The error in many paranormalists' reasoning is to falsely suppose that a certain exclusive disjunction holds: either a ready-made scientific explanation is on hand for a supposedly paranormal event, or the paranormal explanation must be correct. So, if there isn't an immediate explanation on hand, it must be that ghosts exist, that that strange feeling is an ethereal aura of some sort, that the creaking is grandma coming up the steps because she doesn't know she's dead.
The problem is that the disjunction happens to be false: nothing whatever about grandma or ghosts follows from there not being a scientific explanation on hand for a given event*; secondly, there are pretty good scientific explanations on hand anyway (viz., those that explain such events in terms of the psychology of the witnesses); and thirdly, there's no reason to suppose that in cases with no current explanation, there won't be a viable one from a future iteration of science (e.g., maybe creepy auras are the result of streams of an as-of-yet undiscovered particle exciting certain parts of peoples' brain once they enter given areas, rather like radiated zones do the same).
*The religious hold a similarly silly disjunction where the non-science related disjunct is simply "GOD!!", "GOD did it," or some such. As such, they are similarly...ahem..."misguided."
