• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Guest Suggestions for The Paracast


Forums New posts
PCarr said:
You should read one of her books before you jump to conclusions. She's no Phil Klass.
Click to expand...

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I've read enough of her work and also critiques of it in consciousness studies to see that she's a dyed-in-the-wool materialist operating out of irrelevant presuppositions about the nature of consciousness. She's been widely debunked and should have been. But I see no reason why she shouldn't be asked to appear on the Paracast so long as an articulate counterpart to her viewpoint is also present for discussion.
 
Constance said:
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I've read enough of her work and also critiques of it in consciousness studies to see that she's a dyed-in-the-wool materialist operating out of irrelevant presuppositions about the nature of consciousness. She's been widely debunked and should have been. But I see no reason why she shouldn't be asked to appear on the Paracast so long as an articulate counterpart to her viewpoint is also present for discussion.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that she's been "widely debunked". Can you cite a source? A lot of people have been angry at her for pointing out flaws in their methodology, but that is not debunking. Her commitment is not to materialism, as I read it, but to reason and science.
 
PCarr said:
I don't agree that she's been "widely debunked". Can you cite a source? A lot of people have been angry at her for pointing out flaws in their methodology, but that is not debunking. Her commitment is not to materialism, as I read it, but to reason and science.
Click to expand...

You will probably find this analysis of her own experimentation to be significant. The paper also includes references to her autobiography.

A Critical Examination of the Blackmore Psi Experiments
 
Last edited:
This paper surveys many historical cases in which presuppositions constituting dominant scientific paradigms have suppressed valid scientific insights and the research supporting them.

Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas

J. Sacherman 1997

Abstract
"American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.

Although some scientific ideas are truly unfounded, the author of this paper will explore instances when valuable scientific ideas were unfairly reviled and rejected. This author will discuss the cognitive processes, including cognitive dissonance, conformity, and various biases which contribute to such suppression."

Cognitive Processes and Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas
 
Constance said:
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I've read enough of her work and also critiques of it in consciousness studies to see that she's a dyed-in-the-wool materialist operating out of irrelevant presuppositions about the nature of consciousness. She's been widely debunked and should have been. But I see no reason why she shouldn't be asked to appear on the Paracast so long as an articulate counterpart to her viewpoint is also present for discussion.
Click to expand...

Then Kevin Randle or Ron Regehr shouldn't appear on the show without Lance Moody or Robert Sheaffer?
 
Constance said:
This paper surveys many historical cases in which presuppositions constituting dominant scientific paradigms have suppressed valid scientific insights and the research supporting them.

Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas

J. Sacherman 1997

Abstract
"American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.

Although some scientific ideas are truly unfounded, the author of this paper will explore instances when valuable scientific ideas were unfairly reviled and rejected. This author will discuss the cognitive processes, including cognitive dissonance, conformity, and various biases which contribute to such suppression."

Cognitive Processes and Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas
Click to expand...

We all know there are problems with science, especially in fields dependent on big funders.

This paper really fails to come up with solid examples acutal suppression, other than the well known case of Wegener's plate tectonics. It think this was more a case of a deeply rooted paradigm resisting change than suppression of good evidence, and it stimulated lots of research that led to the acceptance of plate tectonics. Louis Frank and Dean Radin are terrible examples.
 
Hmm, I see that Jaime Maussan has never been on. If you are not familiar with his work, he's a very prominent UFO journalist in Mexico and reaches a large Spanish-speaking audience around the world. Maussan is not as well known in the USA, but in recognition of his work, he's been invited to speak at this year's MUFON Symposium in September.

Maussan is a very animated speaker and can talk at length about the many interesting UFO cases he's presented in his long career in the field, so finding topics for discussion would not be a problem. He may reached at [email protected]
 
Sentry said:
Hmm, I see that Jaime Maussan has never been on. If you are not familiar with his work, he's a very prominent UFO journalist in Mexico and reaches a large Spanish-speaking audience around the world. Maussan is not as well known in the USA, but in recognition of his work, he's been invited to speak at this year's MUFON Symposium in September.

Maussan is a very animated speaker and can talk at length about the many interesting UFO cases he's presented in his long career in the field, so finding topics for discussion would not be a problem. He may reached at [email protected]
Click to expand...

POST OF THE DAY!!!
 
Back
Top