Talking warts away

Great Debates
81

Just because something isn’t fully explained doesn’t mean it is paranormal. The placebo effect is known and accepted as a low-level cure for some illness by science. Science also doesn’t understand how the brain decides what to remember nor how it stores it. But that doesn’t make human memory paranormal.

Both of these are things which scientists believe to be in the realm of science, testable, and just a matter of time till we do understand the brain and human body well enough to be able to solve. That these are paranormal given that they are being researched by mainstream science would be a hard case to make.

82

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Um no…the link that says “Challenge info” states:

“At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.”:

That’s the advertisement for the challenge and it is false. Although the advertisements says you must only show evidence of a power OR event, the application goes on to completely negate evidence of an event .

False advertising. Bogus.
[/QUOTE]
How did you miss this, then?

83

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Umm…I haven’t defined the word. These are not my definitions. You understand that the several dictionaries I quoted aren’t written by me or Randi ?

If an advertiser advertises a specific claim or event using the english language and fails to honor the advertisement, as stated, may be subject to provide relief. It’s that simple. We do have protection from flase claims and advertisements. You can’t promise pyro events and provide aqua events and not expect soem flack.
[/QUOTE]

An effort to win Randi’s challenge by quoting a dictionary definition of “paranormal” and making an argument for false advertising is going to come across as churlish, childish and undereducated, but have at it if you are determined to go beyond just blustering as a guest on the SDMB.

Any ordinary familiarity with Randi and his challenge will make it clear that the intent is to expose those who claim “paranormal” events in the sense that those events violate commonly accepted physical law. An effort to extend the definition of “paranormal” to poorly-understood relationships such as the brain and its ability to control physical reactions, and thereby win the challenge, is likely to be met with a pat on the head and a smile (by both Randi and the courts), leaving your only solace a personal smugness.

84

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Paranormal is defined as “not scientifically explainable”. If you can not explain, scientifically, how wart charming works, it is, by definition, paranormal. The argument that things science can not explain are not paranormal, is simply not valid. That is the meaning of the word. If you choose to believe that a scientific explanation exist although it has yet to be discovered, then you too are a person who believes in the unproveable, a person of faith.
…
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, .
[/QUOTE]

I baked two loaves of cinnamon raisin bread yesterday. I just had a slice from one of the loaves for breakfast. It was delicious!

So far, however, nobody has eaten a slice from the second loaf.

The question is, then, would it be fair to conclude that the second loaf of bread is inedible, given that nobody so far has eaten it? If I believe that it might be edible, am I therefore a person who believes in the unrpoveable, a person of faith?

Imagine a local shock jock offers a prize to someone who manages to eat something inedible. May I then bring in a slice from the second loaf and eat it, demanding the prize? May I sue him for not giving it to me?

There’s a big gulf between “eaten” and “able to be eaten,” just as there is between “explained” and “able to be explained.” A person may reasonably say, “This phenomenon has not yet been explained by science. I see nothing about the phenomenon that puts it beyond science’s reach, so I will not conclude that it is a paranormal phenomenon. However, until it is explained, I will also not conclude that it is not a paranormal phenomenon.”

Such a phenomenon may not accurately be called paranormal, and is not eligible for Randi’s challenge.

Daniel

85

I agree entirely - otherwise all scientists (indeed anyone investigating anything) could be described as researchers into the paranormal, so it is then just a useless term.

86

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Prove that any single, currently unproved phenomenon, is proveable.
[/QUOTE]
To date, no one has ever jumped over my backyard fence. Nevertheless, despite all evidence to the contrary, I believe that my fence is jumpable; mainly because the world record high jump is a couple of feet higher than my fence. I propose that to test my theory, we find a world class high jumper and have him attempt to jump it. If he does, my theory is proved. If it is proved, it must be proveable.

To see how silly this is, substitute the words “object” for “phenomenon,” and “move” for “prove.” Would you assert that all objects that have not been moved are immovable? Of course not.

Was Everest unclimbable before it was climbed? Is my car unstartable before it is started? To assert that unproven equals unproveable is semantic nonsense. If a thing is only proveable *after *it has been proven, then it is never proveable.

87

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
…semantic nonsense…
[/QUOTE]
Just trying to think where it is I’ve seen this before, in this context…

88

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Just trying to think where it is I’ve seen this before, in this context…
[/QUOTE]
Should I know? If so, I’ve forgotten. Did I inadvertently quote you? If so, my apologies.

89

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Should I know? If so, I’ve forgotten. Did I inadvertently quote you? If so, my apologies.
[/QUOTE]

No - sorry, it was an oblique reference to the previous (infamous) case of semantic nonsense in connection with the Randi challenge. Perhaps too oblique.

90

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
No - sorry, it was an oblique reference to the previous (infamous) case of semantic nonsense in connection with the Randi challenge. Perhaps too oblique.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh. There does seem to be a similar reliance on torturing the meanings of words.

91

Almost paranormally similar, if I might be so bold…

92

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Almost paranormally similar, if I might be so bold…
[/QUOTE]

You say ‘almost’, but I might choose to interpret that as meaning ‘absolutely’, if it suits some inane argument I can’t be persuaded to drop.

93

Pffft… paranormal is defined by a half dozen or more dictionaries in this thread.
From Wiki:

“To be classified as paranormal, a phenomenon must lack a scientific explanation. When an anomaly receives a valid scientific explanation, it becomes “perinormal.” Perinormal is a term that has been suggested to describe previously unknown forces which at first appeared to be paranormal and were later verified scientifically. For example, while the idea of stones falling from the sky was once considered anomalous, meteorites are now acknowledged and well understood.”

The Pioneer effect, ball lightning, dark matter are all paranormal by definition of the word. Randi himself, in a conversation with Richard Dawkins, ask Dawkins if he invented the word “paranormal”, suggesting that in fact, he does not know the real ng of the word. Probably should stop using it.

Wiki also quotes Randi as saying, in reference to the contest, “I always have an out”. Further suggesting the contest is bogus.

94

The basic claim of cold fusion is that dunking palladium electrodes into heavy water - in which oxygen is combined with the hydrogen isotope deuterium - can release a large amount of energy. Placing a voltage across the electrodes supposedly allows deuterium nuclei to move into palladium’s molecular lattice, enabling them to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together, releasing a blast of energy. The snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory."

Cold fusion. Can anyone explain it ? If you can, there are some scientist looking for you. Until then, it fits the bill of paranormal: beyond the range of scientific explanation.

You can scratch and claw and carry on but the word “paranormal” does not encompas only ghost, ESP and telepathy. It simply means what it means. Things for which there are no scientific explanantions.

95

Yeah, like I’m going to take grammar lessons from someone who doesn’t know the difference between done and doable.

If you want a discussion on the placebo effect, suggestive healing, or other like phenomenon, I’m up for it.

If you want to whine about how someone you’ve never met, never had any contact with, and apparently never knew existed until recently has, in your opinion (which many reasonable people here disagree with) misused a word, well that just doesn’t interest me much.

If you even want a real debate on Randi, based on what he’s done, the tests he’s participated in, the books he’s written, I might be able to participate in that. But complaining about the way he used a word? That’s a one line side note before you move on to something real.

Although I must say, making fun of some of your nonsense has some entertainment value. Not sure how long that will last though.

96

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]

Although I must say, making fun of some of your nonsense has some entertainment value. Not sure how long that will last though.
[/QUOTE]

Well there you go. This exercise hasn’t been a total loss for you.

97

And by the way, ** grammar** pertains to the classification (noun, adjective, etc.) and structure of language. ** Diction** would be the proper pertaining to menaings of words. Of course, from this discussion, I wouldn’t expect you to know the difference.

98

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]

There’s a big gulf between “eaten” and “able to be eaten,” just as there is between “explained” and “able to be explained.” A person may reasonably say, “This phenomenon has not yet been explained by science. I see nothing about the phenomenon that puts it beyond science’s reach, so I will not conclude that it is a paranormal phenomenon. However, until it is explained, I will also not conclude that it is not a paranormal phenomenon.”

Such a phenomenon may not accurately be called paranormal, and is not eligible for Randi’s challenge.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Just because it bears repeating. The lack of a current scientific explanation is not proof of it being scientifically unexplainable any more than the lack of an understanding of the moon getting in the way of the sun was proof that the gods were angry.

Now maybe one can argue that what inside a black hole is unknowable so therefore is beyond science (although it is debated .. something about them evaporating …) :slight_smile:

99

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Just because it bears repeating. The lack of a current scientific explanation is not proof of it being scientifically unexplainable any more than the lack of an understanding of the moon getting in the way of the sun was proof that the gods were angry.

Now maybe one can argue that what inside a black hole is unknowable so therefore is beyond science (although it is debated .. something about them evaporating …) :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Just because it bears repeating, prove that any unexplained phenomenon is expalinable.

100

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Just because it bears repeating, prove that any unexplained phenomenon is expalinable.
[/QUOTE]

For the sake of our purposes, that’s irrelevant. Anything which scientists believe to be explainable is not paranormal.

And any unexplained phenomenon is explainable. The only thing for which there is no explanation is something which doesn’t have anything to explain. I.e. it doesn’t exist. By sheer virtue of existence, an object/power/event has an explanation. It’s only a question of whether it would be in our scope to determine that.