This NOT a post about Channeling or some other form of communication with spiritual, spectral or alien intelligences.

It is a a post about a clash of approaches – one that the idealist in me hopes can be resolved, but that experience continues to remind me of the challenges we face.

In previous posts I have tried to articulate my thoughts on scientific process; beliefs, experiences and that eclectic mix of people who choose to call themselves paranormal researchers!

I’ve come-up with a series of conversation models which describe the typical interactions between the various travelers in this world of smoke, mirrors, perceptions, egos and intentions. 

Lets start with a conversation that may happen between a fanatical ‘scientist’ and a ‘believer’…

Believer : I saw a ghost!

Fanatical Scientist: Bollocks!

Now of course we know that scientific method is about questions, evidence and research. There may well be certain scientists who are ‘closed’ to the paranormal and are probably closed because of some of the more inane and credulous believers ‘out there’ who have simply worn them out with their lack of intellectual honesty or rigour. Believe me I really understand that frustration.

For the specific attention of some of those in this area of interest who have a prejudiced view of science remember good scientists never claim:

• They have all the answers
• They posses the only truth
• They are not interested in the possibility of the improbable
• They ‘believe’ in the ‘religion’ of science

Now what about the conversation between a ‘good scientist’ and a ‘fanatical believer’

Fanatical Believer: I saw a ghost!

Good Scientist: Really – how do you know it wasn’t something else?


Fanatical Believer: What! Are you calling me mad! Well others saw it too – you’re like all those other scientists, think you know everything….. well let me tell you.…

Of course most well balanced and emotionally intelligent ‘believers’ (and scientists for that matter) accept that questioning the content of someone’s experience is not an attack on their sanity. It is, perhaps, the fanatical believer who is doing far more to damage the reputation of others actively working in this area than anything else.

The real problem is that some ‘believers’ find it difficult to have their experience questioned and so a very common communication model is this:-

Believer : I saw a ghost


Scientist : Interesting, could it have been something else?

Believer : Well no because the place is haunted anyway, and other people have also seen something similar 

Scientist : Well, I wonder if people who do not believe in ghosts have a similar experience?


Believer : See you don’t believe me, you think I and everyone else is making it up – we are mad or fooling ourselves

 I think there is a pattern here – notice how quickly the believer becomes emotionally and personally engaged in the debate. In fact perhaps there can be no meaningful debate about the experiences a believer has for in the very questioning of that experience there is the assumption (often incorrect assumption) that their personal integrity is being challenged.

It gets very tiring to be honestly questioning an experience in order to define the evidence that may support a particular hypothesis when you are having to deal with emotional responses, personal insecurities, prejudices and uninformed attitudes of others who consider themselves to be investigating!

In many respects investigations and experiments need to be as emotionally neutral as possible. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there are more people involved in the world of ‘paranormal investigations’ who are really seeking to support their pre-existing metaphysical belief system than in wanting to define any degree of ‘truth’ or ‘mechanism’ or ‘reality’ behind the subjective experiences we as human beings have.

This is why I call myself a Rational Mystic…

I do hold a particular set of ‘beliefs’ about the universe and those beliefs are best defined using metaphorical frames…. more of that elsewhere for those really interested.

I have a set of understandings, based upon reading, empirical research and experience that shape ideas about the nature of human perception, human experience and communication.

I have a set of understandings, based upon reading and the empirical research of others that inform me of some of the ways in which nature and the universe work.

I am learning, and continue to learn, about the most effective ways to engage in meaningful debate and use creative thinking and critical thinking ‘tools’ to extend and improve my learning.

I can, and try, to keep to the evidence, the nature of the evidence and the quality of the information being presented when in mind when in ‘rational mode’.

I can, and do, abandon myself to flights of metaphysical fantasy and spiritual exploration when in ‘mystic’ mode.

Here is the core of the issue..

When I talk as a mystic I know I am sharing what I personally feel about the nature of the human psyche and the universe. I am happy to be challenged on those ideas, and questioned but I am aware that there are personal emotions attached to each idea. I choose when and where I offer those ideas and if I want them to be evidentially challenged or empirically questioned. I do not expect people to believe me or buy into my personal truths. More importantly when questioned I can simply say that is what I believe but I am happy to listen and consider your opinion.

When I talk rationally I want to bring to bear all of my questioning, thinking and empirical faculties. I assume that since I am being asked to consider ‘evidence’ then this approach is valid. Of course I will start with a default position and that is the position of what ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ explanation exists for the evidence being presented.

If I am being honest with myself and true to my values then if I cannot find a rational explanation for something after personal and intellectual research then I will accept the irrational (mystical) possibilities presented AND will do so eagerly and with much excitement.

Some believers SAY they are presenting evidence when they are simply seeking to reinforce a belief with observations they have already accepted as ‘evidence’ supporting their opinions. When their evidence is questioned in the spirit they (thought) they offered it they react emotionally and often disproportionately.

We are literally communicating between worlds and perhaps, as I have mentioned elsewhere, believers in a specific thing are potentially the worst kind of investigator since they may lack the intellectual discipline required to be truly empirical.