Let me make my specific, scientific claim: Given a large group of randomly selected subjects with warts, I claim that if you “wart charm” one group and perform the same physical actions on the other group without intent to charm and without telling the group that the warts will go away , the pattern of wart disappearance will be drastic between groups.
No, it doesn’t, and as the Republicans have discovered, repeating a lie a bunch of times doesn’t make it true. Here are the definitions given by dictionary.com for “paranormal:” (cite: all definitions from dictionary.com, see this link for citations).
Definition #1: “of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.”
This is the only one that even remotely agrees with you, and you’ll notice that even it has a “supernatural” requirement. None of their examples are merely scientifically unexplained, they’re actively claiming to violate scientific results.
Definition #2: “Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation: such paranormal phenomena as telepathy; a medium’s paranormal powers.”
Here’s where we get to the hair I’m trying to split with you: “beyond the range of scientific explanation” isn’t the same as “not scientifically explained.” There’s lots of stuff that’s not scientifically explained, but is within the range of scientific explanation – the case we’re talking about is one of them: I’ve described the study that needs to be done for you. Hypothesis, test, etc. The scientific method. Science. Just because no one’s done the test yet doesn’t mean the test is invalid.
Definition #3 & 4:"
- seemingly outside normal sensory channels [syn: extrasensory] [ant: sensorial]
- not in accordance with scientific laws; “what seemed to be paranormal manifestations” [ant: normal]"
This is most people’s understanding of what “paranormal means” - not just something science hasn’t gotten around to looking at, but something that produces a result outside the laws science has proscribed.
Definition #5: “not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and phenomena:”
Same thing again. Note: “understandable,” not “understood.”
Great, I agree that that seems a paranormal claim. Now, let’s get somebody to run the test. Until that’s been done, we’re both just speculating: acceptable for paranormal proponents, not acceptable for science.
No. “Not proveable” is not remotely close to “not proved yet,” else nothing *not *proved would ever *be *proved.
There is a six foot fence in my back yard. It has never been jumped. Is it unjumpable?
paranormal
One entry found.
paranormal
Main Entry: para·nor·mal
Pronunciation: \ˌpa-rə-ˈnȯr-məl, ˈpa-rə-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1920
: not scientifically explainable :
The one and only definition from good ol’ Meriam Webster.
Of course, the entire concept of your claim is what is within the realm of scientific explanation. The facts are, you don’t know. You can’t offer any proof. If you can, put it up. Funny how the scientific types love to demand proof but rebuff the same demands. It’s simple: can you present scientific proof of why wart charming works ?
A study on warts by D M Ewin raises further questions. Hypnotherapy for warts (verruca vulgaris): 41 consecutive cases with 33 cures, Am J Clin Hypn. 1992 Jul;35(1):1-10. Tulane Medical School, New Orleans, LA.
Next you can read the results of a trial where there was no intent to remove the warts, only to test the physical actions and results.
Suggestive wart treatment = 33 of 41 patients cured.
placebo wart treatment = 5 of 45 patients cured.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1923042&pageindex=1
Until someone jumps it, we don’t know. Prove it and I’ll accept it. Perhaps your fence has exceptional snags.
That study doesn’t say anything like what you claim it does. Where are you getting those numbers?
It does say this, however –
You missed the important bit. I’ll say it again. “'Not proveable- is not remotely close to “not proved yet,” else nothing not proved would ever be proved.”
“We don’t know” is not the same as “unjumpable.” That is where you are going off the rails a bit. There are many phenomena that “we don’t know” the explanation for. That does not make them “not scientifically proveable.”
The study was carried out in order to test suggestive removal. They were testing the method. You supposed intent . In the successful trials, the intent was to remove warts. In the other trial, there was no intent to charm the warts, only to test the method. Of course, intent being the issue. The hypnotic therapist did intend to remove the warts and believed they would be removed. The second group dod not intend to remove warts and did not beleive, prefacing the trial with their negative beliefs in the treatment.
Prove it.
Prove what? I seriously don’t know what you mean.
Again I ask you where you got the numbers you cited. They are nowhere in the text of your link.
Hypnotist? Go back and look again. There is no hypnotist mentioned.
Prove that any single, currently unproved phenomenon, is proveable. If a particualr phenomenon is to date, unproved, it remains unproveable, to date. To suppose that unproven things are indeed proveable, is an invocation of faith. Not usually well recieved in science.
“…after two months, 45 came back and five had lost warts on both hands”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1923042&pageindex=1
A study on warts by D M Ewin raises further questions. Hypnotherapy for warts (verruca vulgaris): 41 consecutive cases with 33 cures, Am J Clin Hypn. 1992 Jul;35(1):1-10. Tulane Medical School, New Orleans, LA.
"controlled studies of the use of hypnosis to cure warts are confined to using direct suggestion in hypnosis "
Are you sure you read thouroughly ?
Although perhaps confusingly written, I think what Iknewit is doing is contrasting the two quotes.
In the study being talked about in the first link, it says that 33 out of 41 cases were cured by direct suggestion in hypnosis (DSIH).
In the second link, the study showed that only 5 of 45 patients had improvement.
I think Iknewit is saying the difference between the results is explained by the belief and intent of the people conducting the study. In the first link, those conducting the study apparently believe in the efficacy of the suggestion as treatment. In the second link, it seems those conducting the study did not.
Exactly. And that is exactly what was suggested to be the test here: The intent of the charmer.
This was Timewinder’s suggestion:
“Not at all. Let me make my specific, scientific claim: Given a large group of randomly selected subjects with warts, I claim that if you “wart charm” one group, and perform the same physical actions on the other group without intent to charm, that the pattern of wart disappearance will be statistically identical between the two groups.”
I think the two studies are as close to satifying this as we can get for this discussion.
So you’re saying that in no case, ever, was there a hypothesis that that could be proved by science, but for which no one had simply ever taken the time to do?
So when Galileo rolled those balls down an inclined plane and proved that they fell at the same rate and not that the heavier balls rolled faster, that was impossible to prove until that time?
What makes the unproved things of our time different from those of earlier times?
Nothing at all. Without first, the discoverery of balls and inclined planes, Galileo’s theory was indeed, unproveable, no ?
But balls and inclined planes had been around for a long time by the Big G did his thing. During that time, the theory that different weight objects fell at the same rate was provable at any time, no? It’s just that no one did it.
I will grant that there may be many, many things for which the proof is currently missing because of lack of technology, money, or desire. But like Galileo’s balls, many of those problems may be or definitely are solvable using the scientific method. In my mind, those that are solvable in such a manner are “provable”.
In my mind, if you say that something is proveable, then you would need to prove it, not just claim that it is proveable. If you fail, it remains unproveable. I think claiming unproveable is a more tenable position, in the absence of proof, than the alternative, considering you can’t prove yourself right nor prove me wrong.
Ok nitpicks over word definitions aside, I’m interested in clarifying in my mind your thinking.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you think that in Timewinder’s suggested study, there would be different results, and these differences would be because of the intent of the two groups doing the treatments. Is this correct?
If that is correct, then IMO you are in fact proposing a true supernatural, paranormal, Randi would think it’s impossible, not explained by science kind of thing. The supernatural part would be that the intent of the caregiver, while completely hidden from the patient, would make a difference in the efficacy of the treatment. Is my understanding correct here as well?
Eh…sort of. I think there is an explanation for the wart results. I don’t know what it is but I think it exist. Expalining it in scientific terms is another matter. Kinda like trying to scientifically prove love. Most people think it exist but hard proof is hard to come by. I think perhaps that one day we will find evidence of suggestive healing and the mechanisms by which they work. Regardless, according to the word “paranormal” it is something that is “scientifically unexplainable”. I thnik Randi’s offer is bogus, by the way, at the least not authentic in the claim of “paranormal” otherwise it would have been collected already. No way could a court find that an unexpalined phenomenon is somehow explainable, absent proof.