RR0/rr0.org

<!--#include virtual="/header-start.html" -->
<title>Editorial (Zetetic Scholar n°10)</title>
<meta content="Truzzi, Marcello" name="author"/>
<meta content="Zetetic Scholar n°10, 1982, pp. 5-6." name="copyright"/>
<!--#include virtual="/header-end.html" -->
<p>Since the tenth issue ZS, it constitutes a kind of anniversary. Readership has stabilized a bit, and I hope for a
  long future. Even the ZS publication schedule, a which has been a bit erratic may soon improve since the backlog of
  materials is growinq such that most of the next ZS is already in andnearlyready. SO, ZS#ll should be out right on
  schedule eventhough this issue is delayed about a month. That's the good news. The bad news is that ZS continues to be
  a labor of love and struggles along financially. So, I hope those of you who appreciate ZS will (1) resubscribe, (2)
  seek to get us new subscribers with serious interest (ZS has never been intended for a general, popular audience), and
  (3) try to get your university or local libraries to subscribe. Since ZS is basically a oneman operation, what is
  needed is a quality readership that justifies the effort but which is quantitatively large enough (about 600) to make
  it financially secure.</p>
<hr width="10%">
<p> Two major areas of confusion persist which might be clarified here, at least as far as the policy of ZS is
  concerned. The first concerns the meaning of the term <i>paranormal</i>. The second concerns the character of our
  focus on anomalies.</p>
<p>The terms supernatural and paranormal are constantly confused, particularly by critics of the paranormal. tlanyf us
  are critical of any sort of supernaturalism but remain comfortable with claims of the paranormal. The notion of the
  supernatural concerns the idea that there are things <em>outside</em> of the natural world, the empirical world of
  science. The central ideathe supernatural is of a world of forces and/or entities beyond the natural order, The
  supernatural is a major part of most theologies and usually concerns a transcendent order (heaven, angels. etc.) that
  does not obey natural laws. l/hen the supernatural intrudes into the natural world, it is usually in the form of a
  <em>miracle</em>. A miracle is a suspension of the natural order of things; it is an exception to what normally
  happens in nature, For religions, miracles take place through divine interventions. The point is: the supernatural is
  not law-like. It is not part of nature whose laws scientists seek to formulate. On the other hand, the
  <em>paranormal</em> is part of the natural order which is not yet understood. Scientists who study the paranormal
  begin with the assumption that the esoteric phenomena they seek to study is lawful, Thus, the parapsychologist, for
  example, does not think psi is a miracle. an exception to the laws of the natural world. tie thinks psi is something
  that exists in the natural world and follows some sort of law-like pattern yet to be discovered. (There are a few
  parapsychologists who believe that psi may be "random" and without pattern knowable to man, but this makes psi <em>preternatural</em>
  --beyond everything-- no longer paranormal since it is no longer amenable to scientific generalization,) The
  paranormal is not "miraculous" and it ceases to be paranormal as soon as scientific theory advances to the point that
  it can become part of "normal" science. Many, if not most, claims of things paranormal are probably errors. But there
  will always be new anomalous facts which are now denied but which will eventually become accepted, often via
  reconceptualizations quite unlike those of their current proponents.</p>
<p> The important thing in this distinction is to realize that claims of the supernatural are ascientific or even <em>anti</em>scientific.
  They claim things outside of science. But claimants for paranormal phenomena are trying to extend science in normal
  methodological fashion to examine possible new phenomena and perhaps incorporate them into new scientific theories.
  The paranormal claim may oppose current scientific majority opinion as to the adequacy of our existing scientific
  theories, but that opposition can be on purely scientific grounds and should not be confused with antiscience. And
  arguments against "miracles" and other supernaturalisms should not be invoked to dismiss paranormal claims. One can be
  opposed to metaphysics and mysticism while still open to evidence and arguments for claims of the paranormal.</p>
<p> This distinction is an important one for ZS in that supernatural claims are simply outside the scope of our
  dialogues. For example, a paranormal explanation of a supernatural claim (e.g., a psychokinetic explanation for the
  Shroud of Turin) would be unsatisfactory for that claim's proponents, Ironically, while critics of the paranormal
  confuse it with the supernatural, supernaturalists (e.g., the Catholic church) have long recognized that a paranormal
  explanation eliminates a miracle.</p>
<p> A complementary confusion+exists about the proper focus on anomalies, b/e know that anomalies do exist. ble know
  that many claims of anomalies are in error but that some will probably emerge validated. Science is always incomplete
  and fa llible. Ideally, it should be a self-correcting system that will slowly and conservatively accept and integrate
  new anomalies into our scientific view of the world. Anomalies represent a crisis for existing theories, but they also
  represent opportunities for new, advanced theories, But we should not confuse our constructive and open attitude
  towards anomalies with <em>mystery mongering</em>. Many Forteans, for example, seem to enjoy anomalies for the
  discomfort they cause scientists. An anomaly is important to science only in so far as it can lead us to better theory
  and incorporation of the anomaly so that it is no longer anomalous. The goal is to produce better and more complete
  science; it is not to embarrass science. Obviously, some scientists are unduly dogmatic,and we may enjoy seeing them
  have to eventually admit an anomaly they denied (forcing them "to eat white crows"). But if anomalistics is to be a
  scientific orientation, its goal must be to explain anomalies not gloat over their being unexplained. I think we must
  admit that many anomaly-seekers want things "unexplained" and enjoy anomalies because they are puzzles. They want
  puzzles, not solutions to puzzles. Such puzzle seekers may play a valuable role in alerting scientists to new puzzles.
  But puzzles for the sake of puzzles is not basically a scientific attitude. In fact, it may actually become an
  antiscientific attitude if carried to extremes. Anomalies are a means to an end: improved science. They should not be
  an end in themselves. They may be useful in reminding us of the limitations of current scientific theory; they become
  abused if they are centrally used to attack rather than extend science. When an anomaly is accepted and incorporated
  into normal science, we should be pleased; but I think we need to face the fact that many proponents of the anomalous
  would be terribly disappointed rather than pleased if tomorrow their pet anomaly (whether UFOs, psi, or whatever) was
  accepted and neatly explained. Examining the "unexplained" can be fun, but insistence that it remain"unexplained" even
  after it is reasonably examined and either explained or dismissed, may distort healthy anomalistics into dysfunctional
  mystery mongering.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->