-
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!
Guest Suggestions for The Paracast
- Thread starter Facius_Cardan
- Start date
And not a blood-letting? 
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
Gene beat me to it ! I highly doubt Jamie would come on!
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
"Suppression"? Or just normal, healthy scientific skepticism? We presented with two options: methodological problems with experiments, or overturning hard-won knowledge about how the natural world works, which option do you think we should look at first? Standards of evidence aren't always as high as they should be in science, but they're higher than that!
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
Seriously? No, can't be.
I can't hope to change your understanding of this situation in a brief post, but this book will very likely do that.
Amazon.com: Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics (9781594774515): Chris Carter, Rupert Sheldrake: Books
Book description:
A factual and conscientious argument against materialism’s vehement denial of psi phenomena
• Explores the scandalous history of parapsychology since the scientific revolution of the 17th century
• Provides reproducible evidence from scientific research that telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis are real
• Shows that skepticism of psi phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science
Reports of psychic abilities, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis, date back to the beginning of recorded human history in all cultures. Documented, reproducible evidence exists that these abilities are real, yet the mainstream scientific community has vehemently denied the existence of psi phenomena for centuries. The battle over the reality of psi has carried on in scientific academies, courtrooms, scholarly journals, newspapers, and radio stations and has included scandals, wild accusations, ruined reputations, as well as bizarre characters on both sides of the debate. If true evidence exists, why then is the study of psi phenomena--parapsychology--so controversial? And why has the controversy lasted for centuries?
Exploring the scandalous history of parapsychology and citing decades of research, Chris Carter shows that, contrary to mainstream belief, replicable evidence of psi phenomena exists. The controversy over parapsychology continues not because ESP and other abilities cannot be verified but because their existence challenges deeply held worldviews more strongly rooted in religious and philosophical beliefs than in hard science. Carter reveals how the doctrine of materialism--in which nothing matters but matter--has become an infallible article of faith for many scientists and philosophers, much like the convictions of religious fundamentalists. Consequently, the possibility of psychic abilities cannot be tolerated because their existence would refute materialism and contradict a deeply ingrained ideology. By outlining the origin of this passionate debate, Carter calls on all open-minded individuals to disregard the church of skepticism and reach their own conclusions by looking at the vast body of evidence.
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
Not so seriously, but it might make for the funniest episode of the Paracast ever.
EricTheRed
Paranormal Maven
My following comment plants no flag in either the camp of psi or psi skepticism. However, I find the thesis that the resistance to psi has to do with protecting materialism to be questionable, since if psi does exist then surely there must be a naturalistic explanation for it, and hence there's nothing to be afraid of.
I think a likelier explanation is the historical association between religious supernaturalism, against which doubt is well justified in the eyes of many serious minds, and the paranormal or extraordinary. This association probably muddies necessary distinctions for some. Just because psi might exist doesn’t mean that you also have to buy into the metaphysics behind, or the story of, a man who supposedly rose from the dead to save you from your sins.
And then there's the risk to one's reputation if one should express professional interest in psi. The risk might be simply self-reinforcing. One person doesn't get tenure because they express interest in psi, and everyone else duly notes this and falls in line.
My last batch of reading on psi left me skeptical, but there are two developments lately that have reignited my curiosity in the subject. The first is Ben Goertzel’s article:
"Paranormal Phenomena, Nonlocal Mind, Reincarnation Machines - How I Came to Accept the Paranormal"
Paranormal Phenomena, Nonlocal Mind, Reincarnation Machines - How I Came to Accept the Paranormal I'm not super familiar with Goertzel's writings, but he has on a number of occasions struck me as very smart and not prone to self-delusion. His article gave me pause.
The other development is the fairly recent experiment done by Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell, which if the results are replicated with more exacting controls, could possibly be THE breakthrough study in psi that should convince open minded skeptics that there's something real going on. Here's an article on it: An Autistic Telepath With Great Accuracy | The Weiler Psi
For me the jury is definitely still out on the Powell experiment, but count me intrigued.
On a related note, last year I read a book by Larry Dossey, One Mind: How Our Individual Mind is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why it Matters. It left me severely disappointed, given his reputation. He just didn’t bring the necessary rigor to his claims—not even close.
I recently purchased but have yet to read Dark Pool of Light: Vol. 1 The Neuroscience, Evolution, and Ontology of Consciousness: The Convergence of Physical, Philosophical, Psychological, Psychospiritual, and Psychic Views, by Richard Grossinger.
Between this, what you recommend, Constance, and Goertzel’s recommended reading, and I’m sure I’ll have a new appreciation of things.
Last edited:
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
You keep using this word "materialism" in the pejorative sense, and yet you have not defined it. What does it mean to you?
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
I read Goetzel's article, and was left extremely frustrated. The whole argument doesn't hinge on quantum physics abuse like nonlocality, but whether there is a ton of good evidence. What he says is that he edited a book and was convinced by that that psi is real, so go read it it you want to discuss it with him. That is a massive shifting of the burden that leaves me a little steamed.
The Powell study is interesting, but there is a long line of single-subject cases that have blown up in the face of researchers. I'm sure you know about Project Alpha and Uri Geller.
Last edited:
Wade
FeralNormal master
I just finished listening to a TGR episode featuring Joshua Cutchin who just came out with a book on the prevalence of food and drink being presented in various fortean folklore. Good stuff
His book
Amazon.com: A TROJAN FEAST: The Food and Drink Offerings of Aliens, Faeries, and Sasquatch (9781938398353): Joshua Cutchin: Books
On TGR
"...Then in hour two, on the subject of folklore, Joshua Cutchin joins us to discuss his latest book, A Trojan Feast, which outlines the curious ties between food offerings and nonhuman encounters in legends from around the world. Joshua brings many interesting aspects of this phenomenon into question, such as the parallels between myths involving fairies giving food to their captives, and similarities that emerge in modern claims associated with alien abductions..."
TGR 06.08.15. A Trojan Feast: Fortean Food in Folklore
An RPJ blog post on him from late last year
A Fortean Feast with Joshua Cutchin | The Daily Grail
His book
Amazon.com: A TROJAN FEAST: The Food and Drink Offerings of Aliens, Faeries, and Sasquatch (9781938398353): Joshua Cutchin: Books
On TGR
"...Then in hour two, on the subject of folklore, Joshua Cutchin joins us to discuss his latest book, A Trojan Feast, which outlines the curious ties between food offerings and nonhuman encounters in legends from around the world. Joshua brings many interesting aspects of this phenomenon into question, such as the parallels between myths involving fairies giving food to their captives, and similarities that emerge in modern claims associated with alien abductions..."
TGR 06.08.15. A Trojan Feast: Fortean Food in Folklore
An RPJ blog post on him from late last year
A Fortean Feast with Joshua Cutchin | The Daily Grail
It might be that you prefer the term 'physicalism' to 'materialism'. This article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy addresses the relationship of these terms:
Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"1. Terminology
Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), both of whom were key members of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians active in Vienna prior to World War II. It is not clear that Neurath and Carnap understood physicalism in the same way, but one thesis often attributed to them (e.g. in Hempel 1949) is the linguistic thesis that every statement is synonymous with (i.e. is equivalent in meaning with) some physical statement. But materialism as traditionally construed is not a linguistic thesis at all; rather it is a metaphysical thesis in the sense that it tells us about the nature of the world. At least for the positivists, therefore, there was a clear reason for distinguishing physicalism (a linguistic thesis) from materialism (a metaphysical thesis). Moreover, this reason was compounded by the fact that, according to official positivist doctrine, metaphysics is nonsense. Since the 1930s, however, the positivist philosophy that under-girded this distinction has for the most part been rejected—for example, physicalism is not a linguistic thesis for contemporary philosophers—and this is one reason why the words ‘materialism’ and ‘physicalism’ are now often interpreted as interchangeable.
Some philosophers suggest that ‘physicalism’ is distinct from ‘materialism’ for a reason quite unrelated to the one emphasized by Neurath and Carnap. As the name suggests, materialists historically held that everything was matter — where matter was conceived as “an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist” (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). But physics itself has shown that not everything is matter in this sense; for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Lange 1865, Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983). So it is tempting to use ‘physicalism’ to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences. However, while physicalism is certainly unusual among metaphysical doctrines in being associated with a commitment both to the sciences and to a particular branch of science, namely physics, it is not clear that this is a good reason for calling it ‘physicalism’ rather than ‘materialism.’ For one thing, many contemporary physicalists do in fact use the word ‘materialism’ to describe their doctrine (e.g. Smart 1963). Moreover, while ‘physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’
In this entry, I will adopt the policy of using both terms interchangeably, though I will typically refer to the thesis we will discuss as ‘physicalism’. It is important to note, though, that physicalism (i.e. materialism) is associated with a number of other metaphysical and methodological doctrines. We will return to some of these when we discuss Physicalism and the Physicalist World-picture. . . . ."
Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"1. Terminology
Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), both of whom were key members of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians active in Vienna prior to World War II. It is not clear that Neurath and Carnap understood physicalism in the same way, but one thesis often attributed to them (e.g. in Hempel 1949) is the linguistic thesis that every statement is synonymous with (i.e. is equivalent in meaning with) some physical statement. But materialism as traditionally construed is not a linguistic thesis at all; rather it is a metaphysical thesis in the sense that it tells us about the nature of the world. At least for the positivists, therefore, there was a clear reason for distinguishing physicalism (a linguistic thesis) from materialism (a metaphysical thesis). Moreover, this reason was compounded by the fact that, according to official positivist doctrine, metaphysics is nonsense. Since the 1930s, however, the positivist philosophy that under-girded this distinction has for the most part been rejected—for example, physicalism is not a linguistic thesis for contemporary philosophers—and this is one reason why the words ‘materialism’ and ‘physicalism’ are now often interpreted as interchangeable.
Some philosophers suggest that ‘physicalism’ is distinct from ‘materialism’ for a reason quite unrelated to the one emphasized by Neurath and Carnap. As the name suggests, materialists historically held that everything was matter — where matter was conceived as “an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist” (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). But physics itself has shown that not everything is matter in this sense; for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Lange 1865, Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983). So it is tempting to use ‘physicalism’ to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences. However, while physicalism is certainly unusual among metaphysical doctrines in being associated with a commitment both to the sciences and to a particular branch of science, namely physics, it is not clear that this is a good reason for calling it ‘physicalism’ rather than ‘materialism.’ For one thing, many contemporary physicalists do in fact use the word ‘materialism’ to describe their doctrine (e.g. Smart 1963). Moreover, while ‘physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’
In this entry, I will adopt the policy of using both terms interchangeably, though I will typically refer to the thesis we will discuss as ‘physicalism’. It is important to note, though, that physicalism (i.e. materialism) is associated with a number of other metaphysical and methodological doctrines. We will return to some of these when we discuss Physicalism and the Physicalist World-picture. . . . ."
Han
piscator ψ
Why not have a round tabl
This reminds me of this thread:
Food/drink in contactee and abduction stories? | The Paracast Community Forums
I appreciate your post and the links and references you provided. I agree that Diane Hennacy Powell's research seems significant and look forward to further developments in it. I also found the Dossey book uninteresting and didn't finish reading it.
I read and enjoyed the Ben Goertzel article you linked and noted that he recommends Stephen Braude's Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death. That is a very significant book and I think you would find it so. I'm linking it below and, following that, another outstanding contribution to the understanding of consciousness, mind, and their evident persistence beyond embodied life.
Amazon.com: Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century (9781442202061): Edward Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly: Books
I should add this recently published sequel to Irreducible Mind:
Amazon.com: Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality (9781442232389): Edward F. Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Paul Marshall: Books
Last edited:
wwkirk
Paranormal Adept
Stephen Braude himself would make a great guest. Stephen E. Braude is an American philosopher and parapsychologist. He is a past president of the Parapsychological Association, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
His website is: Stephen E. Braude - Jazz Philosopher, Professor, Author, Lecturer
I agree. A great suggestion that Gene and Chris interview him in a Paracast program, and I second it.
It would help us immensely and your chances of hearing your suggested guest on the program, if you tracked down a contact number or email address for the person. That would make it much easier (and more likely) that we would be able to get a request out to your suggested guest to be on the program! Thanks for all the suggestions and for all your help in this regard!
Waller
Paranormal Maven
I've followed Braude for most of his publishing and paranormal investigative career. Would he be a good guest? Possibly.
Braude's serious failings were brought into the clear sunshine when he publicly admitted to changing his report to match a colleague's (Michael Nahm), that report being the improperly named a 'scientific' investigation of physical medium Kai Muegge. Then published his findings in what has come to be a joke, the Journal of [non]Scientific Exploration. Which he is the Senior/Chief Editor who, apparently, the good Dr. is incapable of healing himself.
Braude not only skewed his point of view regarding the genuineness of Muegge's mediumship he has consistently refused to give credence to the spirit involvement in said medium's seances. Instead we get word salad explanations such as this:
"For reasons discussed in detail in my paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, I believe that Kai has employed a magic trick on at least a few occasions in the past. And Michael Nahm, in the companion article to mine in the JSE, raises some serious allegations about some of Kai’s other phenomena. However, I have not found any compelling reason for thinking that Kai could have cheated in the carefully controlled seances conducted under my supervision, especially those in Austria in 2013. It’s true that the evidence, even in those best cases, is not as strong as in the very best cases of physical mediumship from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But I remain especially impressed and intrigued by the evidence we have so far for table levitations and objects moving at a distance from the medium (while the medium is under intrusive control). The ectoplasmic manifestations still need better controls, along the lines mentioned in my paper."
The bolding is the original. Found here.
You can have Philosopher Braude, his rag journal and his podcast, I for one, wouldn't waste the bandwidth. Fool me once...