In essence, Dean knows his field and on the subject of coincidence, I too have had this happen many times.

An example of this would be dreaming that a friend was flying home from the service, and then the phone waking me up. It is his mom telling me that she just picked him up at the airport.

In a way, coincidence points toward a sort of framework that we are nested into which seems to allow for choices. Our level of awareness allows us to either follow along the path or change our course.

I have been researching a place called the Coral Castle since the age of 11. I had always known I would one day go there. How one man, 5 foot in height, 100 lbs was able to move 1100 tons of coral by himself, with no witnesses, is a bit of a mystery. I had several dreams of being there months prior to accidentally going. This science is real.

One other thing about Dean Radin is is close work with Lynne McTaggart and her intention experiment. She also wrote another book called The Field. Good books on this same type of subject matter.

So… while analysis of statistical probability may validate our suspicions of there being more to the universe than we know about, the potential source of problems lie in the hypotheses that we use to explain these anamolies.

On the other hand, an equal mistake - I think - is made by the investigators who go out to expose “charlatans and quacks.” Are they attacking the hypothesis?.. or the possibly very real existance of an anamoly that contradicts their fundamental beliefs? I would refer one to the debate between Author C. Clark and Randy the Magician over the topic of divining for water.

I am always amazed at the limitless meanderings of the human mind. In this day and age, where religion and science seem at greater odds than ever before, I welcome any scientific research that can demonstrate undiscovered realms of thought, idea, and experience.

How many times have we heard of, or even experienced for ourselves, that ‘eureka’ moment that so many scientists have reported throughout the centuries? One of my favorites is the scientist (I’m sorry, I can’t remember his name; perhaps someone out there does?) who discovered the structure of the benzene molecule after ‘day dreaming’ about it! What a great example of unfettered thought leading to actual, demonstrable results.

Perhaps the so-called paranormal is just another pathway in the brain that does not get used very much. After all, is it not true that we are using only a small portion of our available brain power? I’ve heard over the years that as much as 80% of our brain is unused! What is all that capacity for?

Frankly, I see no reason for science and religion (or the paranormal) to be at odds. So many of our greatest scientists believe in God. Could it not follow that He gave us the power to discover how He does it? Will we invent ‘faster than light speed’ only to meet Him out there somewhere?

Incidentally, I’m a strong agnostic but I haven’t lost the ability to imagine!

Thanks to EarthSky for allowing me to ramble -M

There have been numerous “scientific” studies of paranormal phenomena. They carry the trappings of science, and the terminology, and sometimes the equipment. But it is not equipment and words that make science. It is procedure and philosophy. Many so-called scientific projects — and especially those that from the get-go are designed to prove some specific point — outwardly appear scientific to the uninitiated, but are not so at all.

I am not aware of any studied of paranormal phenomena that were not either fatally flawed or did not fail to find any significant evidence of paranormal events. The bottom line in science is evidence, and there just as with the case of UFOs, there is no solid evidence of paranormal phenomena that cannot be explained as possible coincidences, hallucinations, misinterpretations of normal and natural phenomena, or simply events which are completely natural and possible, but statistically unlikely. None of these qualifies as being paranormal — unusual maybe, but not paranormal.

Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am *_not_* saying that paranormal phenomena are impossible. I am just saying that for my way of thinking, there is not enough evidence for them to base any important decision on. I would very much like for there to be paranormal phenomena. It is a very hopeful viewpoint. It would give me the feeling that maybe life after death is possible — maybe my mother and sisters and grandparents and everyone else I have ever loved is still out there somewhere and that maybe someday I will see them again. That is an incredible thought — and one that I will maintain the _hope_ for, whether there is any evidence or not. I would be absolutely thrilled to find some unassailable and undeniable evidence for paranormal phenomena and the supernatural world. No one would want it more than I.

But intellectually I realize that the rules of science define (somewhat differently for every scientist but in general the same) the most logical and reasonable approach to life. And science demands strict evidence. I am not personally aware of any evidence that provides any solid foundation for any paranormal experience.

If Dr. Radin can produce solid evidence of paranormal phenomena, he will in my opinion deserve a Nobel prize. It would be the greatest discovery in human history. No question about it. But if he can’t provide such evidence, this research is no better that any of the failed psychic searches that have gone before.

Larry Sessions

It’s not as strange as it sounds.

I’d contend that it is — and skepticism is warranted. If EarthSky intends to post such articles in the future, I’d respectfully suggest including resources which offer critical analysis of paranormal claims. In its present form, this piece looks like a tacit endorsement of pseudoscience, which I find rather disappointing. You may be interested to know that The Institute of Noetic Sciences earned a spot on Quackwatch founder Dr. Stephen Barrett’s list of questionable organizations, which he views with “considerable distrust”.

Earth & Sky tries to build a bridge between scientists and you.

… and that I appreciate. This, I do not.

The Science of the Subjective / Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

The Consciential Paradigm
http://www.iacworld.org/English/Courses/TrainingMethod.asp
http://cref.tripod.com/old/cover.html

From a course description:
David Lindsay (Interntional Academy of Consciousness - New York) analyses the roots of the current Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic paradigm that forms the basis of many scientific disciplines, and raise questions about whether that paradigm is outdated.

Invoking Kuhn, it investigates whether the current paradigm in fact blocks the possibility of meaningful progress in consciousness research in particular. It proposes a new paradigm, the consciential paradigm (a paradigm based on consciousness), which reformulates the nature of reality based on findings obtained through voluntary induction of out-of-body experiences.

Under the consciential paradigm, the basic assumptions are that we reincarnate and that we have real, subtle bodies with which we can separate from our physical body to visit other dimensions of existence.

Self-experimentation is the preferred methodology under this new paradigm, not just because technology to measure such phenomena is currently limited, but also since it is impossible to conduct comprehensive research in this field without personal experience of the non-physical dimensions. It concludes by questioning how we view ourselves as individuals, and how much that has been influenced by the dominant scientific paradigm. It proposes a new broad view for seeing ourselves and others, based on the premises that we are non-physical in origin and are here on the planet primarily to learn, develop, and help others.

Deborah