Scientific discussions b/w reductionist stream and "others"

Hi, I have been following skeptiko for quite a while with great interest. I have a question :

I really liked a few examples of debates between scientists like Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Wiseman, etc. But I wonder if such "encounters" could be made into more details.

I had the chance to read quite a few peer reviewed papers from Jim Tucker, Dean Radin, and also from Windgate Institute. I wonder if it's doable to :

- Select one such paper
- Create a panel of scientists who are skeptical with the paper and its value/accuracy
- Another panel with the supporters of the findings and an interest into digging deeper
- A way to make a description of the paper for people having a more limited understanding of the scientific area, also statistics, etc
- Conclusions from both sides and a simplified explanation of it.

Would such a framework function ?

Thank you -
Actually another one of the idea that came to my mind was a "reverse challenge".

For instance, if anyone had a particular experience with a medium and remembers the exact conditions, information received from the medium that certainly was a "hit" (in any case there should be a way to quantify this as precisely as possible, after this medium experience, launch the call to anyone who is a mentalist for instance, and try to replicate the conditions and see if they manage to get similar or maybe even better results ...

Also, one issue I often see when a particular phenomenon is discussed with a "skeptic" ... For instance, take a NDE and the phenomenon of the "tunnel vision".

It is said that it's due to the lack of or reduced blood circulation around the eyes and the reduced sight, etc. Well, this sounds like a very good repeatable hypothesis ! Do anyone make a research to prove that point ? If Sam Parnia/Pim van Lommel did so much to collect information from an unknown area, it should be much much easier for medical staff to work on a perfectly predictable experiment ! Now I'm definitely impartial with this example but, we could have a shortcut in cases when the patient talks about a "bright light at the end of a tunnel" but the near death situation occurs in a dark place, or the patient's eyes are closed ... it's certainly quite hard to support the hypothesis of "reduced blood circulation around the eyes reducing the sight" ... specially when there is no light to see or eyes closed to allow a very deem view of any possible light ...

My point is, sometimes a "skeptical" alternative offered is way easier to replicate and test than the unknown phenomenon. But as in the example, the patient saw the bright light at the end of a tunnel but he was being reanimated in a totally dark place, the hypothesis would be good for the bin ...