The Skeptic's Dictionary? I am aware of all that. My opinion is that such pseudo-skepticism is really just ardent materialists' best effort to denigrate every figure or subject in the paranormal world with anything positive to say about anything.
I'll wait for you to actually interact with the substance of the critiques. Dr. Ryman identifies multiple basic flaws in both Schwartz's methodology and his interpretation of results.
I am sure such things appeal to where you are at so our debating that will not end.
I eagerly wait for such debate.
Through reasoned analysis of the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal reports.
What kind of "reasoned analysis" of such anecdotes would you do that's not scientific? What methodology do you use to select the anecdotes? What methodology do you use to analyze them?
In such analysis I may not be able to formally show 'proof' but I can conclude 'beyond reasonable doubt' status.
"Proof" is the stuff of math and logic. In science we look at evidence and our conclusions are probabilistic. I'm, again, fascinated to hear what non-scientific analysis you do to reach conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.
It has a stronger explanatory power than any other model. For example the paranormal shows me the model I subscribe to has explanatory power beyond that of the materialist model.
That's always going to be the case with magic/God/the supernatural, because by definition those explanations can break any known rules of how the world works, so they can therefore be used to explain literally any data. That's why explanatory power is not enough to establish that a model is more accurate than its competitors. Models have to be falsifiable.
I already posted the following in this thread:
As a believer in the validity of many mystical and psychic experiences, I am not holding the position that the answers are 'magic'. I hold the position that our physical realm is just a subset of a greater reality that science can not yet directly detect with physical senses and instruments.
If this reality is non-physical then by definition science will never and can never detect it. So again, how did you determine it's there?
To call that 'magic' in the way you have comes across as an intentionally derogatory attitude. We say there is 'science' behind everything but our science at this time is restricted to the physical realm subset of all reality.
Science is not merely restricted to the physical "at this time," it's restricted to the physical
by definition.
When you describe an explanation that operates exactly how magic is supposed to, as an unfalsifiable catch-all that defies physical laws and can literally explain any data, then I'm going to continue calling it magic. It's not derogatory, it's accurate.
Well, it is conceptually challenging for us to conceive of what anything not physical 'is'.
It's "conceptually challenging" because it contradicts the very notion of what existence means. To exist is an action that requires time and space. To say something "exists" outside time and space (ie, the physical) is therefore incoherent/meaningless.
However, if we want higher understandings we need to challenge our thinking.
Searching for what we want is a textbook recipe for confirmation bias. It's not about what we want, it's about what we can rationally, empirically demonstrate.
Denying paranormal phenomena after a point looks like desperate clinging to a universe inside-a-box we can kind of get our heads around.
Oh come on.
Can you imagine how amazing it would be if people could actually read other people's minds, or talk to dead people? I'd be thrilled! We would never have another cold case ever again. Innocent people would never languish in prison under false charges. Guilty people would never get off scott free.
My skepticism has nothing to do with not wanting these things to be true. It has to do with these claims not passing basic scientific scrutiny.