Everyone loves a mystery. Solve one in science, and accolades are forthcoming. Not so, however, in the realm of the paranormal, where evidence, logic, and theories are often stood on their heads. Whereas forensic scientists, say, begin with the evidence and let it lead to the most likely solution to a mystery, “parascientists” typically begin with the desired answer and work backward to the evidence, employing confirmation bias: They look for that which seems to confirm their prior-held belief and seek to discredit whatever—or whoever—would argue against it.
For example, in the paranormal field of cryptozoology (a term coined by Ivan T. Sanderson to describe the study of “hidden” or unverified animals [Heuvelmans 1968, 508]), proponents of Bigfoot offer a large quantity of evidence. Unfortunately, it is of very poor quality: eyewitness reports, footprint casts, hair samples—just what is attributable to misperception or deception. It is all questionable evidence because, hoaxes aside, neither a live Bigfoot nor a carcass nor even a DNA specimen is available for scientific study.
The same situation holds true for other claims. They include psychic phenomena; ghosts, poltergeists, and demons; flying saucers and aliens; cryptids, such as the Loch Ness monster; spontaneous human combustion; faith healing and weeping statues; the Devil’s Triangle; and so on and on. Mainstream science has not verified as genuinely paranormal any of these objects, entities, or occurrences.
Lisez l'article complet et bien d'autres dans ce numéro de
Skeptical Inquirer
Options d'achat ci-dessous
Si le problème vous appartient,
Connexion pour lire l'article complet maintenant.
Numéro unique numérique
November December 2015
 
Ce numéro et d'autres anciens numéros ne sont pas inclus dans une nouvelle version de l'article
abonnement. Les abonnements comprennent le dernier numéro régulier et les nouveaux numéros publiés pendant votre abonnement. Skeptical Inquirer
Abonnement numérique annuel
€19,99
facturé annuellement