# What is "paranormal"? **URL:** \ **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:** 11
**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, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/201 "2004-10-22T09:19:39Z")
So, **Snakespirit** , if I read you correctly it’s no big issue that when paranormalists are tested by **sceptical** means, they consistently fail to produce positive results? If an effect is demonstrable only when sympathetic testers are involved, do you not immediately suspect fraud? Because that is what scepticism instructs us to suspect, contrary to your many assertions on the subject. Here’s the problem: Sympathetic testers confirm results, but doubting ones somehow do not achieve confirmation of the claim in question. To explain this, you claim that the doubt of testers must somehow influence the effect being tested. This makes the hypothesis non-falsifiable, irrefutable, which is (scientifically speaking) worth nothing. It also helps ensure that the person being tested – _and not the testers_ – is in control of the experiment. Which is exactly how Geller’s powers were “demonstrated” as real at the Stanford Research Institute by Targ & Puthoff, as detailed in _Nature_ (1974). Additionally, thanks to the chaotic conditions involved, the results of the various experiments were reported incorrectly, making for very bad science overall. We can avoid all these problems by adopting a double-blind experimental design, which is essentially _de riguer_ in good science to avoid complications such as the placebo effect or the alleged “doubt” factor. Even the double-blind approach fails to improve the chances of paranormalists when an experiment is conducted with the appropriate controls. So more excuses are forthcoming, usually something along the lines of “even though double-blind conditions apply, there is someone nearby who holds great doubt for my powers, and I find myself having a hard time summoning them” or variant thereof. These are trademarks of _pesudoscience_, not science. Let me illustrate the case in more detail using the chief example here. In 1973, _Time_ was considering doing a story on Geller. Unbeknownst to Geller, Randi was invited as part of the audience at his demonstration, posing as a _Time_ employee. Geller had absolutely no problems using his powers, even though one of the biggest sceptics alive was just a few metres away. In spite of claiming considerable “mental” as well as psychokinetic powers, Geller had no clue that Randi was present. He performed his usual sleight-of-hand tricks, which were readily identified by Randi, who – being a professional magician – is of course familiar with all sorts of these tricks. After that dismal failure, Geller stopped performing in front of _any_ magician, claiming that they give off “bad vibes”. In truth, he performed as he always does, and **only after his scam was exposed** did he resort to excuses. But, regardless of his whining, he employed solely simple sleight of hand during the demonstration! To avoid a repeat of this embarrasing scenario, Geller whined about the negative influence of magicians and sceptics. This is a typical pseudoscientific irrefutable hypothesis whose sole purpose is to cover up Geller’s failure and ensure that he continues to make money from his tricks. The other hallmark of pseudoscience is the reluctance of claimants to examine closely their claims. I showed how nonsensical the 6 Kn force claim was by examining the physical principles involved in this rather laughable claim, and demonstrated how unreasonable the claim is based on established scientific knowledge. In order to overcome these difficulties that I highlighted, we must not introduce _more_ unknowns, we simply have to demand extraordinary evidence. Double-blind, repeatable, strictly controlled, exclusive of trickery. Of course, this evidence is not forthcoming. The problem here is not that I put science in a box; that accusation is another one typical of pseudoscientists, who go on about “closed minds” and the like. The problem is that paranormalist claimants cannot demonstrate their claims to be true, and must resort to dishonest techniques. The only other issue you raise is in response to my explanation: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by Abe_ > > 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 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? Because when a “new scientific principle” is alleged and is in direct opposition to the rather better established science that precedes it, _extraordinary proof is required_. When cold fusion was trumpeted in the '80s, **real** scientists and **real** sceptics knew very well what the problems were: that the claims advanced were incompatible with present scientific understanding (which enjoys extensive support). Therefore, the position to take on cold fusion (a position based on the trusty **einmal ist keinmal** ) was that these claims were likely to be false, at least until the cold fusions experiments could be independently replicated. It’s really no big deal. There are many false or inaccurate claims in science all the time, and they are filtered out by the scientific method. It is pseudoscientists who then provide a host of excuses and non-falsifiable justifications for their claims in spite of the clear scientific evidence and understanding to the contrary. NOTE: science is self-correcting. Should a new scientific principle actually be discovered, a paradigm shift can occur, as I mentioned already a few posts ago. However it is irresponsible and in direct contrast to available evidence to assume such a new principle or paradigm shift on the basis of a handful of shrill paranormalist claims such as those of Geller, for the reasons already provided. > [@](#): > > 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? We do examine claims. However we also have to be sensible and assume provisionally that **a claim incompatible with established models of the universe is bunk until proved otherwise**. > [@](#): > > Why do you have to resort to derisive terms like “magic” to defend your position? Magic is simply the opposite of science, and involves unverified claims that are in opposition to scientific principles we have established and tested exhaustively. As I said before, science seeks “to accomplish objectivity (basing conclusions on external validation) and avoid mysticism (basing conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation)”. This is not my invention, it is fundamental to the philosophy of science. If you prefer the term “mysticism” to “magic”, feel free to substitute it; ultimately there is objective science, and subjective mysticism (or magic). It is not derision, as I already previously explained. You may not realize it, but right now you are actually vigorously championing pseudoscience – not science, nor scepticism. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/202 "2004-10-22T15:59:29Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > I don’t know, ask Bryan, he seems to think he has all the answers. All I have is questions. I was quoting _you_, **Snakespiri** t. Do you stand behind your words? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/203 "2004-10-22T18:32:26Z")
In keeping with our dogged pursuit of a definition of “paranormal,” there is a letter by **Jamie Mulcahy** reproduced on the [randi.org](http://randi.org/jr/102204the.html) site today that includes what could be pressed into service as a definition. Long, and I’m not sure the writer meant to use OR or AND between the salient points, but I think it should seriously be considered in this thread. The writer is talking about homeopathy, but I see nothing that precludes a use as a general definition. Here it is: [quote] [ol][li]Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim.[_]The phenomena are said to “work” by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world.[_]The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the “scientific” findings made by supporters have been independently replicated.[_]When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by “ordinary” science.[_]Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, “vibrations,” memory," “quantum,” “spiritual,” and “infinite,” without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened. [/ol][/li][/quote] Good and comprehensive, but I wonder if we could condense this to something more concise? I was about to compliment **Jamie Mulcahy** for his list, but further research suggests that this list is not original with him. It may have been written by **James Randi** himself, as he presented it first [here,](http://www.randi.org/jr/051603.html) and a google search doesn’t turn up fragments of that exact language anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/204 "2004-10-22T20:00:51Z")
Let’s test this 6-point definition by comparing it to something that has been suggested as a paranormal phenomenon in the past, meterorites, or rocks falling from the sky. Let’s assume we are living in the 18th century C.E. **1. Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim.** Meteorites had real evidence – big hunks & rock chunks. Conclusion: not paranormal. **2. The phenomena are said to “work” by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world.** I guess it comes down to “what we already know with great certainty.” The church was at odds with some of science and the traditional church view of a rigid celestial sphere with fixed stars, above which lived the gods, was already crumbling. Certainly the idea of a rotating planetary system did not preclude the possibility of errant rocks, and Newton’s laws would suggest the earth would attract them and they would crash to earth. Conclusion: puzzling, unexplained, but not paranormal. **3. The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the “scientific” findings made by supporters have been independently replicated.** Replication of something which is primarily an observed phenomena is, of course, difficult. But more than one meteorite was found and although a streak of light across the sky would be classed as anecdotal, there was concrete evidence at the end of the streak if they were lucky enough to get there just in time. Conclusion: not paranormal. **4. When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by “ordinary” science.** Ordinary science was indeed, testing claims of celestial observations, thru telescopes, and chemistry tested the composition of the rocks. Conslusion: not paranormal. **5.Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, “vibrations,” memory," “quantum,” “spiritual,” and “infinite,” without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms.** This may be too modern an addition to the list to apply to 1700, except for “spiritual.” Certainly, ascribing everyday events to the influence of gods, demons, devils, or angels was more common then. Conclusion: N/A. **6. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened.** The certainty of what meteorites mean did change the face of science over time. Yes, it took a long time for the face of science to change, but – and this is critical – the evidence strengthened over time. In contrast, evidence for most things that we label paranormal today is not strenthening, even over the hundreds of years it has been examined. And this is important – the verification of what meteorites was did not cause the “paradigm” of science to change; many, many, independent astronomical observations, tests and discoveries all fell into place, all consistent with the observations of falling rocks. Conclusion: since it HAS happened, not paranormal, yet in a short time frame, the opposite conclusion could be argued. I’ll be generous and call this one inconclusive. So the score is: of 6 critereon, 4 define meterorites as not paranormal, 1 is not applicable, and 1 could be called inconclusive. ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/205 "2004-10-23T00:36:29Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > There is no reason why the doubt of observers should be **relevant**. Nope. Not good enough. You’re trying to change the parameters and avoid the question. Try again. You said: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > If the psychic’s ability is real, the doubt of observers should be irrelevant. In [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5393301&postcount=177) I asked : > [@](#): > > WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant? You keep avoiding the question. Simple doubt, not some mystic power you alledge, affects people’s performance. Why should PSI performance be any different? Why can’t you simply answer the question? I suspect it’s because you know you fucked up and don’t want to admit it. ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/206 "2004-10-23T00:41:23Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > So, **Snakespirit** , if I read you correctly it’s no big issue that when paranormalists are tested by **sceptical** means, they consistently fail to produce positive results? You misunderstand me, Abe. I think psychic claims should be tested to the same degree and with the same rigerous standards as anything else. Any other assumption and you’re either taking what I say out of context or we are just not understanding one another. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/207 "2004-10-23T00:45:54Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Simple doubt, not some mystic power you alledge, affects people’s performance. I’m coming in at the tail end on this so forgive me if I got the context wrong, but it looks like you are stating that an observers doubt can affect a testee’s performance. If that is what you are saying I would say that it may or may not be true for some people, which isn’t saying much. In fact it could improve performance (some people need to feel challenged). ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/208 "2004-10-23T00:46:58Z")
Here’s a somewhat tongue-in-cheek definition, or at least an addendum to a definition: Something is paranormal if, in its very nature, it defies rigorous scientific proof or study. So suppose someone DID have a telephatic talent which had an empathic regulator built into it such that it would not function around skepticism. That would make it, by its very nature, hard to scientifically study. Or suppose there was a very shy Loch Ness monster who would only surface when there were no cameras present. Or suppose there was a ghostly apparition which just plain couldn’t be photographed or videotaped, and which would appear differently to different people, and not show up at all to some. Something of that sort might fairly be called “paranormal”, because it would be doomed to forever exist outside the sphere of scientific knowledge. ---
**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 23, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/209 "2004-10-23T00:54:43Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > 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. No you haven’t, you’ve avoided the question. You made a statement, and so far have used only distraction to back it up. Answering: WHY should the doubt of observers be irrelevant? With: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers > There is no reason why the doubt of observers should be relevant. Is reason enough for the readers to think you stupid. That’s not debate, it’s shifting the burden of proof. From [this site explaining how logic works.](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting) > [@](#): > > The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is still on you, and you sure look stupid. ---
**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 23, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/210 "2004-10-23T01:04:17Z")
> [@trandallt](#): > > I was quoting _you_, **Snakespiri** t. Do you stand behind your words? You quoted me: Quote: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by SnakeSpirit > Anything can be faked by a skilled magician. They can even do things PSI cannot (as far as we know). And asked: > [@](#): > > What can psi do, as far as we know? Just answer that simple question. What do we know that psi can do? And I said I don’t know. Never said I did know. However, to answer what it seems you _intended_ to ask: As far as we know, PSI cannot make an elephant disappear from a stage. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/211 "2004-10-23T01:25:42Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So suppose someone DID have a telephatic talent which had an empathic regulator built into it such that it would not function around skepticism. That would make it, by its very nature, hard to scientifically study. Or suppose there was a very shy Loch Ness monster who would only surface when there were no cameras present. Or suppose there was a ghostly apparition which just plain couldn’t be photographed or videotaped, and which would appear differently to different people, and not show up at all to some. > > Something of that sort might fairly be called “paranormal”, because it would be doomed to forever exist outside the sphere of scientific knowledge. There is no such thing. Scientific testing is how we determine what exists. Something cannot exist outside of what exists. Or if you can say that, you can’t prove it and we are firmly in the world of philosophical fantasy, not reality. This is the “paradigm” argument. Absurd, my Dear Watson. “Reality is what, when you stop believing in it, still exists.” ---
**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 23, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/212 "2004-10-23T03:44:17Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I’m coming in at the tail end on this so forgive me if I got the context wrong, but it looks like you are stating that an observers doubt can affect a testee’s performance. > > If that is what you are saying I would say that it may or may not be true for some people, which isn’t saying much. > > In fact it could improve performance (some people need to feel challenged). No argument, **Raft**. (Neat name!) The weak opposition here is trying to deny that 'suggestion" has an effect on a subject. While on the other hand they insist that most paranormal occurances can be explained away by things like suggestion… :rolleyes: Depends on what’s convenient for them to hold their theories together, I guess. ---
**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 23, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/213 "2004-10-23T03:48:18Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > “Reality is what, when you stop believing in it, still exists.” Ooooh, nice, cat. Do you have an attribute for that quote? I’d like to use that sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/214 "2004-10-23T03:50:25Z")
Seems like you’re skipping a step here. Before you can determine whether or not skepticism has an effect on the paranormal, _shouldn’t you find out if the paranormal exists first?_. I could claim that elephant dung can be used to repell gnomes, but I would certainly hope that you would demand that I prove the existence of gnomes first. ---
**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 23, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/215 "2004-10-23T03:54:21Z")
Well, Snake, you’ve dismissed my explanation without addressing a single point within it. Unless this changes, I’ll just assume this is simple bad-faith debating on your part. And since you have nothing else to offer but quibbling and repeated (and unfounded) ad hominem attacks, and you’ve never made a verifiable claim in favour of the existence of PSI powers, I’d say you’ve been thoroughly refuted. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/216 "2004-10-23T04:09:11Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Let’s test this 6-point definition by comparing it to something that has been suggested as a paranormal phenomenon in the past, meterorites, or rocks falling from the sky. Let’s assume we are living in the 18th century C.E. Yeah, lets. however, lets also assume that we are sensible. **1. Supporters claim that the phenomena are real, but no real evidence exists to verify that claim.** Well, supporters occasionally produced rocks that they claimed had fallen from the sky. But they looked just like ordinary rocks. Conclusion - paranormal. **2. The phenomena are said to “work” by means that are not possible, based on what we already know with great certainty, about the real world.** Lavoissier said "a stone cannot fall from the sky - there ARE no stones in the sky. Certainly this went against what science of the time knew about how the world works. Conclusion - paranormal. **3. The evidence for the phenomena presented is anecdotal, not scientific, and none of the “scientific” findings made by supporters have been independently replicated.** Evidence was in the form of eyewitnesses who claimed they had seen rocks fall fromn the sky. That’s what anecdotal evidence means. Conclusion - paranormal. **4. When attempted independent replications of the phenomena fail, supporters invoke special conditions and exceptions for their claims, and often state that these cannot be tested by “ordinary” science.** Well of course you can’t make the rocks fall at will. They fall occasionally and unpredictably. You can’t replicate a sighting of a meteorite. Believers can’t be expected to actually demonstrate a meteorite fall under test conditions. Conclusion - paranormal. **5.Supporters of the claims invoke such words as, “vibrations,” memory," “quantum,” “spiritual,” and “infinite,” without knowledge of, nor respect for, the actual meanings of such terms.** Yup. Meterites were said by the church to be the Wrath Of God upon the sinners. Conclusion - paranormal. **6. The claimed discovery is of such a nature and scope, that if true, it would have radically changed the face of science, our way of life, and our perception of the real world [yet] that has not happened.** I disagree with this anyway. Plenty of paranormal claims wouldn’t fit this. Spoon bending, for example. If this were proved true, how would it radically change our way of life? It would be just a curiosity that wouldn’t affect us much either way. But having said that, meteorites did change understanding of one branch of science. Conclusion - about as paranormal as spoon bending. ---
**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 23, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/217 "2004-10-23T04:39:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Seems like you’re skipping a step here. Before you can determine whether or not skepticism has an effect on the paranormal, _shouldn’t you find out if the paranormal exists first?_. I could claim that elephant dung can be used to repell gnomes, but I would certainly hope that you would demand that I prove the existence of gnomes first. Thanks, **CZ** , surprised to see you agree with me, but that’s what I’ve been trying to tell **Ekers**. Stated slightly differently, but the meaning is the same. You can’t logically argue that doubt or suggestion can have no effect upon PSI unless you first know what PSI is. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/218 "2004-10-23T04:41:23Z")
What 'psi" is? I thought we were still working on _if_ “psi” is? ---
**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 23, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/219 "2004-10-23T04:53:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What 'psi" is? I thought we were still working on _if_ “psi” is? Don’t worry, he’s just challenging your ability to debate the elements of something as yet completely undefined. It means he likes you. As for me, I think invisible pink unicorns are actually fuschia. ---
**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 23, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/220 "2004-10-23T04:53:13Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, Snake, you’ve dismissed my explanation without addressing a single point within it. Unless this changes, I’ll just assume this is simple bad-faith debating on your part. And since you have nothing else to offer but quibbling and repeated (and unfounded) ad hominem attacks, and you’ve never made a verifiable claim in favour of the existence of PSI powers, I’d say you’ve been thoroughly refuted. Your smug self-congratulations don’t further the argument, except to prove that you are persistant at sqirming your way out of an argument you have lost. You tried to answer my argument of your allegation with an attempt to shift the burden of proof, nothing more. It’s your allegation, not mine. It’s wrong, and you won’t admit it. If you think this is an ad hominum attack, you have a lot to learn. It’s not. It’s bringing to your (and everyone’s) attention that your post is invalid. You are using a false assumption in your debating and ignoring the **FACT** that you can’t support your allegation. Add to this your allegation above that, > [@](#): > > and you’ve never made a verifiable claim in favour of the existence of PSI powers, please note that I’ve not made \*any \* claim for the existance of psychic powers (strawman). And until you answer this one, simple challenge to your debating technique, you have no right to say I’m debating in bad faith (which _is_ an ad hominum attack, by the way). Your posts are nothing more than poor, easily seen through “tricks.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=12)