This article explores the tension between skepticism and belief in evaluating paranormal claims, addressing the challenge these phenomena pose to conventional scientific paradigms. Paranormal experiences such as extrasensory perception (ESP), psychokinesis, and apparitions have long captured human imagination, prompting debate between critical skeptics and those who believe in their authenticity. Drawing from both empirical research and experiential accounts, the article examines the skeptical approach, grounded in methodological rigor and cognitive science, alongside the believer’s perspective, rooted in personal experience and spirituality. Through the lens of transpersonal psychology, this article integrates scientific inquiry with subjective experience, offering a balanced evaluation of the evidence and exploring potential future directions for research in this area.
Introduction
Paranormal phenomena have fascinated humanity for centuries, with reports of ghost sightings, telepathic communication, and otherworldly experiences appearing in folklore, religious texts, and modern media. These claims are often met with polarized responses: fervent belief from those who have experienced or witnessed the phenomena and deep skepticism from the scientific community, which generally demands empirical evidence. Paranormal experiences such as extrasensory perception (ESP), psychokinesis, and apparitions challenge established scientific paradigms, often existing outside the bounds of what is considered verifiable through traditional scientific methods (Irwin & Watt, 2007). Despite the controversy, paranormal claims continue to evoke significant interest, especially within the fields of psychology, consciousness studies, and parapsychology.
The debate between skepticism and belief in the paranormal is a longstanding one, rooted in contrasting epistemological approaches. Skeptics tend to emphasize empirical evidence, critical thinking, and methodological rigor, pointing to cognitive biases and perceptual errors as explanations for paranormal reports (Shermer, 2011). Believers, on the other hand, often cite personal experiences, spiritual frameworks, and alternative understandings of consciousness to support the existence of such phenomena (Tart, 2009). This dichotomy between empirical skepticism and experiential belief highlights a key tension in the evaluation of paranormal claims: can subjective experiences be considered legitimate evidence, or must all phenomena be subject to empirical validation to be accepted as real? Transpersonal psychology provides a useful framework for addressing this question by integrating subjective experiences with scientific inquiry, thus bridging the gap between belief and skepticism (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007).
In evaluating paranormal claims, it is essential to consider both the scientific and experiential dimensions of these phenomena. While skeptics argue for a rigorous, evidence-based approach to understanding the paranormal, believers emphasize the importance of recognizing the limitations of materialist science in explaining subjective experiences (Krippner, 2006). By adopting an open-minded but critical stance, researchers can explore paranormal phenomena without falling into the traps of credulity or cynicism. This article will examine both the skeptical and believer perspectives, providing a balanced evaluation of the evidence for paranormal claims. Additionally, it will explore how transpersonal psychology offers a unique lens through which to study these experiences, aiming to integrate the subjective and objective dimensions of human consciousness.
The Nature of Paranormal Phenomena
Definition and Categorization of Paranormal Claims
Paranormal phenomena encompass a wide range of experiences and abilities that fall outside the scope of conventional scientific understanding. These include, but are not limited to, extrasensory perception (ESP), telepathy, psychokinesis, apparitions, and out-of-body experiences. Such phenomena are often classified into different categories based on their nature: psi phenomena (e.g., ESP and psychokinesis), survival-related experiences (e.g., near-death experiences and mediumship), and anomalous phenomena (e.g., UFO sightings and cryptozoological claims) (Irwin & Watt, 2007). Each of these categories involves experiences or abilities that challenge materialist explanations of reality and often remain unexplained by conventional scientific methods. Parapsychologists have long sought to study these phenomena, using controlled experiments such as Ganzfeld tests and remote viewing trials to investigate the validity of ESP claims (Radin, 2006).
Despite these efforts, paranormal claims remain highly controversial, and their acceptance within mainstream science is limited. The scientific community generally demands repeatable, empirical evidence for such claims, yet paranormal experiences often occur spontaneously and in contexts that are difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting (Shermer, 2011). Furthermore, paranormal phenomena often overlap with religious and spiritual experiences, complicating efforts to study them purely within a scientific framework (Tart, 2009). For example, the line between paranormal and mystical experiences is blurred in many cases, particularly in contexts where individuals report contact with otherworldly entities or transcendental realms. As a result, the scientific study of paranormal phenomena must grapple with both the methodological challenges of researching such experiences and the cultural contexts in which they are interpreted.
Common Features of Paranormal Experiences
Paranormal experiences share several common characteristics, regardless of the specific type of phenomenon being reported. One of the most consistent features is their deeply subjective nature, often accompanied by powerful emotional responses. Individuals who report paranormal experiences frequently describe a sense of awe, fear, or wonder, emotions typically associated with encounters that challenge their understanding of reality (Hastings, 2002). This subjective quality makes paranormal phenomena difficult to measure or validate using traditional scientific methods, which prioritize objectivity and reproducibility. Moreover, paranormal experiences often occur in altered states of consciousness, such as during dreams, meditation, or near-death experiences, further complicating efforts to study them in controlled environments (Cardeña, Lynn, & Krippner, 2014).
Another common feature of paranormal experiences is their tendency to occur unexpectedly and in everyday settings, often leaving individuals with a profound sense of uncertainty about what they experienced. Reports of apparitions, for example, frequently arise in domestic environments, with individuals claiming to see or sense the presence of deceased relatives (Houran & Lange, 2001). These occurrences are often interpreted through personal or cultural belief systems, leading some to see them as spiritual or mystical in nature, while others view them as psychological or hallucinatory. This interpretive flexibility underscores the challenge in evaluating paranormal claims, as both the experiencer’s psychological state and the broader cultural context shape how these phenomena are understood and reported (Irwin, 2014). As such, the subjective and context-dependent nature of paranormal experiences highlights the need for interdisciplinary approaches that integrate psychological, cultural, and scientific perspectives in their evaluation.
The Skeptical Approach to Paranormal Claims
Overview of Skepticism: Empirical Science and Rational Inquiry
Skepticism, particularly in relation to paranormal claims, is rooted in the scientific method, which prioritizes empirical evidence, repeatability, and falsifiability. Skeptics argue that, for any claim to be scientifically valid, it must be supported by objective data that can be independently verified through controlled experiments (Shermer, 2011). This perspective aligns with the broader principles of rational inquiry, where conclusions are drawn based on observable facts and logical reasoning. In the case of paranormal phenomena, skeptics often emphasize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, a standard that has yet to be met convincingly by proponents of paranormal abilities such as telepathy or psychokinesis (Hines, 2003). Many paranormal claims fail to withstand the scrutiny of controlled experimental settings, leading skeptics to question their validity.
A significant critique from skeptics concerns the anecdotal nature of much of the evidence supporting paranormal phenomena. Personal accounts and subjective experiences, while emotionally powerful, are not considered reliable sources of scientific evidence due to the potential for cognitive biases and errors in perception (Shermer, 2011). For instance, selective attention, memory distortion, and confirmation bias can all influence how individuals interpret and recall paranormal events. From a skeptical viewpoint, these cognitive factors often explain why individuals believe they have experienced something supernatural when, in fact, the experience may be the result of more mundane psychological processes (Wiseman, 2011). As a result, skeptics often call for rigorous experimental designs and statistical methods to test paranormal claims under controlled conditions.
Skepticism also relies on the concept of falsifiability, as defined by philosopher Karl Popper, which holds that a claim must be able to be proven false in order to be considered scientific. Many paranormal claims, such as the ability to communicate with the dead or move objects with the mind, are criticized for being unfalsifiable, meaning that they cannot be definitively disproven. This presents a challenge for skeptics, as the lack of disconfirming evidence does not constitute proof of a phenomenon’s existence (Pigliucci & Boudry, 2013). Instead, skeptics maintain that until robust, repeatable evidence emerges, paranormal claims should remain in the realm of speculation rather than established scientific fact.
Case Studies of Debunked Paranormal Claims
Throughout history, numerous paranormal claims have been debunked through scientific investigation, often revealing fraudulent activity or misinterpretation of natural phenomena. One of the most famous examples is the case of the Fox sisters, who in the mid-19th century claimed to communicate with spirits through knocking sounds. Their claims sparked a wave of spiritualist practices across the United States, but later investigations revealed that the sisters had been producing the sounds themselves by cracking their joints (Nickell, 2007). This case highlights how easily individuals can be deceived by seemingly paranormal events and how thorough investigation often reveals mundane explanations.
Similarly, many claims of psychic abilities, such as telepathy or precognition, have been tested under controlled conditions and consistently failed to produce reliable results. For example, studies attempting to verify the existence of ESP (extrasensory perception) have produced results that do not exceed what would be expected by chance (Radin, 2006). Skeptics argue that when paranormal claims are subjected to the same rigorous standards of evidence as other scientific claims, they frequently collapse under scrutiny. This lack of consistent, replicable results reinforces the skeptical position that many paranormal phenomena are either the result of wishful thinking or outright deception (Hines, 2003).
Another notable example involves the famous Uri Geller, who claimed to possess psychic powers such as bending spoons with his mind. While Geller achieved widespread fame and support, skeptics such as James Randi conducted controlled experiments that demonstrated Geller’s techniques could be replicated by simple sleight-of-hand tricks (Randi, 1995). Randi’s efforts to debunk paranormal claims through his “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge,” which offered a monetary prize for anyone who could demonstrate paranormal abilities under controlled conditions, further illustrated the inability of self-proclaimed psychics and paranormal practitioners to provide verifiable evidence of their claims. The challenge remained unclaimed for years, underscoring the skeptical argument that no substantial proof exists to support paranormal phenomena.
Cognitive Biases and Perceptual Errors in Belief in the Paranormal
Skeptics often point to cognitive biases and perceptual errors as explanations for why individuals believe in paranormal phenomena despite the lack of empirical evidence. One such bias is the tendency for people to seek patterns and assign meaning to random or ambiguous stimuli, a phenomenon known as pareidolia (Shermer, 2011). This can explain why people often perceive faces or figures in inanimate objects or misinterpret ordinary sounds as messages from the spirit world. Similarly, confirmation bias, where individuals selectively focus on information that supports their existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence, plays a crucial role in maintaining belief in the paranormal (Wiseman, 2011). Once someone becomes convinced that a phenomenon is real, they are more likely to interpret ambiguous events as further evidence of that belief.
Perceptual errors also contribute to belief in the paranormal. Optical illusions, auditory misinterpretations, and hallucinations are common occurrences that can be mistaken for paranormal experiences. For example, people who experience sleep paralysis often report seeing shadowy figures or sensing a malevolent presence, phenomena that have been linked to hypnagogic hallucinations rather than any external supernatural forces (French & Stone, 2014). These perceptual anomalies are well-documented in psychological research and offer plausible alternative explanations for many purported paranormal experiences. By understanding the role of perception and cognition, skeptics argue that paranormal beliefs can often be reduced to natural psychological processes rather than evidence of otherworldly phenomena.
Ultimately, skeptics maintain that belief in the paranormal is often fueled by a combination of cognitive biases, perceptual errors, and cultural influences. While paranormal experiences may feel real to those who encounter them, the lack of empirical evidence and the existence of plausible psychological explanations lead skeptics to conclude that most paranormal claims do not withstand scientific scrutiny. As such, the skeptical approach calls for ongoing critical inquiry and rigorous testing to separate genuine phenomena from human error and deception.
The Believer’s Perspective
Psychological and Sociocultural Factors in Paranormal Belief
Belief in paranormal phenomena can be deeply influenced by both psychological and sociocultural factors. One key psychological factor is the need for cognitive closure, where individuals seek clear answers to ambiguous or uncertain situations. Paranormal explanations often provide comforting solutions to existential questions or unexplained events, offering a sense of control over one’s environment (Irwin, 2009). Studies have shown that individuals who are prone to magical thinking or who exhibit lower levels of analytical thinking are more likely to believe in paranormal phenomena (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2005). These cognitive tendencies can lead people to interpret random or coincidental events as having deeper, supernatural significance, reinforcing their belief in the paranormal.
Cultural factors also play a significant role in shaping belief systems around the paranormal. In many societies, paranormal phenomena are intertwined with religious or spiritual practices, such as ancestor worship, shamanism, or belief in spirits. These cultural contexts provide a framework for interpreting paranormal experiences, making them more socially acceptable and even expected in certain environments (Hufford, 2001). For example, in many non-Western cultures, the belief in spirits and ghosts is normalized, and individuals who report contact with the dead are often considered spiritually gifted rather than mentally disturbed (Krippner, 2006). As a result, belief in paranormal phenomena is not just an individual cognitive process but is also reinforced by social structures and cultural narratives.
Moreover, some believers in paranormal phenomena view their experiences as part of a broader, holistic worldview that rejects the reductionism of materialist science. For these individuals, paranormal events are seen as evidence of a more expansive, interconnected reality that transcends the limitations of the physical world (Tart, 2009). This worldview often includes belief in the power of the mind to influence reality, as seen in practices such as psychic healing or telepathy. In this context, skepticism is seen as overly restrictive, dismissing valid aspects of human experience that do not conform to the empirical standards of traditional science. Thus, belief in the paranormal can be understood as both a cognitive and cultural phenomenon that provides existential meaning and aligns with broader metaphysical perspectives.
The Role of Personal Experiences and Spirituality
Many believers in paranormal phenomena cite personal experiences as the primary reason for their convictions. These experiences often occur spontaneously and are described as transformative, providing individuals with a deep sense of connection to something greater than themselves (Blackmore, 1994). For example, near-death experiences (NDEs), which involve sensations of leaving the body, encountering a tunnel of light, or meeting deceased loved ones, are often reported as life-changing events that profoundly alter a person’s worldview (Ring, 2006). Such experiences are difficult to dismiss purely as cognitive distortions or hallucinations, as they leave lasting emotional and psychological impacts on those who have them.
Spirituality also plays a crucial role in sustaining belief in the paranormal. For many individuals, paranormal experiences are interpreted through the lens of spiritual growth or divine intervention. People who report encounters with ghosts or communication with spirits often view these events as part of a larger spiritual journey, where the material and spiritual realms intersect (Cardeña et al., 2014). This interpretation allows individuals to integrate their paranormal experiences into their broader belief systems, reinforcing their sense of purpose and connection to a higher power. As such, spirituality often acts as a bridge between personal experiences and belief in the paranormal, offering a framework for understanding phenomena that science cannot easily explain.
Believers frequently challenge the skeptical position by emphasizing the validity of subjective experiences. They argue that science’s reliance on objective, reproducible evidence fails to account for the richness and complexity of human consciousness, which cannot always be reduced to material explanations (Tart, 2009). From this perspective, personal paranormal experiences are seen as legitimate sources of knowledge, even if they do not meet the standards of empirical science. Believers often assert that skepticism dismisses valuable insights into the nature of reality and human existence, which are accessible only through direct experience and introspection. This divergence in epistemological approaches creates a fundamental tension between believers and skeptics, with each side adhering to different criteria for truth and evidence.
Examples of Unexplained Paranormal Cases
Despite the general skepticism surrounding paranormal phenomena, there are several well-documented cases that continue to resist conventional explanation. One of the most famous is the case of the Enfield Poltergeist, which took place in England during the late 1970s. The family involved reported numerous paranormal events, including furniture being moved, objects flying through the air, and strange knocking sounds. Although skeptics have proposed alternative explanations, such as fraud or psychological factors, some of the phenomena were witnessed by police officers and other credible witnesses, leaving the case unresolved (Playfair, 2011). Cases like this challenge the purely skeptical approach, as the presence of multiple witnesses and physical evidence complicates efforts to dismiss the events as simple hoaxes or misinterpretations.
Another frequently cited case is the phenomenon of spontaneous human combustion (SHC), where individuals appear to ignite and burn to death without an external source of fire. Although SHC has been largely dismissed by the scientific community as either a result of external ignition sources or postmortem effects, a few cases remain unexplained, fueling speculation about paranormal causes (Arnold, 1995). Similarly, UFO sightings, particularly those involving multiple witnesses or unexplained radar data, continue to generate debate between believers and skeptics. While many sightings can be attributed to natural or human-made objects, a small percentage of cases remain unresolved, contributing to the belief in extraterrestrial visitation (Jacobs, 2000).
Believers argue that these unexplained cases provide important evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena. They contend that science’s inability to fully explain certain events should not lead to their outright dismissal. Instead, believers suggest that these cases represent opportunities for expanding the boundaries of scientific understanding. By acknowledging the limits of current scientific knowledge, believers advocate for a more open-minded approach that allows for the possibility of phenomena beyond the scope of materialist explanations (Radin, 2006). This perspective aligns with the broader transpersonal view, which seeks to integrate subjective experiences with scientific inquiry to develop a more holistic understanding of reality.
Evaluating Evidence: A Transpersonal Perspective
Bridging Science and Subjective Experience
The challenge in evaluating paranormal claims lies in balancing empirical science with subjective experience. While skeptics prioritize empirical data and reproducibility, transpersonal psychology offers a framework that integrates the subjective, inner dimensions of human experience into the evaluation of these phenomena (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). This perspective emphasizes that subjective experiences, though difficult to measure using traditional scientific methods, can still provide valuable insights into the nature of consciousness and reality. For example, altered states of consciousness, such as those experienced during meditation, near-death experiences (NDEs), or psychedelic use, often involve paranormal-like phenomena that challenge materialist explanations but are deeply meaningful to the individuals who experience them (Tart, 2009). In this context, subjective experiences are not dismissed but are instead considered integral to understanding the full range of human consciousness.
Transpersonal approaches often employ qualitative methods, such as phenomenology or heuristic inquiry, to explore the nuances of paranormal experiences in a way that quantitative methods may not capture (Braud & Anderson, 1998). These approaches allow researchers to investigate how individuals interpret their paranormal experiences and what personal or spiritual significance they ascribe to them. This method is particularly useful for examining cases where traditional scientific methods fall short, such as in the study of spontaneous mystical experiences or mediumship, where replication is not possible. By integrating subjective accounts with scientific inquiry, transpersonal psychology encourages a more holistic understanding of paranormal phenomena, one that respects both the rigor of science and the depth of personal experience.
Scientific Studies and Transpersonal Methods
Although transpersonal psychology values subjective experience, it does not dismiss the importance of empirical research. In fact, several scientific studies have attempted to bridge the gap between subjective paranormal experiences and objective measurement. For instance, the Ganzfeld experiments, designed to test for telepathy, utilized controlled environments to minimize sensory input, allowing researchers to assess whether participants could accurately perceive information telepathically (Bem & Honorton, 1994). Although these experiments yielded results that some interpret as evidence of ESP, skeptics argue that methodological flaws, such as experimenter bias or statistical misinterpretation, undermine the findings (Hyman, 1994). This debate highlights the ongoing tension between empirical evidence and the interpretation of subjective experiences in the study of paranormal phenomena.
Transpersonal researchers also explore the role of altered states of consciousness in paranormal experiences. States induced by meditation, deep relaxation, or near-death experiences are frequently associated with phenomena such as out-of-body experiences, precognition, and communication with non-physical entities (Krippner, 2006). By studying these states through both qualitative and quantitative methods, researchers seek to understand the mechanisms behind these experiences and assess whether they can provide evidence for paranormal claims. Additionally, neurobiological studies have begun to investigate how brain activity during altered states correlates with reports of paranormal experiences, offering a potential bridge between subjective accounts and objective data (Winkelman, 2010). These interdisciplinary approaches reflect the transpersonal commitment to integrating both scientific rigor and respect for the complexity of human consciousness in evaluating paranormal phenomena.
Conclusion
The tension between skepticism and belief in the evaluation of paranormal claims highlights the complexity of understanding phenomena that challenge conventional scientific paradigms. Skeptics emphasize the importance of empirical evidence, critical thinking, and methodological rigor, often dismissing paranormal claims as the result of cognitive biases, perceptual errors, or even deliberate deception (Shermer, 2011; Wiseman, 2011). In contrast, believers argue that subjective experiences provide valid insights into the nature of reality, especially when these experiences align with spiritual or metaphysical worldviews (Tart, 2009). This ongoing debate reflects broader epistemological differences regarding what constitutes valid evidence and knowledge in the context of paranormal phenomena.
Transpersonal psychology offers a potential bridge between these opposing viewpoints by integrating subjective experiences with scientific inquiry. While it acknowledges the need for empirical rigor, it also recognizes that traditional scientific methods may not fully capture the richness of human consciousness and the inner experiences associated with paranormal phenomena (Hartelius, Caplan, & Rardin, 2007). By employing both qualitative and quantitative research methods, transpersonal approaches seek to explore the nuances of paranormal experiences, whether through altered states of consciousness or spontaneous mystical events (Braud & Anderson, 1998). This balanced approach allows for a more holistic evaluation of paranormal claims, one that respects both the validity of subjective experience and the demands of scientific inquiry.
Ultimately, the study of paranormal phenomena requires an open-minded yet critical stance. While many paranormal claims have been debunked or explained through conventional means, a small percentage of cases remain unresolved, suggesting that there may be more to human potential and consciousness than current scientific models can explain (Radin, 2006). Future research in this area will benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating insights from psychology, neuroscience, and transpersonal studies to further explore the boundaries of human experience. As our understanding of consciousness continues to evolve, so too might our capacity to evaluate and make sense of the paranormal claims that persist in challenging the limits of scientific understanding.
Bibliography
- Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, M. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, education, and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1227-1236.
- Arnold, L. (1995). A blaze without flame: The spontaneous human combustion enigma. Self-published.
- Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4-18.
- Blackmore, S. (1994). Dying to live: Near-death experiences. Prometheus Books.
- Braud, W., & Anderson, R. (1998). Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences: Honoring human experience. Sage Publications.
- Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (Eds.). (2014). Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.
- French, C., & Stone, A. (2014). Anomalistic psychology: Exploring paranormal belief and experience. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Hartelius, G., Caplan, M., & Rardin, M. A. (2007). Transpersonal psychology: Defining the past, divining the future. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35(2), 135-160.
- Hastings, A. (2002). With the tongues of men and angels: A study of channeling. Holt Paperbacks.
- Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Prometheus Books.
- Houran, J., & Lange, R. (2001). Hauntings and poltergeist-like episodes as a confluence of conventional phenomena: A general hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 567-580.
- Hufford, D. J. (2001). The terror that comes in the night: An experience-centered study of supernatural assault traditions. University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Hyman, R. (1994). Anomalous cognition? A second perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 19-24.
- Irwin, H. J. (2009). The psychology of paranormal belief: A researcher’s handbook. University of Hertfordshire Press.
- Irwin, H. J. (2014). An introduction to parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland.
- Irwin, H. J., & Watt, C. A. (2007). An introduction to parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland.
- Jacobs, D. M. (2000). The threat: Revealing the secret alien agenda. Simon & Schuster.
- Krippner, S. (2006). Debating psychic experiences: Human potential or human illusion? Praeger Publishers.
- Nickell, J. (2007). Adventures in paranormal investigation. University Press of Kentucky.
- Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press.
- Playfair, G. L. (2011). This house is haunted: The true story of the Enfield poltergeist. White Crow Books.
- Radin, D. (2006). Entangled minds: Extrasensory experiences in a quantum reality. Paraview Pocket Books.
- Randi, J. (1995). The truth about Uri Geller. Prometheus Books.
- Ring, K. (2006). Lessons from the light: What we can learn from the near-death experience. Moment Point Press.
- Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies—How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. Times Books.
- Tart, C. T. (2009). The end of materialism: How evidence of the paranormal is bringing science and spirit together. New Harbinger Publications.
- Winkelman, M. (2010). Shamanism: A biopsychosocial paradigm of consciousness and healing. ABC-CLIO.
- Wiseman, R. (2011). Paranormality: Why we see what isn’t there. Macmillan.