Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"

In his long Reply, Professor Grossman opines that my Guest Editorial is “little more than a rant.” Although rant can be interpreted as a “wild revel,” even without telepathic means I strongly doubt that that is what he had in mind. Contrary to what the reader might conclude from his statements, my...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Etzel Cardeña
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SSE 2011-12-01
Series:Journal of Scientific Exploration
Online Access:http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/392
id doaj-e936cc5a87f2417590f36a78292b8e7a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e936cc5a87f2417590f36a78292b8e7a2020-11-25T03:24:45ZengSSEJournal of Scientific Exploration0892-33102011-12-01254Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"Etzel Cardeña In his long Reply, Professor Grossman opines that my Guest Editorial is “little more than a rant.” Although rant can be interpreted as a “wild revel,” even without telepathic means I strongly doubt that that is what he had in mind. Contrary to what the reader might conclude from his statements, my essay was not at all an attack against the probable reality of psi phenomena, something that I have supported repeatedly, nor a defense of Materialism. Instead, it criticized epistemological totalitarianisms that endorse absolute and simplistic certainties regarding psi or other issues and consider any disagreement with their positions or interpretations, no matter how large or small, as lacking in reasonableness, love, or whatever. As to the charge that I misrepresented Professor Grossman, I provided quotations along with their source, so the reader can judge whether I was fair or not. But more telling, I believe, is that Professor Grossman’s letter exemplifies the problem I was describing better than I could in a limited space. Therefore I will cede the last word to, in my view, the brightest mind we have had in parapsychology, William James. He held that psi phenomena were real, but instead of assuming that he completely or finally understood this issue (or any other topic), he challenged us to develop “the habit of always seeing an alternative” (James, 1896:4). http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/392
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Etzel Cardeña
spellingShingle Etzel Cardeña
Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"
Journal of Scientific Exploration
author_facet Etzel Cardeña
author_sort Etzel Cardeña
title Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"
title_short Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"
title_full Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"
title_fullStr Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"
title_full_unstemmed Response to Neal Grossman's Reply "On Elephants and Matters Epistemological"
title_sort response to neal grossman's reply "on elephants and matters epistemological"
publisher SSE
series Journal of Scientific Exploration
issn 0892-3310
publishDate 2011-12-01
description In his long Reply, Professor Grossman opines that my Guest Editorial is “little more than a rant.” Although rant can be interpreted as a “wild revel,” even without telepathic means I strongly doubt that that is what he had in mind. Contrary to what the reader might conclude from his statements, my essay was not at all an attack against the probable reality of psi phenomena, something that I have supported repeatedly, nor a defense of Materialism. Instead, it criticized epistemological totalitarianisms that endorse absolute and simplistic certainties regarding psi or other issues and consider any disagreement with their positions or interpretations, no matter how large or small, as lacking in reasonableness, love, or whatever. As to the charge that I misrepresented Professor Grossman, I provided quotations along with their source, so the reader can judge whether I was fair or not. But more telling, I believe, is that Professor Grossman’s letter exemplifies the problem I was describing better than I could in a limited space. Therefore I will cede the last word to, in my view, the brightest mind we have had in parapsychology, William James. He held that psi phenomena were real, but instead of assuming that he completely or finally understood this issue (or any other topic), he challenged us to develop “the habit of always seeing an alternative” (James, 1896:4).
url http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/392
work_keys_str_mv AT etzelcardena responsetonealgrossmansreplyonelephantsandmattersepistemological
_version_ 1724600197424611328