I don't object to characterizing parapsychology as having come up with some really interesting, intriguing results that could end up being what we label psi or the afterlife. I think there are other possibilities as well.
Even Freud, being as committed to reductionism and materialism as he was, near the end of his life, accepted and wrote a paper about the validity of telepathic dreams. James Hyslop, before he became a psychical researcher (a rather well-known one) was an agonostic and materialist. And if you our well-read in the literature of psi research, this is not an uncommon story.
I don't think proponents do the field any favour by painting parapsychology as a mature science with overwhelming evidence of psi, etc. Similarly, skeptics don't do themselves any favours by denying that future experiments building on the preliminary studies could lead to those conclusions either.
There is a good amount of fraud, quackery and truly delusionary myths that are present regarding unusual/unexplained phenomena. Plenty of hucksters. But on the other hand, I also believe there has been a considerable amount of serious scientific effort, by well qualified individuals over the last 120 years, who have steadily accumulated a great deal of evidentiary psi related data, primarily in the archives of the British and American Society for Psychical research. Then in addition, you do have the more recent Near-Death studies, which have been taking place now for many decades.
I find that it is often very common for those who are not very familiar with the scientific research in psi (such as Linda, who was not even aware of Phantasms of the Living when she first began posting here, and my guess, is unlikely aware of some of the other seminal works such as Myer's Human Personality, or the work of James Hyslop, Tyrell, etc.) that they are usually not aware of just how much scientific work has been done, and just for how long and how many studies are available. Enough to fill several rooms full of books, if you have ever visited the SPR library in New York City.
The characterization of calling it "mature" I find interesting. I am somewhat with Rupert Sheldrake here in this regard, I think we now have a somewhat entrenched scientific academia, that has become as orthodox in it's belief system i.e. reductive materialism, as was once the case as the church's doctrine that no one would dare defy without facing severe consequences. Unfortunately, I think this has become the case today for many scientists, there is enormous pressure to conform to the materialistic model, and any kind of open speculation about perhaps a non-material basis for consciousness, or a non-reductive explanation for some elements of reality, has become pretty off limits.
My interest is trying to as accurately as possible evaluate exactly what these studies confidently show, and what they merely suggest the possibility of. This entails a focus on methodogy - a topic many understandable find boring but one that I think is crucial and often ignored or understated.
I believe many of those very honest and hard working researchers in psi, many with outstanding scientific credentials, would and have shared your interests. What I really find frustrating is in my opinion, unjustified assumption that 1) these many men who have researched psi were unaware of scientific methodology and what it entailed. In fact I am certain that such men such as William James, or Richard Hodgson or JB Rhine etc. were well aware of scientific constraints and, 2) the assumption that no valid scientific data has been collected, and an absurd level of irrationality regarding many experiments that would far exceed the scientific standards in any other discipline in science.
That kind of discussion is impossible when people simply want to shout each other down, and trade barbs. I get the instinct - and even succumb to it myself. But it leads nowhere, will convince noone who doesn't already agree with you, and serves primarily as a method of resolving short term cognitive dissonance. This applies to both skeptics and proponents. Ask yourself whether your initial impression of the post is justified, or are you attributing content to it that isn't there? Try looking at it from the perspective of the other - and ask yourself if you can see where they are coming from. And if you can't see - then ask them! Finally, ask yourself whether you have ever found an argument whether the other person called you an idiot, close minded or other insult compelling. Or did the invectives merely serve to turn your attention away from any substantive content, focusing instead on the perceived insult.
It is very hard to deal with fundamentalism, whether it be Christian fundamentalists, or Atheistic fundamentalism. Or reductive materialistic fundamentalism or "scientism". I agree with you here. I often do feel at the end of a discussion, that why am I wasting so much of my time? I think I'm with Alex regarding some things he said recently, that he has realized over time, that arguing with Skeptics isn't about the scientific data, it becomes everything but the scientific data. I also find it fascinating as well (and as Alex also mentions) that when it comes to actual scientific research, almost 98% of it has been performed by those who often end up become proponents of psi phenomenon, and have followed as best they could scientific methodology, such as the long history of the branches the Society for Psychical Research. But on the other side of the coin, you have organizations like CSICOP and CSI, who have made a point of doing next to no scientific research in psi or nde studies (there may be under a dozen at best). CSI is not even a scientific organization, unlike the SPR. Sure, it does have distinguished members of the scientific community in its roster, but almost none of them, to the last man, have done any actual research in psi or nde. In fact, I am beginning to believe as Alex also has said, that Skeptics and CSI are used as a cover for academics in the field to completely ignore the evidentiary data, and just go on with their relatively safe careers without rocking the boat, or attempting to seriously understand unusual phenomena or even consciousness for that matter.
There is no reason why people who both believe and disbelieve in psi cannot find a way to interact in a manner that is mutually beneficial. Both sides have blind spots, and both sides have things to offer the other.
You would think so. But there needs to be a given level of informed knowledge and objectivity. Not the kind of activities that have been ongoing on Wikipedia. And not the kind of derogatory attacks that Max Payne was just engaged on here in this thread. Perhaps psi research is not mature, but I think it has at least been around long enough, and has enough honest working scientists involved in it, in the past and present, to grant some level of respect to those scientists and those of us who think their data and studies are worth looking at.
Bertha