So you do think that the intent of the caregiver, even if completely hidden from the patient, can make a difference?
Whether this is paranormal or not based on dictionary definitions is kind of beside the point I think.
And even though I don’t think that logistically it is a good candidate for something like the Randi challenge, my opinion is that is would be testable in a scientific setting, and the results would be interesting.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
What I mean is that the challenge uses the word “paranormal” recklessly, IMHO. An example would be the flight of a bee. (Although recent studies may have finally unlocked this one) For many years, scientist could not explain the flight of a bee. Too heavy, wings too small, it defied scientific explanation. By definition, bee flight was, at one time, and arguably still, paranormal. That is to say, without scientific explanation. So long as there is no explanation of bee flight we can claim that there is none until someone proves differently. Poof, paranormal activity right in front of your eyes.
In the case of the Randi challenge, use of the word “paranormal” is of great importance.
I think the wart charmer does have some sort of important knowledge or faith…something, that contibutes. Having experienced myself, knowing others who have and reading the results of the trials, leads one in that direction. If the results were indeed just statisical luck, the numbers themselves would be paranormal, as there is no scientific explanation for calling something an anomalie when it happens over and over again. It then must become paranormal until someone can explain the reason for the repeated results.
Maybe, but I think you’d have a hard time getting many people now or in the past to call bee flight paranormal. Regardless, I don’t think the particular subject at hand, curing warts by suggestion, lends itself to the Randi challenge like something more immediate and controllable such as dowsing, mind reading, viewing at a distance, etc. I could be wrong and maybe someone who does this could get Randi’s group to accept such a challenge. It would be interesting to see.
Assuming that the studies that show results were valid, and that it actually does happen over and over again at a rate that is statistically significant. That is what a test like the one proposed up thread would try to establish.
If it does happen reliably, then we have something to study, whether you call it paranormal or not.
The angle I am exploring here is the word paranormal. The definitions of the word and even the broken down meanings of the prefix “para” and the word “normal”, simply suggest something out of the norm. Something unexplainable. I don’t think that for something to be paranormal it has to be divine, of alien origin or of superpower. That’s not what the word means and we can prove that. It simply means something that is unexplainable. Present Randi with an unexplainable phenomenon and then you’ll have to sue him and spend a million to get your million. Like you said, few people will submit to the actual meaning of the word, favoring spaceships, magic or the like. I don’t think those things are the only paranormal things in existence. Instincts, for instance, are widely debated and studied but no one can prove where they come from but we know they are real occurances.
These are some unexplained phenomenon. Dog and cat behavior during full moons is a pretty interesting one. Could it be considered paranormal ?
I missed this one right at the start. The first unexplained phenomenon listed is the placebo effect.
Another science page of unexplained phenomenon. Again, the placebo effect is the first listing.
Your perseveration on the definition and use of a word is not clarifying much of anything–it’s as if you think a defense of word usage is sufficient to defend a position of whether what we have with wart charming is miraculous or not.
Are you contending that some things might be miraculous–that there is an event which violates physical law–or are you simply contending that some things happen for which a scientific explanation exists, but is not worked out?
If you hold the first position, I’m uninterested in pursuing the discussion with you, but you have a lot of company other than mine. If you hold the second position, I’d say you also have a lot of company but they are not likely to be overwhelmed by the insight.
Again, there are many (even in this thread) who would disagree about your definition of “paranormal”. Some things may be clearly “paranormal”, some may be in a gray area. But I was under the impression you wanted to talk about the placebo effect and similar things, not word definitions.
Not at all. My guess is he doesn’t care much about your definition of the word, or anyone else’s either. He won’t accept a given challenge based on word definitions, but on whether or not they see it as worthy and testable. If you could get him to accept a claim, then accept the protocol, then go through with the test and perform as outlined, you’d get the million whether or not he likes your word play. But he won’t (and rightfully so, I think) accept a claim that doesn’t seem paranormal to him, and conversely, he probably would not accept a challenge just because the word paranormal had been used, even by himself. It’s his challenge, his rules.
Paranormal may be much like art, I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. Randi gets many claims that everyone involved thinks are paranormal. Let those people take the Randi challenge, and let it be effective in the arena it’s designed for. It’s not about word usage, it’s about getting people to think about things, and not believe things for which there is no real evidence, and which testing routinely shows as wrong.
But since you’ve said you have no interest in applying for the Randi Challenge, I don’t know why you would care.
I don’t know much about cats and dogs and full moons, but I don’t see why. Instinctual behavior may not fully (or even mostly) explained, but very few would call it paranormal. But why care what label is used? Paranormal or not, interesting behavior may be deserving of investigation.
As a side note, I’m not much impressed with that site you linked to. A short look gives me the impression they seem ready to believe just about anything. Way to credulous for my taste.
I am most interested in the definitions and perceptions of the term “paranormal”. I often find myself wondering if people say what they mean or not or even understand the words they use.
I think that, at the least, the placebo effect is a demonstrated and real phenomenon that is unexplained by science despite years of research. The wart scenario was just the first one I thought of, considering I had experienced that. I was pretty sure there must be other examples of paranormal activity that are verifiable. Surely, there seem to be. The question does not seem to be if paranormal things exist but what someones definition of paranormal is. The placebo effect has been demonstrated over and over again in controlled settings and I suspect that the wart scenario would be the same as it appears to be some sort of placebo effect, though I can’t be sure. At the least, the relief of pain and other symptoms are commonly found in the placebo. An event for which science has no explanation.
So I guess my concern was the use of the language. When I read the challenge, I first looked up the exact meaning of “paranormal”. That is where my thinking began, not at any general meaning but at the specific meaning of the word. Like you said, this Randi guy gets to make his own rules for his contest but I’m not so sure that anyone gets to redefine words at their own whim. The word does have a definite meaning.
Again, I’m not interested, motivated or educated enough to try the Randi challenge, just really doing a bit of hole punching at a guy who seems to enjoy the sport a lot himself.
I’m fairly certain that “this Randi guy,” to use your own meticulously impromptu phrasing, possesses— as he faces his own octogenarianism— every “hole” he will need to navigate the remainder of his life. For your future needs, may I suggest a watermelon?
You haven’t made the acquaintance of a gent calling himself Peter Morris, have you?
Many do, many don’t. But you seem to feel you are the final arbitrator.
So this whole thing has been a weird way to take a shot at Randi? I’m sure he’ll be properly upset.
The placebo effect, while interesting, really isn’t probably unexplainable. Your brain is in control of your body and its health. So it makes sense that one would be able to give a command to your brain and it would then go, “Woops, oh yeah! There’s something wrong there!” And then go and fix it.
And quite obviously it isn’t paranormal. You can’t give a placebo to someone who is unconscious, for example. The person has to know that you are doing something for their ailment. If you were dead asleep when the guy touched your knee and no one else knew he did it nor told or indicated to you that there was an expectation for you to get better, there wouldn’t have been a placebo effect. So that fairly well tells us that magical chi waves aren’t being beamed from one person to the other.
If the person has to consciously be aware that they are receiving treatment, then pretty obviously it’s their conscious mind doing something. So while wierd, that’s still no different from optical illusions nor other illogical things the brain does.
Take for example ideomotor action and ticklishness. People aren’t joking when they say that if there’s a God and man is his perfect creation, then God needs to get a better bug reporting system.
I guess so…kind of. I never really gave much thought to actually proving the paranormal until reading here and then there. Not so much a shot at Randi as just having a bit of fun poking holes in his challenge.
And I don’t feel that I am the final arbitrator of the meaning of words but a general agreement of those who define them. There are many dictionaries and none seem to limit “paranormal” to extra terrestrials, God, witches and the like.
Which you haven’t done, even a little bit. In what way does nit-picking about the definition of the word paranormal poke holes in his challenge? It’s not a spelling bee or vocabulary test, after all.
And none seem to mention the placebo effect or instinctual behavior either, despite your insistence that they be included.
For the purpose of the James Randi challenge, the definition of “paranormal” is up to James Randi. Unless he believes that what you are trying to show would require magic, telekenesis, or similar, he won’t accept your challenge.
Your own personal definition of paranormal, as our own Peter Morris should know, is irrelevant.
By now this is off topic, but the doctor who I had replaced about 19 years ago in my pediatric practice used to tell parents to rub a potato on a wart, cut it into quarters and bury each quarter in a different corner of their yard. He was in his upper sixties and had been doing it for years and had a high success rate. Placebos can often work well, especially on warts.
People just gotta believe.
The challenge says “paranormal”. The definitions of paranormal, in fact, name no specific event.
From Encarta:
impossible to explain scientifically: unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge
From the Oxford Dictionary:
• adjective supposedly beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.
From Webster:
not scientifically explainable :
From Cambridge:
impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science:
From American heritage:
Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation
So it seems, by many sources, that a scietifically unexplainable event, like the placebo effect, would fit this definition. If you can not explain the placebo effect in scientific terms, I think most reasonable persons, upon reading the definition of the word, would agree that “paranormal” is an accurate, acceptable adjective to describe the placebo effect, wart charmers, .
So, a big hole in the challenge is the choice of the word “paranormal”. There are a range of things that fall under the specific definition of this word that can be and have been observed by doctors, scientist and the like, with none able to offer a scientific explanation. A scientific explanation, of course, being the consistent cause for defining the use of the word paranormal.
Once again, for everyone, if you can scientifically explain the placebo effect, let’s have it.
If I were motivated enough, and perhaps I will be at some point, I would challenge this notion before a court. Randi does not say that the cahllenge requires magic, telekenesis or similar. He says “paranormal”. And for the purpose of the “this guy Randi’s” challenge, I don’t think he would be allowed to use a word and define it himself. Of course, this only proves that the challenge is bogus. Shall we define bogus ?
Given that the challenge is in the form of a person to person contract, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be entirely his right to decide sufficient paranormality as to convince him to sacrifice one million dollars of his own money.
But heck, if you want to take him to court over it, be my guest.
Well, probably not gonna take him to court. But still, if I offered a prize for proving sexual activity and then defined sexual as only pertaining to anal sex, I suppose I might be taken to task.