Talking warts away

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
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.
[/QUOTE]

So you are saying that scientist believe in things that are unknown. They have faith.

And if any unexplained phenomenon is explainble, explain any one of these.

" The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you’ll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old."

OR

" Dark matter
TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you’ll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin."

OR

Tetraneutrons
FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist (see Ghost in the atom). They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics.

OR

"Dark energy
IT IS one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It’s an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe’s expansion was slowing down after the big bang. “Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation,” says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’re all hoping that upcoming observations of supernovae, of clusters of galaxies and so on will give us more clues.”

To prove your assertion that everything can be explained or proven, we must first prove and explain everyhting. Until then, it’s just bunk. You can’t prove your assertion.

102

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
So you are saying that scientist believe in things that are unknown. They have faith.

And if any unexplained phenomenon is explainble, explain any one of these.

" The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you’ll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old."

" Dark matter
TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you’ll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin."

Tetraneutrons
FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist (see Ghost in the atom). They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics.

"Dark energy
IT IS one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It’s an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe’s expansion was slowing down after the big bang. “Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation,” says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’re all hoping that upcoming observations of supernovae, of clusters of galaxies and so on will give us more clues.”
To prove your assertion that everything can be explained or proven, we must first prove and explain everyhting. Until then, it’s just bunk. You can’t prove your assertion.
[/QUOTE]

History is on the side of those who hold that what is currently not explainable by science is nevertheless unlikely to end up with the paranormal as its root causation. From your posts above it does not seem likely you will be able to grasp the difference between what is felt to be consistent with natural law even though it is unexplained by current scientific understanding, and what is paranormal (events whose putative causation lies outside scientific explanation altogether–ie events which violate natural law).

It is not necessary to cite dictionary definitions again. Aside from the fact that the dictionary definitions you quote do not support your use of the term “paranormal,” many of us posting here are in the category of educated folk to whom the dictionary editorial boards turn in order to decide which educated usage is standard. We enjoyed using dictionaries to prove our case in grade school, but we have since moved past that.

Why not have at it with Mr Randi and report the whole story back to us, warts and all. That would impress us.

But Youknewthat.

103

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
History is on the side of those who hold that what is currently not explainable by science is nevertheless unlikely to end up with the paranormal as its root causation. From your posts above it does not seem likely you will be able to grasp the difference between what is felt to be consistent with natural law even though it is unexplained by current scientific understanding, and what is paranormal (events whose putative causation lies outside scientific explanation altogether–ie events which violate natural law).

It is not necessary to cite dictionary definitions again. Aside from the fact that the dictionary definitions you quote do not support your use of the term “paranormal,” many of us posting here are in the category of educated folk to whom the dictionary editorial boards turn in order to decide which educated usage is standard. We enjoyed using dictionaries to prove our case in grade school, but we have since moved past that.

Why not have at it with Mr Randi and report the whole story back to us, warts and all. That would impress us.

But Youknewthat.
[/QUOTE]

Dicitonary definitions do support the actual use of the word “paranormal”. In fact, they are the standard for the meaning of words. While in Church your arguments of faith in the eventual revealing of truth may stand, in most other realms, proof of truth is the standard. While history may be on your side, evidence is not, for you have none. All of these phenomenon are unexplained, thus fitting for the use of the word “paranormal”. If you can explain them, I invite you again to do so. Faith doesn’t count.

104

Please describe a few things you think fit this defintion of paranormal.

105

The only thing one can use a dictionary cite to prove is the existence of a dictionary cite.

Can you state in 100 words or less[sup]*[/sup] exactly how “talking warts away” could be demonstrated, in a manner that would rule out the body’s own tendency to heal itself? Pretend you actually approached Randi - what would your claim be, and keep in mind that being succinct and unambiguous is a major plus.

[sup]*[/sup] According to the dictionary, I should say “fewer”, but fuck it; I don’t care

106

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Please describe a few things you think fit this defintion of paranormal.
[/QUOTE]

Already listed several.

107

Sure, but the examples you gave were pretty far out there, whereas the example that sparked this thread is in a different class of phenomena. Is it not true that your proposed understanding of ‘paranormal’ could in fact be applied to almost anything? My car keys go missing and I can’t explain it - is that paranormal and if not, why not?

108

[QUOTE=Iknewit]

And if any unexplained phenomenon is explainble, explain any one of these.
[/QUOTE]
Despite your affection for torturing meaning from words, you continue to miss this point – Explainable does not mean Explained. It simply means that an explanation is possible. Not that it is necessary. Not that any jackleg off the street can do it. Merely that it is in the category of things that can be explained, given sufficient data.

It is you who asserts that unproven = unprovable. The burden of proof, as it were, is on you.

109

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
The only thing one can use a dictionary cite to prove is the existence of a dictionary cite.

Can you state in 100 words or less[sup]*[/sup] exactly how “talking warts away” could be demonstrated, in a manner that would rule out the body’s own tendency to heal itself? Pretend you actually approached Randi - what would your claim be, and keep in mind that being succinct and unambiguous is a major plus.

[sup]*[/sup] According to the dictionary, I should say “fewer”, but fuck it; I don’t care
[/QUOTE]

So the dictionary does show the meanings of words but in your own words, “fuck it; I don’t care”. Your disreagard for the meaning of words does not amount to a dictionary being useless. If someone says “paranormal”, I look it up in several dictionaries, I then understand the meaning of the word as agreed upon by the various scholars who define such. A paranormal event is one which defies scientific explanation. An event which is unexplainable. If no explaination exist, then such a definition is accurate right up to the point someone proves otherwise. You can not prove that something is explainable, absent an explanation. Several people here like the idea of believing that these events are explainable but do so without explanation. In fact, the entire concept is flawed when considering that no one can show that telepathy even exist . We must first prove that something exist before we can say it has no explanation. Otherwise, we have a mythical or legendary event, not a paranormal one. Paranormal assumes an event or power with no explanation. Paranormal means that the event does indeed already exist, it just can’t be explained. Randi is actually looking for proof of myth or legend. Not proof of paranormal events. Paranormal events, by the sheer meaning of the word do exist. We have plenty of phenomenon that can not be explained. There are, and have been, paranormal events forever. We will never explain everything.

Randi’s challenge is not for aranormal events. It’s a false claim. Just as false as the cliam of aliens being paranormal or telepathy being paranormal. We first have to identify an actual event before it can be described as paranormal. The search for an event that has yet to be proven even exist is something entirely different. A myth or legend or lie even.

110

Yeah, yeah, yeah… now what about the warts?

111

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Despite your affection for torturing meaning from words, you continue to miss this point – Explainable does not mean Explained. It simply means that an explanation is possible. Not that it is necessary. Not that any jackleg off the street can do it. Merely that it is in the category of things that can be explained, given sufficient data.

It is you who asserts that unproven = unprovable. The burden of proof, as it were, is on you.
[/QUOTE]

No, no my friend. It is you who asserts that unproven = proveable. The burden of proof is on you.

I quite believe that the unproven can be proved. At least sometimes. I do not know that everything can be proved, nor do you, although you have said such. Prove it. Possibility is evverywhere.

112

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
S You can not prove that something is explainable, absent an explanation.
[/QUOTE]
Sure you can. You just need to understand that unproven is not the same as unprovable. What *you *cannot do is prove that all unexplained things have no explanation.

Suppose I come home one day and find that all of my furniture has been turned upside down. I have absolutely no explanation for this. An explanation, as far as I know, does not exist. Is it unexplainable?

Oak trees grow from acorns. Before anyone ever understood this, oak trees still grew from acorns. The explanation for where the oak tree comes from is independent of anyone’s ability to comprehend it.

As has been pointed out several times, history is chock full of phenomena for which no explanation existed, and yet were not unexplainable.

113

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Yeah, yeah, yeah… now what about the warts?
[/QUOTE]

What about them ? I don’t know how the warts thing works. I don’t think anyone does. I can’t remove them or enter the challenge. If the challenge was, as stated: “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.”

I can certainly evidence of wart charmers. There is plenty of evidence. plenty of studies. Even a doctor here has offered testimony of the validity of the treatment. But you see, the opening statement of the challenge is a lie. It says to show evidence under observation of a paranormal event. It doesn’t say prove conclusively, demonstrate or convince. It simply says “show evidence”. It’s an over simplified statement of a very complicated procedure. The statement is untrue. JREF does not offer a prize for anyone who can show evidence of a paranormal event. They offer a prize for anyone who can perform a miracle before their eyes.

I agree with them in bebunking psychics, mediums and such but paranormal events do exist. I’m sure the foundations scientist actually study real, present and verified paranormal events, like cold fusion. But there is no prize for that despite there statements to the contrary. They may be good scientist but their diction is piss poor.

114

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
No, no my friend. It is you who asserts that unproven = proveable. The burden of proof is on you.
[/QUOTE]
These are your words –

where you assert that “not proved” is “in the same category” as “not scientifically proveable.”

What I assert is !unproven=unprovable.

115

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Sure you can. You just need to understand that unproven is not the same as unprovable. What *you *cannot do is prove that all unexplained things have no explanation.

[/QUOTE]

do understand that unproven is not the same as unproveable. So now everything is expainable. So, with that, please explain cold fusion. You seem to have a rather simple key.

What you can not do is prove that anything currently unexplained is explainable. If you can, let’s see. Prove it. Explain something that currently has no expanation.

116

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
They may be good scientist but their diction is piss poor.
[/QUOTE]

It are?
Please indulge me, though, if you were a wart charmer with full confidence in the existence of wart charming and your ability to charm warts, how would you write up a proposal to Randi to earn a million dollars? Further discussion of what “paranormal” means is pointless; I want to talk warts and bucks.

117

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
These are your words –
where you assert that “not proved” is “in the same category” as “not scientifically proveable.”

What I assert is !unproven=unprovable.
[/QUOTE]

You say that everything is explainable. Prove it.

I say that somethiings may be unexpainable. I have offered many unexplained events for which you, nor anyone has an explanation. If you have one, let’s have it. Otherwise you can only offer ancedotal evidence. There is no proof that everything can be proven. If there is, prove it.

118

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
It are?
Please indulge me, though, if you were a wart charmer with full confidence in the existence of wart charming and your ability to charm warts, how would you write up a proposal to Randi to earn a million dollars? Further discussion of what “paranormal” means is pointless; I want to talk warts and bucks.
[/QUOTE]

If we could find a wart charmer willing, we have him charm some folks with warts. Say ten of them. Then we have a control group of ten people with warts who get no treatment. Check back in 6 weeks. If there is a difference, cough up the money. Of course, I doubt they would. So then, do another test like the first. Same results. Another and another and another. They will all show similar results as this method has been tested many times over the years and it works. Eventually, give up cause Randi isn’t getting off any money.

119

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
But you see, the opening statement of the challenge is a lie. It says to show evidence under observation of a paranormal event. It doesn’t say prove conclusively, demonstrate or convince. It simply says “show evidence”. It’s an over simplified statement of a very complicated procedure. The statement is untrue. JREF does not offer a prize for anyone who can show evidence of a paranormal event. They offer a prize for anyone who can perform a miracle before their eyes.
[/QUOTE]

No mention of “event.” What the are testing for is “ability.” Also, no mention of “evidence.”

Link.

Your deliberate misunderstanding and selective quoting is becoming tiresome. It is entirely possible for a phenomenon to have an explanation, and yet, know one knows what it is.

Asking a layman to proved an advanced physics explanation, and trumpeting that it must be unexplainable when he fails is just stupid.

Again, my assertion is that not all unproven phenomena are unprovable. If that is also your position, you have turned 180 degrees from your previous position, as I showed you just upthread.

I don’t believe that I did. Even so, my inability to explain a phenomenon has piss-all to do with whether it is explainable. I’ve pointed this out already.

120

What we have here is a perfect demostration of why the Challenge is bogus. I offer to you several phenomenon that are verified as actual occurance and have no explanation. You argue that the lack of explanation does not mean it is unexplainble.

Your arguments apply to everything observable and you only consider that which you have not seen to be paranormal. Once you see it or realize it to be true, you assume there must be an explanation, even though none exist.

If a man put a paperclip on a table and moved it with his mind, by your logic, there must be an explanation simply because it happened. Not paranormal.

The challenge is bogus by your own arguments. If nothing exist that is beyond explanation then the word paranormal is just a useless word in a useless, bogus scheme.