The Science of the Paranormal
Consciousness, the subjective experience of an inner self, could be a phenomenon forever beyond the reach of neuroscience. Even a detailed knowledge of the brain's workings and the neural correlates of consciousness may fail to explain how or why human beings have self-aware minds.
David J.Chalmers Ph.D. -- The Puzzle of Conscious Experience. Scientific American. special issue 'Mysteries of the mind' (1997):
The problems with Scientific philosophy.
"What about The Skeptics" by David Morehouse, PH.D.
This is section from Dr. Morehouse's book, Remote Viewing: The Complete User's Manual for Coordinate Remote Viewing. Dr. Morehose was trained by the U.S. Government in Remote Viewing, a program that used an exact scientific protocols. He is a former U.S. Army Ranger Commander and Special Operations Officer trained in the top secret CIA Project Star Gate. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1999.
Most of us never practice science - we merely become compilers and communicators of it. Most in this genre of work like to call themselves parapsychologists, and that is a grave mistake. In the quest for truth in Remote Viewing, there are no real parapsychologists - they are nothing more than indviduals masquerading as scientists, alleging they can prove Remote Viewing, mind-reading, telekinesis, psychokinesis, and a host of other paranormal mysteries. Many reputable authors, scientists, and certainly skeptics refer to parapsychologists as psuedoscientists, meaning they espouse a system of methods and assumptions they erroneously regard as scientific. I am very pleased to say this was not the case at SRI. Had SRI and those scientists affiliated with the project not completely and thoroughly under the protocols of their field, the door for skeptical criticism would have been left wide open. It is the scientific procedure used to develop and evaluate the protocol of Remote Viewing that has kept if from the psuedoscientific wolves all these years.
I include a note on skeptics at this point because I feel it is critical that you have a clear understanding of who is debunking this work, exactly what their scientific background is or is not, and what motivates their skepticism. I have been interviewed several hundred times on radio and problably fifty times on television all over the world. In about 20 percent of those interviews and appearances, I have had the distinct pleasure of having a counter-position representative from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) or some other skeptical committee. I agree with Dr. Raymond Moody's description of these representatives, likening them to the hecklers of nightclub comedians - that is to say, what they really crave is not excellence in science but more attention for themselves.
Most self-proclaimed skeptics are not true skeptics at all. In one sense, they are simply "professional skeptics," earning a living through the proclamation that there is nothing beyond the physical in human ability. In another sense, they are ideologists who think they have the answers. The ideology they espouse is known as scientism, the belief that methods and assumptions of the natural sciences are the only ones appropriate for the pursuit of knowledge. Scientism is an open value judgement that other disciplines ought to conform their techniques of investigation to those of the physical and biological sciences. These skeptics are in fact not interested in science; rather, they are fueling some sort of social movement againist the possibility and promise of humanity. Knowing what they espouse, consider this premise: If Remote Viewing cannot be explained by science (their science), then it cannot exist at all; it must be a hoax or, at best, wishful thinking, certainly a waste of taxpayers' money. Yet these skeptics openly use electricity when there is not a physicist on the planet who can explain in anything but theoretical terms how electricity travels along a copper wire. If one adheres rigidly to the criterion that everything must be explained unconditionally, then we should not be reading by the light of incandescent lamps, since we only theoretically understand the power behind them. We should not be using aspirin, since we do no fully understand how it works in the human body. We should not be using approximately 36 percent of the pharmaceutical contents of the Physician's Desk Reference, since we do not fully understand the pharmacology of the drugs in the human body - we only observe the results. The scientists at SRI could not tell you how Remote Viewing works - not really. They can only theorize, and that has been the sole ground for skeptics to discredit Remote Viewing - the same people who accept the unexplained movement of electricity because it is convenient for them.