The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 08:25 (5791 days ago) @ John Clinch

John Clinch writes: "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."
John goes on to explain his scepticism in relation to the paranormal, and has also given us Susan Blackmore's account of her conversion from enthusiastic researcher to sceptic. - Hi, John. Thank you for this very detailed reply. I'll leave Susan Blackmore to David, who has mentioned his review (I'd call it a demolition) of her Dying to Live in his book Science vs. Religion. I still wonder why you've chosen this subject, since you feel it's a blind alley, but you have, and I'm reluctant to let the argument rest with your dismissal of what you call "anecdotes". I will, of course, join you in disregarding cranks and frauds and sensationalists. However, in my first response to you, I specifically asked for your comments on those examples in which information was obtained that could not have been known beforehand. (David has picked up on this as well in his reply to you: "Information is gained that should not have been available.") This is the angle which I personally find intriguing, and which I feel you dismiss too lightly. - Firstly, "anecdotes". If three eyewitnesses identify X as the bank robber, I doubt if even the Counsel for Defence will object that they can't prove scientifically that X was there. With certain provisos, we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence in a court of law. There are countless "anecdotes" of NDEs and other experiences (e.g. the message given to BBella's niece and her sister-in-law ... see her post of 21.12 at 23.39) in which there are witnesses to corroborate the accuracy of the information relayed. Maybe some are fake, maybe some are delusional, but you are dismissing every single one of them. You write: "When you dig deeper the evidence evaporates..." Which cases have you dug deeper into? You are making an assumption that ... for instance ... David's medical colleagues, or BBella's niece and sister-in-law, are all liars or fools or self-deluders. Quite apart from the obvious rudeness of such an assumption ... though I'm sure you do not mean it that way ... wouldn't you say it smacks of prejudice? - But I think you are also missing out on a crucial area of this discussion. BBella herself has made it clear (also in her latest post) that she is not arguing for the supernatural. Nor are any of us. We are simply trying to find an explanation. The difference between you and me is that you dismiss the sources, whereas I am far more inclined to believe that there have been cases in which unknowable information has somehow been made available. Your search stops at: "why people need to believe this sort of thing". I would like to know what realities the human mind is capable of grasping. Do some people's faculties and senses extend beyond the range of what most of us consider to be "normal"? If so, what are the implications? I hope George won't mind if I quote one of his most memorable comments, in a different context, from a post on Atheism (21 August at 18.13): "What does it mean to talk about something "beyond the natural, physical world"? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical." If you are totally convinced that nobody has ever obtained information in the manner David and BBella have described, then let's end the discussion, but perhaps you might consider the possibility that some alleys may only seem blind because people keep their eyes closed.