# 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:** 6
**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 19, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/101 "2004-10-19T07:34:12Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Of course, when skeptics invoke Occam’s Razor they most assuredly feel they are doing so correctly. Often they seem incorrect to me. And _again_, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing with these repeated statements on what you believe skeptics do. It’s certainly not proving your case. > [@](#): > > Fakery may be well-established phenomenon in the general, but it is a positive claim and must be proved in each instance. Geller has done too many highly impressive things in front of too many people. > > Here’s another. The [page](http://www.uri-geller.com/map.htm). The stumbling block with that account is that Geller is admittedly blowing his own trumpet, and his account might not be accurate. I’d like to see the original article Geller is referencing. I’d _love_ to see video footage of the event itself. Does video footage exist of Geller doing something equally impressive? > [@](#): > > And no, there is no requirement for me to hypothesize a mechanism of action. Your logic is rotten here. Suppose that Geller were tested in the lab and unambigously and to the satisfaction of James Randi and Susan Blackmore was able to bend huge metal bars right and left without laying a finger on them. Would his powers still be in doubt because the mechanism of action was unknown? Of course not. Well, what’s stopping Geller from giving such a demonstration? And are you making _any_ kind of guess (even a wildly speculative one) as to how Geller would accomplish this feat, and why, if he can do such things, would he _ever_ have to resort to stage magic? > [@](#): > > Further, the mechanism of action of gravity is unknown, but there is no doubt that it exists. There are some good theories about gravity, though, which is something lacking in Geller’s case. My stance has always been that an explanation exists, and it is more likely to be an explanation involving trickery than telekinesis. Being a comic-book reader, as stated, I can imagine Geller is a mutant with the superhuman ability to reshape metal. I’d have to ask, though, why he seems to prefer trivial stunts like bending spoons and keys (which anybody with strong hands, psychic or not, can easily do) instead of something really cool, like taking a large block of cold steel and sculpting it into a recognizable statue with his bare hands (if metal becomes soft at his touch, this should be as easy for him as working wet clay), or bending an I-beam into a large circle. So long as he limits himself to actions any competent stage magician could fake (I’ll await an independent account of the spanner-bending incident), he’ll always be suspect. ---
**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 19, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/102 "2004-10-19T07:40:57Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Do you really think that knowledge of rocket science qualifies Mr. Von Braun to detect a magic trick? > > That’s what Geller does – he approximates breaking the laws of the universe using subterfuge and trickery. All it takes is some practice and a little skill. Doing it the supernatural way is a _lot_ harder. So, **cat,** you are saying that with a little skill and practice you can get my ring to bend in my hand without touching it? After all, I’m just an Anthropologist, and should be easier to fool than a rocket scientist. I accept your challenge! ---
**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 19, 2004, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/103 "2004-10-19T07:44:42Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’d have to ask, though, why he seems to prefer trivial stunts like bending spoons and keys (which anybody with strong hands, psychic or not, can easily do) instead of something really cool, like taking a large block of cold steel and sculpting it into a recognizable statue with his bare hands (if metal becomes soft at his touch, this should be as easy for him as working wet clay), or bending an I-beam into a large circle. So long as he limits himself to actions any competent stage magician could fake (I’ll await an independent account of the spanner-bending incident), he’ll always be suspect. Since you admit you do not know the principles involved, how can you so arrogantly assume that such things would be easy? You’re doing the “grasping at straws” routine here, Bryan. ---
**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 19, 2004, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/104 "2004-10-19T07:49:12Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > For you to assume Geller has such an ability, you’d have to postulate some mechanism by which it operates, which involves having to make additional assumptions, which violates Occam’s Razor because an adequate alternate explanation that requires _no_ additional assumptions already exists (trickery) and has not been eliminated, despite testimonails from selected witnesses. Bull. If something happens, it happens. Occam’s razor is not a magic tool that makes things go away just cause you can’t explain them other than through your narrow world-view. Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/105 "2004-10-19T07:55:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Sure thing. > > 1. It never happened. > 2. It never happened. > Next? Oh, I see. Famous scientists and news reporters saying it _did_ happen means nothing when the great **Czarcasm** is in town. You make life so simple, sir! ---
**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 19, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/106 "2004-10-19T08:05:08Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > So, **cat,** you are saying that with a little skill and practice you can get my ring to bend in my hand without touching it? After all, I’m just an Anthropologist, and should be easier to fool than a rocket scientist. > > I accept your challenge! Heck, I’m willing to bet that if Cat was willing to go through the training and practice to develop the skills and the patter, he could bend someone’s ring and yet _convince_ them that he’d never actually touched it. You don’t seem eager to believe that Musicat has such powers, so you’d likely spot the trickery if he tried it on you. In Geller’s case, though, there are numerous people who _are_ eager to believe he has such power, so I’m sure they’re quite easy to fool. > [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Since you admit you do not know the principles involved, how can you so arrogantly assume that such things would be easy? > > You’re doing the “grasping at straws” routine here, Bryan. Geller _claims_ it’s easy. Heck, if he can bend a chrome-vanadium spanner (as he claims), why _can’t_ he mold steel? If the metal is soft enough in his touch to bend, why can’t he casually poke a finger-hole in a lump of steel? Why _doesn’t_ he do something a little more impressive and harder to fake than bending spoons? And I can only grasp what you offer me, so straws it is. > [@](#): > > Bull. If something happens, it happens. Occam’s razor is not a magic tool that makes things go away just cause you can’t explain them other than through your narrow world-view. You’re exactly right that Occam’s Razor is not a magic tool and exactly wrong that my world-view is narrow. Occam simply states that if several explanations are possible, the best choice is the simplest one. Hence, the best explanation for Geller’s feats is that he is using trickery. Strict testing could eliminate trickery as a possible explanation, but as far as I know Geller has never displayed his abilities while being subjected to such testing. Besides, “if something happens, it happens” is a weak standard. More accurately, if something happens and someone claims it is because of explanation _X_, it’s possible that in fact it’s due to explanation _Y_. A spoon gets bent. Was it trickery or telekinesis? Without careful observation, who knows? > [@](#): > > Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well? This qustion is sufficiently stupid to not require a response. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/107 "2004-10-19T08:25:35Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > If Geller’s power doesn’t require touching, then there should be no “apparantly” about it. It should always be absolutely clear, though observant witnesses (preferably familiar with slight-of-hand) and careful video recording that Geller (or any of his staff, as they may be accomplices) absolutely never touches or has a chance to touch the metallic object. That’s what the witnesses say. My “apparently” was in there because I’m getting the information 2nd-hand. “It appears that…” etc. Sorry for the confusion. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, assuming that Geller sometimes accomplished feats _without_ stage magic does not equal proof. Sure it does. He does it without stage magic, ergo he has psi powers. It’s pretty simple. > [@](#): > > Heck, I’ve read comic books. I’d _love_ the idea of using superpowers to alter metallic objects. I just don’t see any evidence such powers exist, and lots of evidence that fakery from a skilled magician is hard for a nonmagician to spot. Sure you see evidence: the evidence that I’m quoting to you in this thread. You may not accept it, but it’s there. > [@](#): > > You’re begging the question by assuming the spoon did, in fact, continue to bend. No, I’m not assuming, I’m taking credence in the accounts. Not 100% stake-my-life-on-it credence, but just I’ll believe what these people said until someone prooves that the accounts are fake or that cheating occurred. > [@](#): > > There are witnesses who _say_ it continued, but the power of suggestion is powerful and proven. And you assume _a priori_ that it must be suggestion, fakery–anything but what the actual witnesses say it was. > [@](#): > > The best test for this would be for Geller to put the spoon on the table and not say anything, letting the witnesses decide without prompting if the spoon is still bending or not. Be careful what you wish for. The spanner episode quoted in this thread seems to be just this type of event. > [@](#): > > What Geller did could be adequately explained by simple magic tricks. He is the one making the extraordinary claim that it is _not_ trickery, so if anyone is required to show evidence, it’s him. Man, your logic is mixed up. Geller _is_ providing evidence for his claims in the form of demonstrations. It is _your_ contention that what the witnesses saw can be explained by tickery and sleight of hand. That is a separate claim that itself requires proof. ---
**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 19, 2004, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/108 "2004-10-19T08:34:06Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Heck, if he can bend a chrome-vanadium spanner (as he claims), why _can’t_ he mold steel? If the metal is soft enough in his touch to bend, why can’t he casually poke a finger-hole in a lump of steel? Why _doesn’t_ he do something a little more impressive and harder to fake than bending spoons? If you don;'t know the principles by which it operates, how can you claim it’s easy? An atcetylene torch can make a chrome vanadium spanner soft enough to bend, but can’t poke a finger hole in a block of steel. You’re a phoney, using phoney assumptions. You don’t know what you are talking about and you’re not debating in good faith. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You’re exactly right that Occam’s Razor is not a magic tool and exactly wrong that my world-view is narrow. Occam simply states that if several explanations are possible, the best choice is the simplest one. But you’re saying it’s the ONLY one. There’s a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/109 "2004-10-19T08:37:46Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > And _again_, instead of addressing my specific points, you make some broad generalization about skeptics. I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing with these repeated statements on what you believe skeptics do. It’s certainly not proving your case. Interesting. I make one generalization (in an appropriate fashion), and you seem to think I am ignoring _all_ of your specific claims? I repeat: I think skeptics often invoke Occam’s Razor in an incorrect fashion. If this does not apply to you, please ignore. > [@](#): > > The stumbling block with that account is that Geller is admittedly blowing his own trumpet, and his account might not be accurate. I’d like to see the original article Geller is referencing. I’d _love_ to see video footage of the event itself. Does video footage exist of Geller doing something equally impressive? Yeah, there exists lots of footage from his lab experiments. I could not find the financial times article on line. > [@](#): > > Well, what’s stopping Geller from giving such a demonstration? And are you making _any_ kind of guess (even a wildly speculative one) as to how Geller would accomplish this feat, and why, if he can do such things, would he _ever_ have to resort to stage magic? Geller probably isn’t capable of giving such a demonstration. I don’t know if Geller ever uses stage magic or not. I’m saying simply that what he _has_ done over the years is enough to prove that he has psi powers and that therefore psi is real. > [@](#): > > There are some good theories about gravity, though, which is something lacking in Geller’s case. Regardless, a lack of an explanation for a phenomena does not mean that the phenomena itself does not exist. > [@](#): > > My stance has always been that an explanation exists, and it is more likely to be an explanation involving trickery than telekinesis. This is based on your view of how Reality itself works, not on a careful examination of the evidence itself. You are arguing _a priori_. > [@](#): > > Being a comic-book reader, as stated, I can imagine Geller is a mutant with the superhuman ability to reshape metal. I’d have to ask, though, why he seems to prefer trivial stunts like bending spoons and keys (which anybody with strong hands, psychic or not, can easily do) instead of something really cool, like taking a large block of cold steel and sculpting it into a recognizable statue with his bare hands (if metal becomes soft at his touch, this should be as easy for him as working wet clay), or bending an I-beam into a large circle. So long as he limits himself to actions any competent stage magician could fake (I’ll await an independent account of the spanner-bending incident), he’ll always be suspect. Be careful of what you wish for. Did you _read_ the spanner episode I quoted? Superhuman strength was required to bend the wrench. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/110 "2004-10-19T08:44:41Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > So, **cat,** you are saying that with a little skill and practice you can get my ring to bend in my hand without touching it? After all, I’m just an Anthropologist, and should be easier to fool than a rocket scientist. > > I accept your challenge! The irony is that, if in another thread I claimed it were possible to bend a ring supplied by the owner in the owner’s hand without touching simply by means of stage magic and no psi whatsoever, the same skeptics (or different skeptics) would jeer me for making the claim, even though they are willing to concede that such a trick is possible in this thread. This is quite a common and sophisticated way of attacking the opposing side, and I call it the “layered approach.” For example, if a medium seems to be doing well, Skeptic A will say it’s just telepathy _at best_, which would seem to halfway concede that at least psi is real, while Skeptic B at other times will deny any evidence exists for telepathy. Since it’s a different person each time, voila, no contradiction. This is done in politics, too. The Swift Boat Vets impugn Kerry’s war record outright lies, while those closer to Bush mildly praise Kerry for his “service.” Different attackers, no contradiction, and mission accomplished. ---
**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 19, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/111 "2004-10-19T08:47:41Z")
**Czarcasm and Ekers** are making valid questions and assertions go away by using subterfuge and trickery! (Weren’t they the gay guys that used to train lions and tigers?) Czarcasm uses ancient Egyptian magic known as The Nile (or is that denial?) Eckers uses the “magic razor of Occam” to pretend he knows the principles of actions he denies exist! (Rumors have it they are trying to unseat “The Amazing Randi” as boor of the Universe.) You two are pathetic! ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/112 "2004-10-19T08:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > **Snake** : We already know, within “currently accepted scientific knowledge” that the electrical impulses emitted by the firing of brain cells are detectable with currently utilized equipment outside of the structure of the skull! This is only like detecting that certain chips were active in a desktop computer. What program or information that activity represents, according to the current neuropsychological paradigm, **cannot** be transmitted. > [@](#): > > Now then, we merely have to postulate whether it is possible to decipher those electrical emanations, and frankly (thanks to Occam’s razor), the most likely ‘equipment’ to decipher those impulses would be… a human brain! No, human brains are not pigeon brains: they are not sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Ockham’s razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. If you believe that it says “always choose the simplest explanation”, you have fallen for a widespread fallacy ( **Bryan** , take note also). > [@](#): > > Some forces diminish with distance, but light does not. It disperses, or may be dispersed, but it does not diminish. Light is not a force, but its intensity most certainly _does_ diminish very rapidly with distance: like gravity and countless other phenomenon, it obeys an inverse square law. ESP would have to run directly counter to all of these instances. > [@](#): > > Quite the example there, meat. Hair dyed five different colors, short on one side, long on the other, a braid from nowhere…Glad the site included her picture, I might have actually bought it. Susan Blackmore is one of Britain’s leading authorities on the study of consciousness, and her entire career’s worth of experiments seeking _any_ parapsychological and paranormal phenomena are a model of rigour and soundness. Dismissing her based on what she does to her hair is grandstanding of the kind you have found so distasteful to date. > [@](#): > > The “clearly demonstrable” cuts out a lot of stuff that is currently caught in the term, and I think we have to ask: “What do we want to use this term for?” I would suggest “making genuine attempts to actually find any candidate ability or phenomenon _at all_, after centuries of looking, without wasting our oh-so-short lives chasing statistical shadows.” If these things, _any_ of them, exist, **why** are they so ridiculously hard to find that they do a **perfectly good impression of not being there at all**? If you now _understand_ the principle of Ockham’s Razor, you might use it to answer this question. ---
**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 19, 2004, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/113 "2004-10-19T08:51:38Z")
Oh, BTW, the moon landings were said by some skeptics to be fakeries, also. Are you in their camp as well? > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > This qustion is sufficiently stupid to not require a response. Nixon said something similar, too, when posed with a valid question. Then he said, “I am not a crook.” ---
**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 19, 2004, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/114 "2004-10-19T09:03:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This is only like detecting that certain chips were active in a desktop computer. What program or information that activity represents, according to the current neuropsychological paradigm, **cannot** be transmitted. Cite? > [@SentientMeat](#): > > No, human brains are not pigeon brains: they are not sensitive to electromagnetic fields. Ockham’s razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily. If you believe that it says “always choose the simplest explanation”, you have fallen for a widespread fallacy ( **Bryan** , take note also). How do you know this? Oh, by assumption… > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Light is not a force, but its intensity most certainly _does_ diminish very rapidly with distance: like gravity and countless other phenomenon, it obeys an inverse square law. ESP would have to run directly counter to all of these instances. Wrong again, it’s effect diminishes, but not its force. And what ESP are you proposing? What do you know about it, what instances are you referring to? How would it work? What principles are involved? > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Susan Blackmore is one of Britain’s leading authorities on the study of consciousness, and her entire career’s worth of experiments seeking _any_ parapsychological and paranormal phenomena are a model of rigour and soundness. Dismissing her based on what she does to her hair is grandstanding of the kind you have found so distasteful to date. When in Rome… whoop-te-doo! Aeschines and I have been called worse things than I said about her. All I said was if she’s your model of sane science, you better get another model! > [@SentientMeat](#): > > I would suggest “making genuine attempts to actually find any candidate ability or phenomenon _at all_, after centuries of looking, without wasting our oh-so-short lives chasing statistical shadows.” I’m not wasting your time, you are. You don’t like the program? Change the channel. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > If these things, _any_ of them, exist, **why** are they so ridiculously hard to find that they do a **perfectly good impression of not being there at all**? If you now _understand_ the principle of Ockham’s Razor, you might use it to answer this question. I haven’t found them ridiculously hard to find, none are so blind as those who \*\*\*will not \*\* \* see! ---
**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 19, 2004, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/115 "2004-10-19T09:07:30Z")
So, which one of you is gonna bend **my ring, in my hand** _without touching it_ by using trickery and subterfuge. If it’s as easy as you say, it should be easy to demonstrate! Or are you going to make some lame excuse? After which “Occam’s razor” tells me I should make the most likely assumption: that you don’t know what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/116 "2004-10-19T09:19:20Z")
**Snake** , I no longer believe that you are debating in good faith. That may be understandable given that you and **Aeschines** are rather being ganged up on here, but I must ask myself whether it is really worth engaging somebody who will not even accept that light is not a force. Cheerio. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/117 "2004-10-19T09:27:40Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Heck, I’m willing to bet that if Cat was willing to go through the training and practice to develop the skills and the patter, he could bend someone’s ring and yet _convince_ them that he’d never actually touched it. Dear me. Willing to believe anything that doesn’t specifically conflict with the ol’ worldview, eh Bryan? I’d _love_ to see the ring trick performed. > [@](#): > > You don’t seem eager to believe that Musicat has such powers, so you’d likely spot the trickery if he tried it on you. In Geller’s case, though, there are numerous people who _are_ eager to believe he has such power, so I’m sure they’re quite easy to fool. I repeat: if something looks like stage magic to people, they will label it as such whether it’s done by “paranormal” means or not. If he really is just doing plain ol’ been-around-since 1255 stage magic, then I’m curious to know why his career has gone so well for so long. Either he has powers or he’s pulling _some_ tricks that are truly amazing. You pretty much have to pick one or the other. > [@](#): > > Geller _claims_ it’s easy. Cite? > [@](#): > > Heck, if he can bend a chrome-vanadium spanner (as he claims), why _can’t_ he mold steel? If the metal is soft enough in his touch to bend, why can’t he casually poke a finger-hole in a lump of steel? Why _doesn’t_ he do something a little more impressive and harder to fake than bending spoons? He did. He bent a spanner, which feat was later proven to require super-human strength. > [@](#): > > You’re exactly right that Occam’s Razor is not a magic tool and exactly wrong that my world-view is narrow. Cite for where I called you “narrow-minded”? You want to know the truth? Unlike skeptics, who seem to think that “believers” are worthy of contempt, I _do not_ think self-labeling skeptics are worthy of contempt. In fact, they are usually quite intelligent, well-read people who think for themselves and don’t take a lot of BS. I also think that people who self-label as skeptics are required to hold a fairly comprehensive set of views, i.e. worldview, due to social pressure, and this leads to a dogmatic approach when it comes to what they consider “paranormal.” I was an atheist myself at one point and understand where you’re coming from. In fact, I am apt to give, in my mind, self-labeling skeptics an extra pat of admiration butter as a default. So if you think I think you’re something negative, incorrect! If you think I think you’re off the mark on this topic… correct! > [@](#): > > Occam simply states that if several explanations are possible, the best choice is the simplest one. Hence, the best explanation for Geller’s feats is that he is using trickery. Except when trickery is a poor explanation, at which point you have to go to a more advanced explanation. > [@](#): > > Strict testing could eliminate trickery as a possible explanation, but as far as I know Geller has never displayed his abilities while being subjected to such testing. That’s a matter of opinion. > [@](#): > > Besides, “if something happens, it happens” is a weak standard. More accurately, if something happens and someone claims it is because of explanation _X_, it’s possible that in fact it’s due to explanation _Y_. A spoon gets bent. Was it trickery or telekinesis? Without careful observation, who knows? What I mean by the phrase “If something happens, it happens,” is that you have to deal with it if it’s there, even if it doesn’t fit your worldview. If Geller has done just _one_ thing that we cannot deny happened, then our scientific worldview _must_ take it into consideration. It’s not as though you can say, “You must do that in a lab 100 times with James Z. Randi standing by and the cameras rolling before we accept that it really happened.” If it happened and it’s documented with sufficient rigor, then it happened. Drawing that line is not easy. If you go too far, you get the Moon Hoax people. They view themselves as skeptics, rational doubters, but they have a strange worldview in which witnesses, video tape, and a bunch of physical evidence mean nothing. I’m sure we can agree that these people are seriously mixed. But if you would like to know the kind of frustration I feel toward skeptics on the topic of the “paranormal,” consider your own frustration as regards the Moon Hoaxers. No matter what evidence is presented: lab experiments, credible witnesses, etc., it’s deny–deny–deny. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/118 "2004-10-19T09:50:54Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **Snake** , I no longer believe that you are debating in good faith. He is, I assure you. > [@](#): > > That may be understandable given that you and **Aeschines** are rather being ganged up on here… What? I thought we two were ganging up on _you guys_. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\*ut I must ask myself whether it is really worth engaging somebody who will not even accept that light is not a force. Light ain’t a force, OK, Snake? (Sentient admits defeat? Unheard of!) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/119 "2004-10-19T09:53:53Z")
Actually, **Snake** asked for citations and so I guess I should provide them, at least, before taking my leave: [Transmission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunication) requires [coding](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_coding). [PET scans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_Emission_Tomography) detect emitted positrons associated with brain activity, one of many different methods of [brain imaging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_imaging). This activity is no more a “transmission of information” than the radiation from an oven or a light bulb. Neuroscience thus says that telepathy _cannot_ happen, that perception via routes other than the well-known senses runs _counter to_ the current neuroscientific paradigm. In any case, [homing pigeons are EM sensitive, humans are not](http://digilander.libero.it/bioem/EBC.html). [_Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor): William of Ockham. [When in Rome…](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque) ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/120 "2004-10-19T09:56:57Z")
**SentientMeat** , know that I am always an admirer. Your set of cites, though not good as an argument, was good art. If adieu it must be, then ciao. Ever your humble servant, –Aeschines [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=7)