The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by John Clicnh , Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 14:57 (5791 days ago) @ dhw

Hi dhw. - The scientific explanations are probably close to what George J has already detailed. - My broader point was simply that exploring the so-called paranormal is a complete blind alley and was a regrettable diversion from the really quite intelligent discussions we had on this website on agnosticism. - The so-called paranormal requires no explanation beyond the limited understanding required to explain why people feel the need to believe this sort of thing. I'm not a psychologist but I'll hazard that the causes of such beliefs are multi-factorial - possibly a desire for attention, maybe a fear of death, a certain weariness with the mundanity of the world as it seems to be, and certainly the seemingly eternal and immense appeal of magical thinking. And there are certain actual mental experiences (for example, hypnopompic hallucination when emerging from sleep) that account for some apparently inexplicable experiences. - When you think about it, it is odd to ask someone for a scientific explanation of something that is a direct outcome of pre-scientific thinking. The reality is that, if there was evidence - and I mean any good evidence at all - for ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance, ghosts and all the rest of it, the scientists would be over it like a rash. There must surely be a Nobel prize to the person who could demonstrate that that mind can exist and perform without being supported by a body in space and time. This astounding confirmation of radical mind-body dualism would make the individual instantly famous and probably rich. - The others are grasping at straws when they refer to particular studies or stories they have heard in support of this idea. If the studies were any good, you can bet there'd be a productive and potentially lucrative line of research for the determined scientist chasing what would be the greatest discovery in the history of psychology and brain sciences. Instead, there's next to nothing. - And, to repeat, an anecdote is not good evidence and its plural is not "data". Anecdotes may, in some cases, provide grounds to conduct research but no-one can accept them - not even in their thousands - as good evidence. Just before Zeppelins made their first appearance, there was a lot of coverage in the press. And there were thousands of sightings before the first one had even flown. Your asking me for a scientific explanation of BBella's stores is like me asking you for one of that. I'm afraid the explanation is very trite. When you dig deeper the evidence evaporates, leaving just suggestibility, confirmation and selection bias, reconstructed false memory, press sensationalism, a desire for attention and flattery and the appeal of a good story.