Have you read this book Parapsychology and the Skeptics?

Question

I was just wondering if anyone read it, as it seems really interesting. The author is Chris Carter, and it seems to be a critical examination of the arguments of the skeptics. It appears to deal with a lot of the science and philosophy behind the controversy, and it even has a website at www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

I have not read it (yet) but I posted the full web site below for those interested in all sides of a story. Plus an additional web site that also takes a critical look at some well known skeptics. Thank you for letting us know about the book and the web site.

Michael John Weaver, M.S.

Answer 2

Yes,

paranormal existence vs. skeptics is a ongoing debate.

  Most think it  a solved issue  that one side or the other has yet to be informed of the truth.

It is an issue that will never resolve the same as religious zealots vs atheists; democrats vs republicans;

Answer 3

I haven't read the book, but it does seem interesting. I'm sort of in between the skeptics and the parapsychologists. I believe something is happening that could be called PSI, but for every valid piece of information I find there are a hundred pieces of c**p (that is a conservative estimate). If a field ever needed skeptics, it's parapsychology!

Answer 4

Most of Sceptics are not indeed sceptics- some can not and other do in  secret parapsi.

Answer 5

Why is it that when a mechenism behind a paranormal phenomena is clearly demonstrated, for example orbs, none of the magical thinkers in the paranormal field will accept the evidence.

True, solid, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the nature of orbs can be done. Yet so many people would rather believe testimonial evidence from unknown sources and old wives tales than believe a provable fact. Any professional photographer will tell you that orbs are caused by particles on or close to the lens of a camera.

Answer 6

It's funny how people who believe, or want to believe, in paranormal stuff spend much of their time criticizing the skeptics of paranormal stuff instead of trying to scientifically support their claims.

For example, If you make a claim that has no evidential support I would think that you would spend your time working on scientific validation of your claim, rather than attacking the people who simply point out that there is no scientific evidence to your claim.