Talking warts away

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I have never said there was any such thing as magic. Are you equating magic with paranormal ?

[/QUOTE]

Yes. There is no functional difference.

The “normal” in paranormal refers to events which function within the constraints of the laws of nature–the normal way in which things function.

The “para” in paranormal conveys a meaning of beyond, outside of, or contrary to the normal behaviour of the universe.

Magic, in other words.

Unexplained things are, of course, unexplained. It has long been an attack of the gullible and uneducated that because some things are unexplained, it is a “matter of faith” for scientists to assume their underlying causes and effects are nevertheless not magical or paranormal. (Re-read my post above.) OK. But although the shibboleths of the gullible continue to fall, they always seem to glom onto some new unexplained phenomenon to feed their naivete.

And so the wart charmers and their charmed stay in business.

162

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Which is exactly why anyone who can see the horizon should qualify for the challenge. (See the horizon problem) It is unexplainable. It does not take a psychic to present evidence of the paranormal.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure which horizon problem you’re referring to, but even so, JREF is using the commonly-understood definition of ‘paranormal’ - that includes things like magic, telepathy, spontaneous materialisation of pink unicorns, amazing healing powers, manifestation of UFOs, shooting lightning bolts from the fingertips and mentally compelling people to pee their pants.

It doesn’t matter that you’re clever enough to have wrung some other definition out of the word ‘paranormal’ - they know what sorts of phenomenon they’re seeking, and more to the point, you know it too - but you’re just playing a silly semantic game - it isn’t the challenge that’s bogus, it’s your attempt to subvert its intent.

If you have any evidence that they really would hastily redefine a phenomenon (such as the above) as ‘not paranormal’, now’s the time to cough it up.

163

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Again you use a special definition. The Challenge is not bogus, because it is winnable. For example, I could believe that unicorns do not exist. I issue a challenge to produce a unicorn. If someone does so, they win. It does not matter what I believe. All that matters is that there is a unicorn in my garden, to coin a phrase.
[/QUOTE]

Nope. There is no special definition. If there is, present it. I use no definition other than the multitude of definitions here. “Paranormal” = beyond the scope of scientific explanation OR scietifically unexplainable. If this definition is wrong, please tell us the right one.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You must have to try real hard to misunderstand on such a basic level. The JREF cares not one whit how the challenger explains the phenomena.
[/QUOTE]

"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 is the opening statement of the “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge”. The rules quickly are distanced from this statement. They absolutely do not accept evidence of any paranormal event. It is a lie. They accept a demonstrastion of magical ability . There is a huge difference.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You do not get to impose your definition of “paranormal” on the Challenge anymore than someone gets to impose his definition of the word “challenge.” The JREF and the challenger, together, agree what the parameters of the tests are. Whether some outside observer with no standing in the test agrees is irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I am not imposing anything. If I have defined the word “paranormal” with any definition not provided by a half dozen or more common dictionaries, please bring that forward.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
This is just a semantic exercise for you, isn’t it? I mean, you have no real point to make, do you?
[/QUOTE]

The point is, that after reading the Information page for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge , I could think of several paranormal events and occurances. If you go on to read the actual rules, you find that JREF has stated an absolute lie about the challenge they offer on their own information page. The opening statement is easily satisfied. I can and have already, provided evidence of paranormal events or occurances. If you wish to prove that the horizon problem is explainable, do it. I submit that it is not and their is no information to dispute that. Some things may be beyond human explanation. If they are, they are, by definition, paranormal. Now if you want to get way out there and claim that perhaps super intelligent aliens could explain some things, go right ahead. I’m not gonna follow that one.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Of course it’s possible. Anything is possible. Sheesh, that’s freshman metaphysics 101, right?
[/QUOTE]

Then you didn’t say what you meant . You said impossible . Just wanted clarification.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Giant thunderbolts might shoot from Randi’s eyes and kill everyone. Maybe it’s all a dream. Or, alien puppeteers could be manipulating everyone. The point is, my tedious, pedantic, nitpicker, that under the terms of the agreement it is not possible.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. When you sign the agreement, you sign away all right to legal recourse against Randi and the foundation. They can do whatever they want and you have signed a contract giving them the means to get away with it. Furhter suggesting the challenge is bogus. What are they afraid of if the challenge is on the up and up ?

164

Randi is a famous skeptic. here is what skeptics mean when they use the word ‘paranormal’.

165

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Yes. There is no functional difference.

The “normal” in paranormal refers to events which function within the constraints of the laws of nature–the normal way in which things function.

The “para” in paranormal conveys a meaning of beyond, outside of, or contrary to the normal behaviour of the universe.

Magic, in other words.
[/QUOTE]

Here is where you are exactly wrong. Paranormal is defined several times. Although I have been accused of redefining it, here we evidence that it is you who attempts to redefine “paranormal”. Paranormal means scientifically unexplainable. Beyond the scope of science .

not in accordance with scientific laws

unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge

impossible to explain by known natural forces or by science:

Beyond the range of normal experience or **scientific ** explanation:

of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation

Your claim of paranormal being “beyond the normal behavior of the universe” in incorrect. You do not acknowledge the meaning of the word despite the repeated definition of it. The universe may well have normal behavior that is beyond the explanation of science.

Please stop redefining words to fit your own terms. They have meanings that are documented and provable. Read them again if you have to. Try to understand what paranormal really means. I know you can. Anyhting is possible.

166

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Not sure which horizon problem you’re referring to, but even so, JREF is using the commonly-understood definition of ‘paranormal’

It doesn’t matter that you’re clever enough to have wrung some other definition out of the word ‘paranormal’ - they know what sorts of phenomenon they’re seeking, and more to the point, you know it too - but you’re just playing a silly semantic game - it isn’t the challenge that’s bogus, it’s your attempt to subvert its intent.

.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit.

How much more common can we be about the meaning of “paranormal” ? You have the meaning stated and restated and restated before your very eyes yet you chose to make up your own meaning. The meaning is in the above post from several sources. It is common . You are using, and JREF is using, an uncommon meaning. Not me or Webster or Oxford or American Heritage or…

As far as me knowing what they are seeking, I can know no more than what they say . They say “paranormal”. They lie. The challenge is bogus.

167

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Randi is a famous skeptic. here is what skeptics mean when they use the word ‘paranormal’.
[/QUOTE]

Proving that these skeptics do not even understand the simple meaning of a simple word.

Smart guys, indeed.

168

Yeah, and movie critics don’t understand anything about the word ‘cheesy’ - Independence Day didn’t contain any fermented dairy products at all.

Different groups of people use words in ways specific to their group - welcome to the real world.

169

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Exactly. That’s why I asked the whole question in the first place. I never had any faith in the charmer.
[/QUOTE]

Faith is not necessary for the placebo effect to work. Brains are not integral. A brain is a network. Not all parts of it have access to the speech centers and not all parts of it are rational. It is perfectly possible for you to both believe and not believe in the cure. Or, if you prefer, your brain can react socially to the healer in a way that can cause a cure even if it also holds the idea that this isn’t a proper cure.

Before double blind tests, the belief or non-belief of the person handing out pills to be tested would influence the response of the patients taking the pills. This implies that patients were responding socially to the belief of the dispenser. Now, if you had asked the patients to guess whether the dispenser thought they were getting the real pill or not, they might not have been able to guess right. But their social intuition was picking up the information and responding to it. To be a proper double-blind test, the dispenser can’t know which pills are real and which fake, because the information will transfer.

170

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Yeah, and movie critics don’t understand anything about the word ‘cheesy’ - Independence Day didn’t contain any fermented dairy products at all.

Different groups of people use words in ways specific to their group - welcome to the real world.
[/QUOTE]

chees·y [ chzee ] (comparative chees·i·er, superlative chees·i·est)
adjective

Definition:

  1. like cheese: having the flavor or smell of cheese

  2. tacky: cheap and tawdry ( informal )

WRONG AGAIN.

171

Oh, and paranormal = magic.

Everyone knows that.

172

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
chees·y [ chzee ] (comparative chees·i·er, superlative chees·i·est)
adjective

Definition:

  1. like cheese: having the flavor or smell of cheese

  2. tacky: cheap and tawdry ( informal )

WRONG AGAIN.
[/QUOTE]
Who is wrong? - one of those meanings applies to movies, the other to dairy products - that’s what I said - different groups of people have different ways of using the same word.

What you’ve been doing in this thread is to insist that all of the definitions of ‘paranormal’ be applied to the JREF challenge. You’re the one that’s wrong here.

173

[QUOTE=Yllaria]
Oh, and paranormal = magic.

Everyone knows that.
[/QUOTE]

Not so.

Lets see what the synonyms are for “paranormal” and “magic”.
Paranormal

2 senses of paranormal

Sense 1
extrasensory (vs. sensory), paranormal
=> clairvoyant
=> telegnostic
=> telepathic
Also See-> paranormal#2

Sense 2
paranormal (vs. normal)
=> parapsychological
=> psychic, psychical
=> psychokinetic
=> supernormal, supranormal
Also See-> extrasensory#1, paranormal#1; unnatural#1

Search for paranormal
Word : Synonyms : Classes
paranormal:supernatural:
paranormal:tarrot unusual :psychology
alien:paranormal:

Magic

Synonyms (Grouped by Similarity of Meaning) of noun magic

Sense 1
magic
=> supernaturalism

Sense 2
magic trick, conjuring trick, trick, magic, legerdemain, illusion, deception
=> performance

Similarity of adj magic

1 sense of magic

Sense 1
charming, magic, magical, sorcerous, witching(prenominal), wizard(prenominal), wizardly
=> supernatural (vs. natural)

Search for magic
Word : Synonyms : Classes
alchemist:magician:
art:spirit, magic:
conjure:magic:
illusion:magic:art
illusionist:magician:
magic:illusion :
magic:illusion:
magic:magic :
magic:mystic houdini :
magic:sorcery:
mystic:magic:magic
sorcerer:magician:
wizard:mage sorcerer magician:people
wizard:magician:
magic:supernatural:
magic:voodoo:
tricky:magic:
witchcraft:magic:
maelstrom:magical storm:
illusion:magic:
magician:hocus:
magic:magician:
witch:soothsayer wizard warlock magician spell-caster spell-weaver wicca wiccan goddess-worshipper satanist nonbeliever pagan neo-pagan pagan magick-maker spell-caster enchanter enchantress sorceror sorceress:person
witch:witch charmer shaman anti-christian evil-woman evil-spell-caster snake-charmer divinator medium psychic palmist gypsy astrologist animist universalist magickal-person soothsayer wizard warlock magician spell-caster spell-weaver wicca wiccan goddess-worshipper satanist nonbeliever pagan neo-pagan magick-maker spell-caster enchanter enchantress sorceror sorceress:person
witch:witch charmer shaman anti-christian evil-woman evil-spell-caster snake-charmer divinator medium psychic palmist gypsy astrologist animist universalist magickal-person soothsayer wizard warlock magician spell-caster spell-weaver wicca wiccan goddess-worshipper satanist nonbeliever pagan neo-pagan magick-maker spell-caster enchanter enchantress sorceror sorceress:person
magical::emotions
cast::magic
magic:abracadabra:
magic:magician:
magical:magic:
magic:fairylike:magical
illusion:magic:
witchcraft:magic:
farie:flying laady:magical crature
magician:sourcerer:
magician:sourcerer:
mojo:magic:
magic:trick:
figure:square:magical
wizard:magician:
whore:analyn made out with eugene harvey, what a magic slut!:
magical:bewitching magical ethereal:
magical:magical magic:
magic:wonderous:mystery
magical:mystical:thing

Hmmm…magic and paranormal are not synonymous. Try again.

174

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Who is wrong? - one of those meanings applies to movies, the other to dairy products - that’s what I said - different groups of people have different ways of using the same word.

What you’ve been doing in this thread is to insist that all of the definitions of ‘paranormal’ be applied to the JREF challenge. You’re the one that’s wrong here.
[/QUOTE]

Any meaning you choose. Please chose a meaning of paranormal for me from the dicitonary.

175

of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

176

[QUOTE=Iknewit]
"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 is the opening statement of the “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge”. The rules quickly are distanced from this statement. They absolutely do not accept evidence of any paranormal event. It is a lie. They accept a demonstrastion of magical ability . There is a huge difference.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been busy at work and not able to participate today until now (and I’m short for time still), but the above caught my eye.

Assuming that we allow your somewhat tortured definition of paranormal = anything currently unexplained, it sounds like from the above you may believe that even though Randi has nefariously ruled out an entire category of paranormal items from his challenge, that you do believe he would accept a trial of something magical.

Is that correct? You think he’s on the up and up as far as testing a power such as mind reading, dowsing, remote viewing, etc.?

177

But I can’t help wondering what drives people to argue semantics like this - you can’t honestly be telling me that you think JREF’s intent has the scope you’re shooting for here, can you? Why are you doing this?

178

Hmmm…magic and paranormal are not synonymous. Try again.
paranormal = magic

You listed two ‘senses’ of paranormal and both of them are magic. Then you masterbated with the thesaurus.

Sorry. I can say it as many times as you can.

paranormal = magic

179

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.
[/QUOTE]

No problem. The Horizon Problem is a purported supernatural phenomenon without scientific explanation.

The use of “as” is called “simile” by the way. It’s just a comparison.

180

[QUOTE=Yllaria]
Hmmm…magic and paranormal are not synonymous. Try again.
paranormal = magic

You listed two ‘senses’ of paranormal and both of them are magic. Then you masterbated with the thesaurus.

Sorry. I can say it as many times as you can.

paranormal = magic
[/QUOTE]

I am not saying it alone. I offer documentation to support my claim. You do not. Sorry. You don’t get to make your own definitions.