# What is "paranormal"?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 17, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607 "2004-10-17T01:28:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/181 "2004-10-21T19:17:01Z")

</div>

> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> \*Anything \* can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).
> 
> And since we’re just covering the same irrelevant ground, over and over, and since this has nothing to do with the OP, you can continue to rant, hijack and make irrelevant assumptions all by yourself. I see everyone else has stopped listening to you (except Peter), so I will join them.

What _can_ psi do, as far as we know? Just answer that simple question. What do we _know_ that psi can do?

And **Bryan,** I have never failed to find your posts interesting and intelligent. If **Snakespirit** is using psi to “see” that I am no longer listening to you, then someone must be jamming the frequency.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/182 "2004-10-21T19:20:14Z")

</div>

Although we’re still miles apart, **Abe,** I think we are actually making some progress.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> We are preventing a veritable horde of unsubstantiated claims and publicity stunts from flooding the information pathways

That’s fine, as long as you don’t keep out genuine claims as well.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> We remain completely open to **good, reliable evidence** pointing any way at all, and good reliable evidence **always** trumps provisional agreement.

Don’t know who you mean by “we,” but if you’re talking university-level researchers I agree. If you’re talking magicians and debunkers, I disagree.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> First of all, I am not sure what you mean by “as long as anecdotal evidence continues to remain unexplained”. Anecdotal evidence, when genuine, is normally easily explainable, though I can’t give a catch-all explanation because each depends on the situation (e.g. UFO anecdotes, OBE anecdotes, ghost anecdotes, alien abduction anectodes, etc.). Anecdotal evidence is also frequently false. It’s worthless.

Almost every principle we have come to accept as “science” began somewhere as anecdotal evidence. It was thereafter, usually through lots of trial and error and subsequent rigerous research, that the principles became accepted.  
Some anecdotal evidence is more easily explained than others. Anything can be “explained away” by pointing to a similar situation which proved false. But that _proves_ nothing.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> We don’t however (and this is where I agree with you), attempt to invalidate their arguments by using ridicule. Well, sometimes we do, when it is clear that a particular source of claims has given us more than sufficient cause (in the form of consistently poor methodology, manipulated results, sloppy analysis, illogical reasoning, etc.) to provide provisional agreement on his or her lack of credibility; but this is done for practical reasons to prevent scientific forums from being overrun by kooky claims, and can never substitute for reasoned, scientific evaluation.

Prove someone a fraud and ridicule them, because that is what they deserve. Show flaws in research methodology so the flaws can be eliminated. I have no problem wih that.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> Well, here you seem to be assuming the existence of psi, which is a poor assumption to make given the lack of solid evidence for it. There is no theoretical basis that points to the existence of psi, nor is there physical evidential support for it. All we have is questionable experiments, manipulated results, and anecdotal evidence, which is worth precisely squat in science. Why then do we have to consider psi at all until better support is provided?

In general, I use the term PSI so we understand the type of phenomenon we are talking about. It _is_ unknown. Undiscovered country. Scientists have a hard time even trying to formulate experiments which demonstrate it, but they do.

There’s a truckload of published results out there which show results that consistantly perform significantly beyond chance. It’s not enough to get all science jumping on the PSI bandwagon, but enough to warrant continued research. Granted, I don’t know of any reliable research which positively demonstrates any of the proposed theories of PSI, but that’s putting the cart before the horse; we have evidence that things happen which are unexplainable in our current scientific model. Many of the claims _can_ be attributed to understandable factors. Many can not. If you don’t want to sort them out, no problem, no one is asking you to. There are already plenty of folk working on it. Let them be. If they come up with something, subject it to rigerous scrutiny, if you wish. I will.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> As such it ought to be a simple matter to measure consistently the energy and/or the force applied by whatever alleged psi means one chooses; the problem is this is not the case. The results, barring trickery (and there is a lot of trickery involved, which is why people like Randi are extremely valuable resources), simply do not support the claims that force or energy may be transferred by these undefined alleged paranormal methods.

Another problem is that there’s a lot of greatly disparate phenomenon that is tossed into the “PSI” catchall. Your allegation of it being a “simple matter” to measure only applies to a few instances.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> This unclear statement seems to refer to the equivocation of one’s claims in a scientific setting through the use of the unfalsifiable hypothesis, which can provide favourable results for paranormalists because it essentially asks for the lifting of controls. And what is “other than physical means” in this case? Imaginary?

Perceiving information through other than the five senses. I was just using this as an example to show that instead of taking note of valid ‘hits’ many ‘debunkers’ immediately come up with an additional ‘test’ that has nothing to do with the original claim in order to invalidate the results. Let me give a more clear example:

A subject claims to be able to determine the current emotional state of a person at a distance. Subject relays information to skeptical researcher, who makes a phone call to the person, and finds the description accurate. Since this is an extraordinary claim, the researcher demands extraordinary evidence, and then asks, “OK, then tell me what _target_ is wearing.” Subject says, “I can’t do that,” and researcher thereby invalidates the results. This is what I mean by making irrelevant assumptions. This is what I see people doing. Expecting that if one piece of information can be perceived by other than the five senses then everything can. It’s expecting too much. Stick with the original assumption, then if that is proven to your satisfaction, _then_ go on to new experiments. Don’t use new experimental tests to invalidate good results based on what you think the subject _should_ be able to do.

That’s what I’m talking about in the Gellar discussion: Saying, “Oh, if he can do this then he should be able to do this as well,” is dismissal of results via smoke and mirrors. A distraction. It has no place in science. Test the original hypothesis until you can either prove the results or disprove the results; then move on to something else. In the case of Gellar, that has not been done. Consequently, I suspend judgement on what he can or can’t do.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> If the force involved is, say, 6 kilonewtons over a small area like a spanner, you _can_ make at least some predictions about what it may and may not do

Unless, of course, something other than physical force is used. Is it being bent? (Yes/no). Is it being bent by force? Is is being bent by heat? Is it being bent by sub-atomic ion charge negation? Is it being bent by trickery? Determine that first, before you go making predictions about what will happen.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> We can’t say that the force required to bend the spanner will necessarily sculpt iron (because of other variables involved, including angle of incidence and pressure) but we know that 6 KN is a very large force (for a human) and that it could easily sculpt iron under the right circumstances.

Agreed! (In principle, at least) And this illustrates my point. Wish we could have gotten to this agreement much earlier; I think we talk different languages. 😉

You lecture on force and action/reaction was nice, but I think irrelevent here.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> So, in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical “psi leverage” or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.

Oh well. I disagree. We merely have to do rigerous research. That paragraph is merely derision, and consequently irrelevant.

> [@Abe](#):
>
> Or we can more easily, given our previously established and well supported provisional agreement, say that people like Geller are illusionists and tricksters hungry for publicity, and, **excepting rigorous and extraordinary evidence** , safely dismiss such claims.

Or we can do research.  
If you want to close your eyes and dismiss claims, you go right ahead, it’s your right to believe or disbelieve. But don’t call your opinion science, please.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/183 "2004-10-21T19:26:43Z")

</div>

Dang, I wish I’d read Abe’s post (#170) before I restated my question. I am at his feet in my ability to present an argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/184 "2004-10-21T20:15:41Z")

</div>

> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> \*Anything \* can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know).

Well, then how would we _ever_ know we were in the presence of geniune PSI? If a sufficiently skilled magician could simulate _anything_, then _any_ claimed demonstration of PSI could be faked.

I think you’ve just argued yourself out of a premise, there.

> [@trandallt](#):
>
> And Bryan, I have never failed to find your posts interesting and intelligent. If Snakespirit is using psi to “see” that I am no longer listening to you, then someone must be jamming the frequency.

I blame Kenneth, and I thank you for your support.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/185 "2004-10-21T20:33:56Z")

</div>

> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> Thought experiment: You wake up one morning and realize that you have very real, if slightly undependable, psychic powers. You can read minds and bend metal with your thoughts. How do you proceed:
> 
> (1) Submit yourself to rigorous public testing, clearly videotaped, overseen by impartial and fair people, realizing that studying your gift could lead to the most important advancements in human knowledge, well, ever, and the attendent fame and celebrity should make you plenty rich and famous
> 
> (2) Use your psychic powers and metal-bending abilities to become fabulously wealthy through a variety of underhanded criminal enterprises
> 
> (3) Become a publicity whore who spends a lot of time bending keys and spoons, but who somehow never quite manages to produce the “silver bullet” videotape that clearly and indisputably shows you doing something paranormal
> 
> On the other hand, suppose you’re a middling sleight of hand artist with a huge amount of charisma, lust for power and fame, and ability to confuse the hell out of dumb people, and no shame whatsoever. Then it seems that your only choice is to:
> 
> (1) Become a publicity whore who spends a lot of time bending keys and spoons
> 
> I’m just saying, is all…

I thought this post was worth repeating, as everyone seems to have ignored it the first time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/186 "2004-10-21T20:37:03Z")

</div>

> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> I thought this post was worth repeating, as everyone seems to have ignored it the first time.

O come on **Max**. The only ones who ignored it were the ones to whom it caused discomfort. It made perfect sense to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/187 "2004-10-21T22:42:38Z")

</div>

I’ll make this short and to the point I’ve been demonstrating all along:

> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> The point you’re ignoring is that if “psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts” really exist, _our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference_. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

The effect of “suggestion” upon a subject is well known in psychology. Even magicians are well aware how powerful suggestion can be.

“Doubt” can even affect athletic performance.

How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect PSI performance? :dubious:

Is it ignorance? Arrogance? Or do you have some smoke and mirrors to pull out of your hat?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/188 "2004-10-21T22:45:29Z")

</div>

> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Well, then how would we _ever_ know we were in the presence of geniune PSI? If a sufficiently skilled magician could simulate _anything_, then _any_ claimed demonstration of PSI could be faked.

So what? 😕

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/189 "2004-10-21T22:49:55Z")

</div>

> [@Musicat](#):
>
> So to test the claim that a large spanner can be melted without touching it, we need to see a demonstration of exactly that, and only that unless all parties agree to different parameters.

Thank you for your wonderful clarification, **Cat.** Hopefully this will put us back on the road to the OP.

SnakeSpirit

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/190 "2004-10-21T22:52:51Z")

</div>

> [@trandallt](#):
>
> What _can_ psi do, as far as we know? Just answer that simple question. What do we _know_ that psi can do?

I don’t know, ask Bryan, he seems to think he has all the answers. All I have is questions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/191 "2004-10-22T01:19:14Z")

</div>

> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> The effect of “suggestion” upon a subject is well known in psychology. Even magicians are well aware how powerful suggestion can be.
> 
> “Doubt” can even affect athletic performance.
> 
> How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect PSI performance? :dubious:

If I watch a Geller performance, doubting heavily that any genuine PSI ability is being manifested and looking for sleight-of-hand, but I keep quiet about it, would _that_ have the potential of affecting Geller’s performance?

If someone belives firmly in ghosts and tries to convince me that they are real, and I express doubt, has my doubt somehow made them _less_ real? Is there any independent verifiable existence to these concepts, or is it all “psychology” ?

And truth be told, I’m not sure why my analogies (i.e. to sculpting) apparantly betray naïvite while yours (i.e. to athletic performance) do not. Can you please supply a list of valid analogies to PSI ability? More specifically, why is athletic performance apparantly _now_ an effective analogy when earlier you said (to trandallt):

> [@](#):
>
> You’re assuming the rules that apply to physical strength apply to any ‘psychic strength.’ Fact is, we know what factors affect heating metals and muscular strength (and no, I’m never “superhuman,” but some days quite “childlike” in my physical strength, while other days I approach “normal.”) but we have no idea what factors affect instances of PSI. It may be inconsistant for reasons we have not yet determined, or, it may not.

Your arguments are consistent only in their inconsitency.

Further:

> [@](#):
>
> > [@Bryan Ekers](#):
> >
> > Well, then how would we ever know we were in the presence of geniune PSI? If a sufficiently skilled magician could simulate anything, then any claimed demonstration of PSI could be faked.
> 
> So what?😕

So how could PSI abilities ever be proven if, as you maintain, fakery is _always_ possible? Is it possible for Geller to do something that couldn’t _easily_ be faked by a magician (and spoon-bending is actually pretty damned easy to fake)? I suggest that if he can soften metal **as he claims** , he should try to press a metal spoon completely flat. Additional controls can be put in, like requiring he wear only a short-sleeved shirt; that the spoon be chained down to a tabletop; that the spoon have a ten-digit random number etched into it known only to one observer (who leaves the room during the test) so a substitute already-mashed spoon couldn’t be sneaked in; that he use only one hand; that he be checked with a metal-detector before attempting the feat; that high-quality video be recording the event… There is no indication that _any_ of these would have any effect on Geller’s **claimed** ability to soften metal by touch, but they would seriously hamper a magician. I believe there _are_ feats a magician can’t fake, and if Geller can do one, I’ll be sufficiently impressed.

At one point, you make a claim that “Anything can be faked by a skilled magician,” but when the flaw in the statement is pointed out (i.e. if it was true, then no PSI test could ever be conclusive), your shrug off your claim as suddenly irrelevant.

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t know, ask Bryan, he seems to think he has all the answers.

I don’t know about “all”, but the evidence of this thread suggests I have several answers and you have none.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/192 "2004-10-22T04:53:43Z")

</div>

> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> I don’t know about “all”, but the evidence of this thread suggests I have several answers and you have none.

Yes, but all yours are imaginary, delusional.  
You make things up as you go along, and have no consistancy, no logic, no concept of legitimate debating skills.  
You assume that PSI should adhere to certain restrictions with one side of your mouth while denying the existance of PSI out the other side.

Plus, you never answered my question.

I suspect you are avoiding it cause you know you’re wrong.

Or perhaps you are so deep in denial your connection with reality has been cut off due to non-payment.

How can you square saying doubt cannot have an effect on PSI?  
Without scurrying away into the shadows of ghosts. let’s just stick with psychology and thought transferance performance.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/193 "2004-10-22T05:35:21Z")

</div>

> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Yes, but all yours are imaginary, delusional.  
> You make things up as you go along, and have no consistancy, no logic, no concept of legitimate debating skills.

I’m waiting for the moment you reveal this is all one big WHOOOSH attempt on your part, because it’s hard to believe this much irony is accidental.

> [@](#):
>
> You assume that PSI should adhere to certain restrictions with one side of your mouth while denying the existance of PSI out the other side.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. I’m not assuming PSI has restrictions. Rather, I’m assuming that if Geller has the powers he claims, he should be able to do things _in addition_ to spoon- and key-bending. You claim, however, that there is no gaurantee that this is possible. It is YOU who are suggesting that restrictions exist, and that even though Geller can soften metal, he can’t mold it.

> [@](#):
>
> Plus, you never answered my question.
> 
> I suspect you are avoiding it cause you know you’re wrong.
> 
> Or perhaps you are so deep in denial your connection with reality has been cut off due to non-payment.
> 
> How can you square saying doubt cannot have an effect on PSI?

If that’s the question I’m allegedly avoiding, let me take care of it forthwith. You’re asking, if I understand it, how I can say doubt cannot have an effect on PSI. My response:  
[ul][li]It’s not established that PSI exists[/li][li]Assuming PSI exists, it’s not established what (if anything) could enable or disable it[/li][li]Assuming doubt could disable PSI, it’s not clear how, or to what degree.[/ul][/li]  
My response that that question is that it involves so many unknowns that no answer is (or could be) meaningful. That is not “wrong” by any definition I’m aware of. If you can prove me wrong, please demonstrate how. Please note that I would consider it “wrong” to make _additional_ assumptions i.e. that people who in a state of doubt radiate negative PSI energy that can disrupt the PSI field of the psychic, or something equally unprovable.

Or were you referring to a different allegedly unasnwered question? Please be so kind as to remind me, if this is the case.

> [@](#):
>
> Without scurrying away into the shadows of ghosts. let’s just stick with psychology and thought transferance performance.

Nope, let’s stick with demonstrable physical effects of PSI. Either Geller can do what he claims or he can’t. Either a measurable task gets done or it doesn’t. If you try to move the discussion to a place where there are no objective measurements, the discussion becomes meaningless.

By the way, your earlier statement that my posts in this thread have made me look stupid remains unproven. Will you withdraw this claim on the basis of lack of evidence? I specifically request an answer on this matter, as your tactic of ad hominem attacks has grown tiresome.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/194 "2004-10-22T06:22:11Z")

</div>

> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> Don’t know who you mean by “we,” but if you’re talking university-level researchers I agree. If you’re talking magicians and debunkers, I disagree.

Is that because you appear to have an unjustified antipathy towards magicians and debunkers, which you have expressed here and elsewhere? Look, a sceptic could be anything from a multiple PhD in physics to a plumber’s apprentice, or a magician for that matter. Scepticism is a method that can be applied by anyone. That’s why it is such a good toolbox. All it takes is a rational approach and some critical thinking skills.

The scientific method requires more in the way of training. With the scientific method we seek to accomplish objectivity (basing conclusions on external validation) and **avoid mysticism** (basing conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation).

> [@](#):
>
> Almost every principle we have come to accept as “science” began somewhere as anecdotal evidence. It was thereafter, usually through lots of trial and error and subsequent rigerous research, that the principles became accepted.

This statement is, though technically accurate, actually quite misleading. Many principles of science in the past began with humble _observation_. This sometimes took an anecdotal form, until a more rigorous scientific process was enabled, and formal observation, induction, deduction, and verification were carried out. These four steps is where paranormal claims fail **consistently** , and are forced to rely on questionable methodology and evidence (such as endless meta-analysis to prove an imaginary effect).

There is therefore an immense gulf between the _initial_ anecdotal evidence of a real, demonstrable phenomenon, and the anecdotal evidence that is used to support paranormal claims. For one thing, no anecdotal evidence relating to the paranormal has been confirmed reliably – not just in a scientific setting but often even to other informal observers!

Even if this weren’t the case, anecdotal evidence in science is unacceptable because it is unreliable and unfalsifiable. No good scientist would dream of basing his work on anecdotal evidence. Yes, an anecdote may sometimes _suggest_ an avenue of research (e.g., people who drink red wine and eat plenty of garlic **seem** to enjoy some health benefits) but it does not validate it or justify it. There has been to date, after over 150 years of formal research, a marked inability to progress anecdotal evidence to the next level. This is part of the reason why we may reach a provisional agreement that the paranormal is a bunch of bunk. And it is also part of the reason why _extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof_.

Anecdotal evidence can never be classed as extraordinary for the obvious reasons.

> [@](#):
>
> Some anecdotal evidence is more easily explained than others. Anything can be “explained away” by pointing to a similar situation which proved false. But that _proves_ nothing.

I said that anecdotal evidence, when genuine, is normally easily explainable. It is. Lights in the sky are investigated and turn out to be non-UFOs, as several studies have demonstrated. Impressions of alien abductions turn out most frequently to be caused by hypnagogic and hypnopompic states, if not some form of psychological disturbance. Spoon bending is an effect of trickery. Ghosts are a combination of ordinary ambient phenomena and personal factors such as suggestivity/fear. In fact, if you have ever done any ghostbusting, you already know this: that haunting scream is just a cat in heat, the hideous dragging noise is simply the old pipes acting up, and the footsteps of an invisible presence are nothing more than the floorboards creaking as they expand and contract owing to temperature shifts.

When faced with the unknown in the form of an anecdotal claim, we must always ask: what is the simplest and most likely explanation? This is how Occam’s razor allows us to cut through the chaff and get to the point. Is the simple explanation that Geller has an amazing supernatural talent? Or is it that he is a trickster making as much money as possible by using abilities that anyone may learn?

So we eventually reach provisional agreement that there is no telepathy or psychokinesis or ghosts or what have you, since they have never, in over 150 years of explicitly searching for them, been scientifically demonstrated. In order to surmount this obstacle, all a paranormal claim has to do is provide evidence commensurate to its claim. This has not yet happened.

> [@](#):
>
> Prove someone a fraud and ridicule them, because that is what they deserve. Show flaws in research methodology so the flaws can be eliminated. I have no problem wih that.

Yep. But when a well-established pattern is painfully visible, do you really want to invest time and energy that could be spent doing valuable things? Remember, there are many, many more believers and proponents of the paranormal, constantly advancing claims of a usually sloppy nature, than there are honest scientists to test or review these claims. Sometimes you have to take a shortcut, and in the case of the paranormal it is perfectly all right to do so **while waiting for that extraordinary evidence**.

> [@](#):
>
> In general, I use the term PSI so we understand the type of phenomenon we are talking about. It _is_ unknown. Undiscovered country. Scientists have a hard time even trying to formulate experiments which demonstrate it, but they do.

Psi is not just unknown, it is also undemonstrated. I might as well go on about gigantic pink unicorns.

Scientists **do not** have a hard time formulating --at least partially-- this elusive psi, mostly because the claims already exist and themselves describe the alleged effect. And I refer here to “formulate” in its proper sense of expressing something in systematic terms or concepts. It is impossible to carry out an experiment to test for some effect without first formulating to some degree the effect one is looking for. So, for telepathy we have a hosts of experiments involving several trials of double-blind thought transference card-reading and the like.

> [@](#):
>
> There’s a truckload of published results out there which show results that consistantly perform significantly beyond chance.

There is no such truckload. You refer to _some_ experiments with loose experimental protocols permitting either fraud or error (such as the first of their kind in 1886 by the Society of Psychical Research and many, many others since then), or results that have been manipulated in questionable manner. We reviewed this very subject [starting from here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4874334#post4874334) where I pointed out that “that 0.0001 variation from “ordinary” results is usually not enough to rattle our current understanding of science, rather it suggests experimental or analytical error and calls for close examination or dismissal of unacceptable experimental/observational errors”.

If you do have reliable science that consistently shows a better than chance performance in testing a paranormal claim, by all means let’s look at it.

> [@](#):
>
> It’s not enough to get all science jumping on the PSI bandwagon, but enough to warrant continued research.

Of course, research is always welcome. But it’s not always possible. Particularly if we are dealing with yet “more of the same” in the guise of the paranormal.

I also note that until that research is carried out, analyzed, verified, tested, peer-reviewed, etc., the claims it proposes might as well not exist. Think about the (largely media) error with regards to cold fusion experimental claims in the '80s: if the correct approach (_einmal ist keinmal_) had been adopted, there wouldn’t have been a lengthy scandal, just two sloppy and dishonest scientists who would have eventually been proven wrong. You could show me a study claiming the existence of pink unicorns, and I could simply point out that it is one study that proves nothing, that we must wait for evaluation, verification, etc.

**Einmal ist keinmal**. Possibly the most important tenet in all of science.

> [@](#):
>
> Granted, I don’t know of any reliable research which positively demonstrates any of the proposed theories of PSI, but that’s putting the cart before the horse;

Why? If there is no evidence for a psi effect after more than a century and a half of formal investigation, why is it not safe to give provisional agreement that the psi effect does not exist as far as we know? Why must we test the same basic things over and over to look for an effect that is based wholly on anecdotal evidence? Note that I ask this from a practical, not a sceptical, point of view.

> [@](#):
>
> we have evidence that things happen which are unexplainable in our current scientific model. Many of the claims _can_ be attributed to understandable factors. Many can not.

Here I have to ask: what are these unexplained claims that are not attributable to understandable factors? And should we give such anecdotes any credence?

> [@](#):
>
> If you don’t want to sort them out, no problem, no one is asking you to. There are already plenty of folk working on it. Let them be. If they come up with something, subject it to rigerous scrutiny, if you wish. I will.

I already have! And when the next incredible claim comes out, I’ll be scrutinizing it. But, unless that claim is especially solidly supported, I suspect what to expect from it before I even examine it. This is an application of pattern recognition: I can be sceptical that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in practical terms I am almost completely sure that it will because I recognize an established pattern.

> [@](#):
>
> Another problem is that there’s a lot of greatly disparate phenomenon that is tossed into the “PSI” catchall. Your allegation of it being a “simple matter” to measure only applies to a few instances.

If an effect really exists, science can identify it and measure it.

> [@](#):
>
> Perceiving information through other than the five senses.

Well, there are well over a dozen senses properly speaking, the five senses approach is rather outdated, so according to that definition I for one could be engaged in some ESP right now! The ears, eyes, and nose, for example, serve dual purposes: in the case of ears in addition to hearing we have a nifty device that allows us to detect our orientation in a gravitational field; in the eyes we have sensors for light intensity as well as colour; in the nose, in addition to the well-known olfactory system, is a distinct sensory channel called the vomeronasal complex that is used in the detection of pheromones. In the skin is a collection of senses that include different sensors for high temperature, low temperature, pressure, itch, and pain. In the joints and muscles are sensors that tell us about the position of our various body parts and the tension and motion they are undergoing. Then we have hunger and thirst of course. And special sensors in the bladder that tell us it is time to urinate.

When people start waffling on about a mythical sixth sense, I usually ask them “Oh, you mean balance? I’ve got that too.” Silly perhaps, but one has to find humour where one can in this tragically ignorant world.

We know what our senses are. There are also some senses that are not completely understood, such as pheromone detection, but that are readily studied. That is why claims regarding any extra “unknown” and undemonstrated senses are regarded with suspicion and might as well not exist until they are thoroughly and responsibly tested. Before that can happen, there has to be a set of guidelines from the claimants to establish exactly what they can sense and cannot. Which brings us to:

> [@](#):
>
> I was just using this as an example to show that instead of taking note of valid ‘hits’ many ‘debunkers’ immediately come up with an additional ‘test’ that has nothing to do with the original claim in order to invalidate the results. Let me give a more clear example:
> 
> A subject claims to be able to determine the current emotional state of a person at a distance. Subject relays information to skeptical researcher, who makes a phone call to the person, and finds the description accurate. Since this is an extraordinary claim, the researcher demands extraordinary evidence, and then asks, “OK, then tell me what _target_ is wearing.” Subject says, “I can’t do that,” and researcher thereby invalidates the results.

I challenge you to show me some instances of this, because I suspect you may be engaged in rhetorical hyperbole here. If the experiment is a double-blind one testing for detection of emotional state at a distance of a physically isolated subject, it seems extremely unlikely any experimenter or debunker worth his pay would invalidate the experiment based on the _ad hoc_ introduction of extra criteria; at the most he or she would refine the method and improve on experimental design for the next round. A sloppy debunker or scientist may resort to _ad hoc_ criteria, but once again you seem to be generalizing about debunkers. Bad science does not make science bad; bad debunking does not make debunking bad.

> [@](#):
>
> This is what I mean by making irrelevant assumptions. This is what I see people doing. Expecting that if one piece of information can be perceived by other than the five senses then everything can. It’s expecting too much. Stick with the original assumption, then if that is proven to your satisfaction, _then_ go on to new experiments. Don’t use new experimental tests to invalidate good results based on what you think the subject _should_ be able to do.

All well and good, but please show how this has happened in any sort of pattern. It has not. This is one of the excuses some paranormalists make up in their whining subsequent to their customary failures to demonstrate their claims.

> [@](#):
>
> That’s what I’m talking about in the Gellar discussion: Saying, “Oh, if he can do this then he should be able to do this as well,” is dismissal of results via smoke and mirrors.

The claim was made that Geller can exert a force of 6 Kn. I showed what a ridiculously powerful force this is, and why its effect should by no means be limited to spoon-bending tricks.

> [@](#):
>
> Unless, of course, something other than physical force is used. Is it being bent? (Yes/no). Is it being bent by force? Is is being bent by heat? Is it being bent by sub-atomic ion charge negation? Is it being bent by trickery? Determine that first, before you go making predictions about what will happen.

I didn’t make the claim that Geller was exerting a 6 Kn force, I read it here, as it seems did **Bryan** … and when a force of known quantity is involved, we _can and do_ make predictions about it. Heat is not a force, it is ultimately a measure of kinetic energy. I don’t know what would involve “sub-atomic ion charge negation”, nor what it is supposed to be. But I do know trickery is the established method of spoon-bending, and a few slashes from Occam’s trusty shaving tool certainly clear up the confusion.

> [@](#):
>
> You lecture on force and action/reaction was nice, but I think irrelevent here.

Look closer; it was an analysis of what to expect given the available information. A force is a force, and it is ridiculous to equivocate on what it is. If there is a force involved, and if it has allegedly been measured, what is the problem? I was emphatically not making assumptions or introducing unknowns.

A considerable force was applied. Unless you wish to introduce the HUGE unknown that this force is somehow exempt from Newton’s third law, you must explain how such a huge force could be applied in the first place without turning your brain or whatever body part the force came from to mush. Another unknown you could introduce is the “psychic lever” I quote myself mentioning below.

> [@](#):
>
> Oh well. I disagree. We merely have to do rigerous research. That paragraph is merely derision, and consequently irrelevant.

“Merely derision”? On what astral body is that derision?? I wasn’t deriding anything. Allow me to post the paragraph again:

in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical “psi leverage” or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.

This is an accurate image of the state of paranormal. It’s magic, not science. Undetected magic. Check out the second paragraph of this post, on the subject of the scientific method and what its aims are.

> [@](#):
>
> Or we can do research.  
> If you want to close your eyes and dismiss claims, you go right ahead, it’s your right to believe or disbelieve. But don’t call your opinion science, please.

The difference in our sceptical approaches is that I issue provisional agreement based on tens of thousands of past results and our modern understanding of science, whereas you seem to issue provisional _credulity_ with no regard for our present knowledge. Provisional credulity is not scepticism, quite the opposite. I humbly suggest you speak less authoritatively and assertively on these subjects, because it doesn’t seem you have a full and proper grasp of them just yet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/195 "2004-10-22T06:48:08Z")

</div>

This is the one, Bryan. This is the answer you’ve been avoiding.  
This is what unwraps your allegations.

> [@](#):
>
> Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers  
> The point you’re ignoring is that if “psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts” really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. _ **If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.** _

Extreme emphasis mine, so you won’t miss it this time.

[QUOTE=SnakeSpirit]  
The effect of “suggestion” upon a subject is well known in psychology. Even magicians are well aware how powerful suggestion can be. Randi often uses it to “debunk” demonstrated effects.

“Doubt” can even affect athletic performance. This is why coaches give “pep talks” before the big game, to overcome doubt.

How can you claim that doubt, a form of suggestion, could not affect PSI performance? You do not have a data base to conclude this; you even doubt that PSI exists. If doubt affects normal performance, how can you so arrogantly assume it cannot affect paranormal performance?

> [@](#):
>
> Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers  
> The point you’re ignoring is that if “psychokinesis, telepathy or ghosts” really exist, our belief or disbelief in them will make no difference. Psychics frequelty claim that their powers may not work if an observer is doubting too strongly. If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant?

Answer that ONE question satisfactorily. Don’t avoid it, don’t use misdirection (smoke and mirrors). PRETEND to be a scientist, just for a minute, and rectify this BULLSHIT you been pouring on us and ignoring the challenges to.

Your posts in response to this ONE FACTOR have been diversions, illusions, misdirections, distractions, but NOT answers.

Answer this one thing. If you can. If you gave the guts. If you can face the truth. If you can be honest. If you can look in the mirror.

No more misdirection.

You say:

> [@](#):
>
> If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

Psychology says:  
Suggestion can have an effect on the behavior of subjects.  
[Cite 1](http://www.thoemmes.com/psych/ernheim.htm)  
[Cite 2](http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_2_5.htm)  
[Cite 3](http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html)  
and I can go on and on and on.  
Suggestion, that is the attitudes and comments of another party, can have an effect on the performance of a subject.  
It’s long been accepted in psychology.

So, how can you say that :

> [@](#):
>
> If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant.

What is your basis for changing the rules?

You are making a pronouncement as if you know the principles by which PSI operates.

NO MORE wiggling out of it.  
NO MORE magical distraction.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

You made a statement, either substantiate it or admit you were wrong (which I believe your ego will never allow.)

And stop wasting out time with your parlour tricks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/196 "2004-10-22T06:50:48Z")

</div>

\*_Abe_, you’ve built truly a luxurious throne of a deck chair and put it on the Titanic.

Very well stated, but I sadly expect futile.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/197 "2004-10-22T07:06:02Z")

</div>

> [@Abe](#):
>
> Allow me to post the paragraph again:
> 
> in order to believe in these kinds of effects, we are forced to ignore fundamental tenets of science that we know are established and accurate. We must: introduce mysterious undefined forces from unknown inscrutable sources for which zero corroboration exists; assume hypothetical “psi leverage” or whatever; and suspend our entire understanding of the universe. In other words, we have to resort to magic, not science.

Why?  
Why can’t we just take what has been observed and examine science to determine if we have a ‘fit’ we might have missed, or if we have discovered a new scientific principle?  
Why can’t we examine claims and either prove they have a mundane unexpected explanation or that they have another explanation that is on the cutting edge of science?  
Why do you have to resort to derisive terms like “magic” to defend your position?

There is no magic, Abe. Of that I am sure. Either that, or what we call magic has a scientific explanation.

The difference between you and I is simply that you put science in a box, and I allow it freedom. I allow for learning more about our world.

I suspend judgement based on inadequate evidence.  
You draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough.”

Feel free to do that, but don’t expect me to stop 'cause _you_ say so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/198 "2004-10-22T07:56:19Z")

</div>

> [@SnakeSpirit](#):
>
> This is the one, Bryan. This is the answer you’ve been avoiding.  
> This is what unwraps your allegations.

I’m all a-tingle…

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant. \*\* … WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant?

Well, I don’t believe I’ve _ever_ ducked this question, but here goes in what I hope will be definitive:

There is no reason why the doubt of observers should be **relevant**. You have claimed that we should expect no correlation between (proven) physical strength and (unproven) psychic strength. Why, then, should we expect a correlation between the (proven) power of suggestion and (unproven) psychic ability? You’re dismissing one relationship that tends to challenge your premise while embracing one that tends to support your premise, _and you no objective reason for either conclusion_. The reason I feel observer doubt should be irrelevant is straightforward:  
[ul][li]We have no evidence it is relevant, and[/li][li]Relevance requires making an additional unprovable assumption, i.e. that doubters somehow broadcast “negative energy” that disrupts a psychic’s power. This is against the spirit of Occam’s Razor.[/ul][/li]  
The claim that observer doubt impairs perfomance is also a suspiciously convenient one. Just as a magician could dislike an overly observant audience (who spends more time trying to figure out how a trick is done rather than enjoying the performance) a psychic who is faking (and fakery is always a very strong possibility) might dislike an audience unwilling to suspend its disbelief, or wanting to see difficult stunts, or unwilling to cooperate with a cold reading. To summarize:

Psychics bend spoons. So can magicians.  
Psychic don’t like doubtful audiences. Neither do magicians.

Put simply, there is not enough of a difference between a psychic claiming that doubt is upsetting his PSI power and one who finds doubt is hampering his trickery. The types of tests Randi performs make a deliberate effort to eliminate trickery in an attempt the identify genuine psychics. As far as I know, no-one has ever passed. Is it possible for a sufficiently powerful and focused psychic to perform despite the close scrutiny of people who may harbour doubts? I can’t see why not. People perform all variety of tasks despite all variety of distractions. Surely in the all the time people have been claiming psychic ability, there are some for whom observer doubt is a trivial nuisance (assuming a “doubt effect” exists).

> [@](#):
>
> Answer that ONE question satisfactorily.

Done, as far as I’m concerned. If you find points that need clarification, feel free to let me know. If you find the entire response unsatisfactory, there’s nothing more I can do.

> [@](#):
>
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I’ve “put up” and now I return the challenge. You made a claim alleging I had given the readers of this thread cause to think me stupid. I’ll repeat the request that you support this statement or withdraw it.

> [@](#):
>
> You made a statement, either substantiate it or admit you were wrong (which I believe your ego will never allow.)

I’ve admitted being wrong numerous times but I won’t in this case because as far as I know, I’m not. I’ve substantiated my position as much as I can (insofar as a discussion of psychic abilities _can_ be substantiated). If that’s not enough… too bad.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/199 "2004-10-22T08:16:19Z")

</div>

Bravo, **Snakespirit**! Well stated and I believe the whole point in summation and truth.  
Many are bound within the confining worldview of skepticism. C’mon guys, can’t you see? We’re just trying to get past the artificial border that science has imposed on discovery and thought (To quote Mr. Reagan, “Tear down this wall, Mr. Ekers!.” 😃 ) .  
Science must change and adapt for the next level of human discovery. It has reached its upper limits and must develop a subtler and more flexible methodology and an entirely new language to allow for the greatest mysteries it has yet been unable to explain. I believe that the language and ideas of “paranormalists” will be an important factor in the evolution of Science in the next millenium.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/200 "2004-10-22T08:40:24Z")

</div>

> [@devilsknew](#):
>
> C’mon guys, can’t you see? We’re just trying to get past the artificial border that science has imposed on discovery and thought (To quote Mr. Reagan, “Tear down this wall, Mr. Ekers!.” 😃 ) .

It sounds more like you want to casually discard the scientific method. In any case, there is nothing within the concept of science that would rule out telepathy or telekineses or any human ability. If it exists, it can be tested. If it can be tested, it can be proven. So far, though, nobody claiming psychic ability has been able to get past the test phase, let alone established credible proof.

> [@](#):
>
> Science must change and adapt for the next level of human discovery. It has reached its upper limits and must develop a subtler and more flexible methodology and an entirely new language to allow for the greatest mysteries it has yet been unable to explain. I believe that the language and ideas of “paranormalists” will be an important factor in the evolution of Science in the next millenium.

Your earlier-stated nonsensical views on black holes don’t exactly lend you a lot of credibility when you try to discuss science or what it should do. What is a “subtler and more flexible methodology”, anyway? Does it involve a lower standard of evidence? Logical leaps? Scientists writing papers on instinct or from dreams?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=9)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=11)