they think. One saying I use now and again is this: A brilliant idea crawls out of the corpses of a hundred failures.
    The power of ridicule can silence many a brilliant mind.

  27. George Botha said

    Hi Anthony

    I would like to communicate with you some more after your Sunday post.

  28. Hi George,
    Certainly. If you wish to do so privately you’ll find my email on the About page, top left of this site.

  29. George Botha said

    Anthony

    We need to make a plan. But more about this later.

    Regards
    George

  30. […] SCIENCE’S GREATEST FEAR « BEYOND THE BLOG The paranormal and science have an uneasy relationship. The occasional scientist is ourageous enough to take the plunge into researching the paranormal, but in the main, the subject is anathema. (tags: science parapsychology myths) […]

  31. Tim said

    @ George and others…

    I think one of the greatest obstacles in all this normal/paranormal, natural/supernatural dustup is the limiting, biasing nature of the blasted TERMINOLOGY we use. I can’t imagine too many more loaded words to the empirical, trained scientific mind than “God,” “supernatural,” “paranormal” and “spiritual.” They vibrate with the dread idea that the pseudoskeptics like to propagate, that a serious pursuit of psi or survival is but one step down a slippery slope back to the Dark Ages, witch burning, and huddling in our huts when the thunder claps for fear one of the gods is in a bad mood.

    I think it would do the entire field vast amounts of good if we could develop new ways of talking about anomalous phenomena. “Psi” is a good example. But when we talk about “paranormal” and “supernatural” we’re creating a false dichotomy that is simply untenable to some people. I personally don’t believe in anything “supernatural”; either it’s a poorly understood aspect of the natural world and matter and energy or it doesn’t exist. I think if we could eliminate words that reek of mysticism and New Age credulity, we could make greater inroads with people on the fence.

  32. Hi Tim,
    This is true. I dumped ‘supernatural’ long ago. Paranormal is actually a good word, but loaded with insinuation. Psi would have been alright, but it gained a snobby meaning, and turns off those who experience things.
    I view the subject as the ‘extremes of normality’, and tried to find a new word such as ‘extrenormal’, but its too clumsy. Maybe we need to redefine words like God and ‘spiritual’, etc.
    To me there is a higher force at work. In one sense, it is culture, a higher, defining force (I have a quick analysis in the Intro on my RELIGION page, top of site). Spirituality, I see as ‘bonding’, man to man, society, nature, the universe. In other words, I see it as the opposite of individuality, specialisation, materialism, etc.
    Attempting to put the rational upon what people think is the irrational is the way forward, I’m sure.

  33. Bill Missett said

    Science has refused to honestly examine “paranormal” phenomena because of the Roman Catholic Church’s 2,000-year persecution of science and scientists, as fully historically documented in the book “Awakening The Soul: Book 2: Our Suppressed Spiritual Nature,” which explains how the Church controlled access to spiritual consciousness. There is no mystery about this — it was fear-based because of the Church’s hatred and control of science.

  34. Hi Bill,
    I don’t dispute what you say about the Church here, but I’m not sure that’s still a reason for Science’s refusal to study the paranormal.

  35. Becky S said

    Hi,

    I’m not a scientist. I’d like to be but life conspired against me (a long story that’s completely beside the point). I’m also somewhat unusual because I’m the only person I know who – as a teenager – expressed the desire to be a parapsychologist. I’d still like to be involved in investigating the paranormal, and I’m certainly not a sceptic. I just don’t have the qualifications to be taken seriously.

    Interestingly, however, the evidence does not support your point. Rather it suggests that the extreme skeptics are a very vocal minority. Even as skeptical a source as the Skeptics dictionary’s entry on parapsychology states the following…

    “Despite the fact that psychologists have been in the forefront of paranormal studies, a study of 1,100 college professors in the United States found that only 34% of psychologists believe that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. Comparable figures for other disciplines are much higher: natural scientists (55%), social scientists [excluding psychologists] (66%) and for academics in the arts, humanities, and education (77%). Of the psychologists surveyed, 34% believe psi is an impossibility, while only 2% of the other respondents maintained this position (Wagner and Monnet 1979).”

    This is especially fascinating because this paragraph just sits there in the midst of the article. The rest of it it is a diatribe about parapsychology’s lack of rigor. Are they suggesting 55% of natural scientists are idiots who can’t judge the evidence for themselves? (Yes I know the paper quoted was from 1979 but I’m sure there was a similar paper in the early 1990s that had comparable results – however I can’t find the reference so my memory might be failing).

    Hope I didn’t bore you with my ramble,
    Becky

  36. Hi Becky,
    Thanks for that. One point of interest. There does seem a higher acceptance of the paranormal in surveys among scientists if the answers are anonymous.
    This says something important about the ‘free’ culture of science, I think.

  37. Ed Darrell said

    Are you trying to suggest there are fruitful areas of inquiry in the paranormal? Which of these areas are not being investigated by scientists today?

  38. Hi Ed,
    Not falling for that one. In the past, a fine tradition was set up by the likes of Barratt, Crookes, Wallace, and James in the USA, furthered by Rhine. This has led to a handful of Parapsychology departments and institutes.
    There are some brave scientists such as Jahn and Sheldrake. As for the departments some are funded by military ‘cos the other side has them, then there’s the private bequests such as Koestler, and most of the rest are staffed by avowed sceptics.
    When real research is done, the past 70 years has shown a consistent above chance result for anomalies suggestive of both ESP and PK. In any other area such results would have brought research grants in the millions, not to mention major, and publicised, essays in the major journals.
    But I’m not saying there isn’t a modicum of scientific data collection. I’m saying that only half of the scientific method is done, in that theorising seems to be totally absent. And where can you go without that from scientists? Sounds like a stitch up to me.
    Of course, you will have read me saying this in cmt #6 above. After all, you will have read all the comments to make sure your research is fully done as a science type, and not just come here to try to put my argument down.

  39. Sharon said

    Just checking this post out now, there are lots of good comments. But, I tend to disagree on the original post.

    This is one of those arguments that will never be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides because each states something the other thinks is untrue. Many problems arise because we can’t agree on definitions, as Tim says.

    I think its very odd that paranormalists/anomalists/Forteans desperately want to appear scientific, put on all the trappings of science, and yet do investigation and experimentation very incorrectly. At the same time, they criticize the scientific community as being too close-minded or wrapped up in rules. They want in the party but don’t want to follow the dress code, so to speak. So they ridicule and set up straw men, etc. (In fairness, the pedigreed science speakers do the same to the other side.)

    Scientists come in many personalities. There are too many who will rebuff things on the fringe. However, there are many, perhaps the majority, who are truly interested in mysteries and questions. After a certain point, one must stop the studying and make a conclusion. I have looked at pros and cons for many issues and have made a tentative conclusion and have gone on with life based on those conclusions. I still listen when the discussion of some new evidence comes along. Concerning the paranormal, almost always, it’s really poor quality and can’t be confirmed or reproduced. I’m ready to change my mind but if it requires rewriting the established laws of the universe, call me skeptical.

    It doesn’t mean much to say you are a scientist or not. We’ve all met good scientists, fantastic amateurs and really wacky PhDs. Titles don’t matter.

    To build on what Tim has said, I am of the opinion that there is a middle ground. I am not convinced that ghosts are genuine phenomenon – certainly not evidence for life after death, for example, but there is SOMETHING that we label as a ghost experience and it has some explanation. Perhaps it’s an internal rather than external one. I’m sure it’s far more complicated that the black and white portrayed by opposite sides. I’m not closed to looking at it. I’m just not going to buy at face value every ghost story I hear. There is a HUGE cultural influence involved.

  40. Ed Darrell said

    Anthony,

    I think you’re confusing “theory” with “hypothesis.” Theory develops only after several — sometimes hundreds — of hypotheses have been tested and found to be enduring. The theory explains why all the data fit in that one pattern, and the theory is then what makes the textbooks. I gather you’re using a colloquial version of the word “theorizing,” asking about where is the research in the paranormal.

    Why research something that doesn’t seem promising? What phenomenon do you claim could produce good results, or is in some way testable, that isn’t being tested or hasn’t been tested?

    The lack of scientific work on paranormal may be simply because there is no work to do.

  41. Hi Sharon,
    I agree with a lot of what you say here. I’d class myself as belonging to the middle ground. I don’t accept ‘supernatural’ tags simply because there’s nothing else to say about it. As for cultural input, quite right. I personally think an answer to ‘paranormal’ will come from a combination of mind, culture, social and environmental interaction.
    Do researchers try to be ‘scientific’ whilst doing it incorrectly? That sounds like the kind of generalisation you say we shouldn’t place on science.

    Hi Ed,
    No, I mean theories. Science should have moved way past hypotheses decades ago. You use the term ‘may be’. May be? MAY BE!!!?
    You don’t know? We’re still at that stage of questioning without finding out?
    Good grief.

  42. Ed Darrell said

    You’re right, I was too scientifically conservative.

    The lack of scientific work on paranormal stuff is because paranormal has been largely disproven. There are no active paranormal hypotheses held by any rational people that lend themselves to testing.

  43. Hi Ed,

    ‘…paranormal has been largely disproven…’

    I look forward to the links showing the rigorous scientific work, theorising and experimentation that leads you to this conclusion.

    ‘There are no active paranormal hypotheses held by any rational people that lend themselves to testing.’

    Disagree and you must be mad?
    Oh dear.

  44. Ed Darrell said

    Anthony, you miss the point completely – another demonstration of the lack of paranormal activity.

    What paranormal hypothesis is it you think has not been largely disproven? You ask me to give you literally the entirety of scientific literature. I keep asking for a concrete claim from you, and you offer none.

    What more evidence do we need? If you can’t find even one question worth pursuing, what’s the point?

    Given a chance to prove me incorrect, to cite even one paranormal hypothesis that is not disproven, you can’t find even one?

    Res ipsa loquitur.

  45. Sharon said

    “Do researchers try to be ’scientific’ whilst doing it incorrectly?

    Yes. Lots of equipment that measures a property but not an entity; where there is no link between what they measure and any unexplained activity. Few if any controls yet they want to use the data they have collected. Perhaps they only come off as scientific in their own minds and to other interested observers. It looks ridiculous to those who use these technologies or do investigations for a living. They attempt to raise the sophistication but they have not succeeded in gaining a substantial body of evidence even with all the technology that is now so easy to obtain.

  46. Good morning Ed,
    You miss the point completely. You ask:

    ‘What paranormal hypothesis is it you think has not been largely disproven?’

    This is my point. There haven’t been any accredited hypotheses from mainstream science. Whenever a scientist has the guts to offer one, they are immediately marginalised. Hence, it is impossible for me to offer an accredited hypothesis from science because science makes sure there are none.
    Now, millions of people around the world have experiences that remain unexplained. This simple fact should be enough for science to commit massive resources to it. Instead, it is left to non-scientists such as myself to offer hypotheses. But, of course, you say:

    ‘If you can’t find even one question worth pursuing, what’s the point?’

    Total lack of research from you, again, Ed. Here’s some from me from only the past couple of weeks:

    How To Explain Psychic Syndrome

    What Survives Death?

    The Mystical Seven

    Do such questions hold importance? After all, if you deem to think there’s something worthwhile in these, you’ll ask: ‘But what can it do of a practical use?’ Well, apart from easing the minds of millions of experiencers, it can tell us something about ourselves, and where we’re making errors. Here’s some hypotheses from me on this from just the last couple of weeks:

    The Forever Gods

    A Universal Artist

    Over to you.

    Hi Sharon,
    Again I say, you cannot have the ‘science’ until there are theories to test the data against. Let the theories arise, and then we’ll have a paradigm to work with.

  47. Ed Darrell said

    There haven’t been any accredited hypotheses from mainstream science.

    And yet, cruising through your past posts I see a lot of mainstream science research riffs — I hesitate to call them references because you don’t identify the researchers nor any source. In “How to explain psychic syndrome” you carom off of several areas of biology research, into multiple personalities (a good area for woo if ever there was one, and yet one in which there is a lot of mainstream science research), right brain/left brain/split brain phenomena, which is almost entirely mainstream science research where there are any results at all (as a result of research into severing the corpus callosum). So, on the one hand you’re claiming mainstream science is inactive; on the other hand (sleight of hand?), you rely heavily on the findings of mainstream science in the precise areas you now claim it isn’t active.

    In “What survives death?” you again riff through a lot of work where mainstream science has gone before, without giving science credit. You assert, without any hint of evidence, that mainstream science is not researching the area. I’m not missing the point at all — you’re making wild, unevidenced claims.

    You’re being vague. What hypotheses do you claim mainstream science is overlooking? You can’t name any.

    Science is everybody’s job. Scientists have already covered most of the areas you claim they have ignored. The findings weren’t to your liking, I gather. That’s not reason to denigrate the scientists and their good work.

    Don’t blame the scientists whose work you ignore. If God’s creation doesn’t work as you wish it would, it’s not the fault of the scientist who studies it. Especially it’s not the fault of the scientist who studied it and found results contrary to your wishes.

  48. Hi Ed,
    Am I missing something here? Let’s look at that line of yours again:

    ‘What paranormal hypothesis is it you think has not been largely disproven?’

    See that word, Ed – paranormal? None of the research I mention was done in terms of the paranormal. The fact that it can be applied to the paranormal is a totally different thing. And the fact that it can be applied to the paranormal is further indication of science’s total closed-mindedness regarding the subject, not even prepared to accept their own hpyotheses when thus applied.
    As I see it, you’ve just stood on your head. Get back on your feet, Ed. All that blood rushing where it shouldn’t is bad for you.
    Now I’ll repeat the other bit:

    ‘If you can’t find even one question worth pursuing, what’s the point?’

    I’ve provided questions and hypotheses, Ed. You may not like them, fair enough. But I’ve asked them. Now disprove them.

  49. Ed Darrell said

    ‘If you can’t find even one question worth pursuing, what’s the point?’

    I’ve provided questions and hypotheses, Ed. You may not like them, fair enough. But I’ve asked them. Now disprove them.

    Well, here’s the misunderstanding part: I’ve asked you to list these questions and hypotheses of yours three times now. First you said they should be obvious, and then you said that scientists in the mainstream should be creating them. Now you say you’ve already listed them.

    Where? Can you list them again?

  50. Hi Ed,
    Tell me something, honestly. Did you actually READ those links I gave you, or did you just give them a quick scan, pick up some pretty words and think job done?
    You’re totally redefining ‘woo’.

  51. Ed Darrell said

    We clearly have different ideas for what a hypothesis or good, researchable question looks like. Yes, I read the links. Did I miss the qustions?

    Damn, man, can’t you answer a straight question? Can you list your questions or not? If you don’t know what it is you want to ask, how can you expect scientists to divine what you want?

  52. wordsseldomsaid said

    they could study him…(big smile)…

    and start with assumptions…

  53. Good morning Ed,
    I’m not playing your game. I’ve been around too long for these cheap tricks. No proposition, hypothesis or theory is ever presented as a quick question, as you well know – and for obvious reasons.
    I’ve linked to some of my hypotheses. They’re perfectly clear. At this moment, you’ve left any scientific credibility behind, and fast approaching the level of a hack.
    All perfectly predictable. It’s happened time and time before, like the repeatable experiment.

  54. Ed Darrell said

    Einstein presented a half dozen quick questions in each of his 1905 papers. Darwin did it. Newton did it.

    I think I’m beginning to understand why scientists aren’t asking the questions you want. Vagueness doesn’t lend itself to research. Mumbling doesn’t count as declamation. If you can’t tell anyone clearly what is the question you wish to have answered, no one is going to knock themselves out trying to find it for you.

    If you ever come up with a question that science is ignoring, send me a letter.

  55. Brian said

    I have a question Ed. Actually two. How is it possible for me to have five other people living inside my mind?

    The second question is Rose’s. Do multiple personalities have souls?

  56. Hi Ed,
    Well, there’s a sense of finality to that. I do hope so, because as you know very well, all those quick questions were presented in much longer form than the posts I linked to.
    So, you’ve ignored my questions, you’ve ignored the scores of repeatable tests done, and you’ve ignored the millions of repeatable experiences still unexplained. It appears to me a large degree of reality has escaped with the bathwater, here.
    But I’d like to thank you so much for supporting my hypothesis above with every word you typed.

  57. I love the second pic you used in your essay, with the scientist admiring the telescope in an almost fetishistic kind of way 😉

  58. … and dreaming of planet Viagra … 🙂

  59. Reaper said

    Am I missing something here…. surely to prove something in the paranormal field is to remove it from that field and put it into the science category.

    Once a paranormal theory has been proven it ceases to be outside the bounds of our knowledge and becomes real science.

    So paranormal is A) something we can’t prove or B) something we can’t yet measure.

  60. Hi Reaper,
    Or C) something science refuses to study adequately, thus precluding the ability to prove or measure.
    Which is exactly my point.

  61. Jackie said

    I would like to comment that—in my mind—there is no difference between the “paranormal” and “science”.

    The scientific method explains things based on evidence, and theorizes based on educated guesses. This method has been developed over the ages; from the crude methods in the stone-age, to the methods that take place in laboratories today.

    Just to be correct, (because the term “Scientific Method” didn’t really exist in the stone age) I will call it: “Finding the most probable explanation for things based on what is assumed to be fact”… Or I guess I could call this “Coming up with theories.”

    Humans have always tried to find the most probable explanation for things based on what is assumed to be fact, because that is how the human brain works; It asks questions, and analyses knows and unknowns, and chooses the best option… It is essential to our survival.

    Anyways…At some place at some point in the past, It was probably assumed that the sun was some sun-god, because… well… that was the best explanation they had. Hey… that sounds familiar… I think most of us assume that because we can’t understand why the universe exists, it must be God, or the Big-Bang, or… something… and even though the big bang is a “shot in the dark” theory (haha) it is widely accepted to be true. Just like it was widely accepted that the world was flat, or humpback whales were sea monsters, or “people with big feet have big meat”…Theory or fact… they’re all an approximations of the “best” answer based on the nature/accuracy of the knowledge society had at the time.

    So basically… anything paranormal, is unknown, and trust me, science is trying to explain everything that is unknown. Even ghosties and beasties and demons! The problem with these is, the evidence is very weak, and the whole concept of something like a ghost or a monster existing is based on society’s past childish imagination. When I see these ghost hunters with their electrowhatever instruments and their “eerie feelings”… I can’t help but laugh. Any little electric current could make those meters go wonky… and of course you’re going to feel creeped out in a decrepit old house. Lets face it, this is not serious study of the subject. A new ghost theory would be needed for scientists to take it seriously. Hey maybe quantum science will explain it anyway! Who knows?!

    And why do people need these supernatural/paranormal fantasies anyway… I think we, as a species (at least on this planet), are pretty damn paranormal/supernatural! We can Fly, talk through the air, share information globally, cut people open and replace their organs, clone things, enter space, blow things up, have sex in many different positions… We’re magical… seriously! Think about it! We just take it all for granted. And it gets better… we are probably a young species… we have more to learn… we will become more magical over time… as we understand things more clearly…

  62. Hi Jackie,
    A lot of commonsense in this, but then you throw it all away by using the ‘show biz’ element of paranormal ‘study’ to decry it. You’re quite right, theories ARE required by scientists to seriously rationalise the paranormal.
    I’m waiting …
    … and waiting …
    … and …

  63. Ryan Cowling said

    “They doth protest too much, me thinks. And when someone exhibits this kind of fundamentalist mentality, we really must ask if the reason is not ‘rationality’ based, but an exhibition of fear”

    You have to have some sympathy for hypersceptics. What they fear is attitudes like George Bush’s anti rational blocking of funding for stem cell research. They fear the religious extremists that want a vengeful theocratic government and the ultrapious that let their own children die because prayer is better than medical attention. So they do have something real to fear for, though Bush is out and state stem cell research funding and some rationality is back in. But that hyperscepticality tends to harden into armour so restrictive that it can’t open up to the posssibilities that the universe is weirder than we can imagine, and that some of that weirdness is probably out there under the label of paranormal events. Good science should be about asking questions, not wearing blinkers.

  64. Hi Ryan,
    A good point, but in view of this comment thread, you can see the problem clearly. When you’re on the receiving end, it is not always easy to feel sympathy.
    Another point is my idea that extremes feed upon each other, causing opposing views to become more and more entrenched. So could this ‘fear’ be helping to feed the problems you raise?

  65. Ryan Cowling said

    “A good point, but in view of this comment thread, you can see the problem clearly. When you’re on the receiving end, it is not always easy to feel sympathy.”

    I don’t expect you, Mr N, to feel any sympathy for someone who posts offensive attacks on your website. I have some sympathy for hypersceptics, because some of their fears are real. I also feel sympathy for the fact that these people have let a healthy scepticism turn into perceptual blinkers that erodes their rationality as surely as religious extremism.

    “Another point is my idea that extremes feed upon each other, causing opposing views to become more and more entrenched. So could this ‘fear’ be helping to feed the problems you raise?”

    All the more reason why people who want to forge a path between these two extremes can come together in dialogue. We need sites like this one, where we can examine various viewpoints and not let our fears overwhelm us to the point of dangerously warrping our perceptions.

  66. Chris said

    Hi Anthony,
    Will you please excuse me for this, please?

    Ryan, Anthony has his own difficulties to deal with at the moment, can you please deal with yours?

  67. Hi Ryan,
    And it is my wish that sites such as this can become cross-overs for such exchanges. It is vital that debate between stances continues in this way.

    Hi Chris,
    What’s going on here? You know very well I don’t put up with such attacks. I know you’re only doing it to protect me, but this is not the way. And in Ryan’s case, you’re wrong, anyway.
    Please stop. This isn’t you.

  68. Ryan Cow said

    “Ryan, Anthony has his own difficulties to deal with at the moment, can you please deal with yours?”

    Chris, for some reason you have a problem with me posting on this site. If something I have written offends you, then you have my sincerest apology. Your cryptic utterances aren’t the most lucid of communications. Please, can we talk about this in an amicable way? Can you please tell me what problem you have with my dialogue with Mr N? Lets have this out in the open where all can see it, and then we can get this misunderstanding cleared up.

Leave a comment