I;m not sure anyone on this thread has "dismissed these things as hocus-pocus" though (except possibly mikey earlier). I, at least, am saying that the problem with personal accounts is that it's hard to test possible explanations against each other -- which devalues them as evidence of the (currently) unexplainable. There are other risks associated with personal accounts, which are too numerous to mention. I'll always be interested in people's accounts of such incidents but I don't think it's a bad thing that I don't let it sway my view of the world. There are just too many factors to take into account -- from, indeed, the sad possibility that on occasion some people may be lying, through their not properly remembering or misinterpreting what they saw, through to some explanation being possible but unprovable -- before you can really get to the stage where you can say "Yes, we definitely need a new understanding of the world."
In the late 1990s a number of studies demonstrated that people's memories could be influenced beyond what anyone might think possible -- we do at times trust ourselves too much it seems. Even before anything else, that means that evidence that relies as heavily upon memory as do personal accounts can't be weighted that highly. This is not to say that I
know you remember the accounts wrong, merely that you might be, and as long as that is an open question everything else that the memory would imply must also be open to doubt. (The relevant papers include
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0022-5371%2874%2980011-3 (1974);
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8721.ep10769035 (1992);
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2Fbf03211367 (1998);
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758%2Fbf03212420 (1996); there are many others I'm sure.)
But I'm certainly not saying that anyone here who's described an experience is deluded, lying, thick, talking nonsense or hocus-pocus, or anything else that is dismissive. It's a sensitive and difficult topic because no-one likes their own memories to be called into question. It does seem like a personal attack, but it's not really meant that way: after all, the same risks of unreliable memory apply to all of us. I don't mean to offend with the above and I don't think that it should be taken that way. If these topics are to be discussed, though, we should share the different possible opinions on this without fear of feeling in some way attacked: either by being called deluded or mad or lying, etc etc... or for expressing the sceptical viewpoint and being labelled arrogant or patronising, etc. etc. And they do need to be discussed because, after all, if there is some new truth in them to be discovered then this will happen best by subjecting the accounts to as much scrutiny as possible.