I really like Olwe's prose, and take his statement to heart that after turning 50 he's given up hope that that pure rationalism will complete his worldview (if I'm summarizing correctly). I think, like marc515515 says, there are a heck of a lot of us skeptics who want to see paranormal phenomena proven to be part of the normal world, and that's surely the case for most of the SPR folks. Until I can see it myself on the level of chicken dinner (ala Steven Augustine's post) or receive enough cultural evidence (there's a lot to science that I can't see with my own eyes) to believe it, I have to keep even my own weird experiences in the "Who Knows?" category and leave it that.

Right now many aspects of the physical world are getting filed as "Who Knows?": the nature of dark force in the universe, quantum weirdness, or the prospect of ever making contact with any other intelligent life out there. I hope that before I die a whole bunch of this stuff can be settled, and perhaps become as banal as JoAnne Schmitz seems to imply some of it is. I have to argue that quantum weirdness is pretty darn freaky, even to physicists. John Bell's proof of "spooky action at distance" leaves one to wonder if there is something to be exposed by string theory that allows information to travel faster than light, which would probably have to be taken on pure faith by anyone other than the 10 people who might understand the math, or if the universe operates by predetermination, which could easily accommodate psychic phenomena.

Last comment, with regard to Olwe's point:

The aboriginal, the prehistoric human sensed the need for sustainability and balance, and thus, maintained a world view that would insure this relationship with Nature. Their brains were the same size and wiring as ours today, they just used them differently.

Didn't they become us? So what can we gain from thinking this way that we haven't already lost?

Spindoc and others:

I apologize for the obnoxious tone I used in my previous post. I am sorry if I offended anyone. As you know, this is one of those issues where people on both sides of the divide have very strong feelings.

Is it really necessary that I sign my full name? Some posters do. Many do not. I was under the impression that remaining anonymous was an option on this board. TO mock me as a "hidden hero," and imply that I'm some sort of coward, seemed unfair.

To say that these boards are reserved for "informed discussion," however, seems ridiculous to me. If I were to claim, for example, that I had psychic powers (offering no evidence of course beyond my assertion), would that be considered a worthwhile, "informed" comment?

To review my three previous statements which, admittedly, were made in haste:

(1) I think the mission statement of the organization in question sounds awfully fishy. It seems outside the accepted definition of science. I'll use a dictionary: "Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Creating a kinder, more harmonious, more peaceful world is an admirable goal, but it isn't science.

(2) It is my opinion that Deepak Chopra is indeed a charlatan, "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill, a fraud." The American Medical Association, among others, holds a similar opinion of him.

(3) As for Radin's supposed spoon-bending incident, if he did in fact make that assertion, then I think there are three possible explanations as to what actually happened:

(a) He truly bent a spoon using psychic powers. This would be a watershed event in human history. The consequences would be enormous. (I hope that we can agree that all previous people who have claimed to have achieve this feat, most prominently Mr. Uri Geller, have not been able to prove their ability to do so.)

(b) He didn't actually bend a spoon using psychic powers, but he sincerely *believes* that he did. That's what I meant by "delusional."

(c) He didn't actually bend a spoon using psychic powers, and he *knows* that he didn't, but he claims he did anyway. This would constitute being a "liar."

I think if you're going to make claims that are outside the mainstream of accepted thought (and I hope we can agree that most scientists, arrogant though they may be, consider the paranormal to be outside mainstream thought), then you're going to have to put up with being accused of being a "liar," "delusional," a "charlatan," etc. Charging me with libel for doing so seems absurd. Would Radin (and the criminal justice system) really consider it worthwhile? Wouldn't James Randi be in jail (many times over) if the bar for libel were so low? (In case you're wondering, a quick search of the forums at randi.com reveals a large number of similar "libels" against Radin. It looks like a lot of my fellow skeptics will be rounded up along with me.)

Anyway, once again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. And I believe we're all free to believe whatever we want, even though we may disagree with each other, so long as we don't harm each other.

What struck me about the discussion, I think, is that I usually consider Salon a refuge from the overly religious and superstitious culture in which we in America currently find ourselves. That anyone would draw a link betweeen Skeptics and the Religious Right (as one poster did, mentioning the RR's odious opposition to gay rights) seemed very odd to me. Skeptics are generally distrustful of all types of superstition, whether its basis is in traditional religions or in the paranormal.

Time will tell. Maybe the Skeptics like me will eventually be proven wrong and one or more of the phenomena now considered paranormal will become established as incontrovertible fact. Believe it or not, many of us DO hope to one day see such a breakthrough. But everything I've seen so far has left me unconvinced.

--Marc in NYC