IF "paranormal" was observed, would it be parnormal?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
<SNIP>

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.
[/QUOTE]

IKnewit

Well, I disagree with your contention that something is ultimately unknowable.

If you want to say that something is unknown at the moment, (like some of your list that I snipped) then I can agree with you on any of that where there’s something to actually explain.
I strongly disagree with your position of some things being ultimately unknowable. But lets assume that you are correct and that some things cannot be explained. OK, how do we determine what is ultimately unknowable without researching it first. And how do you separate things that are ultimately unknowable from things that just aren’t known yet.
From that aspect, I think your position is untenable unless you are recommending some kind of peasant-like acceptance of anything you’re told. That attitude is not one I can accept.

Testy

82

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
For the umpteenth time, prove it! You demand such proof of others. Put up or shut up.
[/QUOTE]

I contend . That’s the word. It’s not an absolute statement but an argument for the truth. Above is what I stand on to display the current and long standing evidence of the limits of science. Despite much study, the placebo effect evades human understanding, other than that the effect exist.

These are other unexplained phenomenon that so far defy explanation. Some old, some new, all unexplained.

Spontaneous healing
Dark Matter

Human Consciousness
The Placebo effect
The Horizon Problem
Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
Tetraneutrons
The Pioneer anomaly
Dark energy

83

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
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.
[/quote]

Sure, but will it be a wasted effort?

84

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I contend . That’s the word. It’s not an absolute statement but an argument for the truth. Above is what I stand on to display the current and long standing evidence of the limits of science. Despite much study, the placebo effect evades human understanding, other than that the effect exist.

These are other unexplained phenomenon that so far defy explanation. Some old, some new, all unexplained.

Spontaneous healing
Dark Matter

Human Consciousness
The Placebo effect
The Horizon Problem
Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
Tetraneutrons
The Pioneer anomaly
Dark energy
[/QUOTE]

IKnewit

How does posting a list of things that are presently unexplained help your case at all? There is an infinitely long list of things that are not explained right now. Does that have any bearing, at all, on whether they are ultimately unknowable? It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

Testy

85

[QUOTE=Testy]
IKnewit

Well, I disagree with your contention that something is ultimately unknowable.

If you want to say that something is unknown at the moment, (like some of your list that I snipped) then I can agree with you on any of that where there’s something to actually explain.
I strongly disagree with your position of some things being ultimately unknowable. But lets assume that you are correct and that some things cannot be explained. OK, how do we determine what is ultimately unknowable without researching it first. And how do you separate things that are ultimately unknowable from things that just aren’t known yet.
From that aspect, I think your position is untenable unless you are recommending some kind of peasant-like acceptance of anything you’re told. That attitude is not one I can accept.

Testy
[/QUOTE]

DNA contains about 100,000,000 bits of information.

A good library contains about 10,000,000,000,000 bits of information.

The amount of information that can be handed down in books is a about a hundred thousand times more than the information contained in DNA, information handed down in our genes. You can’t even explain the information in your DNA much less the information in a library. The nature of knowledge has become such that the very brightest of our species are able to master only one tiny corner of understanding of the mass of information we have. To infer that one believing what they are told is somehow peasant like is purely ignorant of the capability of human understanding. We don’t have the capacity. We instead, have libraries so we can believe what we are told. That is not peasant like, but an acceptance of reality. Collective conscious is where you seem to be coming from. Do we really have to get into Jungian aspects of this ? We can, but it’s gonna be a long, and I suspect, fruitless, debate.

86

What good does it do to conclude that things are unknowable? Lots of things that seemed unknowable in the past have become known. You could theorize philosophically on the nature of “truth” all you want, meanwhile scientists will keep trying to find answers instead of asking pointless questions.

87

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
it’s gonna be a long, and I suspect, fruitless, debate.
[/QUOTE]

Fruitless, sure, but only as “long” as your guest membership lasts. Then we can go back to discussing Pauly Shore movies.

88

Iknewit, I went and checked your definitions. They were incomplete; you cherry picked and whittled down what the dictionaries said to change the definitions to say what you wanted them to say.

Like most real dictionary defintions, these of course tend to have multiple meanings attached to the word:

Encarta:

  • not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
  • relating to deity: relating to or attributed to a deity
  • magical: relating to or attributed to magic or the occult

Oxford:
1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

Webster:
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Cambridge:

  • caused by forces that cannot be explained by science: Ghosts and evil spirits are supernatural. She is said to have supernatural powers and to be able to communicate with the dead.

American Heritage:

  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Ultralingua:

  • Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; “supernatural forces and occurrences and beings.”
    Based on the ACTUAL definitions, we note that the supernatural is ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ nature, and/or somehow “not subject to explanation”. Note also that “not subject to explanation” does NOT mean “has not been explained”, or even “cannot be explained”. It means you can’t even TRY. This applies to Gods, maybe, but certainly not the placebo effect or dark matter.

The fact is, none of your little examples of ‘unexplained things’ even qualifies as supernatural, unless you intend to invoke a diety, ghost, or magical force as its cause. Which might maybe apply to spontaneous healing, but not the rest.

We also note that there are a heck of a lot of references to gods, spirits, and ‘forces’ in these defintions. This is because, contrary to the conclusions you arrived at from your dishonest definitions, the word “supernatural” does in fact refer to spirits, ghosts, gods, boogeymen, and the rest of the supposed supernatural critters. That’s what the word means, which is why the rest of the world disagress with you about your “definition”. Supernatural does NOT mean just any “unknown”, “unexplained”, or “unexplainable” thing; get over it.
Oh, and regarding the OP, if the paranormal were able to be demonstrated on cue, such that it was no longer some fleeting, elusive, or mysterious thing, then it would cease to be paranormal. The rapidity with which scientists and the common masses would recognize that it was now a normal occurence would depend on the amount of examination of it and validation of it as a real thing that occured.

89

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you are right. I don’t know that anything and everything is ever knowable. But science doesn’t rely on everything to be knowable. The “paranormal” part enters wherever it seems reasonable to suppose there will be no explanation within science. Ever.

Indeed, I know for a fact there are any number of questions that will never be answered by science:

The number of hairs on Abrahm Lincoln’s beard at his 30th birthday
The exact number of grains of sand in the Sahara
The exact number of atoms in the Universe

And yet none of these questions qualify as “paranormal”.

Are you aware of Fermat’s last theorem? A couple of years ago no one knew if it was provable. No one knew whether it was right. Yet no one called it a “paranormal” theorem.

The point being: whether or when it would be solved was not the parameter that placed it within the “normal” universe. It was and remains a scientific problem (if you accept the realm of mathematics as a part of science, of course).

Indeed, we don’t know if dinosaurs had feathers. We might never know, if the day after tomorrow somebody destroys the Earth . That’s not the question. The question is whether we can figure it out, within the rules of the universe.

90

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Iknewit, I went and checked your definitions. They were incomplete; you cherry picked and whittled down what the dictionaries said to change the definitions to say what you wanted them to say.

.
[/QUOTE]

That is a lie.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861723723

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861723723

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57520&dict=CALD

http://www.bartleby.com/61/35/P0063500.html

http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=paranormal
There was no cherry picking of definitions. I would like cites for your post of definitions please.

91

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
Well, you are right. I don’t know that anything and everything is ever knowable. But science doesn’t rely on everything to be knowable. The “paranormal” part enters wherever it seems reasonable to suppose there will be no explanation within science. Ever.

Indeed, I know for a fact there are any number of questions that will never be answered by science:

The number of hairs on Abrahm Lincoln’s beard at his 30th birthday
The exact number of grains of sand in the Sahara
The exact number of atoms in the Universe

And yet none of these questions qualify as “paranormal”.

Are you aware of Fermat’s last theorem? A couple of years ago no one knew if it was provable. No one knew whether it was right. Yet no one called it a “paranormal” theorem.

The point being: whether or when it would be solved was not the parameter that placed it within the “normal” universe. It was and remains a scientific problem (if you accept the realm of mathematics as a part of science, of course).

Indeed, we don’t know if dinosaurs had feathers. We might never know, if the day after tomorrow somebody destroys the Earth . That’s not the question. The question is whether we can figure it out, within the rules of the universe.
[/QUOTE]

The rules of the universe. Do you know them ? Do you think we can know them all or is it reasonable to think that the universe may well have rules that we can never know ? The universe is a big place for the little human brain to comprehend in full. It actually reeks of arrogance.

The number of hairs, grains of sand, etc, is a strawman.

92

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The rules of the universe. Do you know them ? Do you think we can know them all or is it reasonable to think that the universe may well have rules that we can never know ? The universe is a big place for the little human brain to comprehend in full. It actually reeks of arrogance.

The number of hairs, grains of sand, etc, is a strawman.
[/QUOTE]

No, I don’t know the rules of the universe. Neither do you. Neither does anyone.

Science is trying to ferret them out, but no scientist will tell you they will all be known. Ever. And no scientist will tell you that, therefore, there are entire realms of the universe that are “paranormal”.

And maybe the number of hairs, grains of sand, etc. are strawmen. But I listed Fermat’s last theorem as well. Is that a strawman in your mind? Or was it a paranormal theorem for a couple of centuries and, suddenly, ceased to be paranormal?

You are posting a list of identified problems with current models of the universe. The point (apparently) is that they contradict certain paradigms and/or theorems which are currently held in high esteem. But you aren’t saying those problems cannot, by definition, be explained by
a.) a modification in one or more of the current theories
or
b.) a new theory
are you? In my case I posited a number of data which, currently, aren’t known. But they could, potentially, be known, couldn’t they?

And, more to the point, there are other problems which stumped scientist, for a while. For instance, the luminiferous aether was an initial approximation to some of the observations that didn’t reflect Newtonian mechanics. However, once some practical observations refuted its existence, the scientists involved still didn’t invoke “paranormality” to get themselves out of the bind.

By now, we have an alternate theory that explains why the luminiferous aether wasn’t needed after all. And still no “paranormal” explanations arose. For my part, I hope that sooner or later rational explanations will be found for your famous “paranormal” list. I don’t know that a meteor will fall first, I don’t know that it will happen in my lifetime, but I believe it is within the scope of science, not like one of your links said

93

[QUOTE=Testy]
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
[/QUOTE]

I can’t deny there are frauds among spiritual people. Psychics, seem to suffer the most due to the lack of licensing. In Russia psychics work in hospitals along with doctors to aid in the cure of patients, but they have to have a license. Russia tests and licenses its psychics, I don’t know what the test consists of, or where to get a copy. I have not tried to do so. England is beginning to go to the licensed psychics, and here in the US there is an effort being made to test and license psychics. Many healers already require licenses, accupunture, reiki, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc. I think this is a good thing. Just a matter of time.

http://www.alextanous.org/news/newsletter.php?ID=11

94

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I can’t deny there are frauds among spiritual people. Psychics, seem to suffer the most due to the lack of licensing. In Russia psychics work in hospitals along with doctors to aid in the cure of patients, but they have to have a license. Russia tests and licenses its psychics, I don’t know what the test consists of, or where to get a copy. I have not tried to do so. England is beginning to go to the licensed psychics, and here in the US there is an effort being made to test and license psychics. Many healers already require licenses, accupunture, reiki, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc. I think this is a good thing. Just a matter of time.

http://www.alextanous.org/news/newsletter.php?ID=11
[/QUOTE]

Really? Could you provide links to these practices?
… after posting I see you provided a link. Does it document those claims?

95

The truth of human belief is complex. Our brains check “facts” against other “facts” and then we attempt to resolve contradictions. The human brain is capable of very, very, few absolute, non conflicting truths. How many truths could a perfect functioning brain with optimun human reasoning and logic find ? Here is a clue: If a supercomputer, the size of the known universe, using components no larger than protons, switching at the speed of light, operating since the begining of time, were checking for absolute, no contradicting truths, it would still be struggling to come up with the 300th example.* We can get nowhere near that number in any single human brain. We choose to believe somethings based on morals and ideals and refrain from checking them against logic, lest we present ourselves with a paradox. Considering, it is quite unreasonable to believe that human science, conducted by humans, is capable of perfection, much less our ability to conceive of it at all in the realm of logic. it comes down to the same thing that religious types use: faith. We can not understand everyhting. We just like the idea. It’s the same comfort that people want from God, some just replace God with science. As much as religious people put the unknown to rest with God, to avoid resolving logical conflict, other use faith in science to put the unknown to rest.

We can’t understand and explain it all except to grasp that we can’t. It doesn’t mean you have to stop trying, it just means you don’t have to believe in the unknown. You can accept the fact that our brains are limited. There is only so much we can know.

  • See *Labyrinths of Reason: Paradox, Puzzles and the Frailty of Knowledge. * P. 183 - 188
96

Well when you put it that way, sure, no one knows any absolute truth. I claim that Alaska exists, because I have personally been there. Therefore, I can claim that it is an absolute truth that Alaska exists. Wrong! Our senses are easily manipulated. The airlines could have put one over on me and flew me to a place that was made to look like Alaska, and employed thousands of people to go with the facade. Or, they could have attached sensors to my brain so instead of actually going to Alaska, I was merely plugged into a virtual reality machine and only thought I went there. Or maybe I didn’t go anywhere at all, but someone implanted a memory of me going to Alaska.

Of course, arguing such things is pointless. There’s no such thing as super 100% absolute truth, but the simplest explanation for what I have observed is that I indeed did go to Alaska. What we say we know is really what we have observed and concluded based on our observations. That’s all science does. We know F=ma because we have made observations and those were always our results. We could do an experiment tomorrow and get F=ma[sup]2[/sup], but we have no reason to believe this will happen based on our experiences thus far.

Arguing that we don’t really know if the sun will rise tomorrow is a pointless exercise. The only way we would know any absolute truths would be to be omniscient, or God. Even then, does God really know anything?

97

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I can’t deny there are frauds among spiritual people. Psychics, seem to suffer the most due to the lack of licensing. In Russia psychics work in hospitals along with doctors to aid in the cure of patients, but they have to have a license. Russia tests and licenses its psychics, I don’t know what the test consists of, or where to get a copy. I have not tried to do so. England is beginning to go to the licensed psychics, and here in the US there is an effort being made to test and license psychics. Many healers already require licenses, accupunture, reiki, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc. I think this is a good thing. Just a matter of time.
[/QUOTE]
Just part of the corruption of the system. Letting frauds, fools and lunatics perform “medicine” is stupid, unethical and dangerous.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
We can get nowhere near that number in any single human brain. We choose to believe somethings based on morals and ideals and refrain from checking them against logic, lest we present ourselves with a paradox.
[/quote]
Garbage. We check plenty of things against logic. Everything from science to accounting.

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
it comes down to the same thing that religious types use: faith. We can not understand everyhting. We just like the idea. It’s the same comfort that people want from God, some just replace God with science. As much as religious people put the unknown to rest with God, to avoid resolving logical conflict, other use faith in science to put the unknown to rest.
[/quote]
Again, garbage.Science checks it’s facts via experiment, checks it’s theories both for logical/mathematical consistancy and adherance to the facts, and science works. Religion does none of these things. Science and religion aren’t even close; they are effectively opposites.

98

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I contend . That’s the word. It’s not an absolute statement but an argument for the truth. Above is what I stand on to display the current and long standing evidence of the limits of science. Despite much study, the placebo effect evades human understanding, other than that the effect exist.

These are other unexplained phenomenon that so far defy explanation. Some old, some new, all unexplained.

Spontaneous healing
<snip>
Dark energy
[/QUOTE]

How about the atomic structure of matter. Oh, that we understand now, but for over 2,000 years we didn’t. Was that unexplainable or paranormal? We’ve only discovered dark matter yesterday, relatively speaking. A bit impatient, aren’t you?

99

[QUOTE=Yumblie]
Well when you put it that way, sure, no one knows any absolute truth. I claim that Alaska exists, because I have personally been there. Therefore, I can claim that it is an absolute truth that Alaska exists. Wrong! Our senses are easily manipulated. The airlines could have put one over on me and flew me to a place that was made to look like Alaska, and employed thousands of people to go with the facade. Or, they could have attached sensors to my brain so instead of actually going to Alaska, I was merely plugged into a virtual reality machine and only thought I went there. Or maybe I didn’t go anywhere at all, but someone implanted a memory of me going to Alaska.

Of course, arguing such things is pointless. There’s no such thing as super 100% absolute truth, but the simplest explanation for what I have observed is that I indeed did go to Alaska. What we say we know is really what we have observed and concluded based on our observations. That’s all science does. We know F=ma because we have made observations and those were always our results. We could do an experiment tomorrow and get F=ma[sup]2[/sup], but we have no reason to believe this will happen based on our experiences thus far.

Arguing that we don’t really know if the sun will rise tomorrow is a pointless exercise. The only way we would know any absolute truths would be to be omniscient, or God. Even then, does God really know anything?
[/QUOTE]

Now you’re getting somewhere.

We don’t know. We know we can’t know. We are limited in our understanding of much more than the most basic of facts about our conscious experience. Arguing that explanations exist but we just haven’t realised them is nonsense. We simply can not unify belief. Not even in our own minds, much less in the realm of the collective conscious. Establishing consistency in deductive logic is not only a tough problem, *the time needed to solve it grows exponentially with the number of premises for every known method of finding solutions. * The most simple sounding premises can not be proved in a human lifetime, much less to assume that all premises can ever be shown consistant.

The human brain is astoundingly inept at even defining the ground rules much less solving the problems. Again, this all pretty much a display of arrogance, born of what is, in the end, a very, very, small piece of the universe that we actually understand in absoulute terms. The fact is, most of what we claim to know, is not true at all, it is only true within the premises we use to begin our deductive logic.

100

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
That is a lie.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861723723

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861723723

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57520&dict=CALD

http://www.bartleby.com/61/35/P0063500.html

http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=paranormal
There was no cherry picking of definitions. I would like cites for your post of definitions please.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, for some reason I got confused and thought that you were discussing “supernatural”. I humbly apologize for my error.

Using “paranormal”, you only trimmed half of the definitions, two of which omissions are clearly examples of cherry-picking.

[Quote=Cambridge]

impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science:
‘paranormal powers/events/forces
This book is about people who claim to have paranormal abilities such as ESP and mind-reading.’
[/QUOTE]

[Quote=American Heritage]

Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation: ‘such paranormal phenomena as telepathy; a medium’s paranormal powers.’
[/QUOTE]

[Quote=UltraLingua]

Not in accordance with scientific laws; “what seemed to be paranormal manifestations.”
[/QUOTE]

Just for refreshers, here’s what you said immediately after posting these definitions the first time (without links):

I have bolded a couple of words in the above quotes for emphasis.
Oh, and: Your post is my cite. :smiley: