Re: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15881

Below I am presenting an 8 point summary of the main points
of the debate on the paranormal from the rationalist perspective.
hope this would help to bridge the gap between proponents of
paranormal and skeptics. Much of it may turn out to be matter
of pure semantics.

1. The view that paranormal phenomena MIGHT exist or
MIGHT have occurred, IS NOT debatable.

2. The following two views ARE debatable :

A. paranormal phenomena DO exist or must have occurred
in a given instance of anecdotal claim.

OR,

B. Paranormal phenomena CAN NEVER occur, or that NONE of
the anecdotal claims of paranormal occurrence ARE true.

2. Rationalists/Scientists take the general view of (1).
If proponents of paranormal also hold the general view (1),
then there is no need or any point for a debate.

3. The debate can only ensue if Scientists took the view of 2-B
or the paranormalists took the view 2-A.

4. Rationalists/Scientists only assert that anecdotal claims cannot
be a reliable and objective basis of verifying the occurrence of
paranormal in a given instance, regardless of the personal
credibility of the anecdotist or their number. This view does
not contradict view (1) and does not necessarily imply view 2-B

5. The view of 4 is demanded by science and TRUE skepticism. So
view 4 cannot be a dogma, because science and skepticism itself
does not contain any element of dogma.

6. Since by 4, anecdotes cannot be a scientific or rational
criteria for the occurrence of paranormal, anyone claiming
that a paranormal occurrence has taken place based on purely
anecdotal claims cannot be a TRUE rationalist/skeptic.

7. If one takes the view that it is in principle not possible to
verify the occurrence of paranormal by scientific observations,
because paranormal by definition is beyond science (This is the
view taken by Ali Sina), then one can only take the view (1) and
say nothing more. To say that a paranormal HAS occurred in a
given instance has to be totally based on personal faith, because
if it is indeed beyond scientific means to verify its existence,
then it does not make a logical sense to even assert that it HAS
occurred. A categorically affirmative/negative statement by
defintion has to be objectively (i.e scientifically) verifianble
in principle. If it is stated as a faith then it cannot be debated
by rationalists, because a debate bewteen faith and reason is an
oxymoron.

8. Ali Sina alleged that by dismissing paranormal events without
examining the claims carefully, Scientists/Skeptics are proving
to be dogmatic and pseudo-rationalists. His conclusion is based
on the interpretation that Scientists/Skeptics are dismissing
the paranormal "occurrences". But really Scientists/Skeptics
dismiss "Anecodtal Claims", not "Paranormal Phenomena". This
crucial difference is being ignored by Ali Sina despite repeated
clarification. If Scientists/Skeptics accepted (opposite of
dismiss) anecdotes as the conclusive proof for the *occurrence*
of paranormal, then they would cease to be scientists and skeptics.
In other words he will be questioning science and skepticism itself
by questioning the scientists and skeptics who are just following
the criteria of science and skepticism.


- Aparthib