What is "paranormal"?

[Musicat]

In this thread, Peter Morris claims that some phenomena, once considered paranormal, are no longer, but have become mainstream science. I challenged that statement, and it appears that we may have a different definition of "paranormal."

Peter Morris offers up three examples of things once considered paranormal: polio, meteorites, and ulcers.

Polio, at least in the Middle Ages, was considered unexplainable, and the work of demons or worse. We now know it is caused by a virus and is preventable.

Meteorites (rocks falling from the sky) were pooh-poohed by mainstream science ("impossible!") but are now considered "normal" celestial objects.

Ulcers, once assumed to be caused by stress, are now often cured by treating them as a bacterial infection.

My claim is that none of these were ever truly "paranormal." Misunderstood, misdiagnosed, lacking sufficient information, puzzling, sure, but not paranormal (at least not since the dawn of the scientific age, when demons were discounted). Peter Morris seems to consider anything unknown as paranormal. So we may have a definition problem.

Looking up google's definition, ["define" paranormal"] gives us this list. (I'm not sure if this will return exactly the same URLS to all, worldwide.)

Some selected definitions:

Originally Posted by google.com

[Beyond or above normal human powers or senses. logosresourcepages.org/na-dict.html

Not bad. Ambiguous.

phenomena which seem to go beyond known laws of cause and effect; frequently used as a synonym to parapsychological or psychic.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1895/Glossary.html

OK.

something that happens in the psychic or spiritual world
www.psychickids.com/glossary.html

Fine.

Term used to denote any phenomenon which appears to be inexplicable by current scientific theories. moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Glossary_H.html

Now this one I have a problem with. Is the "unknown" automatically "paranormal"? I don't think so. If I see something strange, I might say, "Hey, whatzat?" I don't say, "Look at dem ghosts, Martha!" A strange light in the sky might not be readily identifiable, but I don't assume it is paranormal until proved otherwise. Quite the contrary, I assume there is a rational explanation first.

I'm not sure how I would define "paranormal," but I'm working on it. Any ideas?

[Musicat]

From the "Ghosts" thread,

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Name just one thing that would still be "paranormal" if it were proved true.

Remote Viewing, Astral Projection, Psychic Surgery, Aromatherapy, Bach Flower Therapy, Reflexology, Iridology, Astrology, Bioharmonics, Therapeutic Touch, Channelling, Crop Circles, Ectoplasm, Facilitated Communication...

Shall I go on? I'm only up to the "F's", and I skipped a lot.

To those that just arrived, I apologize for mixing threads. Peter Morris, others, and myself have been participating in more than one simultaneously, yet they have some common ground (besides us, that is!)

Thread #1 is Can Ghosts be scientifically proved to exist"?

Thread #2 is James Randi and dry spots, which is a spinoff from thread #1.

[SnakeSpirit]

Originally Posted by Musicat

I'm not sure how I would define "paranormal," but I'm working on it. Any ideas?

Cat, (in time for dinner, BTW), I think that of the defs. you selected, this one:

Term used to denote any phenomenon which appears to be inexplicable by current scientific theories. moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Glossary_H.html

comes the closest for me.

Do depart definitions and breach explanations, the paranormal for me are those phenomenon which are regularly, though perhaps rarely observed, which are validated through concentric validation, and for which a satisfactory scientific is currently lacking.

Please note, this definition is designed to eliminate quackery.
Astrology? Is it demonstrable in its efficacy? Is it accurate? If not, quackery.
Ghosts? Are they reported in much the same ways by independent observers? Paranormal.
And so on.
Para = alongside, normal. Not fitting within normal, but not in opposition, either.

Into paranormal I'd toss: 'ghosts' (all types included), ESP, predictive dreams, channeling, psychometry, spoon bending, and other similar phenomenon.

A light in the sky may be a UFO, but UFOs aren't paranormal, they're just unknown. If an alien landed, it'd just be an alien, unless it claimed to come from a different time or dimension, then it may be paranormal.

My take on paranormal is more on what it says about us. Some people seem to be able to perceive things that are invisible to others. Like a sensitivity to other energies (and all our senses are sensitivity to energies) too fine for detection by others. We all have different degrees of various senses; I think this is kinda along the same lines.

SnakeSpirit

[Musicat]

Snake, I don't buy it. You selected the one definition that doesn't match the others and doesn't jibe with science. Just because you can't immediately explain it doesn't mean it is ultimately unexplainable. And the unexplained does not necessarily require a out-of-the-normal explanation. Occam's Razor and all that, y'know.

Originally Posted by Snakespirit

Astrology? Is it demonstrable in its efficacy? Is it accurate? If not, quackery.

Nonsense. To some, Astrology is "accurate." They are ignorant of many things, including how we fool ourselves. I assure you, astrology is quakery in any guise of any kind, anywhere.

Ghosts? Are they reported in much the same ways by independent observers? Paranormal.

Nonsense. Multiple observations, even with apparent similarities, do not make something paranormal.

The Skeptic's Dictionary defines Paranormal as

An event or perception is said to be paranormal if it involves forces or agencies that are beyond scientific explanation. Many paranormal events are said to be experienced only by those with psychic powers, such as extrasensory perception or psychokinesis.

Some events are perceived as paranormal due to ignorance...

With reference to the last line, it would seem that more knowledge would lead to less tagging events with the "paranormal" description, although the famous line credited to Arthur C. Clarke would seem to be the opposite end of the spectrum, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So did scientists in, say, the 19th century, look at electricity and, because they understood very little about it, call it "paranormal"? "Out of this world"? I don't think so. I think they set out to examine it and find out just how normal it was.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit

Ghosts? Are they reported in much the same ways by independent observers? Paranormal.

From Twenty things to consider when regarding paranormal phenomenon, by James Randi

5. If a phenomenon is consistant with previously reported ones, this is cited as strong evidence that it is genuine.

Consistancy can be bred too easily, especially since claimants usually are familiar with previous reports. By way of example, original U.F.O. reports were cigar shaped, until one famous report was made with the description of being saucer like. Then reports began to come in of flying saucers, and this fed the phenomenon. In a like manner after some science fiction stories had shown aliens to be big headed yet frail bodied with large black eyes, abduction stories are of such aliens. As more reports are made of such aliens, and such reports become more publicized, anyone thinking they met an alien will be more likely than not to confirm previous reports.

If I told you I saw a ghost who looked like a green lizard, you'd probably discount my report. But if I said it looked like Casper or someone in a bedsheet, it would be consistent with other reports. It could still be as bogus as a bad burrito repeating on you in the night.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Musicat

In this thread, Peter Morris claims that some phenomena, once considered paranormal, are no longer, but have become mainstream science. I challenged that statement, and it appears that we may have a different definition of "paranormal."

Peter Morris offers up three examples of things once considered paranormal: polio, meteorites, and ulcers.

Polio, at least in the Middle Ages, was considered unexplainable, and the work of demons or worse. We now know it is caused by a virus and is preventable.

That is a pretty big distortion. I never said that "polio" was paranormal. What I said was that a particular medical treatment for polio was condemned as quackery for 30 years, then became mainstream medicine. That medical treatment was "paranormal" or "quackery" through those 30 years. At no time did I suggest that polio was paranormal.

Meteorites (rocks falling from the sky) were pooh-poohed by mainstream science ("impossible!") but are now considered "normal" celestial objects.

True enough. That's what I said. Meteorites were "paranormal" 200 years ago, but are normal today.

Ulcers, once assumed to be caused by stress, are now often cured by treating them as a bacterial infection.

And he's back to the distortions.

It's not "ulcers" that were paranormal. Its the treatment for ulcers. When medical science knew that ulcers were caused by stress, this guy came up with the strange theory that they were actually caused by bacteria, and could be cured by simple antibiotics. Strangely, for years after he made his claim, no other doctors could detect their presence. But after facing 10 years of hostility and riducule, his claims were vindicated.

During those 10 years, the medical treatment he offered was "paranormal" or "quackery" or "fringe science." Now that it's vindicated, its mainstream medicine.

My claim is that none of these were ever truly "paranormal."

yeah, that's the problem. Anything you can't disprove you word-game away.

This claim fails - its paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim .... my god, it succeeds. It's true but IT ISN'T PARANORMAL. It not. It can't be. I'm still right. No paranormal claim has sever suceeded.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.
This claim fails - it's paranormal, and false.

Peter Morris seems to consider anything unknown as paranormal. So we may have a definition problem.

since you seem to be a mind-reader, why don't you go for Randi's prize?

The "unknown" is NOT paranormal in my definition. Nor is the "unexplained" There are plenty of things iin science that are unknown and unexplained, yet nobody would call them paranormal. For example, gravity. We can predict the effects of gravity, but we can't (yet) explain the mechanism. What gravity does, we can predict. How it works, we don't know. Being unknown does not make gravity "paranormal"

There are two features of a "paranormal" claim:
1) An ability, discovery, theory or event that is ouside of ordinary experience.
2) It is widely doubted.

Very few of us have ever walked on the Moon. It is outside normal experience, but it's not paranormal. It meets the first criterion, but fails the second. Most people don't doubt the truth of the Moon landings. It is believed by the majority, and therefore not paranormal.

The three example I cited ARE paranormal because they meet both tests.

Meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago. Few people had ever seen one, and those that had were treated as cranks. Science did not believe in them. They did not fit into orthadox scientific theory of the time.

Today, the theory has changed. Meteorites are no longer doubted, hence no longer are paranormal.

The paranormal is mainly defined by doubt. Any wild and crazy idea attacked by science IS paranormal. These people like Randi and Lavoisier who set themselves up as guardians of logic and rationality make things paranormal by attacking them. Any claim that the skeptics attack is paranormal, by virtue of the fact that they are attacking it. Anything they try to debunk is paranormal.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, if one chooses (as I do) to define "paranormal" as "describing a phenomenon which is in violation of known laws of physics", then citing examples which occured before the relevant law of physics was known is moot. Meteorites weren't "paranormal" 200 years ago, because the relevant aspect of "normal" (i.e. that outer space is teeming with meteoroids, some of which get pulled into Earth's gravity well) was unknown.

You might as well argue that sunburn was "paranormal" before the discovery of ultraviolet radiation. Using the word "paranormal" in this way weakens it to the point of uselessness.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

The "unknown" is NOT paranormal in my definition. Nor is the "unexplained" There are plenty of things iin science that are unknown and unexplained, yet nobody would call them paranormal. For example, gravity. We can predict the effects of gravity, but we can't (yet) explain the mechanism. What gravity does, we can predict. How it works, we don't know. Being unknown does not make gravity "paranormal"

Well, the existence of meteoroids within the solar system (some of which fall to Earth) was unknown 200 years ago, so why was meteor theory "paranormal" while gravity isn't?

There are two features of a "paranormal" claim:
1) An ability, discovery, theory or event that is ouside of ordinary experience.
2) It is widely doubted.

Very few of us have ever walked on the Moon. It is outside normal experience, but it's not paranormal. It meets the first criterion, but fails the second. Most people don't doubt the truth of the Moon landings. It is believed by the majority, and therefore not paranormal.

From what I've seen, you're fond of acusing people (including me, by the way) of using slippery semantics. I'm afraid I'll have to return the favour. You are using "normal" in an improper manner. In physics terms, "normal" should mean anything permissable by the laws of physics, not something an ordinary person would experience during an ordinary lifetime. That anyone doubts or doesn't doubt the moon landings is completely irrelevant to whether or not the moon landings are "normal" (i.e. within the laws of physics).

The paranormal is mainly defined by doubt. Any wild and crazy idea attacked by science IS paranormal. These people like Randi and Lavoisier who set themselves up as guardians of logic and rationality make things paranormal by attacking them. Any claim that the skeptics attack is paranormal, by virtue of the fact that they are attacking it. Anything they try to debunk is paranormal.

Well, if that's how YOU define it, okay. I'd personally say that the paranormal is mainly defined by contradiction, not doubt or attack, and contradition to established and well-tested laws of phsyics, not the beliefs of Randi or Lavoisier or anyone else.

From what I've seen, you're claiming to be defending logic (or at least accusing others of doing a poor job of it) and you're attacking Randi. Does that make you a skeptic and Randi paranormal? Just curious.

[SnakeSpirit]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Snake, I don't buy it. You selected the one definition that doesn't match the others and doesn't jibe with science. Just because you can't immediately explain it doesn't mean it is ultimately unexplainable. And the unexplained does not necessarily require a out-of-the-normal explanation. Occam's Razor and all that, y'know.

Oh, come on, Cat. You know by now (I'm sure) that I believe the "paranormal" is quite 'normal' - ... as soon as we find the explanation. Our science is just in its (relative) infancy! Are you looking for an argument? You won't find it here.

It's the closesest definition that matched my own. If you want opinions, you got mine. If you want "scientific truths" I think you're asking the wrong question!

Sssssssnake

[t-keela]

Well, according to my Webster's dictionary, paranormal in the strictest definition is, " that which is not explainable by science." However, it is also listed as being synonymous with things that are considered supernatural.
To me this implie that many things that were "paranormal" in the past would no longer be due to the advances made scientifically over the years.
Supernatural (to me) implies things which may NEVER be explained scientifically simply because there is NO PROOF that they exist at all.
This is where you get into the existence of things which people believe exist and witnesses claim they know. But since there is no measurable evidence of their existence they aren't subject to scientific method. Therefore the term supernatural and paranormal (IMHO) should NOT be synonymous.
"Nothing unreal exists". It seems like I heard that somewhere before. Does it sound familiar to anyone here or is it just something I imagined?

[t-keela]

Oh, hey Bryan good to see you.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by t-keela

Oh, hey Bryan good to see you.

Are you sure you can see me? Because any doubt means I am.... PARANORMAL!

"Nothing unreal exists" was the answer to a trivia question presented to Spock (along with chess problems, mathematical equations and whatnot) during his hopped-up "retraining" at the beginning of Star Trek IV.

[t-keela]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Are you sure you can see me? Because any doubt means I am.... PARANORMAL!

Here you go again, taking everything I say literally.

"Nothing unreal exists" was the answer to a trivia question presented to Spock (along with chess problems, mathematical equations and whatnot) during his hopped-up "retraining" at the beginning of Star Trek IV.

Yeah, wasn't that the one that asked him, "How do you feel?"
Followed by the infamous line..."Captain, there be whales here."
Now that's gotta be paranormal.

So, where did the line originate or was that its origin?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by t-keela

Here you go again, taking everything I say literally.



Yeah, wasn't that the one that asked him, "How do you feel?"
Followed by the infamous line..."Captain, there be whales here."
Now that's gotta be paranormal.

So, where did the line originate or was that its origin?

The test ended with all three computers asking "How do you feel?" "Nothing unreal exists" was the answer to "What is Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics?" A search on the phrase doesn't turn up any pre-1986 references though, interestingly, a number of "inspirational" websites have included it, without attribution.

[t-keela]

"Inspirational websites" heh... I won't even go there dude!

[t-keela]

Wait a minute...Bryan...did you say "laws of metaphysics?" Okay, now we've got something to debate. Would you mind quoting some of these laws, please?

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, if one chooses (as I do) to define "paranormal" as "describing a phenomenon which is in violation of known laws of physics", then citing examples which occured before the relevant law of physics was known is moot. Meteorites weren't "paranormal" 200 years ago, because the relevant aspect of "normal" (i.e. that outer space is teeming with meteoroids, some of which get pulled into Earth's gravity well) was unknown.

Sigh.

First of all, your definition: "describing a phenomenon which is in violation of known laws of physics". I can agree with that.

But the rest is absurd. Not paranormal because it was before the law of physics? Ridiculous. The fact that it was before the law of pjhysics was discovered is what makes it paranormal. Meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago because they were in violation of the laws of physics as they were known at the time.

According to your usage, ieven if a claim is true, you will never agree that it's paranormal.

Consider ESP. At science stands at the moment, ESP violates the known laws of physics, thus is paranormal. But just suppose for a moment it could be demonstrated in the Lab. What would be the result of that? According to you: all we've done is demonstrate a new law of physics, one that was unknown previously. ESP doesn't break the laws of physics, it obeys the newly discovered law. Calling it paranormal is moot because it was before the law was discovered.

You might as well argue that sunburn was "paranormal" before the discovery of ultraviolet radiation. Using the word "paranormal" in this way weakens it to the point of uselessness.

Ridiculous analogy. Sunburn was a known, observable phenomenon, even if the precise cause wasn't known. Nobody doubted the existence of sunburn. It didn't fit my definition of paranormal.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, the existence of meteoroids within the solar system (some of which fall to Earth) was unknown 200 years ago, so why was meteor theory "paranormal" while gravity isn't?

Precisely BECAUSE it was "unknown." Gravity has never been "unknown"

I'm using your word, though I think it's the wrong one. Rather than "unknown" say "outside orthadox scientific theory."

[Polycarp]

I think the assertion here is a pretty good one -- phenomena regarded as "paranormal" either have a "natural" explanation or are pure coincidence. If we were to start an IMHO thread asking members to make ten specific predictions on events that will happen during 2005, and eighty people answer, a dozen or so of those 800 predictions will actually happen, not because the members in question are precognitive, but because the laws of chance call for that sort of coincidental "hit" rate.

My son-in-spirit and I are telepathic -- put the two of us in the same place, and we will know what each other is thinking. This is not a claim of psychic powers -- we simply know and understand each other's reactions to the degree that body language and the flow of conversation will clue us each in to the other's thinking to the extent that we can in fact "read the other's mind." We had one long "conversation" one night in 1991 that consisted of nothing more than sitting next to a stereo mute and playing the particular song(s) that said what we needed to say in response to what the other had "said" in his selection -- mostly because we both have the sort of quirky sense of humor that made doing that little exercise something we both enjoyed.

[Aeschines]

I don't like the word "paranormal" and put it in quotes or say "so-called" unless I'm being careless. So for me the question is rather moot. Whatever is is normal.

So sad but so unsurprising to see Peter Morris's reply getting trashed here in such a dull manner, as it is spot-on in terms of the psychology of the thing. After all, "paranormal" is a label, basically a pejorative label, for a certain group of phenomena that are considered reprobate. "Paranormal" phenomena are what those damn believers believe without proof, nay! without any evidence whatsoever.

I think there are two conflicting perceptions of the state of science that inform one's take on "paranormal" phenomena. It would seem that the skeptics belive that our science has reached a high degree of completion: We've figured out most of what is knowable, and now we're just filling in the details. Sure, there might be a major discovery or two left, and a lot of new applied science, but our basic vision of the universe won't be overtuned.

I and New Agers in general, however see science as only having begun. We probably know only 10% or so of the major truths of the universe, and our technology at this point is purely Hasbro and Fisher Price stuff. To me the skeptics seem to eager to rebuff anything that might challenge their overconfident worldview: "It can't be true, dammit, because we've got all the major truths down already!" My feeling is, "Bring it on." The sooner our ignorance rudely bumps into the next thing it does not understand, the sooner it can be worn away and more of truth's core exposed.

I seem ludicrous, worthy of mockery, to the skeptics, who feel they know most of what will ever be known. I, on the other hand, think they will go down as the greatest anal retentives of history.

Nice post, Pete.

[Peter Morris]

[quote]I think the assertion here is a pretty good one [quote]

Which of the contradictory assertions are you agreeing with?

That meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago, since they broke the laws of science known at the time?

Or that meteorites weren't paranormal 200 years ago, since they are explained by laws of physics known today?

[Musicat]

I have only a short time to contribute to this discussion today, so I will pick out just a few small items from your posts.

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

I never said that "polio" was paranormal. What I said was that a particular medical treatment for polio was condemned as quackery for 30 years, then became mainstream medicine. That medical treatment was "paranormal" or "quackery" through those 30 years. At no time did I suggest that polio was paranormal.

OK. We are talking about the treatment or prevention, not the cause. Fair enough.

She said that it's not a disease of the nervous system, its actually a disease of the muscles. It could be treated by rubbing with damp wool. Oh, how the medical community roared. For 30 years she was called crank, liar, chrlatan, quack.... then medical science realised she was right all along.

IANAD, but I have a friend who contracted polio long ago. I doubt that rubbing his legs with damp wool will make him walk again. Please give a cite for your claim that rubbing a limb with damp wool will cure or prevent polio.

It's not "ulcers" that were paranormal. Its the treatment for ulcers. When medical science knew that ulcers were caused by stress, this guy came up with the strange theory that they were actually caused by bacteria, and could be cured by simple antibiotics. Strangely, for years after he made his claim, no other doctors could detect their presence. But after facing 10 years of hostility and riducule, his claims were vindicated.

If the definition of paranormal is "anything unknown or different from common knowledge," you're right, and that def is quite broad. If the def only includes "what contradicts common knowledge, often invoking unknown or unlikely forces," the ulcer claim is not paranormal. A bacterial cause of ulcers, while thought unlikely at one time, did not require the postulation of unknown, supernatural or paranormal forces. It just required some careful testing.

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by too much green light and not enough broccoli. I might be ridiculed at first, but thru careful testing, I could theoretically be proved right. I would not call this a paranormal claim at any stage.

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by C-rays that cannot be detected and are controlled by the thoughts of your monster-in-law, and this would be a paranormal claim. If I am eventually proved right, it would still be a paranormal claim, and the paranormal will have been proven. So far, I am not aware of any such claim that has been proven beyond a doubt.

RE: meteorites

I guess if, 200 years ago, the claim was made that the rocks that fell from the sky were put there by supernatural forces, it would be a paranormal claim. If some scientists were saying, "Hmmm...could there be some space fragments that sometimes fall to earth?" then it would not be. I don't know enough about such history to make this determination.

Remember, we are still working on a definition here -- what you have been calling "word games."

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Musicat

I have only a short time to contribute to this discussion today, so I will pick out just a few small items from your posts.OK. We are talking about the treatment or prevention, not the cause. Fair enough. IANAD, but I have a friend who contracted polio long ago. I doubt that rubbing his legs with damp wool will make him walk again. Please give a cite for your claim that rubbing a limb with damp wool will cure or prevent polio.

Lets be clear on this. I never said it would "cure or prevent polio." What it doesw is relieve the SYMPTOMS of polio. It can "re-educate" the muscles and restore mobility to a paralysed limb.

cite: http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html

If the definition of paranormal is "anything unknown or different from common knowledge," you're right, and that def is quite broad.

But that's not the definition.

try this: "Something is paranormal if it seems impossible according to the laws of science as they are currently known."

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by too much green light and not enough broccoli. I might be ridiculed at first, but thru careful testing, I could theoretically be proved right. I would not call this a paranormal claim at any stage.

Maybe YOU wouldn't call YOURSELF paranormal, if you really believed your theory and were trying to show it to the World. But other people, who reject your theory, would call you a quack, a crank and a woo-woo.

Look, you don't think that's paranormal? Randi might disagree with you. If you tried to sell your cure for cataracts, you's no doubt get a little note from him inviting you to apply for the million dollar prize. Just have a look in his archived commentries for magnetic shoes sold as a medical treatment. Perhaps you would explain what makes them paranormal, and your cataract cure NOT paranormal.

Also, if magnetic shoes were proven effective in double blind mediccal trials, and became accepted as legitimate medicine, would you still call them "paranormal?"

I could postulate that cataracts are caused by C-rays that cannot be detected and are controlled by the thoughts of your monster-in-law, and this would be a paranormal claim. If I am eventually proved right, it would still be a paranormal claim, and the paranormal will have been proven. So far, I am not aware of any such claim that has been proven beyond a doubt.

I don't understand the distinction. If you were proved right, the known laws of physics will be re-written. But that happens all the time.

What makes THIS re-writing of the laws of physics "paranormal" and other re-writings of the laws of physics "normal?"

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Musicat

From the "Ghosts" thread,Remote Viewing, Astral Projection, Psychic Surgery, Aromatherapy, Bach Flower Therapy, Reflexology, Iridology, Astrology, Bioharmonics, Therapeutic Touch, Channelling, Crop Circles, Ectoplasm, Facilitated Communication...

Shall I go on? I'm only up to the "F's", and I skipped a lot.

Nothing paranormal about crop circles, if real flesh-and-blood (or whatever they use) aliens were making them.

Here's a good definition: "Paranormal" is using a feather. "Abnormal" is using the whole chicken.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, because the laws of physics do not react to doubt (someone may doubt the existence of Newton's Third Law, but that won't protect them from beng hit by a train), doubt should not have a place in defining what is paranormal, i.e. in violation of the laws of physics. Consider someone giving a demonstration of a heavy object floating in midair:

Audience: WOW! That must be the work of something paranormal!
Exhibitor: No, it's just an application of superconductivity combined with magnetism.

Does the fact that the audience was unfamiliar with the relevant laws of physics justify the "paranormal" label? Suppose the Exhibitor never explained the actual science involved, letting each audience member continue to believe they'd witnessed a paranormal event. Does that unshattered belief make the event paranormal? Suppose some time later, an audience member describes the event to a nonwitness, who doubts the veracity of the account. Does that doubt make the event paranormal? Exactly when does the paranormal label attach, anyway?

Now suppose the Exhibitor isn't a flesh-and-blood person, but just the randomness of the universe, which one day gives a spectacular display to a bunch of witnesses, with the same (unexplained) results. Does it only become "paranormal" as soon as someone who didn't see it, doubts it? By that logic, anything that was ever doubted by anyone could qualify as paranormal. Your definition seems restricted to scientists, though, so is something only paranormal if it is doubted by someone with a university degree in a scientific discipline?

But that's not the definition.

try this: "Something is paranormal if it seems impossible according to the laws of science as they are currently known."

Actually, that sounds bang-on to me (and nearly identical to the definition I offered earlier in the thread) except you're putting too much weight on "currently known" to justify too broad a use of the word, in places where "unexplained" would do nicely. Heck, Columbus had no knowledge of the Americas when he set sail for Asia. That doesn't make the Americas paranormal by European standards. Even when Columbus returned, describing all the wierd things he'd seen, some scientists of the day might have thought such things impossible. That doesn't make the Americas paranormal, either.

Incidentally, do reputable scientists ever actually use the word "paranormal"? Seems to me if they saw something the violated known laws of physics, the first thing to do would be to check their instruments, then test again, then make a note of the event (if it recurs) and continue analysis, on the assumption that every effect has a cause, even if the cause is currently unclear or generally assumed to not exist.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

If you were proved right, the known laws of physics will be re-written. But that happens all the time.

Actually, it doesn't, in the sense that the laws are completely trashed and redrawn. There has been gradual refinement, but major paradigm shifts do not occur "all the time". That attitude is used to justify all kinds of nonsense, by claiming that scientists never get things straight.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, because the laws of physics do not react to doubt (someone may doubt the existence of Newton's Third Law, but that won't protect them from beng hit by a train)

How embarassing. I meant the first law, natch.

Incidentally:

Originally Posted by t-keela

Wait a minute...Bryan...did you say "laws of metaphysics?" Okay, now we've got something to debate. Would you mind quoting some of these laws, please?

The movie only cited the first law, and on reflection I find it rather amusing that a first law of metaphysics essentially trashes metaphysics. I bet the second law is: "Weren't you listening?! It's all CRAP!"

[SnakeSpirit]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Consider ESP. At science stands at the moment, ESP violates the known laws of physics, thus is paranormal.

Nonsense! ESP can exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws.

ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics. So why don't we all have ESP? All our other senses vary in ability from one person to another, and who knows what is involved in sensing those electrical patterns? (if that's what they are) And do we have the necessary ability to decode them?

Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence, but he scored no hits when isolated by a faraday cage.

[SnakeSpirit]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

I don't like the word "paranormal" and put it in quotes or say "so-called" unless I'm being careless. So for me the question is rather moot. Whatever is is normal.

Just checking in here to give you some validation. I get the same feeling from the so-called "sceptics" here: arrogance. "We already know it all, and anything else just doesn't fit. Perhaps not only "paranormal" but "sceptic" should always be put in quotes.

Precise communication has always been a troublesome issue on this board. Terms like "believer," "true believer," "sceptic, skeptic and skeptik" all should have precise meanings if we are to communicate in a meaningful manner. Instead they are mis-applied, used as pejoratives, or even titles!

I don't consider myself a "believer," I consider myself an explorer. Some of those who call themselves "skeptics" do not fit the dictionary-definition.

Change makes people very insecure. History always shows strong resistance to new ideas or to different ideas, things that don't fit into a comfort zone. Insecurity breeds fear, which breeds belligerance. We have seen it throughout history, and history is repeating itself on this board.

Unfortunately there are also real sceptics on this board, who do fit the dictionary definition of "suspending judgement" rather than "rejecting unproven ideas" that the self-named "skeptics" here exhibit.

Actually, it is fortunate we have real sceptics here. I have an immense amount of respect for them; it's just unfortunate they get lumped in with the "pseudo-skeptics" when the term is brought up.

Wish we could call a spade a spade.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit

Nonsense! ESP can exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws.

ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics.

I disagree. There may be a structure in the brain that can transmit and receive signals like a radio. But science as it stands at the moment does not know of any such structure. Therefore the suggestion lies outside what is currently known.

The phrase "laws of physics" is too restrictive, anyway. Maybe "currently accepted scientific knowledge" would be better.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, because the laws of physics do not react to doubt (someone may doubt the existence of Newton's Third Law, but that won't protect them from beng hit by a train), doubt should not have a place in defining what is paranormal, i.e. in violation of the laws of physics.

To the contrary, labeling something "paranormal" is not about the thing itself but how we feel about the thing. It is about our psychology, not physics.

Peter's definition rocks.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

The phrase "laws of physics" is too restrictive, anyway. Maybe "currently accepted scientific knowledge" would be better.

Nah. If you're going to hold Lavoisier up as an example of the failings of science, it's important to note that while he may have said meterorites were a violation of the laws of physics, it's pretty obvious that he didn't know the heck he was talking about.

Snake: I asked earlier in another thread what a "pseudo-skeptic" was; now I'm going to have to ask what the difference is between a "sceptic" and a "skeptic".

Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit

Change makes people very insecure. History always shows strong resistance to new ideas or to different ideas, things that don't fit into a comfort zone. Insecurity breeds fear, which breeds belligerance. We have seen it throughout history, and history is repeating itself on this board.

I can say quite calmly that this is a serious load of paranoid bullshit. If a phenomena is observed and someone proposes a surprising explanation, it could easily be rejected becuase existing proven explanations are adequate. If, for example, a psychic gives a detailed reading of a visitor, you could propose it is due to telepathic or spiritual abilities (which are unproven) while a more mundane (and well-established) cause involves cold reading. To eliminate cold reading as a possible explanation, stringent controls need to be put in place and the "reading" repeated with a new subject.

There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I'll admit to eye-rolling contempt.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

To the contrary, labeling something "paranormal" is not about the thing itself but how we feel about the thing. It is about our psychology, not physics.

Well, in that case, the word "paranormal" has no place in a thread titled "Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?" which suggests a search for objective evidence "about the thing". You can't have it both ways, where "paranormal" applies to science when science is wrong, and to psychology when science is right.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Nah. If you're going to hold Lavoisier up as an example of the failings of science, it's important to note that while he may have said meterorites were a violation of the laws of physics, it's pretty obvious that he didn't know the heck he was talking about.

That would be true of ANY validated paranormal claim. Sceptics may currently say that dowsing violates the known laws of physics. What if dowsing were later proved true, and a new law of physics described to explain it. Then you could say that the doubters didn't know what the heck they were talking about, and that it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It would be the same thing.

Snake: I asked earlier in another thread what a "pseudo-skeptic" was; now I'm going to have to ask what the difference is between a "sceptic" and a "skeptic".

The distinction is a subtle one. Those who use the 'k' spelling tend to be hardliners, and those using the 'c'-spelling are more moderate and open-minded. But this is confusing for many readers. Hence the use of 'pseudo-skeptic' for the more extreme ones.


I can say quite calmly that this is a serious load of paranoid bullshit. If a phenomena is observed and someone proposes a surprising explanation, it could easily be rejected becuase existing proven explanations are adequate. If, for example, a psychic gives a detailed reading of a visitor, you could propose it is due to telepathic or spiritual abilities (which are unproven) while a more mundane (and well-established) cause involves cold reading. To eliminate cold reading as a possible explanation, stringent controls need to be put in place and the "reading" repeated with a new subject.

There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I'll admit to eye-rolling contempt.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

That would be true of ANY validated paranormal claim. Sceptics may currently say that dowsing violates the known laws of physics. What if dowsing were later proved true, and a new law of physics described to explain it. Then you could say that the doubters didn't know what the heck they were talking about, and that it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It would be the same thing.

Okay, when dowsing is validated, I'll take that as evidence that people who currently discount dowsing don't know what the heck they were taking about. Not before.

Those who use the 'k' spelling tend to be hardliners, and those using the 'c'-spelling are more moderate and open-minded. But this is confusing for many readers. Hence the use of 'pseudo-skeptic' for the more extreme ones.

Yeah, made-up terminology about other people sometimes has that effect. A check of fifteen online dictionaries shows all of them listing "sceptic" and "skeptic" merely as variant spellings of the same concept, with no indication of relative degree (i.e. I'd like a reputable cite for your definition, preferebly not one coming from a person firmly enmeshed in study of the paranormal). Rather than try to seperate "good" sceptics from "bad" skeptics (and apparantly "really bad" pseudo-skeptics), why not just used the existing terms skeptic/sceptic (good), cynic (bad) and naysayer (really bad)?

Or would that be too confusing?

[SnakeSpirit]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Rather than try to seperate "good" sceptics from "bad" skeptics (and apparantly "really bad" pseudo-skeptics), why not just used the existing terms skeptic/sceptic (good), cynic (bad) and naysayer (really bad)?

I'd like that, but I just see too many pseudo-skeptics saying they are sceptics but in actuality they are cynics and "naysayers."

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

sceptics = suspend judgement on the unproven.
skeptics = think they're sceptics but tend toward cynicism.
skeptiks = deluded cynics who want to be sceptics but can't, cause they reject it all
pseudo-skeptics = pretend to be sceptics, but function as cynics.
sckepticks = not only bad, but EVIL!

This is truly a two-edged sword:

believers = those who believe that the paranormal is worth investigating.
true believers = fuck investigation, it's all true!
beeleievers = the sckepticks are out to get us!
beeleavers = if I believe than you must believe as well! Or... (insert current retribution)

and

paranormal = things that occur that seem to fall outside the current definitions of science.
paraknowrmal = things we are sure are true even though we have no evidence and which others reject.
parrotnormal = I know it's real cause I heard it from a true believer! Awk!

and so on....

Maybe we need an Official SDMB List Of Acceptable Definitions (LOAD) for Hot Topics Often Vehemently Argued Beyond Acceptable Standards of Reason.
HOT LOAD for short....

All we need is an unbiased moderator/administrator and an unbiased doper to work together to create it.

Sssssss

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

Uh, call me a sceptic/skeptic/pseudo-skeptic/cynic/naysayer if you must, but let's not have fun with spelling, okay? Creative labeling is a superficial tactic and does absolutely nothing to help your claims, which remain unproven.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I'll admit to eye-rolling contempt.

Four down, one to go.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Four down, one to go.

Well, it's unclear to me what your statement means, but I don't think rejecting a complex unproven explanation when adequate simple proven explanations exist qualifies as resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. The "flaw" is in how you claim to perceive reaction to paranormal ideas. It is not true that a negative reaction proves the existence of resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. You claim that it does is what causes me to roll my eyes and hold your misuse of logic (as well as a self-serving martyr complex i.e. "I'm being victimized, therefore there is some truth in what I am saying") in contempt. I don't recognize that you are being victimized. Rather, I recognize that if you attempt to advance pseudoscience among people who recognize it as such, you risk ridicule, and deservedly so.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit

Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:

Dude, this was hilarious! "Parrotnormal"--a riot!

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, it's unclear to me what your statement means, but I don't think rejecting a complex unproven explanation when adequate simple proven explanations exist qualifies as resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. The "flaw" is in how you claim to perceive reaction to paranormal ideas. It is not true that a negative reaction proves the existence of resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. You claim that it does is what causes me to roll my eyes and hold your misuse of logic (as well as a self-serving martyr complex i.e. "I'm being victimized, therefore there is some truth in what I am saying") in contempt.

I think you're arguing with the wrong person here. This doesn't seem to follow any dialog we've had.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, in that case, the word "paranormal" has no place in a thread titled "Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?" which suggests a search for objective evidence "about the thing". You can't have it both ways, where "paranormal" applies to science when science is wrong, and to psychology when science is right.

I don't want it both ways. I think "paranormal" is a term that carries virtually no information at all. Hence, it is unneeded. Arguments about what the term ought to mean are a good indication it means nothing in the first place.

If you want to know what it does mean currently, however, Peter Morris was on the right track. A bunch of phenomena having nothing to do with each other are lumped together as if they have something in common. Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists. Whether psi exists is a questions for psychologists, neurologists, physicists, etc. Cold fusion is a matter for phsicists to investigate. The only common thread is that people claim the phenomena are true and people of influence in the scientific community doubt that they are true (in varying numbers and with varying degrees of intensity).

In short, "paranormal" is a pejorative term. Then again, people who investigate the paranormal also use it, sometimes with enthusiasm. So I guess the situation could be termed complete chaos, with everyone involved getting something different out of using the term, and some like myself getting nothing.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

I think you're arguing with the wrong person here. This doesn't seem to follow any dialog we've had.

I know; the original dialog was with SnakeSpirit and I will admit I made the assumption that your "Four down, one to go" statement (as well as your other posts in this thread) was more in support of his views than mine. In any case, nothing you've said in this thread inspires resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance in me, but some of your statements easily qualify for eye-rolling contempt.

Now, it's possible I have misinterpreted your rather cryptic "Four down" statement. I request a clarification.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

I think "paranormal" is a term that carries virtually no information at all. Hence, it is unneeded. Arguments about what the term ought to mean are a good indication it means nothing in the first place.

If you want to know what it does mean currently, however, Peter Morris was on the right track. A bunch of phenomena having nothing to do with each other are lumped together as if they have something in common. Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists. Whether psi exists is a questions for psychologists, neurologists, physicists, etc. Cold fusion is a matter for phsicists to investigate. The only common thread is that people claim the phenomena are true and people of influence in the scientific community doubt that they are true (in varying numbers and with varying degrees of intensity).

In short, "paranormal" is a pejorative term. Then again, people who investigate the paranormal also use it, sometimes with enthusiasm. So I guess the situation could be termed complete chaos, with everyone involved getting something different out of using the term, and some like myself getting nothing.

I'll fully agree with you on almost every point, with the largest exception being the part about Peter Morris being on the right track. He's mixing in an unfortunate paranoia (and a truly bizarre fixation on James Randi) to come up with the notion that doubt consitutes proof, and presumably the greater the amount of doubt, the stronger the proof.

I don't think I'd ever consider cold fusion as "paranormal," though. When Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made their (wildly premature, it turned out) announcement in 1989, they added theories on the mechanism of cold fusion. In constrast, claims involving ghosts or dowsing or the powers of crystals or other psychic phenomena are rarely if ever accompanied by even an attempt at plausible explanation, because if something measurable were involved, like electromagnetism or whatnot, it should be fairly easy to test for. It is the claim without provable explanation that cries "paranormal" to me and yes, it is a pejorative term.

[SentientMeat]

All good points so far. From my reading of the thread the definition for debate is this:

Paranormal - A demonstrable ability or phenomenon which cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm.

This is useful enough in many situations but here we are, like good scientists, specifically trying to falsify it by considering certain cases, such as medical treatments or meteorites, which I would simply label erroneous hypotheses which were subsequently easily falsified themselves. Heck, right now we could just appeal to black holes, quantum entanglement or even certain aspects of consciousness itself to satisfy that definition. A paranormal phenomenon or ability is not simply an "interesting" or "poorly understood" one. Something must surely be added to the definition.

And so I would strengthen the definition thus:

Paranormal - A clearly demonstrable ability or phenomenon which the current scientific paradigm asserts cannot happen.

We must therefore have some justification for considering that this ability or phenomenon runs counter to the current consensus rather than simply being an example of where science is currently uncertain. It must be an example of the current laws of physics (ie. those laws which have undergone a rigorous test of falsifiability and are based on criteria such as results which show significance at 1%) being broken rather than hypothesised laws in some or other "cutting edge" discipline.

In this way I would also suggest that historical wrong guesses do not conform to such a definition, since they didnot undergo rigorous testing and were based on a far lower "quality threshold" results-wise.

Finally, the word "clearly" aids us in finding genuine abilities or phenomenon which contravene the current paradigm: it must peek above the statistical noise just like any of those results which form the basis of the current paradigm. If, after years of testing, somebody shows an ability to call a coin-flip correctly 50.0001% of the time, is this really so Earth-shattering? One could surely chase such shadows for centuries: the non-existence of paranormal abilities is a reasonable null hypothesis to begin from.

Any thoughts?

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I know; the original dialog was with SnakeSpirit and I will admit I made the assumption that your "Four down, one to go" statement (as well as your other posts in this thread) was more in support of his views than mine. In any case, nothing you've said in this thread inspires resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance in me, but some of your statements easily qualify for eye-rolling contempt.

My statements? I've hardly posted in this thread yet.
[/quote]
Now, it's possible I have misinterpreted your rather cryptic "Four down" statement. I request a clarification.[/quote]
Get rid of the eye-rolling contempt and you'll be stronger. But contempt can also be a fun emotion to experience, in which we feel better than others. Still, it is not virtuous to feel so.

I find the pyschology of the skeptics curious. As though they were the last bastion against the irrational: every last sin of belief must be prevented or punished, lest we revert to a past species-wide psychosis. This is odd in that most people, from the skeptics' perspective, are not rational: the religious, those who believe in "paranormal" phenomena, etc. Even a sizable percentage of respected physicists and other hard-core types (7% IIRC) believe in God: that is, they have faith, the most irrational behavior of all.

I have my beliefs and belive, of course, that they are best. I don't believe in a monotheistic God and feel that Catholocism is basically a bunch of tripe (I was raised Catholic, i.e., tortured Catholic-wise in my youth). I think priests are weird in that they deny their sexuality or practice it and lie about it. But I went to a Catholic college and was taught by brilliant Jesuit priests all kinds of great things. They were the farthest thing from "idiot" I can imagine, and the last thing I would do is sneer at them in the way that the skeptics in these threads sneer at (=eye-rolling contempt, etc.) the believers that participate here, and those who do not.

What's up with that? I really don't understand the contumely. It seems to spring from thinking that those who don't agree with you 100% are worthy of "eye-rolling contempt."

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Get rid of the eye-rolling contempt and you'll be stronger. But contempt can also be a fun emotion to experience, in which we feel better than others. Still, it is not virtuous to feel so.

Okaaaaaay, care to explain in what way I will be "stronger" or more "virtuous"?

I find the pyschology of the skeptics curious....

What follows is a gross generalization about skeptics. I don't recognize any valid descriptions of me personally in it, so it doesn't compel me to respond. Not being Catholic or Christian, I'll withold comment on that part, too.

What's up with that? I really don't understand the contumely. It seems to spring from thinking that those who don't agree with you 100% are worthy of "eye-rolling contempt."

I'll admit that I had to look up "contumely", so I've actually learned something new from this thread, even if I don't agree that anything I've said in this thread even remotely approaches a lie. And it's your statements that prompt my contempt, not some trivial variation from me in your opinions. I casually post to numerous other threads and discuss things with people who disagree with me, but they only get eye-roling contempt when they say things that are patently absurd (if not outright insulting to my intelligence), and not just in simple disagreement. You can't shift the burden to me so easily by trying to make me look intolerant, and even if you could this does not constitute support for anything you have said.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Okaaaaaay, care to explain in what way I will be "stronger" or more "virtuous"?

You will seem steadier and surer. Magnanimous. Mature. Adult.

It is the teenager or person in his/her early 20s that usually thinks s/he's got the world figured out and anyone who disagrees is wrong and dangerous. As one matures, one sees that the world is full of ambiguity, dim corners, and seeming contradictions.

Also, the true adult realizes that a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don't agree with him.

[SentientMeat]

a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don't agree with him.

This approach will also get a kind, tolerant person a new arsehole torn on television by people whose livelihoods depend on suppressing all discussion of what constitutes a fair cheatproof and luckproof test of their claimed abilities. His books and lectures are rather more rigorous and reasonable (even if he is arguably wrong in a few details) - I'd suggest these are better guides than his appearances on Letterman and the like, where he must fight blatant showmanship with the same.

[t-keela]

Hey guys, I'm just curious which one of you it was that used to frequent "Randi's" website and got into a big ass debate with him about divining rods? I don't post or even visit other boards. I found this one first and figured, why bother? I've read (lurked) a bit on other message boards and found them ALL to be pretty biased or the staff just really sucked, so I said f~it and stayed home.
ANYWAY...who was it? I think I know but I'm not gonna mistakenly claim somebody that it wasn't.