Science is a typical problem, as it is commonly misused by various parties. When psychologist Chris French pops up on TV and says "science says that there is nothing in the paranormal." (A paraphrase, but I hope not a misleading one) he fundamentally misrepresents firstly what science is and secondly what it can do. Plus thirdly he contradicts the evidence. On the opposite side those with a belief in such phenomena wrongly come to consider themselves enemies of science having been labelled as such for years.
Science is a method. You might as well offer to speak for the backstroke. Instead science is often represented as the cult of scientism. Going against what has been said in the name of science is starting to resemble arguing with the church.
I believe that most persons who see something bizarre, possibly paranormal anticipate ridicule for investigating it. Of course if they were to behave as scientists they should inquire to the full. Partly this problem is because they will have for company in the investigation either religious groups or loonies, serious parapsychologists being a rarity. Yvette Fielding even(blue Peter, most haunted) has been described as a parapsychologist.
The real problem I fear is that as humans our need to label everything outstrips our ability to understand. The mind hates the neutral answer, it has to say "nutter" or "magic." The real world in which everything is described as a probability seems too unsteady and unreliable. Try asking your friends what the difference is between supernatural and paranormal, might get some interesting replies.
|Names and Labels||180||Me||23-Apr-08 01:57|
|Re: Names and Labels||176||Robert Schoch||24-Apr-08 15:16|
|Re: Names and Labels||117||Me||24-Apr-08 20:12|
|Re: Names and Labels||115||Robert Schoch||24-Apr-08 21:07|
|Re: Names and Labels||130||Louise||24-Apr-08 21:22|
|Re: Names and Labels||95||Robert Schoch||25-Apr-08 18:43|
|Re: Names and Labels||79||debraregypt||26-Apr-08 15:33|