The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 13:14 (5561 days ago) @ John Clinch

George and John have replied to my post on the paranormal. - I find very little to disagree with in George's post, and in particular I agree completely with his account of the causes of most dreams. There is one paragraph of false premises, however: - "The idea that there has to be a reason for having a dream, or that all dreams predict subsequent events or match reality in some way is a bias of those who favour the reality of paranormal occurrences." So far as I know, nobody on this site has mentioned any such idea. The little boy's dream was originally cited as one of four examples mentioned on this thread of unknowable information being imparted. It was not cited because it was a dream, or was representative of all dreams, or because the child was representative of all dreamers. - "Confirmational bias" is of course at the root of most prejudices, and is a neat way of summarizing most of John's argument against the paranormal. No-one can possibly doubt that it exists, or that it informs many (erroneous) judgements. This, however, is where both George and, particularly, John are indulging in a bit of mind-reading (we had this trouble before, John). The rest of my post is addressed to John, because with his polemic he produces a veritable welter of false assumptions, though they do admittedly make for lively discussion! - Firstly, you use the word "pseudoscience" so frequently that it clearly must mean something to you in this context, though I can't think what. I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that I have never at any time attempted to offer a scientific, let alone a pseudoscientific confirmation, justification or explanation of a phenomenon I find puzzling. But I will return to this theme. - Expressions like "True Believer", with the irony of the capital letters, also miss the point, as does the irony of "our minds are (oh, sorry, "might be") profoundly independent of our brains". You go on to present the True Believer scenario, which contains phrases like "would like to be the case", "socially reinforcing", "bolster our sense of security", "our fear of separation and death", "we latch onto any confirmatory study to support what, a priori, we would like to believe." This is certainly an accurate account of many beliefs, and in my view applies to a great deal of religious thinking. However, it has no place whatsoever in the current discussion. - Again I can only speak for myself. There is no question of my wanting to believe in the paranormal, I do not find it in any way a bolster to my sense of security, I see no social reinforcement in it, and I have ambivalent feelings about an afterlife (fear of separation and death). You have, as usual, adopted the black and white approach to the subject, on the assumption that nobody can possibly disagree with you unless they are plain stupid or determined to delude themselves because they have already reached the conclusion they want to reach. Let me invite you, as you invited me, to take a step back. (To be continued in Part Two)