# IF "paranormal" was observed, would it be parnormal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2007, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567 "2007-09-09T13:39:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/61 "2007-09-11T19:14:58Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Did you read the other thread? “Goofing around” comes pretty close. What he is doing is assigning certain definitions to certain words and referring back to those definitions in an endless loop whenever he gets called on it. QUOTE] Liar. Absolute lie. I have not assigned a definition to any word. I have cited the definitons of Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, American Heritage, Ultralingua and a couple I forgot. Take up your arguments with them. You liar. I don’t get to assign definitions and I have not attempted to do so. Many, many others have attempted to redefine the word and assign a meaning they can accept. Not me. Liar. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/62 "2007-09-11T19:17:02Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] You fail to accept the meaning of the word and instead, insert a meaning you can accept. This is why we have rules for words. So that people can understand one another. You don’t understand so you change meanings to fit your reality. [/QUOTE] My irony meter just pegged at 11. Can you prove that there are things beyond human understanding? You have asserted it, and demanded of others that they prove their assertions. Should the same rules not apply for you? How is a phenomenon different after a human understands it? Does it change when it moves from the paranormal to the normal? If not, what is all this lexicographical posturing about? Is electricity paranormal to those who cannot explain it? Can you explain electricity? Completely? If so, will you do so, as you have asked others to explain various phenomena? If not, does that make it paranormal? Do you completely understand all phenomena that you would describe as normal? If not, does that mean that you are taking them on faith? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/63 "2007-09-11T19:17:27Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] Thanks, **Der Trihs,** to tackling the same **Iknewit** quote I did, but giving a better refutation. 🙂 I think the problem here is more one of definition. Most of the dictionary definitions **Iknewit** supplied can be reduced to (1) “paranormal = unknown”. However, I would like to propose a new definition based on the word’s usage on SDMB and most other modern scientific venues I have seen: (2) **Paranormal: an event or phenomena requiring the invocation of supernatural or imagined powers to explain.** I can’t explain exactly how my video camcorder works. Therefore, by definition #1, it is paranormal. By def #2, it is not. [/QUOTE] And here we have it, right on fucking que. A proposal to redefine a word. Yes sireee…I’m the one assigning definitions. Welcome to the alternate reality of SDMB, where words meanb what we want them to. Be sure to order a copy of our dictionary lest you be fooled by Cambridge. What a fucking joke. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/64 "2007-09-11T19:24:42Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] [QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Did you read the other thread? “Goofing around” comes pretty close. What he is doing is assigning certain definitions to certain words and referring back to those definitions in an endless loop whenever he gets called on it. QUOTE] Liar. Absolute lie. I have not assigned a definition to any word. I have cited the definitons of Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, American Heritage, Ultralingua and a couple I forgot. Take up your arguments with them. You liar. I don’t get to assign definitions and I have not attempted to do so. Many, many others have attempted to redefine the word and assign a meaning they can accept. Not me. Liar. [/QUOTE] OK. Change “assign” to “ascribe.” The fact that the spittle is flying over such a minor point is telling. What you are doing is accepting the definitions that you prefer, rejecting the ones you don’t, and then acting as if every word in said definitions were absolutely true and crucial. Very few people would take your preferred definitions as axioms, or, using them as a starting point, arrive where you have. If the realm of the paranormal exists, it does so independent of your ability to define it. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/65 "2007-09-11T19:26:34Z")
Everything that happens in this world observed or not is normal. Paranormal is a misnomer, a moot concept. That will end the argument. Spiritual experiences and happenings are normal, and have been going on for thousands of years before the word paranormal was heard about. > [@](#): > > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: > Paranormal is an umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena. According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes “any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.”[1] For this reason, the scientific community often avoids research on the paranormal, believing that it may not conform to the standards required by the scientific method. Paranormal is a “science” word. Now I know that science students are taught anything outside the scope of science doesn’t exist. But this is not true. Science is only a small part of this world, there are a multitude of things science can not explain, but they are still normal happenings. It is unfortunate for us all, science included, that scientists believe they are the final authority or judge of what is true and what is not true. The future will decide, not scientists, what is truth. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/66 "2007-09-11T19:26:42Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] Welcome to the alternate reality of SDMB, where words meanb what we want them to. [/QUOTE] As opposed to your reality, where words _don’t_ mean what we want them to mean? ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/67 "2007-09-11T19:36:08Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Everything that happens in this world observed or not is normal. Paranormal is a misnomer, a moot concept. That will end the argument. . [/QUOTE] We already tried that. Doesn’t work. Refer back to the “wart charmer” thread. The skeptical are willing to say that paranormal does not exist, that it is a joke, that it is a false term, right up to the point that someone offers money for proof of it. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/68 "2007-09-11T19:38:03Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] As opposed to your reality, where words _don’t_ mean what we want them to mean? [/QUOTE] See Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, etc. That’s all I can refer you to on the meaning of words. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/69 "2007-09-11T19:47:00Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] See Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, etc. That’s all I can refer you to on the meaning of words. [/QUOTE] Oh well. There’s a bit more to it than that. Blind adherence to dictionary definitions is to be avoided. Dictionary definitions \*prove \*nothing. The thing is, while words are used to describe other words, you cannot assume a transitive property. You don’t get to say, for example, that if the word ‘unexplainable’ is part of one the definitions of ‘paranormal,’ then all things unexplainable _by definition_ are paranormal. It simply doesn’t work that way. And, while I have your attention – Can you prove that there are things beyond human understanding? You have asserted it, and demanded of others that they prove their assertions. Should the same rules not apply for you? How is a phenomenon different after a human understands it? Does it change when it moves from the paranormal to the normal? If not, what is all this lexicographical posturing about? Is electricity paranormal to those who cannot explain it? Can you explain electricity? Completely? If so, will you do so, as you have asked others to explain various phenomena? If not, does that make it paranormal? Do you completely understand all phenomena that you would describe as normal? If not, does that mean that you are taking them on faith? ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/70 "2007-09-11T19:48:00Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] Maybe because you reject the definiton of paranormal ? You know, beyond the explanation of science, science being a completely human endeavor, limited by the human brain and consciousness ? If you believe that some things are beyond human understanding, you believe in the paranormal. You just don’t like the word because it has become associated with frauds and such. They have at least succeeded in scaring you out of owning your vocabulary. [/QUOTE] Well, that seems to be the crux of your problem, right there, **Iknewit**. When it is said something is beyond the explanation of science, it is assumed to be beyond the explanation of science in all eternity. That is, that by itself it cannot possibly explained by science. You mentioned UFOs as a paranormal event earlier on. Well, they aren’t. UFO’s are, by definition, Unidentified Flying Objects. (Even calling them Flying Objects goes too far, Phenomena would be better, IMHO, but UP as an acronym isn’t widely known). The thing about them is that they aren’t, in and of themselves, paranormal. If we knew the time and place where one would be happening beforehand, we could set up a number of instruments to observe them and, with pretty high confidence, could change the name to IFO (Identified Flying Object). The reason we don’t do this is because we can’t go back in time to observe the Phenomenon properly to diagnose it. The same thing happens with a load of events. We can’t observe them/document them enough because of different constraints --placement in time/space, instruments that aren’t able to record them properly, etc. etc. That doesn’t mean they don’t happen. It doesn’t mean either that they can’t be observed and/or explained with sufficient data. It does mean that we are limited in our powers to explain them. Paranormal events are those that even when they are repeatable, reliably observable, etc. they simply cannot be reasonably explained. Spontaneous remission of cancer, for instance, doesn’t come into this picture, because (as far as I know) medicine doesn’t have complete knowledge (nor does it pretend to do) of the human body. There are gray and black areas which could come into play, because science is by no means a complete affair. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/71 "2007-09-11T19:54:01Z")
[QUOTE=Testy] The hypothetical case quoted above where someone could _repeatably_\* make dice land in a certain pattern is a good example. If they can do this trick reliably then it can be studied. If no cause is found then either someone is using the wrong instruments or they are insufficiently sensitive to detect what’s happening. [/quote] That’s a pure assumption on your part. I’d rather say that no such thing has ever happened and that I believe no such thing will ever happen than say I know for sure that no such thing **can** happen. Like I said, I don’t do belief well. > [@](#): > > Another good example is “alternative” medicine. If something is shown to reliably work for a given condition, then it ceases to be “alternative” and becomes a part of real medicine. Bad example. In all cases “alternative” medicine that works fits in perfectly well with regular medicine, once the mechanisms are discovered. Alternative medicines where this is not the case, like homeopathy, basically have been found not to work. I don’t know of any major paradigm shift coming from an alternative medicine. ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/72 "2007-09-11T20:00:08Z")
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara] Well, that seems to be the crux of your problem, right there, **Iknewit**. When it is said something is beyond the explanation of science, it is assumed to be beyond the explanation of science in all eternity. That is, that by itself it cannot possibly explained by science. [/QUOTE] Un huh. And how long is enternity ? If a meteor crashed into Earth today, obliterating the human race, what is the plausibility and time frame of evolving human life again ? When we human consciousness and science reappear ? Also, you rely on faith that anyhting observable is explainable although you admit we have observed some things for a very long time and yet have no explanation. Your argument is one of faith, not facts. Faith that the information will come, faith that it even exist. You don’t know. That is the crux of the word, that some things are ultimately unknown and unexplainable. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/73 "2007-09-11T20:02:26Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] That is the crux of the word, that some things are ultimately unknown and unexplainable. [/QUOTE] Prove it. Prove that anything is ultimately unknowable. Can you prove that there are things beyond human understanding? You have asserted it, and demanded of others that they prove their assertions. Should the same rules not apply for you? How is a phenomenon different after a human understands it? Does it change when it moves from the paranormal to the normal? If not, what is all this lexicographical posturing about? Is electricity paranormal to those who cannot explain it? Can you explain electricity? Completely? If so, will you do so, as you have asked others to explain various phenomena? If not, does that make it paranormal? Do you completely understand all phenomena that you would describe as normal? If not, does that mean that you are taking them on faith? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/74 "2007-09-11T20:06:36Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] **Voyager** , if a phenomena was found to follow “rules” and was studiable, why would it be “orthoganal to science”? [/quote] Music follows rules and is studiable. Is it science? > [@](#): > > To me it is inherently obvious that **Iknewit** ’s attempt to define anything that science has not completely explained at any particular point in time as “paranormal” is an inaccurate and meaningless definition that fails to recognize the nature of science. Sort of a [“God of the Gaps”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) approach. By that attempted definition the paranormal of course exists because our ignorance always exists. (Funny thing about ignorance, the more you attempt to reduce it, the more you learn, the more you realize what you do not know.) I agree. The test I have for calling something paranormal is very stringent, and nothing demonstrated in the world today meets it. I’m pretty confident that nothing we will ever see will ever meet it. I’m a physicalist, and I don’t think there is anything in the universe that can’t be explained by some scientific theory, perhaps not yet discovered. > [@](#): > > But “science” is not and has never been about having all the right answers. Science is about studying the universe and forming better models about how it works, models that make testable predictions about what will happen in the future. It is a process. And if an extraordinary claim was made, _and_ extraordinary evidence was produced to back it up, then it would fall under the purview of science even if it claimed the existence of forces that we did not up to that point recognize existed. > > The problem with those who accept the “paranormal” is that they seem willing to state that _because_ they observe something that they feel that science does not have a current adequate explanation for, that therefore science is “wrong”, and some hokus-pokus explanation that falls beyond the realm of falsifiability must be true. Of course usually it is sufficient to show that they are wrong on the the first part, to show the scientific explanation for the observation, or the second, i.e. to falsify the hokus-pokus. But the premise is itself flawed. IMHO. Well, actually the biggest problem with believers in the paranormal seems to be they don’t understand fraud or statistics, and find all sorts of spooky events in cases where either someone is pulling the wool over their eyes (Conan Doyle) or where some unlikely but expected experimental result turns up. I’ve been reading Skeptical Inquirer for a lot of years. I can imagine a paranormal phenomena where the scientific method might not work - especially in the area of reproducibility. If we found a true violation of the conservation laws, that doesn’t make them invalid. Now, if you want to call whatever a scientist studies science, then it has become semantics. I don’t buy science as covering A and ~A. I have no trouble with a theory of magic, or magical engineers, the way it was treated in _Unknown_ 65 years ago, but I have a problem with calling it science. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/75 "2007-09-11T20:12:38Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] \ Every shred of evidence, even as evidenced in the wart charmer thread, supports that regardless of definition of the word, everything that can be observed, everything that ever has been observed, regardless of a lack of explanation, is rejected as paranormal by science. That’s the catch: _science_. [/quote] **IKnewit** I’m not sure what you mean by this. AFAIK, science does **not** reject 'everything that has been observed etc." as paranormal. Scientists **do** reject things that aren’t repeatable and things that can’t be proved to have ever happened in the first place. What would you like? Should we start making research decisions based on anecdotes and testimonials? Or should it just be the things **you** happen to believe with no evidence? > [@](#): > > Ask a scientist or skeptic if any observed effect is explainable and the answer is yes. If one says no, just ask one more and so on until you get a speculation or written guess work. That seems to be the definition of explainable: the willingness to try and explain it. It is not that we have any evidence that every observation that can not be explained is ultimately explainable. It is not that we don’t have unexplained phenomenon that have remained unexplained despite great effort to do so, it is merely the fact that science will not accept that paranormal exist. If you have any evidence, offer it. If not, it’s just speculation. Well of course scientists (and skeptics) will say yes when you ask them to explain something. Anything **that actually happens, repeatably** is subject to investigation and explanation. If you’re asking them to explain something that is not repeatable or that you can’t even prove to have happened, they’re going to give you the most likely explanations: a) You are mistaken. b) You are lying. I’m not sure where you’re getting the bit about; “It is not that we don’t have unexplained phenomenon etc.” but I’m not convinced that this is the case. We have a lot of people that claim to have seen/experienced something unexplainable, that doesn’t mean it actually happened. What is your evidence that unexplainable things have actually happened? Is it purely anecdotal? If so, that is pretty weak evidence for anything earthshaking. > [@](#): > > Faith healing / suggestive healing: Unexplained. It has been observed in many forms. We try to explain it and the closest we can come is offering the explanation of the placebo effect, another unexplained phenomenon. This is the ultimate example. Because of our reluctance to accept anything that is unexplainable, we look at an event and by it’s very repeated occurance science accepts all kinds of theories about it as evidence that somehow it must be explainable although no one can actually do that. It just can’t be unexplainable can it ? it just can’t be paranormal can it ? It happens too often. But wait…who set the condition that frequency of occurance has anything to do with paranormal ? Oh yeah…that would be science. The very thing that paranormal flies in the face of. I’m not sure whether this is evidence of anything at all. People **do** survive illnesses and injury without help. The immune system and other natural, known and explainable processes would probably explain your faith healing as well. If you get influenza and survive without medication, **must** it be something supernatural? > [@](#): > > It seems that science has a grudge against paranormal and rightfully so. The very nature of paranormal is “science can’t explain me” and the very nature of science is “explain what is observed”. The two are diametrically opposed. If you are looking for a skeptic or the scientific community to confirm paranormal, forget it. That is not the nature of science. Science sets the rules even when there are no rules of nature to be identified and nature isn’t talking. So science says “we suspect” or “it is believed”. In laymens terms that means “we can’t explain it.” I strongly disagree with this. If you can **prove** that something actually happened it can be investigated and explained, even if new theories are required. If you want to claim that science cannot explain **everything** right now, then I’m right with you. That’s why research is going on all over the planet, to reduce the area that is unexplained. If you want to claim that there are things again, **that actually happened** that science can **never** explain, then I disagree. Like I said somewhere above, if someone can make something happen, then it can be investigated and explained. It could even require whole new bodies of knowledge but it can be done. > [@](#): > > So the question is not really whether paranormal exist, the question is, would you admit it if you saw it ? Depends on who you are. No, the question is still whether the paranormal exists. We don’t need to bother trying to explain things that may not even exist. What do you want? Should scientists use their time and funding to disprove the paranormal? How about the Easter Bunny? First it has to e shown that there’s something to be explained before spending resources to explain it. What’s so hard about this besides it being something you don’t like? > [@](#): > > Science can’t figure out ball lightning. People who witnessed it were called liars and frauds. It has taken science a few hundred years to acknowledge it’s existence. Now that we have instruments for recording lighting strikes, science can’t run anymore and is stuck with holding a hot poatato. We can’t call you freaks and frauds anymore and holy shit we gotta refrain from calling this paranormal like we used to cause _now we know it exist_ . Hmmm…somebody gives us a few pages of bullshit to present until we come up with something better. Sure, I agree that ball lightning used to be considered nonexistent. And then the evidence came in that it existed and people are trying to explain it. They may already have done so for all I know. That’s the way it is supposed to work. No reasonable person is going to waste time trying to explain something if they don’t think it exists. What would you like them to do and how far should they go in explaining things that may not even exist? > [@](#): > > The paranormal exist in my opinion. Not black magic or telepathy, but real occurances that science can not expalin. Science just won’t acknowledge that human understanding may, in fact, be limited. I got no problem accepting that we will never explain or understand some things. **IKnewit** Well, I’m glad to have your **opinion.** Like a guy I used to know would tell me; “opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and most of them stink.” Now, is your opinion worth anything? Can you back it up with evidence and research or is it worth about the same as my opinion on stellar physics? Testy ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/76 "2007-09-11T20:17:32Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Music follows rules and is studiable. Is it science? [/QUOTE] To the extent that music is a phenomenon which can be studied by the scientific method, those rules you discuss being inferrable from this study, with hypotheses drawn up and then submitted to testing, then, yes, the study of music is science. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/77 "2007-09-11T20:29:33Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] That’s a pure assumption on your part. I’d rather say that no such thing has ever happened and that I believe no such thing will ever happen than say I know for sure that no such thing **can** happen. Like I said, I don’t do belief well. Bad example. In all cases “alternative” medicine that works fits in perfectly well with regular medicine, once the mechanisms are discovered. Alternative medicines where this is not the case, like homeopathy, basically have been found not to work. I don’t know of any major paradigm shift coming from an alternative medicine. [/QUOTE] **Voyager** On the first part, I tend to think of my attitude as confidence rather than belief. Belief is what I’m really trying to avoid. My own experience has been that if something is repeatable it **can** be investigated and explained, always. Admittedly, not everything is investigated because a lot of stuff just isn’t perceived as being worth it. Some other things need more research. Neither situation makes something unexplainable, just unexplained-to-date. As far as the second part, I see that I was probably unclear. Basically, we agree and that probably **was** a bad example. What I was thinking was about something like herbal medicine where a plant was part of alternative medicine and was then found to contain some useful substance. The useful substance would then be extracted, purified, or maybe just synthesized, and then used in the world of what I refer to as “real medicine” where the doc is a graduate of a medical school as opposed to the other kind of medicine. Anyway, I did not have any kind of sweeping paradigm shift in mind, just bits and pieces, and certainly not homeopathy or Rekei or other paranormal crap. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/78 "2007-09-11T20:33:39Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Everything that happens in this world observed or not is normal. Paranormal is a misnomer, a moot concept. That will end the argument. \ [/QUOTE] **Lekatt** I agree wholeheartedly with this part of your post. If something actually happens then it is not “paranormal.” The problem is that people keep claiming things where they are mistaken or, in the case of many psychics and the like, they simply lie about it. Nothing happened and the demand is for scientists and researchers to explain something that isn’t real. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Iknewit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4491bb/32.png) [@Iknewit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iknewit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/79 "2007-09-11T20:36:36Z")
**Spontaneous healing** Explain it scientifically. **Dark Matter** Explain it scientifically. **Human Consciousness** Explain it scientifically. **The Placebo effect** Explain it scientifically. **The Horizon Problem** Explain it scientifically. \*\* Ultra-energetic cosmic rays\*\* Explain them scientifically. **Tetraneutrons** Explain them scientifically. **The Pioneer anomaly** Explain it scientifically. **Dark energy** Explain it scientifically. I don’t contend that telepathy exist or that black magic exist. What I do contend is that regardless of any faith that everything is ultimately explainable, there is a limit of scientific and human understanding. We simply can’t apply a word or words to something and call it explained. The placebo effect is one very real and reapeated occurance that no one can explain. We remove it from the realm of the paranormal not because it has been shown to be explainable, but because it has been shown to exist. We think we can explain it just because we know it exist, not because we have any evidence of any actual mechanisms that cause it to appear. The belief that even beyond our ability to observe there are events in the universe that are normal and explainable is just an argument of faith that we could explain everything if only we had the chance. The disregard for limits of science and human understanding is no more than a faith based argument that is utterly as useless as claiming that God did. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567/80 "2007-09-11T20:45:38Z")
[QUOTE=Iknewit] What I do contend is that regardless of any faith that everything is ultimately explainable, there is a limit of scientific and human understanding. [/QUOTE] For the umpteenth time, prove it! You demand such proof of others. Put up or shut up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-paranormal-was-observed-would-it-be-parnormal/418567.md?page=5)