Return to Home
Lawyer Rebuts Prof. Richard
Dawkins, Scientist, re the paranormal
By Victor Zammit,
retired attorney, legal consultant, psi researcher and writer.
In his article ‘What’s Wrong
With The Paranormal’ Professor Richard Dawkins,
went out of his way to intentionally and unconscionably
attack psi scientists, empiricists, researchers and others
in the paranormal and the gifted mediums we have in this
world. He imputed dishonesty and fraud.
A Professor colleague of mine drew my attention
to Dr Richard Dawkins’ anti-paranormal, anti-afterlife
beliefs. Hereinafter, is my response. Whilst Dr Richard
Dawkins may be a good theoretical scientist (My criticism
is only about his anti-paranormal activities), close content
analysis of his criticisms of the paranormal and the afterlife
shows he does not understand what is ‘admissible evidence.’
I found his writing against the paranormal to be uninformed,
descriptively denigrating, unnecessarily sarcastic, full
of fundamental deletions and full of rationalizations and
certainly his argument is not empirically based.
Like a couple of other scientists I came across in the past,
he erroneously thinks just because he is a theoretical scientist
– a zoologist, he is omniscient and infallible in
disciplines he has not qualified in.
He ends his argument citing self-serving highly negatively
prejudicial sources – one of them being one of the
lowest, most academically unaccepted, descending to the
lowest realm in desperation to find some support for his
particularly weak argument.
WHO IS PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS?
He is a self-confessed materialist. He says
in his own words ‘paranormal is bunk’ i.e. it
does not exist. He publicly stated that he does not believe
in the afterlife.
Now this R. Dawkins (hereinafter Dawkins or
RD) is expressing a personal view, not a scientific view,
because he can never use science to show that the paranormal
and the afterlife do not exist. He is into conjecture and
speculation. He’s into subjectivity. He’s into
debunking. He’s into demeaning, denigrating and sarcasm.
He’s into personal beliefs in his argument because
he never comes to empirically based conclusions.
Further, because he is a self confessed materialist
and has been actively anti-paranormal, he does not and cannot
perceive empirical evidence for the paranormal with empirical
equanimity. He’s deeply negatively prejudiced. His
objectivity is negatively encumbered. And that is a huge
problem for someone who keeps on saying he is a scientist.
In fact this Dawkins believes the paranormal
and the afterlife do not exist. Technically, that makes
him a ‘believer.’ That makes his argument subjective-
and anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental
error and to complete invalidation.
What he says in academic science is absolutely
his business. But when he tries to use his position as a
theoretical scientist to debunk the paranormal and the empirical
evidence for the afterlife, he is out of his league because
his argument is subjective. He is uninformed about admissible
evidence and he just regurgitates clichés consistent
with his own negative propaganda against the paranormal.
This may amuse a few hard cored debunkers who delude themselves
all the time, but all of his writing is unqualifiedly inadmissible
as an empirically accepted argument against the paranormal
and the evidence for the afterlife.
Richard Dawkins is a zoologist – his
university studies had nothing to do with physics. The paranormal
is about non-physical energy – vibrations at higher
speed than the physical. So that relative to and compared
with those physicists who have accepted the link between
quantum physics and post-physical consciousness Dawkins
is inevitably underqualified.
Just three scientists I mention - physicists-
who show continuity of the acceptance of the paranormal:
Sir William Crookes in the nineteenth century, Sir Oliver
Lodge in the twentieth and Professor Fred Alan Wolf in the
twenty-first century. For Dr R Dawkins to impute that these
physicists – and the hundreds of other leading scientists,
empiricists and researchers who have been investigating
psi for over a hundred years are fools and/or were into
fraud, is something totally absurd. Neither R Dawkins nor
any other scientist or debunker or closed minded skeptic
on earth has proved this– and inevitably can never
Further, we have never ever seen any reports anywhere and
anytime that Dr R Dawkins ever systematically investigated
the paranormal or the afterlife. There have never ever been
any reports that he empirically experimented in paranormal
phenomena or empirically tested gifted mediums or psychics.
So his rejection of the paranormal is based strictly on
intrinsic, negative prejudice - personal belief.
Accordingly, by any objective test, R Dawkins
does not have credibility, does not have any authority,
does not having standing whenever he intrudes into the realm
of the paranormal and the afterlife. Underneath the façade
of his theoretical science, Dawkins in the context of the
paranormal is really a believer.
Dr. R Dawkins’ quotes in italics, my
response to his article ‘What’s
Wrong with the Paranormal’ follows):
1. # “Science tells us what
we have reason to believe. Not what we have a duty to believe.
Not what experts, in their pontificating wisdom, instruct
us to believe … science tells us what there is good
reason to believe …”
First, who is making the statement ‘science
tells us what we have reason to believe’? There are
at least two views: there is inevitably the view of the
orthodox scientists and the view of the ‘new scientists’
– (those who canvass any phenomenon where non-physical
energy gives more likely than not reasons for its existence
and occurrence). The ‘new science’ empiricists
and those into psychic phenomena state that all psychic
activities have to do with non physical energy. Non physical
energy has to do with quantum physics. A number of scientists
including physicists, e.g. Prof Alan Wolf include quantum
physics in their explanation of paranormal activities.
The orthodox scientist, as R Dawkins is will
interpret phenomena consistently with his own bias- and
will ignore any possibility there could be a psi (all psychic
and afterlife phenomena) explanation. The ‘new scientist’
will state that whereas in some instances orthodox science
cannot explain some psi phenomena – (but the evidence
for its occurrence is absolute) it does not mean the phenomena
did not take place. Just because a phenomenon cannot be
reproduced in a scientific laboratory it doesn’t mean
it wasn’t experienced. For example, most of us experienced
the phenomenon of love. Just because reductionist science
cannot reduce the phenomenon of love in the laboratory,
does it mean love does not exist?
Further, I have met people who did not experience
love, were not loved, do not love and cannot express love.
At least one of them stated ‘there is no such thing
as love – it’s all the mind.’
I totally agree, we should not allow irrelevant
‘experts’ to pontificate about what wisdom we
should and should not accept.
2.# “History shows lots
of examples where the best science of the day was wrong,
superseded by later centuries. There’s much that science
still doesn’t know.”
Absolutely! Totally agree with the first statement.
This in fact is what is going on to-day. Notwithstanding
the objective, empirical psi evidence by the new science
to-day, orthodox science just cannot or does not want to
explain empirical paranormal activities. Why not? First,
if the empirically elicited psi evidence is accepted, then
the whole spectrum of reductionist orthodox science would
inevitably have to be reviewed – in fact, it would
become redundant overnight. The war between orthodoxy and
the empirical-paranormal accordingly, is a fierce one. The
existence of non-physical energy will explain all psi activities.
That is being resisted by orthodox scientists – such
as R Dawkins. As to the second statement, that too I agree
with, because with absolute certainty, there is much to-day
orthodox science still doesn’t know about.
Dawkins’ mind deletes the times when orthodox scientists
and materialists made fools of themselves initially rejecting
unorthodox discoveries – just a couple of examples
courtesy of Richard Milton:
• Sir William Preece former chief engineer of Britain's
Post Office will be remembered for making one of the most
'idiotic' comments in history about Edison's inventions.
Sir William stated that Edison's lamp (parallel circuit)
was a 'completely idiotic idea'!
• Professors, including Professor Henry Morton who
knew Edison stated, immediately before Edison demonstrated
the electric light globe: 'On behalf of science ... Edison's
experiments are a ... fraud upon the public.'
• The Scientific American, The New York Times, The
New York Herald, the U.S. Army, academics — including
Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy Simon Newcomb from
John Hopkins University— and many other American scientists
all heaped derision, ridicule and denigration onto the Wright
brothers claiming that it was: 'scientifically impossible
for machines to fly'!
• One of the leading scientists from the French Academy
of Sciences stated that hypnosis is a fraud and stated after
seeing a hypnotized subject with a four inch needle in the
top of his arm: 'This subject has been paid for not showing
he's in pain'.
• Another scientist from the French Academy of Sciences,
after listening to a record made by Edison, stated: '...
clearly that is a case of ventriloquism'!
• John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, was
attacked by closed-minded skeptics who stated it was: 'absolute
rubbish that television waves could produce a picture!
• The highly prestigious (U.K.), Astronomer Royal
announced that talk of space flight was 'utter bilge'. This
was just 18 months before Russia's Sputnik I roared into
orbit." Adrian Berry, Science Correspondent, Daily
the discoverer of electricity, "I am attacked by two
very opposite sects - the scientists and the know-nothings.
Both laugh at me, calling me 'the frogs' dancing master'.
Yet I know I have discovered the one of the greatest forces
3# “Now, how about the paranormal? What
does it mean? It’s been defined as ‘things that
science cannot explain.’ That means ‘Cannot
explain and never will’, which is much stronger than
‘Hasn’t yet solved’…. And there’s
nothing necessarily paranormal about faith-healing. Or visitors
from outer space. I’ll bet there are creatures on
other worlds. One day they may come here, though that is
hugely less likely. And if they do come, it’s even
less likely that they’ll look like us or want to abduct
When I first read that, I thought this guy is not just trying
to be cynical – he’s trying to be funny! Maybe
he should try being a stand up comic. Certainly, the sarcasm
and the implied derision are naïve and irrelevant,
unnecessary and show that RD found it necessary to descend
to descriptive non sequiturs to score a cheap point.
Not impressive at all.
It is absolute nonsense that the paranormal has been defined
to mean and impute “things that science cannot explain
and will never explain.” To-day’s general definition
of paranormal is: ‘seemingly outside normal
sensory channels; not in accordance with known
scientific laws.’ But psi empiricists state that notwithstanding
orthodoxy, all paranormal activities are within the ambit
of science. The paranormal and the afterlife’s non-physical
energy have to do with physics.
A materialist such as RD will immediately come to the erroneous
conclusion that the definition implies ‘things that
science cannot explain and never will’. But that is
a self-serving, subjective imputation consistent with RD’s
deeply entrenched negatively prejudicial anti-paranormal
beliefs. Again, Dawkins’ mind is making things up
for him consistent with his perception that only materialism
exists and is excluding anything contrary to his cherished
I can tell you now myself that given the empirical evidence
for psi, orthodox science one day in the near future will
have no choice but to accept it. It is only a matter of
time – and there will be nothing more powerful than
an empirically based idea whose time has come.
4# To call something paranormal means that it
is for ever impossible for science to explain. It’s
Psi and other empirical writers on the paranormal do not
have the luxury of beliefs and/or miracles. Any reading
of some of our highly credible psi empiricists will show
that there are NO miracles, no beliefs, no subjectivity,
no wishful thinking, no religion, no superstition. Only
that non physical energy explains all psi.
5# TELEPATHY: A recent poll showed nearly 50%
believing in thought-reading. Actually, if telepathy ever
were convincingly demonstrated, I’d treat as a fascinating
problem that science doesn’t yet understand, like
radio once would have been. But let’s talk about it
anyway because, like astrology, if there were any evidence
for it (there isn’t) it would be difficult for present
day science to explain. I can understand why so many people
believe in telepathy. We’ve seen it ‘demonstrated’
on television. First the television ‘demonstrations’.
These are just conjuring tricks. Not even very clever tricks.
In one television show compered by David Frost … Then
we’re told he’s only a conjuror, so we don’t
‘think paranormal.’ It’s only because
David Frost is there, gasping and goggling, that we take
Professors, academics, lecturers, scientists, psi empiricists,
psi researchers, informed writers on the paranormal and
other interested parties from the U.K., the U.S., and other
English speaking countries would have been rather stunned
by Dawkins relating to a television entertainment show compered
by David Frost to try to demean and denigrate telepathy!
How unprofessional! How un-empirical. How unscientific.
Informed academics, scientists, empiricists and others would
have at least expected Dawkins to research telepathy at
the Society for Psychical Research in the UK and then in
the SPR in the U.S. But he didn’t! Because if he approached
the subject more professionally he would have read the empirical
experiments on telepathy cited by Dr Dean Radin in Chapter
5 of The Conscious Universe.
I submit that Dawkins in this aspect tried to mislead, deceive
and misinform. He tried to fool the readers and to lead
them astray; his refusal to do proper professional empirical
research continues to show that he is either incompetent
to do objective empirical psi research or he fears that
there are unshakeable confirmed empirical experiments which
have empirically confirmed the validity of telepathy –
and that would have been bad for his health, disaster for
his ego and devastating for his self-esteem . I can hear
voices from both sides of the Atlantic crying out, shame,
6.# If telepathy (or levitation, or lifting
tables by the power of thought etc) were ever scientifically
proved, its discoverer would deserve the Nobel Prize and
probably get it. So why fool around doing party turns on
television, instead? The reason is obvious. These performers
are only doing tricks, and they know very well that they
couldn’t get away with it under scientifically controlled
The Society for Psychical Research has volumes of empirical
studies where there were strictly controlled conditions.
In the laboratory, comparisons (meta-analysis) of 309 studies
of precognition (telling the future) in the laboratory have
demonstrated that the subjects showed their ability to see
the future against odds of TEN MILLION BILLION BILLION to
ONE that they could have done it by chance. This INEVITABLY
means that the information did NOT come by chance and that
psychic phenomenon of recognition is real, repeatable and
testable! (See Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe
p.114.) Yet, RD did not cite even one empirically elicited
psi result – and some of these results have been most
positive and most successful for the paranormal and the
afterlife. Is RD implying all the successful experiments
during 100 years of testing by the SPR are fraudulent? Or
is RD too lazy to find out the truth? Or is RD running away
from results which are fundamentally inconsistent with his
own cherished beliefs – and would have absolutely
made nugatory his personal beliefs against the paranormal.
7# Having said that, some ‘paranormalists’
are skilled enough to fool most scientists, and the people
best qualified to see through them are other conjurors.
This is why the most famous psychics and mediums regularly
make excuses and refuse to go on stage if they hear that
the front row of the audience is filled with professional
I submit Dawkins himself in fact could be the classic example
of a scientist fooled by low level anti-paranormal debunkers.
This is because Dawkins speaks like them, argues like them
in psi and does not cite empirical evidence to substantiate
his anti-psi argument - just like them.
Further, do your homework Dawkins. Professional
conjurors have in fact confirmed that that the positive
results from some of the empirical experiments conducted
recently could never be duplicated by conjurers. One instance
that comes to mind was master magician James Webster who
repeatedly witnessed the non-physical energy in the Scole
Do not delude yourself that paranormalists can outsmart,
out-trick and outwit scientists or empiricists in the laboratory
or under strict empirical testing.
Recent history has shown negative debunking empiricists
who cheated gifted psychics and lied to try to concoct results
to make them consistent with their own negativity. Do your
research and you will get the correct information –
start from my website www.victorzammit.com
– it’s all there! Start with the article about
why psychically gifted Russian teenager can sue the negatively
entrenched debunking psychologists who ambushed her. This
is one of the most disgusting episodes ever witnessed in
the history of empirically testing gifted psychics.
8.#Various good conjurors, including The Amazing
Randi in America and Ian Rowland here, put on shows in which
they publicly duplicate the ‘miracles’ of famous
paranormalists – then explain to the audience that
they are only tricks.
I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this one! This is
where Dawkins swallowed hook line and sinker the anti-propaganda
dished out to him by lower level of debunkers. He really
believes and wants to believe the anti-paranormal propaganda
because not only does he not want to question the propaganda,
he needs nourishment to support his anti-psychic beliefs.
There have been attempts to duplicate John Edward, the gifted
psychic, for example. But this alleged conjuror Randi made
a fool of himself at the ULTIMATE CHALLENGE in London -
he miserably failed.
Further, citing Randi as a source is like slipping on dogs’
poo. Why? Because investigators, such as myself find Randi
has no credibility at all. For example, the alleged ‘Amazing’
Randi to me is the amazing con artist who is on record for
stating that he will always have a way out (of paying in
his challenge)- which in the opinion of many is the biggest
hoax in psychic history. When confronted with that information
he not only did not deny it, he just stated words to the
effect that well, since there is no paranormal, no one is
going to win anything!
I ask you now, is he lying to the public?
Is he cheating? Is he conning the public? Mediums I talked
to felt they were cheated - and felt they were conned.
Randi is not a scientist, not an empiricist,
not an academic, not a scholar, not a peer refereed author,
and knows nothing about classic scientific method. He has
not rebutted any objective empirical evidence I presented
in my afterlife argument - as he imputed he would some eight
years ago. I'm still waiting!
He concedes he is a professional trickster
professionally trained to mislead, to misrepresent, to misguide
and to misinform.. He is an expert at verbal-sleight-of-hand.
He is on record for being highly unethical - to fool a number
of decent scientists and academics- to fool the media, to
fool journalists and editors, to fool television reporters,
to fool members of the decent public. Some gullible academics
have been victims of his anti-paranormal propaganda - perhaps
such as Dawkins - who directly supports this self confessed
professional trickster who offends, insults and plays dirty
because he knows if he does not play dirty he will never
get anywhere. And he is one of Dawkins' major references
against the paranormal?
9.#Why, when he could earn a living as an honest
conjuror, would someone pass himself off as a ‘paranormal’
miracle-worker. I’m sorry to say the answer’s
very simple. There’s more money in it, and it’s
more glamorous. What jobbing conjuror could hope to break
into television, with David Frost as fawning master of ceremonies?
Or earn fat ‘consultation fees’ from oil companies
for ‘psychic divination’ of where to drill?
Or have Princess Diana drop onto your lawn by helicopter?
Again, Dawkins shows he knows nothing about the documented
lives of many gifted psychics. Try learning about Chico
Xavier - one of the greatest quantum healers and psychics
in history - for a start to learn the sacrifices genuine
psychics and healers make to help the thousands who need
their help and who in many instances do not charge a cent
for their services. And this uninformed Dawkins calls these
Not empirical or scientific or objective – just sheer
unsubstantiated negative descriptive low level speculation,
most unbecoming of a theoretical scientist.
As to earning fat consulting fees, Dawkins fails to realize
the commercial nature of companies. RD shows he has no experience
in commercial ventures. No commercial company will ever
pay a cent unless it gets results. It is sheer sloppiness
and even ignorance about commercial dealings to even suggest
that companies will part with their profits without getting
any returns. Commercial deals are usually based on contingent
10# “ … But, given the population
of the United States, he worked out that approximately 300
people would be experiencing coincidences at least as weird
as his, every day. Only those who have those experiences
bother to remember them, or write to the newspapers. That’s
why we hear about them. Nobody writes to the paper and says:
"I dreamed that my uncle had died. And when I woke
next morning, would you believe it, there was nothing wrong
Why not look at the meta-analysis of 309 studies of precognition
in the laboratory cited above? The authors concluded that
the possibility of the results having occurred by chance
were TEN MILLION BILLION BILLION to ONE. Scientists to-day
are empirically testing mediums using properly controlled
double blind studies and obtaining dramatic, positive results.
Would Dawkins bow to the truth and accept defeat? Or is
he likely to continue to denounce, ridicule, heap derision
on those gifted psychics who hold the key to understanding
the non-physical energy which one day will revolutionize
science as we know it. Some might say that history will
certainly remember Dawkins!
11.# COLD READING: How about performers who
seem to ‘sense’ that somebody in the audience
had a loved one whose name began with M, owned a Pekinese,
and died of something to do with the chest – ‘clairvoyants’
and ‘mediums’ with ‘inside knowledge’
that they ‘couldn’t have got by any normal means’?
I haven’t space to go into details, but the trick
is well known to conjurors under the name ‘cold reading’.
It’s a subtle combination of knowing what’s
common (many people die of heart failure or lung cancer),
and fishing for clues (people give the game away when you
are getting warm), aided by the audience’s willingness
to remember hits and overlook misses. Cold readers also
often use narks, who eavesdrop conversations as the audience
walks into the theatre. When done well, cold reading can
be impressive, but it’s perfectly well understood
and there’s nothing miraculous about it.
Here again Prof. Dawkins repeats without doing his investigating
what the low level closed minded skeptics have been saying
for years. We tell Dawkins to do his low level narration
somewhere else - and let’s be empirical: what happened
when one, highly flamboyant, anti-paranormal, anti-afterlife
debunker Dawkins keeps referring to him - tried to emulate
the gifted medium John Edward, by showing it is all ‘cold
reading’ – one named Zwinge Randi in England
in the television show THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE? Randi was
so bad, so embarrassing, so awkward and so silly, he was
virtually booed off stage.
He was humiliated. He was shamed and he looked utterly ridiculous.
The producer went rushing to stop the filming of the COLD
READING segment of the show. It is interesting that R Dawkins
will not demonstrate cold reading himself on stage. Because
he would be, like his referee Zwinge Randi, a laughing stock
for the next decade. There is a great danger now of his
being the laughing stock of the decade for attacking the
paranormal without substance, without citing empirically
elicited information, without science.
Further, who, where, when and how were these eavesdroppers
caught? With a stroke of unsubstantiated pen, Dawkins, without
being specific, makes this claim without mentioning names,
without identifying locations and without mentioning even
one verified incident or stating any other relevant information
to show what he is saying ought to be taken seriously. As
evidence Dr Dawkins gives us zilch – nothing –
wanting us just to trust him, ‘it happens, you know”.
Dawkins being empirical? Scientific? Objective? Absolutely
12.# The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to
sell it to us are fakes and charlatans, and some of them
have grown rich and fat by taking us for a ride. You wouldn’t
fall for a smooth salesman who offered you a car without
an engine. So why be fooled by paranormal con-artists? What
they are selling you doesn’t work. Send them packing
and drive them out of business.
Objectively, that kind of speculative talk is the low level
negative description we hear from the uninformed fifth rate
skeptics. Clearly, Dawkins shows he is not discriminating,
has not studied, analyzed and come across the empirical
studies. No, RD, get your facts right. Start by reading
Dr Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe and Dr
Claude Swanson's - a physicist scientist with impeccable
credibility, The Synchronized Universe - The New Science
of the Paranormal.
Dawkins, scoffers and debunkers have to learn
how to discriminate between the quacks and the charlatans
who are not psychic but claim to be from the admittedly
much rarer genuine and legitimate ones.
I for one spent some $250,000 in time, energy and my own
funding to do critical research into this the most important
discovery in human history: the revolutionary non-physical
energy which explains all paranormal activities and the
existence of the afterlife. This will inevitably change
completely traditional orthodox science – it is only
a matter of time for its acceptance. And when that time
comes, orthodox science will have to inevitably encompass
the new science of the non-physical energy.
13#, On his website Dr R Dawkins writes
inter alia, (letter to S Ford, 22nd January 1992), “
… much of the alleged evidence that people think is
convincing is not really convincing at all.”
Just to deny all of the evidence in a global manner, without
using of scientific method is not scientific, not empirical
and not consistent with the rules of technical rebuttal.
Denial, i.e. stating words to the effect, ‘I’m
not convinced’ is not rebutting anything and is amateurism
pushed to its extreme. What is professionally required is
for Dr R Dawkins to legitimately, technically and properly
rebut all the expressly stated objective evidence for the
paranormal and the afterlife- more than twenty three areas
of objectively elicited empirical evidence.
Hitherto, no zoologist, no scientist, no debunker, no closed
minded skeptic or anybody else has been able to rebut the
expressly stated objective evidence for the paranormal as
I presented it on this website. Perhaps, Richard would like
14.# Elsewhere, he writes, “Faith, being
belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice
of any religion.”
Dawkins falls into his own trap when his own
unsubstantiated faith in materialism is not based on evidence.
15.# Elsewhere Dawkins writes,
“Science is actually one of the most moral, one of
the most honest disciplines around -- because science would
completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence
to honesty in the reporting of evidence.”
The objective observer will immediately see
the two-faced hypocrisy of Dawkins in this statement. The
immediate reaction is, “Gee, this Dawkins says one
thing but he himself does the opposite. I wonder why?”
Yes, we wonder why! In his anti-paranormal
article he specifically aimed at denigrating psi and its
adherents and by imputation those who are researching it.
Dawkins did not at any stage scrupulously
adhere to honesty in reporting the plethora of objective
evidence for the paranormal. He can’t say he couldn’t
find any books on the matter –in my bibliography I
have cited some 200 books published over the last 100 years
on the subject. This is the kind of two faced insincerity
that digs deep holes in his credibility as a psi critic.
16.# "There are excellent books ...(identifies
a few low level anti-paranromal, anti-afterlife books closed
minded skeptics and debunkers such as Randi, Shermer, Hutchinson.
But he also includes Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World.)
Except for Dr Carl Sagan, Dr Dawkins cites only debunking
authors who are nothing but low level anti-psi propagandists,
who are not scientists or empiricists and who do not perceive
psi with true equanimity. This is self- serving and a waste
of time. Their contempt for the paranormal is a personal,
subjective view. Dr Carl Sagan on the other hand does not
belong to the debunking closed minded skeptics' group -
although the debunkers portray him as being onside by selecting
only those aspects of Carl Sagan's writings that are consistent
with their own. Carl Sagan, criticizes aspects of the paranormal,
the way I do, the way other psi empiricists and other writers
do. We discriminate between the fakes, charlatans and the
gifted psychics. But ultimately, Carl Sagan allows the reader
to decide for himself or herself about the paranormal and
the afterlife. And just for the record, Carl Sagan never
analyzed the empirical evidence for psi and was never able
to find fault with its methodology or conclusions. In fact,
he expresses a personal, a fallible subjective view unsupported
by hard core science or empiricism.
A brief summary:
• Why was Prof. Dawkins not honest enough
to report the huge amount of critical objective psi evidence
by some of the most intelligent scientists which are changing
the world to-day?
• A brilliant Ph.D physicist (Dr Fred
Alan Wolf known as Dr Quantum) traveling the world lecturing
on his book How Quantum Physics Proves the Existence
of the Soul knows that post-physical consciousness
is the greatest discovery in human history. If Dawkins disagrees
with that, why has not
Dr. Dawkins tried to properly and legitimately rebut his
work in context of quantum physics? That would be honest.
That would show high integrity and full professional responsibility.
• Other Ph.Ds are using strict scientific
method to control, measure, quantify non-physical energy
in the mediumship context. This is all revolutionary stuff
in science. Why is Dawkins as quiet as a mouse in these
• For more on scientists succeeding
in empirically investigating non-physical energy –
the paranormal/afterlife go to my
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
Richarad Dawkins' full articlce What
Wrong With the Paranormal
-- Victor Zammit (updated 10th October 2005)
Return to Home