Science, Paranormal and Dogma

SCIENCE, PARANORMAL AND DOGMA - Aparthib Zaman

I have discussed the meaning and implications of rationalism in a companion essay Rationalism - Its meaning and Implications . Here I wish to dwell on some further implications in view of the essay "What it Takes to be a Rationalist" by Ali Sina, an outspoken proponent of freethinking and rationalism. I agree to most of what Ai Sina has said. But some of his views and conclusions deserve some serious critique as they are based on incorrect assumptions and characterizations. It is not my intent to engage in an one to one debate with Ali Sina, who has anyway expressed his intention of not responding to any criticism of his essay. I hope that even if he doesn't respond to his critics, he at least does not take a closed minded view and refuse to read what his critics has to say, by assuming that his views are infallible. Anyway, what I intend to do here is to examine carefully some of his comments and views that are shared by many liberal thinkers with little or no background in the hard sciences. My response is targeted to the readers of Ali Sina's essay and attempts to clarify some misgivings that may have been generated in their minds about science rationalism and paranormal by his essay. For a detailed discussion of issues relating to science vs. paranormal and sciecne vs dogma please also refer the two articles I posted in mukto-mona earlier:

The updated version of the second article above can also be accessed in my Rationalism FAQ

Besides the above two, readers may also wish to consult two more elated articles:

Science is an anathema to Dogma. Scientific method is based on skepticism and rationalism. So science cannot be called a dogma or a religion by definition, neither can anyone make science their dogma or religion.

To say that most scientists are dogmatic, as concluded by Ali Sina, is the same as saying that science is a dogma, because it cannot be a conincidence for most scientists to be dogmatist, if science was not a dogma. Scientists are huge community, and like any large sample it follows the statistical distribution of various mindsets. There will be some scientists who may hold a dogma like view on certain issues. But it is baseless to say or imply that most scientists HAVE BEEN, ARE, AND WILL BE dogmatists (Ali Sina's statement implies that). Asserting such a sweeping statement is itself a dogma like position. Scientific method is an inevitable outcome of rationalism. Science is the rational method of explaining and studying natural phenomena (i.e any observations susceptible to the senses directly, or indirectly through sense enhancers, i.e scientific instruments). Since science itself has no element of dogma in it, it is safe to say that most scientists cannot be dogmatists on a consistent basis. It is unfortunate that Ali Sina labelled the majority of scientists as "pseudo-rationalists" for their skepticism about the claims of paranormal. The truth is that A FEW scientists may have a dogmatic view on certain issues, which is a far cry from science being a dogma or scientists being dogmatic. If the view of a scientist "Dr. Smith" on an issue appears to be dogmalike then it is not proper to say that scientists are dogmatic or that SCIENTIST Dr. Smith is a dogmatist. The only thing one can say is that the PERSON Dr. Smith is a dogmatist. Science has nothing to do with the personal views of anyone, scientist or not. It is a fallacy similar to that committed by religious apologists when they assert that atheists also commit atrocities by citing Hitler or Stalin as atheists. Where in fact the atrocities of both had little to do with atheism, but much to do their dogma about communism or racial supremacy. It is not only preposterous to make this leap from the dogmatic views of a few scientists or science advocates to the sweeping generalization of science or scientists, but also misleads many liberals with no background in the hard sciences and propagtes that myth among them, because such characterization has a prima facie appeal to nonscientific laymen, liberal or dogmatic.

If science cannot be a dogma, then upholding science cannot be a dogma. Is it possible to uphold it to a fault? NO. Just like you cannot be too honest or you cannot be too rationalistic, you cannot be too scientific. Either you believe (not from blind faith but by logic and evidence) in science or you do not. There is an eerie resemblance between the expression "secular fundamentalism" and "dogmatic science". Neither expressions are technically correct or meaningful semantic constructs. They are used to convey a certain emotional view. When strict enforcement of secularism clashes with political correctness then it is (mis)labelled as secular fundamentalism. When rigid scientific attiude contradicts or seem to contradict(Since it is almost always due to misinterpreting the the rigid scientific views) of one's metaphysical beliefs and aspirations, then such rigid scientific attitude is (mis)labelled as "scientism" or scientific dogmatism. When Science appears to be too successful and too hard to master, then many academicians in the humanities and social sciences out of what Peter Medawar calls science envy, to portray science as just another dogma, not any better in seeking the truth than any other method. Although as I argued that one cannot logically be dogmatic scientist (or scientific dogmatist), what one can do is MISINTERPRET science/rationality. And it is the misintepretation that has been unfortunaately labelled as scientific dogmatism. For example if some one affirms that science WILL explain everything, that is not a statement from science. It is a personal conviction. It may be true, or may not be. We have no way to ever know if that is true or false. It may be dogma like statement but is strictly not a dogma to state that since science has been able to explain many phenomena that were previously unexplainable, science possibly can explain all phenomena. But it will be a misinterpretation to state that "Science will explain everything" itself is a scientific statement. It is quite common to see many critics make a straw man out scientists alleging they(scientists) say or claim this or that and then refute those views by scientists, although scientists actually do not make such statements or phrase it the way it is cited and refuted by their critics. Much of Ali Sina's essay one can agree with, but which is also based on such straw man fallacy about scientists, and hence even if correct, is misdirected.

Now let me go into some subtelities. One of Dr. Sina's main contention was that many scientists (or pseudo rationalists in his words) dimiss or deny the paranormal. We must be very careful with semantics here. First of all, occurrence of paranormal and its explanation are two disticnt affair. Explanation comes after acknowledgement of its occurrence. The example of Aurora Borealis in the past, which Dr. Sina cited was an event whose occurrence were not disputed, but its explanation were. Science provided only the explanation. But the occurrence of Aurora Borealis were not just claims of persons. They were OBSERVABLE by objective criteria. But the paranormal claims are not comparable. The occurrence of paranormal events are still confined to individual or collective anectdote. They have not been objectively observed like the Aurora Borealis. But even then science (or scientists, not persons) do not affirm that the claimed paranormal events CANNOT happen. It only says that the claim does not meet the criteria to establish its existence beyond reasonable doubt. To put in simple words, the position of science regarding alleged paranormal events is that "It MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, but it cannot be said that IT HAS HAPPENED just because some person or persons have claimed to have seen/witnessed it". The number of witness is irrelevant to science. Science or scientists refuse to accept something as truth (like alleged occurence of paranormal) just by personal testimony of individuals or group of indivduals. That is the hallmark of skepticism, a necessary ingredient of scientifc method. Dr. Sina misinterpreted this refusal to accept the CLAIMS OF OCCURRENCE of paranormal as DENIAL OF THE OCCURRENCE of paranormal itself. When the occurrence of a so called paranormal phenomena satisfies the critteria of acceptibility, there can be no question on the occurrnce, but of explanation. For example, the case of Hindu Lord Ganesh oozing milk was a real occurrence. Here the occurrence was scientifically measurable. It was not just personal testimony. But the occurrence was explained by science. Even if there was no immediate scientific expalantion available there is no justification for rushing into a non-scientific explanation invoking vague and undefined objects or entities. It is not the scientists/rationalists/science that explain them away with absurd and implausible theories, as Ali Sina has opined, in connection with crop circles, but rather the dogmatic proponets of the paranormals who do. Science never offers absurd or implausible expalnations, rather offers plausible ones, guided by Occam's razor. There are those who simply narrate their personal experience of alleged paranormal events. reporting is not absurd. Anyone may truly feel the experience of paranormal. At least we know that human brains have amazing abilities to cause unusual experiences to be felt in unique situations. Not that all such events are necessarily generated by the brain. But to insist that just because someone has truly felt a paranormal event, hence such event must have actually taken place independent one's brain ninduced experience or perecpetion, or to affirm that its occurrence is beyond the explaining power of science (assuming it did occur), then that IS a dogmatic assertion. Ali Sina adopted quite the oppsite view when he ridiculed a scientist who had personally experienced a so called paranormal phenmomena but was skeptical of its explanation. He did not DENY the experience, he refused to assign an emotional interpretation that dogmatists of the paranormal would wish to attribute to such experiences. The Iranian scientist was a true skeptic, instead Ali Sina called him a dogmatist, because he refused to make a certain personal interpretation of his experience that many paranormal dogmatists would like to adopt. There is nothing irrational about not making a biased interpretation of one's experience. Again, I must emphasize that to deny certain interpretation of an experience does not mean DENYING the occurrnce, as the oozing of milk by Ganesh illustrates.

A vast assortment of alleged paranormal phenomena is pure personal testimony, not observed scientifically. That does not mean they did not occur. But it also cannot be said that they DID occur or that they cannot be explained by science if they did occur.

Science can only point the difference between MIGHT HAVE HAPPEND/HAS HAPPENED. Nothing more. It cannot say it CAN NEVER HAPPEN either as that would be a dogma like assertion. Of course we are so far limited to events that are inexplainable by science but not violating laws of science (Paranormal). But if the event being claimed to have occurred also violates established scientific law(Supernatural) then there is reason to be even more skeptical about its occurrence. Then the position of science would be: It most PROBABLY didn't happen. Anyway for the paranormal, the criterian to promote the "MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED" to "HAS HAPPENED" is set by rationalism as embedded in the scientific method. There is nothing dogmatic about it. Secondly, once a paranormal event is universally agreed to have occurred (Parenthetically, such scientifically acknowledged occurrence of paranormal events does not exist yet), only then the question of explaining it arises. It is not unreasonable to start with the hypothesis that the occurrence may be explained by science. There is nothing dogmatic about it, because it is a hypothesis. Moreover thus hypothesis does not make any other assumption about science. It represents a future hope and is thus not falsified even if scientific explanation is not found in finite time. The track record of science does give that hypothesis some legitimacy and credibility. The affirmation of an alternative possibility that Science can never explain it is truly a dogma, because it is a categorical statememt, and is also based on additional assumption about science itself, that science can never develop enough in future to be able to explain it, making an indoirect assumption that theer is a "divine" reason for its occurrence.

Dr. Sina made the monumental blunder by concluding that "scientists can be as much dogmatic as religionists" (exact quoe), by citing the example of Nazis adopting Lamarckism as their dogma. The blunder was on two counts. First, Nazis were not scientists as a scommunity. Ther may have been some scientist memebers. So their view cannot be labelled as scientists' view. Secondly, Lamarckism was discredited by science itself (before Hitler's day). So adopting Lamackism as a dogma cannot be labelled as adopting science as dogma. Lamarckism is not science. Science is a method, not just one single theory or law. If someone today insists in the belief that ether exists, then that does not make the scientists instantly dogmatists. We cannot label the scientists as dogmatists every time someone (scientist or nonscientist) insists on believeing in a discredited theory.

Science is a term to mean a rational method of understanding and explaining phemomena, in contrast with dogmatic method. "Rational" critics like Ali Sina view science as something similar to religion and thus like relgion, there can be dogmatic adherents of science as well, according to him. It is a clear fallacy. Anyone can choose to be dogmatic about an issue, he can be a religionist, a scientist or a even true rationalist like Ali Sina. But Science or scientists as a community will never be another dogma or religion or followers of such. Only religion will be religion and dogma will be dogma. Science is not a relgion or a dogma, so it can never be or turned into one. No one can adopt or make science a religion. You cannot use a pen to hammer a nail. Neither can you use a hammer to write. They are not made for such uses. Science is not made for use as a dogma. Science is the anathema of all "isms". The plain fact that he missed or chose to miss is that science is an offshoot of true rationalism. Science IS true skepticism. The coining of a new word science to signify "rational inquiry of phenomena" does not mean it is a new ism or tenet, besides religion, and rationalism and skepticism. It is different from religion alright, but not from rationalism, freethinking and skepticism. So one cannot use science as dogma or religion, because that would mean making rationalism and skepticism as one's religion or dogma, a patently absurd position.

Ali Sina ended with the anticipation/expectation that his views would be dismissed by those he called pseudoscientists. Well, the truth is that it is the pseudoscientists who view science and religion as dogma. His views would resonate well with a substantial number of liberals and postmodernsist, most of who are not suffciently science literate anyway. So he doesn't have to feel lonely for his views. He is with a large company. It is the scientists and strict rationalists who are in the minority and have to face the challenges and critiques from both religious apologists and posmodernist liberals.

Finally, just to remind the readers and Ali Sina if he ever reads this, that this essay does not criticize HIM, but some of his views on science vs rationalism. His points are well taken that it is not rational to emphatically deny the OCCURRENCE of a paranormal event that has been claimed to occur. I can assure him that the view of scientist cannot be such categorical denial. What scientists mean (may be they do not convey that in clear terms) that the claims of the paranormal occurrence itself is no proof of its occurrence or grounds for accepting their occurrewnce. Anyone saying that paranormal events cannot ever occur is of course not representing the scientific view or the scientists. I hope I have clarified the view of science and scientists correctly.

Re: Sina's Response to Brent Meeker

By Aparthib Zaman

E-mail: aparthib@bigfoot.com

Re: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40306.htm

I found Brent Meeker's original response to Ali Sina reflecting my own views so accurately that I felt tempted to respond to Ali Sina's response to Brent Meeker. I hope Brent would not mind my doing that. Please forgive any typo in my hurriedly written response.

1.

In response to Brent Meeker's comment: "Sina notes the contrast between this and religious and political doctrines that are held to be beyond criticism and revision. But he presents a false dichotomy between dogmatism and rationalism - as though one can be rational simply by not being dogmatic."

Ali Sina wrote: Yes I actually do think that dogmatism and rationalism are mutually excluding. You seem to disagree, however you did not provide any further explanation. Are you saying it is possible to be dogmatic and rationalist on one particular issue at the same time?

Aparthib's Comment :

Ali Sina is having some problem with the notions of logical fallacies, here the fallacy of false dichotomy. Brent was simply pointing out the false dichotomy between dogma and rationality. Pointing out the False dichotomy does not imply that dogmatism and rationalism are NOT mutually excluding, as Ali Sina is alleging it did. What Brent meant that one can be irrational but still NOT dogmatic. So there are 3 possibilities: (1) Dogmatic (2) Irrational (e.g non-dogmatic credulity) (3) Rational

Not being (1) does not guarantee being (3), one can be (2).

2

Ali Sina was confused by and in disagreement with Brent Meeker's following statement:

"The opposite of dogmatic denial isn't rationality; it's uncritical credulity.",

He wondered if he was missing something here. He indeed missed something. And it was the proper interpretation of of Brent's statement, although to me the meaning was clear from the context of his entire article. By "dogmatic denial" (he was really quoting Sina using such expression) he meant the denial of paranormal of so-called "pseudo-rationalists" (Again an expression used by Sina). So clearly the "opposite of dogmatic denial" refers to the views of people like Sina who are opposed to such dogmatic denial (of paranormal). So the final implication of Brent's statement was that the views of people like Sina who are opposed to dogmatic denial (of paranormal) do not NECESSARILY mean rationality, but CAN mean uncritical credulity (of paranormal). My position here is that the opposite of "Sina's view" is not NECESSARILY pseudo-rationality, but true rationality. Of course here I am assuming that Sina's position on paranormal is that the paranormal event "HAS occurred.". My view and I believe the view of true rationalists is that paranormal event MAY have occurred, but since anecdotes are not genuine evidences for its occurrence, so it CANNOT be said that it HAS occurred.

3

Ali Sina:

However, I am not prone to hallucinations and that thing did not seem to be hallucination at all. It was as real as any other object I have seen in my awaken life. We also have cases of several people reporting to have seen the same ghost at the same time. How can you scientifically prove that several people hallucinate together and see the same thing? We are not talking about guided imagery or induced hypnosis. So what is your explanation? Dogmatism is inability to accept anything that defies one's preconceived notion of reality

Aparthib:

This part brings out the crux of the whole problem. Insisting on anecdotes as proof of occurrence. Yes, Sina, I have no doubt you believe you are not susceptible to hallucinations. Nobody ever doubts themselves except some true skeptic (May be Vic Stenger is one). Your sincerity and confidence notwithstanding, the fact remains that brain induced visions are as real as observations of REAL events. There are enough brain induced experiences simulated in the lab, which appears real to true skeptics. The experiments of psychologist Persinger bears that out. You may also wish to read the book "Phantoms in the Brain" by Neurologist Ramachandran to learn about the bizarre way brain can induce perceptions of reality. So emphatically vouching for one's sincerity is hardly a genuine evidence of the REAL OCCURRENCE of paranormal to a true skeptic.

Ali Sina: Dogmatism is inability to accept anything that defies one's preconceived notion of reality

Aparthib: Thats a loaded statement. What a true rationalist is unable to accept is not "anything that defies one's preconceived notion of reality", but rather "Claims of occurrence of any event based on anecdotes". There is a clear and fundamental difference. A rationalist do not have a preconceived notion of reality, or even if he has one, that does not factor in the acceptance of the claim. Only objective evidence can influence his/her acceptance of such claim.

Ali Sina:

Let me again quote the dictionary definition of paranormal. "Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation." If the globe I saw and what many other people see as ghosts cannot be explained by science what other names you have for them?

Aparthib:

The last part of the above is an example of the fallacy of complex question, there is a built in assumption that paranormal event HAS occurred, and since there is no scientific explanation, then why not call it as paranormal, right?. But before something is declared as paranormal due to lack of scientific explanation, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have actually occurred. Again anecdotes do not qualify as proof beyond reasonable doubt to a rationalist. Ali Sina failed to separate the two independent issue of OCCURRENCE of paranormal and EXPLANATION of a putative paranormal. "Seeing" is not an evidence for the objective occurrence of an event. Brain can create a simulation of reality (for various reason beyond the control of the person whose brain is interpreting reality) that may be indistinguishable from real occurrence. We can never be sure about our brain's interpretation of reality until a scientific observations corroborates that independently. This statement is consistent with skepticism. To contradict this statement is to contradict skepticism (Thus rationalism).

Ali Sina:

I also have one challenge for you. Looks like issuing challenges is fun. So let me make one challenge. Please present yourself as a psychic in a radio or an assembly of people and convince as many people as Van Praagh does, that you are bringing messages from their dead relatives.

This should not be difficult to do. You seem to have found the trick that Van Praagh and other so called psychics play. Why don't you replicate that trick for us? If I discover the tricks of any magician, with a little practice I can do exactly what they do. So what do you say? You will manage to prove without the shadow of doubt that this is all a hoax and psychic power does not exist.

Aparthib:

Ali Sina misunderstood the skeptic's position and Occam's razor on paranormal again. Brent Meeker or any skeptic will never claim that they have the true explanation of paranormal. First a paranormal event must be agreed upon to have OCCURRED, to be called paranormal. The occurrence has to be verified in controlled environment. Again, Van Praagh's performences have not been subjected to a controlled experiment, as far as I can tell, and there are too many variables. Besides one can set up a plausible explanation based on whatever variable that are known. So Occam's razor already rules out any other explanation than the plausible one. Then why insist on the other explanations that are not dictated by Occam's razor? In the spirit of true skepticism, we should state that there is no accurate explanation of the event, but also that there is no true evidence of its occurrence either, because here the word "occurrence" has a loaded meaning. It carries a certain interpretation of the sequence of occurrences as well, not just a certain sequence of events.

We cannot explain many magic, does it mean we should call magic as paranormal? If we do not call magic paranormal/psychic, then why call Van Praag's tricks paranormal/psychic? Just because magicians have been gracious enough to admit that there is nothing psychic behind their tricks and gracious enough to reveal the tricks behind many of their tricks? The exposed tricks behind many magic gives the plausibility arguments of putative paranormals more credibility.

Finally Ali Sina, when you say "you have no problem embracing your spiritual reality, that you are a spiritual being foremost", you are actually stating a sentiment, a feeling, an emotion, not an objective reality. Spiritual reality has no objective meaning. I share that same sentiment, emotion and feeling as you do (Einstein called it the feeling of the mysterious), but I or any skpetic would not call it spiritual reality and ascribe an objective reality to it.

- Aparthib

Tue, 9 Mar 2004

Re: More Holes in the Materialist's bucket

By Aparthib Zaman

E-mail: aparthib@bigfoot.com

Re: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40316.htm

I will arrange my response in matched section in the following format (There are 10 such matched sections):

SINA-1: [..]
APARTHIB-1: [..]

SINA-2: [..]
APARTHIB-2: [..]

etc

So each response can be tracked in case of confusion due to misalignment, undesirable word wrapping, deleted spaces or paragraph markers etc.

Now on to my response.

This response may well become primarily an exercise to hone one's analytical skills. I believe it may be helpful for Ali Sina and myself. Such logical skills may be well applied to other more important missions.

SINA-1:

"Mr. Brent Meeker stated clearly that the dichotomy between dogmatism and rationalism is false." [...] "You say "Brent meant one can be irrational but still NOT dogmatic". Although it is difficult for me to figure out, how one can be irrational if he is not dogmatic.."

APARTHIB-1:

You are missing the basic notions of logic. The meaning of the statement "dichotomy between dogmatism and rationalism is false." means that it is not necessarily true that if someone is not dogmatic he must be rational, or that if someone is irrational then he must be dogmatic. There can be a third possibility, e.g uncritical credulity, which is neither rational nor dogmatic. Not being dogmatic is not the ONLY criteria for being rational. Rationalism pre-requires lot more than just not being dogmatic in religion, politics etc. A general skepticism is ALSO a requirement. So it is possible for someone to be not dogmatic about religion YET be irrational, when any of the other prerequisites for rationality are not met (e.g one prerequisite being not believing in any claims of truth without objective evidence). An a priori belief in the paranormal occurrence due to anecdotes may not be a dogma, like the belief in religion or communist dogma, but it is still not consistent with rationalism (i.e skepticism), because OBJECTIVE EVIDENCES (A prerequisite for a scientific belief) are not yet available for the occurrence paranormals. I can't clarify it in any more foolproof way. I am lost as to why you find this simple truth so difficult to grasp. By the way I would like to mention however that Dark matter is an example of something whose existence has been verified by objective evidence but has not been explained scientifically in a satisfactory way. Now here is a case of paranormal! that is recognized by scientists. Will you still complain Ali? :).

SINA-2:

He also said: "The opposite of dogmatic denial isn't rationality; it's uncritical credulity."

He is very mistaken. Rational people cannot be dogmatic and dogmatic people cannot be rational. "Uncritical credulity" is irrational.

APARTHIB-2:

Please stare at your own observation VERY closely. Your last two sentences are correct. In fact your last two sentences reflect the view of Brent, myself, Randi or any rationalist/skeptic. But your first statement "Brent is mistaken" does not follow from the last two sentences, because Brent's statement does not contradict your last two propositions (Stare again). What Brent said should really have been phrased more accurately (Which is obvious from the context) as: (added words are in CAPS)

"The opposite of dogmatic denial isn't NECESSARILY rationality; it COULD BE uncritical credulity."

So Brent meant that if one dogmatically denies the paranormal (Like Randi et al, as you would allege), then the opposites of Randi et al, i.e those who do not dogmatically deny paranormal, need not necessarily be rational (i.e skeptic), they could be uncritical believers in paranormal. Uncritical belief in paranormal is certainly not consistent with skepticism. There is YET no evidence for a critical belief in paranormal. SO any belief in the paranormal has to be uncritical at this point. Can I make it any more foolproof, anyone?

SINA-3:

In your second point you tried to clarify this controversy and wrote:

"By "dogmatic denial" (he was really quoting Sina using such _expression) he meant the denial of paranormal of so-called " pseudo-rationalists".

If that was what Meeker intended to say, he worded it wrongly. He should have stated "denial of dogmatism" and not "dogmatic denial" which means entirely a different thing. "Opposing violence" is not the same thing as "violently opposing". When I used "dogmatic denial" I meant denying the facts and the evidence dogmatically.

APARTHIB-3:

You failed to grasp the semantics again Sina. You need to hone up on critical thinking a bit more. Brent meant "Dogmatic denial" in exactly the same way as you meant. He was borrowing your expression to describe Brent, Randi and other "pseudo-rationalists", who YOU think "dogmatically deny" the paranormal. He did not use the expression "denial of dogmatism" here, because he did not mean that either. He clearly used the expression in the same sense as you are using. So why this confusion. All he is saying that if "Ali Sina is opposed to dogmatic denial of paranormal, which (i.e dogmatic denial) Ali Sina claims Brent and Randi and others do (i.e dogmatically deny paranormal), then Ali Sina is not being necessarily rational, he is uncritically credulous of paranormal claims". Another foolproof clarification. By the way a belief based on anything but objective evidence is "uncritical" by definition.

SINA-4:

So let us rephrase what Meeker said with the right syntax and see what we get.

The opposite of "denial of dogmatism" isn't rationality; it's uncritical credulity.

Now it makes more sense. If you reject dogmas you can't be called a credulous person. I said this might be a typo.

However the denial of dogma is also rationality. It is rational to reject the dogma. So with the corrections to the sentence, still that sentence is partially true.

APARTHIB-4:

As I clarified that was not what Brent meant, and that the original phrasing also made sense (With my revised accurate pharsing). Although he would also be right if he had pharsed it the way you put it above, as you also agreed. But this is a red herring, as it was not meant or stated the way you revised it.

SINA-5:

If that was scientifically measurable, is it still anecdotal? How can something be scientifically measurable and anecdotal at the same time?

APARTHIB-5:

I did not state it that way, but yes, if anecdotes are proven to be true by scientific measurements then they assume the status of a genuine OBSERVATION. No paranormal anecdotes have passed that test. When I talk about anecdotes, I meant the ones that have not been verified by scientific (i.e objective) observations (Like milk form Ganesh), they remain as anecdotes, not observations. Where is the room for confusion here? You are too bogged down with semantics it seems.

SINA-6:

Do you realize that all human history is also anecdotal? The fact that the Earth is round for Sheik Abdel-Azi Ibn Baaz, Saudi Arabia 's top cleric and the Flat Earth Society is also anecdotal? In fact since you and I have not gone to the space personally, it is also anecdotal for us. Are you going to deny this too?

APARTHIB-6:

As I explained in APARTHIB-5, those anecdotes, like earth being round have been verified by observation, so its a fact, not an anecdote ANYMORE. Before verification, anecdotes are only referred to as anecdotes, they have not been promoted to facts. Flat earth is not even an anecdote, nor en anecdote, but a falsehood, as it has been CONTRADICTED by observations/evidence.

SINA-7:

However it is equally irrational to deny all those claims and dismiss them as "anecdotes" because they cannot be proven.

APARTHIB-7:

It is utterly frustrating to see you still insist on the expression that I have clarified does not accurately reflect the scientific view. When anecdotes cannot be verified by objective observations, it is only the CLAIM of occurrence of paranormal that is denied, NOT THE OCCURRENCE ITSELF. Science and skepticism requires suspending judgment as to whether the paranormal event in question has truly occurred or not. If you fail to appreciate this simple but important point then you are missing a very cardinal aspect of skepticism. (And you claim to be a skeptic)

SINA-8:

I am not saying we should accept that an immaterial world definitely exists. No "body" has been found after all. But should we attack and ridicule the people who come forth to witness?

APARTHIB-8:

I will try to remove another misperception once and for all, although I did indicate this before. No skeptic or rationalist ridicules the witness or the witness's sincerity in reporting what they saw. They ridicule only the CLAIM of witness and the paranormalist that their anecdotes constitute an EVIDENCE/PROOF of the OCCURRENCE of the paranormal. Crucial difference, Ali, please pause and reflect on it for few moments, I am confident I an speaking for all scientists/rationalists or if you like "pseudorationalists". You are creating an unnecessary strawmen of skeptical scientists.

SINA-9:

Not only he is not searching for the body, which is his duty, he is actually denying that the body exist.

APARTHIB-9:

Your analogy is misplaced. The "body" of a man is not a entity/concept whose definition/concept is debated or is in doubt. The police officer is not denying the EXISTENCE of the body as a concept, nor is the existence of the body an undefined concept. In the paranormal case the meaning of "existence" (existence of WHAT?) itself is in doubt. That's the crucial difference. Skeptic or the police neither are ridiculing the act of narrating anecdotal experience. There is also a limit to which you can push the analogy. A crime investigation involves well defined objects and notions amenable to sense perceptions, and there is a moral urgency to reach the most reasonable verdict for justice to the victim, based on anecdotes and circumstantial evidence. There is no such moral urgency in paranormal (A) because there is no victim of any crime needing justice (B) Paranormal claims involve notions/objects that are not well-defined nor amenable to sense perception.

SINA-10:

The materialists are not investigating the paranormal phenomena, they are helping in the cover-up and the reason is obvious. Any notion of an immaterial world, shatters their belief in materialism.

APARTHIB-10:

Again strawman fallacy. Materialism is not the accurate word for true scientists and skeptics. No "ism" is embraced by science and rationalism. Materialism is an old school philosophical term that is obsolete now. Science is applied rationalism. Whatever logic and evidences leads to one is what is considered best representation of reality to a scientist. Materialism, spiritualism is not the right word to describe that. Scientists can care less what they are called. All that matters is the scientific method. It is a public endeavor. Nothing esoteric. No "ism" involved here. If objective evidence leads to the occurrence of a paranormal event, scientists will be the happiest camper. Science thrives on unanswered questions, mysteries. Besides scientists and skeptics are human too, with emotions. They would also wish that there be some reality beyond what has been observed so far. Nothing to lose, if it DOES exist, only to gain. But is has to be first proven to exist. Personal conviction is not proof in science. It is the mental leap of skeptical scientist where they learn to even doubt themselves (not the experience, but the EXPLANATION or interpretation of it) that sets them apart. By the way I did write in one of my "Science and Metaphysics" series in Mukto-Mona there are already some genuine paranormals in science as well. Dark matter is one of them as I pointed out earlier in this response. It EXISTS! But its satisfactory explanation is not known yet. They are not unhappy because of admitting that this paranormal exists :).

- Aparthib