The Paranormal (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 13:57 (5762 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George has kindly written a point by point reply to my post of 10 February. - I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in elucidating your position, and will try to respond with equal thoroughness. First, let me clear up an important misunderstanding. - You have explained why you do not believe in the paranormal ("the poor anecdotal evidence presented so far is quite inadequate"). I am not asking you to believe in the paranormal. I do not believe in it myself. Nor do I have what you call a "wish for there to be a paranormal reality". I am interested above all in cases in which unknowable information has been imparted ... e.g. those reported by David Turell, Pim van Lommel, BBella and my wife, whom I do not regard as fools, self-deceivers or frauds. Until someone comes up with a convincing explanation for the communication of this unknowable information (there are many such cases, and not just "a few" as you claim), I will remain mystified and therefore open-minded. My argument is not for belief, it is against disbelief. You might call it a form of agnosticism. - 1) GPJ: What methods do you propose whereby these immaterialist phenomena can be studied?
DHW: You have included psychology in your list of sciences. Most of the findings of psychologists are based on case histories, and once you dispense with the loaded term "anecdote", you open up a different perspective. The method has to be continual reporting, monitoring, reading about case histories. David's response to your post suggests that there are many of these with factors in common, and with reliable witnesses offering corroboration. The 25-hospital study of NDEs and OBEs sounds like a promising approach. - 2) GPJ: Science already has reliable answers about such subjects as love, musical appreciation, and creative thought. The sciences that study these subjects, such as physiology and neurology and psychology [...] are able to provide answers, even if only provisional.
DHW: Reliable answers that are only provisional don't sound too reliable to me. However, if you can point me in a direction where I might find what you consider to be a reliable scientific explanation of the nature of love, the impact of music or the origin of ideas, I will be most grateful. - 3) GPJ: A scientific paradigm very certainly does exist. Do you deny, say, the atomic theory of chemical structure?
DHW: You quoted my statement, but then ignored it. I wrote: "In most of the contexts discussed and disputed on this website, what you call 'the existing paradigm' in fact does not have a paradigmatic existence outside your convictions." We have not been discussing the atomic theory of chemical structure. We have been discussing the existence of God, the paranormal, ethics, aesthetics, religion, evolution etc. You claim that in these contexts your beliefs are based on scientific evidence. David makes the same claim, and yet your beliefs are different. What is the scientific paradigm? - 4) GPJ: Your use of the term "materialistic" also indicates [...] an outdated attitude. Would you accuse me of being "energistic" if I tried to explain the universe, as I do, in terms of energy? 
DHW: Materialism (adjective: materialistic) = the theory that physical matter is the only reality, and the mind, emotions etc. are merely functions of it. I was certainly not "accusing" you of anything, and I apologize if you found the term offensive. I thought this was the theory that you adhered to, and I do not regard that as something shameful! However, if you believe that human realities are sourced by energy independently of matter...well, that would really take us onto another level.