Actually rarely if ever have I seen you admit the experience as it occurred. Usually you deny the experience in favor of a hoax or error or, as in Kitt's case, some sort of false memory syndrome. Going from "paranormal = unexplained" to "unexplained does not = paranormal" isn't an expansion so much as a contradiction. But that's fine. I'm used to you changing your definition of words in the middle of a debate. I am not clear on the distinction between the explanation and the observation because there is in fact no clear distinction here. Science itself provides many examples of explanations/theories that also designate the phenomena itself. Evolution is a theory AND a process of nature. Gravity is a theory AND a force of nature. Even electricity is a theory AND a form of energy. That's what explanations do. They identify new phenomena and ascribe to it properties/traits that make it identifiable as such from then on. The term paranormal is no different. It is both a theory and class of phenomena that is identified by the theory. It is a point you contradictorily assume. You say we should never have to posit paranormal causes because there are always mundane factors that can be attributed instead. IOW, paranormal as an explanation logically cannot ever exist. But then you say a paranormal explanation DOES have validity in what it posits as the cause of the phenomenon. So which is it? Is paranormality EVER a valid explanation for a phenomena? ??? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself again. Establishing correlations towards to goal of isolating the cause. We'll have to agree to disagree then here because in my 10 years of studying the phenomena I have observed abundant evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena such that we can indeed acquire knowledge about it. So again you deny the validity of a paranormal explanation de facto. All we can say is "we don't know" because afterall all causes are mundane in nature. That's a philosophical assumption on your part and not one based on science. There's probably no mundane cause for consciousness either, but we don't say consciousness as a transmundane phenomena doesn't exist. No..I simply insist that the paranormal as a field of study in itself not be dismissed from the outset in the name of some assumption of physical reductionism. I insist the evidence be examined objectively and compared with any alternative explanations that might fit better. That's all I'm asking. The "you don't have an answer yet" fallacy. Once again, as if a phenomena has to have a scientific explanation to be accepted as real. Then maybe the paranormal is not in the purview of science. Maybe we need new methodologies and heuristics to validate the paranormal, much as we have in other fields such as historical research, politics, psychology, and philosophy. Once again in all investigations I have observed the mundane explanations ARE debunked first before positing the paranormal as a cause. This is SOP for researchers in this field. And as far as the evidence being anecdotal--yes all evidence is anecdotal. You always take someone else's word for it that such and such happened. It's how we operate in human society. Once again, the paranormal should never even exist as an explanation because we might always find a mundane explanation later on. That's ridiculous. Paranormality has it's own traits and properties that distinguish it every bit as much electricity or radiation distinguishes itself by. Ignoring these typicalities and just saying you don't know the cause isn't scientific. It's resigned ignorance. Science is all about inferring kinds of phenomena based on certain recurring patterns in how it behaves. That's how we know there's paranormal phenomena. Because it recurs in certain typical ways and expresses common characteristics. Uh oh. Here we go again with the demoralization of paranormalists. They're irrational AND lazy, even though they're actually the only ones out in the field making the observations and recording the results. If you wanna see lazy, ask a skeptic to examine paranormal phenomena itself. You will never get him out of his armchair to test the phenomena himself. He is more content to pontificate and absolutize from the comfort of his own living room or website. No less than one only looking for mundane causes who just knows for a fact that the paranormal is never valid as an explanation. Physician heal thyself. But even then we are only relying on the self-reports and anecdotes of those reperforming scientists. For all we know the experiment could be entirely hoaxed just to get a paper published or win a research grant. I'm sure that happens more often that we'd like to think. All assuming the data presented hasn't been skewed by those performing the experiments. Once again, the acceptance of anecdote over direct experience. That would be true if this were the first time we ever encountered such phenomena. Fortunately it isn't and we have a body of knowledge about how paranormal phenomena present themselves and how it typically happens. Hence the ability to posit it AS a phenomena, much as we do with evolution, gravity, or electricity. I discounted each of the explanations based on the evidence. None held up. It's not a matter of proving their impossibility. Those would be unfalsifiable theories, and hence unscientific to begin. And which is why you have set the goal posts of proof beyond all possible reach. Even if the investigators rule out all logical mundane causes, which is something pretty easily done with moving objects, you will sit with arms crossed and grumble: "But there could always be some other mundane cause." That's essentially making proof of the paranormal impossible, which is something that would really make skeptics happy I bet. Examine the cases yourself. There's plenty posted on the over 2000 paranormal investigator websites one can peruse online. I cited this as example of the supposedly scientifically rigorous doing a very sloppy investigation of a reported phenomena. It goes to the myth that "scientific people" are somehow free from bias or of an agenda to prove that the paranormal can't exist. If they were more concerned with studying the phenomena itself, they would not so easily take their theory of LF soundwaves so seriously, particularly when there is no evidence the LF soundwaves even exist in the prison.