I've been debating a friend about this stuff for a couple of weeks now. We keep going back and forth over email about random things related to this topic. I am very much a skeptic, half James Randi, half Carl Sagan. He's a martial artist who's heavily into meditation and various hallucinogenic substances who believes that anything is possible. His ideas are funky and quite out there. He believes that since in quantum physics the outcome of some experiments is determined by the observation of the outcome, then that means that all reality is possibly created by our perception and consequently we have the power of manipulating reality by force of will. To give you an example: Don't like the thought of dying? No problem. Just believe you are immortal and it will be true.
Now naturally he won't stand behind his claims to the fullest. When he's pressed to address the glaring holes his claims present he usually just says "i'm not saying that this DOES happen, i'm simply saying it's possible that it MAY happen". Typical dodging.
Debating things like this with him I've noticed a striking similarity between his method of argument and the methods of argument presented by theists. It's the same cliches! Whether it's calling the other side closed-minded, or shifting the burden of proof, or completely dropping one argument in the middle of debating it to bring up another one, the same arguments are brought forth by theists. The names and topics change, but the way they think and approach the topics is the same: irrationally.
Anyway, to answer your question, I can't think of any paranormal practice or phenomenon that should rightly be considered scientifically debatable. I guess that's why they're called paranormal. Because they have no grounding in physical reality.
Now naturally he won't stand behind his claims to the fullest. When he's pressed to address the glaring holes his claims present he usually just says "i'm not saying that this DOES happen, i'm simply saying it's possible that it MAY happen". Typical dodging.
Debating things like this with him I've noticed a striking similarity between his method of argument and the methods of argument presented by theists. It's the same cliches! Whether it's calling the other side closed-minded, or shifting the burden of proof, or completely dropping one argument in the middle of debating it to bring up another one, the same arguments are brought forth by theists. The names and topics change, but the way they think and approach the topics is the same: irrationally.
Anyway, to answer your question, I can't think of any paranormal practice or phenomenon that should rightly be considered scientifically debatable. I guess that's why they're called paranormal. Because they have no grounding in physical reality.
The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself - Carl Sagan
