Scientific V Paranormal: Am I Missing Something Here?


I’ve been thinking about the criticisms and ridicule aimed at those, like myself, who have had paranormal experiences and how science is always used as the weapon to destroy paranormal experiences and those who have them.
Unless I’m missing a major point here, I would argue that ultimately a paranormal experience and its reporting is similar to scientific discovery and the subsequent peer review process, in that both come down to the ‘taking at their word’ the scientific ‘Discoverer’ or paranormal ‘Experiencer’.

If someone claims to have had a paranormal experience then the explanation of their experience is looked at and analyzed by those in the field and an opinion, based on a variety of criteria, is given on the case which may then be discounted or endorsed by others in that field of paranormal research.
With the nature of paranormal phenomena being that it generally cannot be replicated by other investigators or researchers, ultimately, unless there is corroborating evidence, the word of the experiencer must be taken that they are reporting their experience truthfully and honestly.
When a scientist discovers something within an experiment and writes about his/her discovery, their explanation of this result and experience is then peer reviewed,
ie; those in the particular scientific field look at their work and ‘experience’ of the discovery or result and give their opinion on it based on certain criteria.
Unless those reviewing the scientists work actually go and attempt to replicate the scientist’s experiments then are they not taking the scientist’s word that what occurred or was discovered has been reported truthfully?
The peer review process is not one of re-experimentation but of passing opinion, ultimately on the testimony of the scientist making the claim.
The only difference I see is that a scientist does have the possibility of maybe replicating the experiment but how often does that actually happen?
So both paranormal experiences and scientific discovery rely on ‘eye-witness testimony’.
Or am I missing some major point here?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s