I've been a little bummed at times how easily the scientific community dismisses claims of the paranormal. I understand this stuff can't be recreated in a lab yet, or really "proven," but then a lot of things we take for granted everyday can't be either. Consciousness, experience...heck, love itself can't be touched, heard, or recreated with a Bunsen burner.

I do respect science, and am certainly proud at how many in the paranormal community try to be as scientific as possible in their research and investigative methods. Testing, theorizing, logging data, etc. It makes me proud.

But the thing is, I think we each have to learn from each other. Science can learn from the paranormal community and vice versa. I'm curious as to others opinions on this matter. Do you think these two groups, vastly different, yet also quite similar, should be working more in tandem? Or is the separation good? Explain.

I won't go into the whole range of my thoughts now, but if anyone cares to, please check my profile here and read my blog on the subject. it is titled, simply enough, "Science vs. the Paranormal."

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you share. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thanks again!

Personally I don't see it as Science vs. the Paranormal. I see it has them being hand in hand.

Could you explain further please? I see it more as being hand in hand from the paranormal community perspective. But I think the vast majority of the scientific community laughs at people walking through graveyards with emf detectors or experimenting with Frank's Box's etc. Heck, I think they laugh at the notion of ghosts in general. That's what I mean by a separation. Do you see this as well, or no? Because I could easily be wrong. But that is why I started this topic. To get a broad array of opinions. Thanks!

Honestly i agree that i see them Hand in Hand as well, because science has helped to further develop our technology, and science is the background giving the research of paranormal, without the science field, we wouldnt have any of the technologies or even the possible thoughts in which we could analyze any of the data we gather from Paranormal Investigations. I think that the scientific field helps the paranormal field in which to interpret what we could say is logical or ill-logical, because with out science their wouldnt be anything logical in this world, we'd be paranoid of everything, Hell if Issac Newton didnt develop the theory of gravity, we'd all be freaking out bout it or scratching our heads in such amazement. I just think the scientific field helps to give us a better understanding of the Paranormal through the idea of Theories and Realtivity.

Science has come a long way in helping the proof of paranormal activity. Video etc, magnetic readings and other such things now can help document cases.

Your analogy of, cant see ghosts, cant prove this or that because we just cant see....
cant see love either, but we know when its there..... is a good analogy...good one!

Those who are beleivers, and have had experiences in one way or another know.

No I would have to disagree here, just because science has had advances in technology doesn’t make science and paranormal go hand in hand. The tools and instruments we use are not made specifically for paranormal investigation. It would be different if they made PKE meters designed to pick up Psychokinetic Energy, when those types of items are designed than I will start to sing a different tune. I think the scientific community isn’t ready to accept life after death yet.

I think the paranormal community is ready to go hand in hand with science. It’s the scientific community ready to go hand in hand with the paranormal, that is what I am waiting for.

i can see what your saying bout they arnt being designed for paranormal community, but we were the ones who picked up their equipment so there is a hand in hand there from the paranormal picking up from the scientific community.

In the end, " Healthy" skeptics & believers all have one common goal. So do science & paranormal investigators. I just think our field needs a healthy balance from all sides. I mean why do skeptics investigate the paranormal to disprove? It just doesn't make sense to me? They aren't going to discover anything with the intent or attitude of just out to disprove or debunk to prove it doesn't exist. That could be why they aren't finding anything? ( Laws of Attraction )

I just think things are being mis-labeled. I think the terminology is all wrong or not used correctly. For example I don't think the term skeptic should be used with debunk or disprove. I think the proper words for them are keeping things real & objective? Ruling out natural causes etc; I like the term "Alternative Possibilities"?

I sort of see it this way, there were and are still alot of people in the scientific community, that work on serious experiments when it comes to the paranormal, then there are those in the scientific community who are completely skeptical, and won't even attempt it out of fear of being ridiculed.I think there are agents or elements of disinformaintion, and I think that the prospect of losing ones credibility is real enough to keep people away from exploring certain posibilities.It's like when an airline pilot see's a ufo, "they better not report it, or it could cost them there job and credibility as a responsible and rational person".There have been serious scientifc studies and experiments that were spacifically sanctioned by the government, and yet those same people would tend to want to suppress, misdirect,mislead, and disinform the public on there findings,while at the same time, making anyone out of there circle seem crazy for even attempting to explain phenomenon that is out of the ordinary.It's a double edged sword in that way,and I really think it takes a brave sort of person to shrug off everyone elses opinions, and seek truthfull answers.

Lets face it, there are real phenomenon that happens out there in the world that we can not explain in simple terms.There are enough reports of the strange and bizzare to take the paranormal seriously, and to seek answers that are sometimes out of the box.Why is it that the scientific community makes little or no attempt to reaserch these other fields?It's sort of like when people may have had a theory that the world was round, when the popular belief was that the world was flat.Or even that the earth may revolve around the sun as opposed to the fact that everything revolved around the earth.Science has come along way, but just like everything else, it can be slow to change.There are just too many people that have too much to lose,and really do not want to be shuned or laughed out of there scientific communities for them to start taking serious chances like that.No one in that feild is going to go out on a limb and say one thing or another about the paranormal, unless they can have absolute proof, and if they do, then they will be seen as a radical.Maybe even to the point where most other scientist would disassociate themselves from that person or distance themselves from that person.

I do think that there are people with a background in science that do follow there passion,and do seek to further the real study of the paranormal in science, but it is really against the mainstreme.

Most of our science was paranormal at one point or at least found unbelievable. Paranormal things now may be science of the future and therefore no longer paranormal.

Nicely said JohnnB.

I would say that the hand in hand colaberation could be greatly expanded.



At some point the discover/proof process that science depends upon, will more quickly go outside the box to look for its solution. There is quite a bit of information in the community from un-scientific sources about the nature of reality and the way that things work. A lot of this material is channeled. The very thing (channeling/paranormal) that science would like to dis-prove??? Not really, it just seems that way. Science, as we understand it, has yet to use all the tools it has at its disposal.

So as I see it the hand in hand process could be much better than it is at the moment.

John

In a sentence - today's paranormal is tomorrow's scientific paradigm. Some day we will be fully able to explain all the things we question here today.

I personally don't think love is a good analogy, as it can and has been observed in some way ( such as change in brain waves or impulses, escalation in heart rates, physical and emotional attraction, etc). But thats just a personal opinion

Anyway...

If something can't be observed consistently in any way, whether its directly physically or through cause and effect, its hard to argue it exists. I don't think anyone in the scientific community is being a "negative nancy" per say on the subject when they dismiss a paranormal event if there isn't truly anything solid showing it happened other than altered or enhanced data, techniques not accepted by main stream science, or ones personal testimony.

Until paranormal enthusiast or researchers can produce validation or proof of the paranormal using accepted scientific measures people really shouldn't get upset or offended when coming across a skeptic. While keeping an open mind is important in discovering new things, its completely ridiculous to expect the mainstream scientific community to accept or acknowledge something without ANY proof or solid evidence supporting it.

But that doesn't mean the paranormal shouldn't be researched, its possible the technology required to indefinitely observe something paranormal doesn't exist at the moment. Just try not getting your panties in a bunch when a person doesn't believe you based of whats accepted scientifically by todays standards

Well, paranormal activity, too, has been observed in some ways. So, by that standard, we should go ahead and rewrite the science books. But you're right, these are just personal opinions. And what's that saying about opinions? Haha...I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

You are mostly right here. I agree that the paranormal should be further researched. And I agree it is likely that the technology required to do that at a higher ability doesn't exist yet.

But most of you should probably reread my post. Perhaps I've written it wrong, but...I wasn't trying to say scientists shouldn't dismiss claims that have nothing to back them up. What I'm saying is that the scientific community as a whole basically rejects claims of the paranormal simply because it is not within their spectrum of laws. That, in my opinion, is the absolute antithesis of having an open mind, because they dismiss the claim itself on principle. I guess what I'm asking for is the scientific community to look at paranormal claims and say, "Ya know what? There might be something to this..." instead of just saying "No, ghost aren't real. This is pseudoscience." And that's what is happening.

The scientific community and the paranormal community could stand to learn from each other. They can teach us more about research and evidence, and we can teach them about keeping an open mind, for instance. Because, at this point, I don't believe a ghost can be captured and taken back to a lab for scientific analysis. This isn't Ghost Busters. We don't have Proton Packs. If we are waiting on current scientific laws to apply to the paranormal, well, it just may never happen. And where will that get anyone? We'll only be walking in place. That doesn't move the field of paranormal research forward at all.

Anyway, this post isn't totally meant for any one person. As I went on, I kind of just started expounding on my original post. I must have either written it unclearly or I'm simply wrong. Either are possible. I just am not seeing where science is working hand in hand with the paranormal like a few people here. But again, there's that thing about opinions...

Ah yes, very interesting. I like your analogies here. Well put!

Paranormal has been defined as “things that science cannot explain” or “cannot be explained and never will”. The Paranormal will never be a Scientific tool for the reason that it has a bad history, like the negative responses of scientific validations/counterintuitive information and fraud(biggie).
Science to me is about finding Truth and provide humans the fundamental understanding of how the Universe works. There is quote by Thomas Huxley-“The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot long enough to enable him to put the other somewhat higher”



edited...

I would like to see people in the field learn to observe properly and use scientific methods. This is the first way that we can use science in the field.

Examples would be and I can only think of medical ones atm:

Subjective observation: "The patient had eczema on his legs."

Objective observation: "The patient had raised, dry, scaly, red patches on the anterior aspect of the right and left legs. It was first noticed at 10 am. (I made this short, but you can put as many descriptions as you feel you need)

Objective observations should be a well described, documented, and including all pertinent information WITHOUT making diagnoses. Drives me crazy when I see, "There is a spirit orb just on his left shoulder". This is what makes this study amateur.

After we all learn how to observe and document properly, then we can move on to scientific methods!

I beg to differ. Paranormal simply means "beyond normal". And you can be a scientist when investigating. You honestly can. Just look at my previous post. Its all in how you approach it.

You can be scientific when taking attendance, or matching socks in the laundry, or how many steps on average it takes to get you to the restroom.

Edited to take out the cool pic cause its just ... big....

Well when any truly new areas or concepts are proposed, skepticism will almost always be the first response. A great example is when Galileo attempted to prove we orbited the sun, rather than the sun orbiting us. At the time he didn't have the raw data or findings to indefinitely prove it, although he did have some data and observations that supported it. Not too mention since the idea was so much against the accepted scientific standard at that time further study of the topic was severely looked down upon (sound familiar?).

Most paranormal research falls under a similar stigma, just you won't get burned at the stake for taking interest in it now a days . Its important to press on and keep working towards an ultimate goal. Who knows, maybe over time we'll find out most of, it not all, paranormal events take place in some wacky infrared super spectrum thingy-ma-jig and the technology to observe it just hasn't come out yet