Here is an article at that presents my perspective on the paranormal
Again, my point is not all (or even any) ghost story, UFO ect is true, but that so many people are even willing to seriously consider the idea. Serious attempts at discussing the issue are instead met with sarcasm, derision, and dismissal. I would suggest that this is a most decidedly “unsceintific” attitude to have. In reply to Fermi’s paradox of “where are they” I might respond “if they were here how would we know for sure?” The same might be said of ghosts. If ghosts were real with the properties normally ascribed to them by believers what evidence of their existence would we expect to find and what sort of evidence would be required to declaire that they might have an objective reality.

In general, I agree. The thing about purported paranormal phenomenons is that they are phenomenons, hence presumably open to direct empirical observation. Now, physics already has a working model for the world, atleast at superquantum scales, and definitely at the scales we humans exist in. Within this schema, truly paranormal events don’t have a possible mechanism that can be accomodated without shaking up or discarding core tenets of known physics. As Lakatos believes, scientists are not like how they are characterized, as objective emotionally-detached surveyors of the universe. They are humans, and a strict Buddhist attitude is not employed towards their work and beliefs. They’ll require extraordinary evidence to seriously consider these purported phenomenons. Until they are forced to, all anecdotes & data will be assimilated within the current framework, and the anecdotal interpretations will be reinterpreted to fit within science. This paradigm is true, in general, with most human activity.

Science would be more willing to take such things seriously if any evidence of it had ever been verified to be truthful.

It hasn’t. That is why the dismissive attitude is so prevalent.

Science is not monolithic. But it is fair to say that there are plenty of people who would love to investigate these matters if they would bear any fruit. Absence of evidence and all that, but that just rules out a substantive denial, not dismissal. Show me the money.

Scientists can seriously ponder Fermi’s Paradox because we have proof that life can and does exist on at least one planet. Why shouldn’t it exist elsewhere?

We have no evidence of ghosts, so why should we seriously consider them?

Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.

In my opinion, if something possibly exists but has not been proven to exist, we don’t do it any favors by giving it the label “paranormal.” If it exists, it’s normal.

There are all sorts of things that are not scientifically explainable yet, but the words supernatural and paranormal have unscientific connotations that immediately cause all sorts of sirens to go off.

I like keeping an open but skeptical mind. I don’t require scientific proof on a personal level for my own experiences (which I take with a grain of salt), but I’m slow to believe those who are making a buck.

Note that that article is based on an article written by at least two total crackpots. I see no grounds for scientific credibility at all in either article.

By some, perhaps, but not by all. CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, are dead serious about honestly and even-handedly investigating paranormal claims without prejudice.

The problem is, NO ONE has ever established the reality of ANY paranormal phenomena to people who are not already convinced of its reality. Every time genuine scientific controls are put in place, the alleged phenomena disappear.

That’s why most intelligent people don’t credit the existence of the paranormal.

Thanks, but we already have one. Maybe try MPSIMS?

I couldn’t agree more. The attitude of the “professional” skeptics is that since there is no evidence, the proposition isn’t true. Argument from Ignorance, I believe. I am a skeptic and used to subscribe to “The Skeptical Inquirer” until I noticed this ugly bias time and time again. The articles at are totally absurd as I’ve pointed out and proven in one case in a previous thread about aromatherarpy (something I have absolutely no interest in or desire to defend). Can’t find that thread.

Why not? it is the same disdain shown any form or even mention of theism, on the same grounds.

If ghosts exist, one should show up prominently on the 50 yard line during the Superbowl. The game being stopped while the players talk with the ghost, all on national TV, should attract a lot of attention.

You’re deluding yourself. CSICOP has a long reputation as being a gang of uninterested debunkers. You’d best find a better white knight than CSICOP.

Don’t you mean “disinterested,” as in having no concern for either a positive or negative result?

No, you’ve got it wrong. A skeptical attitude is that if there’s no evidence, the proposition isn’t proven, period. In logical terms, an unproven assertion does not possess the same value as “false.” Take telekinesis. One cannot prove that the concept is false, but one can show that a so-called psychic’s claims to be telekinetic fail to be proven to be true, as when a claimant fails a lab test.

The proper skeptical state of mind isn’t “It can’t happen,” but “Show me.” But even that scares or infuriates people who don’t want their beliefs challenged.