I have been a long time listener to The Paracast and have enjoyed the exposition of the many paranormal issues David and Gene have explored over the past years. I heartily congratulate them on tackling the topic with serious commitment and an overriding concern for the “truth”.
<o></o>
Unfortunately however it seems that David and Gene are becoming increasingly frustrated in their search for “the truth”, often bemoaning the fact that the field of paranormal research has hardly advanced in (over) half a decade of public attention (I would argue otherwise…), and in their desperation even coming to decidedly defeatist conclusions such as that humankind may actually be “incapable” of understanding the truth about the paranormal. David and Gene’s frustration is also showing more and more in their treatment of guests who differ in opinion to their own – often exhibiting an unbecoming anger and petulance toward them and even on more than one occasion resorting to direct insults. Things seem to be falling apart for them and this does not bode well for the continuance of The Paracast - which has become one of the few rational, beacon lights in an otherwise murky mist of surreality, misinformation and disinformation surrounding the field of paranormal research.
<o></o>
What is however becoming increasingly clear is that David and Gene’s lack of a sound fundamental grounding in science and philosophy is more and more contributing to their own frustration and inability to come to grips with the “big picture”, instead concentrating on and becoming distracted by petty arguments over the minutia of answers to their often intelligent and probing questions. (Unfortunately) they are not alone in this basic lack of understanding of the principles of science (in what it is, how it historically operates and what it can or cannot presently do for us), many eminent scientists also lack a sound conceptual grasp of the discipline. But that is not all. To grasp the meaning of the paranormal requires a multidisciplinary approach. A fundamental understanding of (and thorough familiarity with the history of and the latest advances of at least) physics, chemistry and biology, coupled with psychology and sociology and the philosophical disciplines of ethics, epistemology and perception (at the very least), is needed (not to mention politics and cultural anthropology!). It is a rare person indeed who can truthfully claim to understand and be conversant with the fundamentals of all these disciplines and still be able to combine their lessons in ways that allow us to maintain a coherent grasp of some fundamental assumptions that keep us from becoming lost in the “noise”, but I contend it is nevertheless a prerequisite for coming to terms with a true understanding of “the paranormal”.
<o></o>
David and Gene are correct when they point out that paranormal research is (and historically has been) prey to any and all comers who merely have the power to raise their voices, rationally or irrationally, for good or for evil, above the general cacophony to gain warranted or unwarranted public attention and in this respect, lacking a sound peer review process, paranormal research, as is currently and in the main practiced, does not constitute a scientific discipline and is therefore prone to lunatic cult beliefs, practices and pronouncements which seem to eternally muddy the waters for those rational voices who do attempt to apply critical reasoning and scientific discipline to their explorations and expositions. My contention is that David and Gene’s fundamental lack of grounding in science and philosophy is leading to an insecurity in their being able to hold onto some fundamental “realities” concerning the paranormal, which in turn leads to their increasing frustration, both with the topic and with many of the people involved in it.
<o></o>
One must not however become disheartened with the task ahead. Each journey begins with a first step and I would exhort all those interested in truly understanding “the paranormal” (and particularly David and Gene as they are “in the public eye”) to begin by gaining a thorough understanding of the history, philosophy and methodology of science. With that as a base one can then move on to explore philosophy (particularly epistemology – or how we know what we know – and perception) and then a toss up between the “hard sciences” (physics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and psychology and sociology as a next step. This may sound a truly daunting task, but if one wants to truly understand “the paranormal” one first needs the tools to understand it with, and as I said, each journey begins with the first step (and one must begin somewhere).
<o></o>
Finally, having a multidisciplinary understanding prevents us from making unwarranted assertions - such as those pertaining to our incapacity to understand, or that “exopolitics” is a waste of time or that “disclosure” is an endeavour doomed to failure… these assertions are based on assumptions that dictate a certain reality about the paranormal that in the same breath we claim not to (or can never to be able to) know…
<o></o>
Of course the natural (and lazy man’s) argument against such individual labour and certain sacrifice to learn would be to state that one need not be an expert to understand the principles involved, one need only employ (or interview) experts to provide us with a generalist understanding – but that is my point exactly! First, there are no real experts (only pretenders) on whom we can unreservedly rely and second, it is only via a true multidisciplinary understanding that one may understand who is providing “good” information, because with a multidisciplinary understanding one has a fundamental grasp of all the assumptions that may underpin any information received - and it is this global understanding of assumptions that provides us the base of all knowledge. For example folklaw often seems to have a certain common sense “ring of truth” about it – until one examines the assumptions underpinning it… (often correlation equals causation or that the cause is dispositional rather than situational) … and it all falls apart.
<o></o>
No, my contention is that if David and Gene, at this point in their Paracast careers, wish to avoid ultimate frustration and “burnout” they need to avail themselves of the tools necessary to move ahead. That is, David and Gene, to avoid slipping into angry irrelevancy you must now embark upon a true journey of discovery by learning how to apply the knowledge of a multidisciplinary scientific approach to the field of paranormal research. A first step must be the history, philosophy and methodology of science, without this first step you will remain lost in the noise. With it, music will begin to emerge.
<o></o>
Unfortunately however it seems that David and Gene are becoming increasingly frustrated in their search for “the truth”, often bemoaning the fact that the field of paranormal research has hardly advanced in (over) half a decade of public attention (I would argue otherwise…), and in their desperation even coming to decidedly defeatist conclusions such as that humankind may actually be “incapable” of understanding the truth about the paranormal. David and Gene’s frustration is also showing more and more in their treatment of guests who differ in opinion to their own – often exhibiting an unbecoming anger and petulance toward them and even on more than one occasion resorting to direct insults. Things seem to be falling apart for them and this does not bode well for the continuance of The Paracast - which has become one of the few rational, beacon lights in an otherwise murky mist of surreality, misinformation and disinformation surrounding the field of paranormal research.
<o></o>
What is however becoming increasingly clear is that David and Gene’s lack of a sound fundamental grounding in science and philosophy is more and more contributing to their own frustration and inability to come to grips with the “big picture”, instead concentrating on and becoming distracted by petty arguments over the minutia of answers to their often intelligent and probing questions. (Unfortunately) they are not alone in this basic lack of understanding of the principles of science (in what it is, how it historically operates and what it can or cannot presently do for us), many eminent scientists also lack a sound conceptual grasp of the discipline. But that is not all. To grasp the meaning of the paranormal requires a multidisciplinary approach. A fundamental understanding of (and thorough familiarity with the history of and the latest advances of at least) physics, chemistry and biology, coupled with psychology and sociology and the philosophical disciplines of ethics, epistemology and perception (at the very least), is needed (not to mention politics and cultural anthropology!). It is a rare person indeed who can truthfully claim to understand and be conversant with the fundamentals of all these disciplines and still be able to combine their lessons in ways that allow us to maintain a coherent grasp of some fundamental assumptions that keep us from becoming lost in the “noise”, but I contend it is nevertheless a prerequisite for coming to terms with a true understanding of “the paranormal”.
<o></o>
David and Gene are correct when they point out that paranormal research is (and historically has been) prey to any and all comers who merely have the power to raise their voices, rationally or irrationally, for good or for evil, above the general cacophony to gain warranted or unwarranted public attention and in this respect, lacking a sound peer review process, paranormal research, as is currently and in the main practiced, does not constitute a scientific discipline and is therefore prone to lunatic cult beliefs, practices and pronouncements which seem to eternally muddy the waters for those rational voices who do attempt to apply critical reasoning and scientific discipline to their explorations and expositions. My contention is that David and Gene’s fundamental lack of grounding in science and philosophy is leading to an insecurity in their being able to hold onto some fundamental “realities” concerning the paranormal, which in turn leads to their increasing frustration, both with the topic and with many of the people involved in it.
<o></o>
One must not however become disheartened with the task ahead. Each journey begins with a first step and I would exhort all those interested in truly understanding “the paranormal” (and particularly David and Gene as they are “in the public eye”) to begin by gaining a thorough understanding of the history, philosophy and methodology of science. With that as a base one can then move on to explore philosophy (particularly epistemology – or how we know what we know – and perception) and then a toss up between the “hard sciences” (physics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and psychology and sociology as a next step. This may sound a truly daunting task, but if one wants to truly understand “the paranormal” one first needs the tools to understand it with, and as I said, each journey begins with the first step (and one must begin somewhere).
<o></o>
Finally, having a multidisciplinary understanding prevents us from making unwarranted assertions - such as those pertaining to our incapacity to understand, or that “exopolitics” is a waste of time or that “disclosure” is an endeavour doomed to failure… these assertions are based on assumptions that dictate a certain reality about the paranormal that in the same breath we claim not to (or can never to be able to) know…
<o></o>
Of course the natural (and lazy man’s) argument against such individual labour and certain sacrifice to learn would be to state that one need not be an expert to understand the principles involved, one need only employ (or interview) experts to provide us with a generalist understanding – but that is my point exactly! First, there are no real experts (only pretenders) on whom we can unreservedly rely and second, it is only via a true multidisciplinary understanding that one may understand who is providing “good” information, because with a multidisciplinary understanding one has a fundamental grasp of all the assumptions that may underpin any information received - and it is this global understanding of assumptions that provides us the base of all knowledge. For example folklaw often seems to have a certain common sense “ring of truth” about it – until one examines the assumptions underpinning it… (often correlation equals causation or that the cause is dispositional rather than situational) … and it all falls apart.
<o></o>
No, my contention is that if David and Gene, at this point in their Paracast careers, wish to avoid ultimate frustration and “burnout” they need to avail themselves of the tools necessary to move ahead. That is, David and Gene, to avoid slipping into angry irrelevancy you must now embark upon a true journey of discovery by learning how to apply the knowledge of a multidisciplinary scientific approach to the field of paranormal research. A first step must be the history, philosophy and methodology of science, without this first step you will remain lost in the noise. With it, music will begin to emerge.
