S.R.L., does that mean that you believe that there is no way to have "proof" in an arena of academic science?
In that case, let me turn the question around and drift into the hypothetical; if you were, by some means meeting your standards and your definition of the paranormal, to review evidence, or a collection of evidence, that proved your topic of interest in the field was, beyond all shadow of doubt, false, would your interest in that particular topic, or the broader topic, evaporate? Or, do you think you would continue to research these topics strictly for the campfire aspects?
I include in my own perception of the paranormal the aspect of suspension of disbelief as a necessary component to the complete experience of the medium. I relate it to Anton Levy's hypothesis on the nature of human beings and the psychological requirement the species has for engaging in ceremonies, superstitions, and/or experiences that require the willful application of suspension of disbelief. While I would definitely be considered a skeptic, and my main area of interest in the paranormal field is folklore, part of the consumption of that folklore is based around a willful, but temporary, suspension of disbelief. Listening to the stories and, in that moment in time, experiencing an emotional openness to "believe," on a profound level, what I'm hearing as fact. In that way, I think it may go beyond the campfire tale as an emotional experience, which is why I feel it is an art form that creates an experience that is very different from the majority of other forms of media.
It is similar to the campfire experience in that the form requires a community of lore-builders and believers to fortify the overall emotional experience.
To expand upon the original post, are there any other skeptics in the forums who feel similarly? Am I the only one who experiences the medium in this way? I feel like that's impossible.
