What is "paranormal"?

Great Debates
241

Well, I tried to point out a few specific points where I think we disagree. I honestly think you are applying some important principles in an incorrect manner here, and, as I said earlier, it would appear to be because you may be actively seeking to confirm the paranormal, to give it as much of a chance to be true as possible. This is a strongly subjective position to take when arguing the merits of science and scepticism in the paranormal. It’s also why I earlier brought up the point that you seem to be engaged as much in provisional credulity as in a provisional approach.

I pointed out two major pitfalls of pseudoscience, and showed how you seem to be falling into them.

The first is the introduction of ad hoc and/or non-falsifiable hypotheses after yet another paranormal claim fails a properly controlled test – “bad vibes”, or the doubt argument.

The second is the avoidance of close examination of the issues involved, in this case the readiness to accept the possibility of the application of a huge force, and referring vaguely to forces and energies and the ways in which they could be applied (unfounded assumptions). This is not a sceptical approach.

Here is the more recent problem: you are assuming that just because the mental state of a person (level of confidence, composure, etc.) may affect his or her performance, that this argument extends to sceptical testing of this person’s wholly unsubstantiated abilities. First, I would again highlight the objections raised by other posters (in the Pit thread you opened, Lib correctly points out the nature of this fallacy).

Secondly, there are far too many unknowns being introduced here: not only are we assuming that psi must have some validity, but we are also assuming the bad vibes argument. After you introduce a sceptical magician (overtly or covertly, as we have seen) to the experiment and the support for the paranormal claim fails to appear (instead, trickery is exposed) then the paranormalist complains that the sceptic must somehow be influencing the results. Yet if the sceptical magician isn’t there, the paranormalist simply resorts to his usual bag of tricks to fool the scientists.

So the paranormal claim is rendered unfalsifiable: the paranormalist is saying “I will demonstrate my claim only under my conditions and controls”, and the experiment becomes a farce.

If I could exert one newton of force for every time I have heard this claim asserted with ill-deserved confidence…

242

  1. If by ‘psi’ you mean ‘magical powers,’ no.

  2. If by ‘psi’ you mean an extension of common human abilities through discipline as is the case with martial arts abilities, yes.

  3. If by ‘psi’ you mean things that escape current scientific explanation, yes.

Under the ‘yes’ definitions above there is nothing I would believe “it can do,” it is instead, what we do about it.

For example, under definition # 2:
I learned how to control my brainwave frequencies and remain conscious in two brainwave frequencies which are normally only seen while asleep. Alpha and Theta. This has been demonstrated in the biofeedback lab in the department of psychology of the University of Connecticut.

By using these slower frequencies I am able to take some control over autonomic functions. The most dramatic thing I am able to do is to control pain. I have had several dental root canal operations, all without anesthesia of any kind and with no perception of pain.

There’s lots of other things, but that’s the one I have gotten the strongest reaction to by observers; hope that’s adequate. If you want a list I can provide it, but the others are less spectacular. (Waking on time w/o an alarm clock, etc.)

I don’t know all what other kinds of things we can learn to do, but I’m sure it’s lots.

Under definition # 3:
We should always try to find explanations for those things we currently are unable to explain. Otherwise, what’s the point?

SnakeS

243

I don’t know if this will change your answer or not, but by “psi” I mean whatever *you * meant when you said that magicians can do things that psi cannot, as far as we know.

244

Sorry Abe, that’s not my argument, it’s a negative assumption brought up by Bryan. (that the psychologically demonstrated effect known as ‘suggestion’ cannot have any affect on performance in PSI). I merely pointed out it’s not logical to propose such a negative assumption.

I’m not sure I understand what you are refering to; can you be specific?

Not sure where you’re getting this. I try to avoid assuming anything. Also, I can interpret your statement two ways. How does this extend to skeptical testing?

In those instances, trickery is exposed and the research has done its job well. And those people are not paranomalists, they are magicians, frauds.

In the case where a person *genuinely believes * that they have an extraordinary ability, the burden of proof is on them to operate it within acceptable experimental parameters.

I think people are reading a lot more into what I’m saying than what I’m really saying. Perhaps this is due to my not expressing myself clearly enough, but here’s another thought:
I have perceived a built-in bias to “SnakeSpirit.” Posters are expecting me to be a certain way due to allegations that are being made about me. It’s 'suggestion" operating on perception: SnakeSpirit believes in certain things they don’t, and when they read my words they interpret what I’m saying as being representitive of these strawmen.

For the record:
I do not ‘believe’ in magical-type PSI. I think the “paranormal” is a misnomer. I don’t believe in psychokinesis, telepathy, astrology, tarot cards, angels, devils, … what other things can we throw in there? But posters evidently believe that I believe in such stuff, and it affects the way they read what I post. It’s a perceptual illusion; they see what they expect.

I do believe that there are things which escape current scientific explanation, but I feel confident that science will explain them, and this is my leaning, my goal, though I am not currently actively involved in research.

I have had several encounters in my life with things that I couldn’t explain. I discussing these things I have used terminology people would understand. One example is “ghosts.” I don’t believe in “ghosts” according to the current definition, but I used the term to give people the idea of the experience. I’ve posted the experience in one of the “ghost” threads, and stressed that what I believe is my experience, and that whatever caused the experience is still in the “unknown” category.

Funny, someone asked in one of the pit threads why I didn’t pit you. I think it’s obvious: you debate fairly, ask reasonable questions and avoid assumptions. I think that any differences we have may be in two things:

  1. A “lack of understanding” of what the other is saying, which I think we can resolve, and
  2. The fact that I am unwilling to dismiss claims based on any similarity to claims which have been shown false. (One fraud does not mean that everyone is a fraud. Just because something can be faked doesn’t mean it is being faked in all instances.)

For example:
I don’t believe in psychokinesis. I’ve never see it, never done it, and I’m unaware of any experiments that have shown it to exist. However, I allow that it may be possible, so I won’t reject any claims which can be proven.

I know a lot of people on this board take a different stance: they take the position that if a thing has not yet been proven to exist, then it does not exist. I won’t make that assumptive jump, now or ever.

I’ve been accused of believing in aliens. I don’t. But I believe this universe is big enough that some day I will believe in them, if they show up.

I’m getting tired of typing. I hope we can come to an understanding, though. You seem like a reasonable person.

245

Definition # 2. Extension of normal human abilities.

Example:
My Kung-Fu instructor was capable of the following.

Four 200 # blocks of ice are stacked on top of one another, with small spacers, bringing the top about to shoulder height.
With the palm of his hand, by pushing, and using body english, he is able to break all four blocks. With scored ice it typically breaks each piece in half, and sometimes they even remain standing. With unscored ice, the blocks shatter randomly.
A strong man was once offered the opportunity to duplicate the feat with a sledgehammer. He broke the top block only.
My instructor said it was his “Chi” which broke the ice in such a manner. Some may say that “Chi” is some magical energy; I think that “Chi” is a normal human function of extended abilities. The way he moves, the muscles he uses, the direction of the application of force, based on his years of training, permits him to do something a strong man with a sledgehammer cannot.
No magic, no supernatural (unless by 'super"natural you mean "exceeding normal).

I’m sure a magician using tricks could do even better!

Funny, my dentists have routinely thought I had some “special power” that allowed me to eliminate pain. No special power, just a trained skill.

246

SnakeSpirit, I could go on, but these quotes are enough. The quotes illustrate that you accept the essential reality of ESP, remote viewing, psychometric detection, astral projection, and psi - you’re only unsure of how they operate:

It’s apparent that you believe in many, many things whose reality has never been demonstrated. On the other hand, you don’t believe in a bunch of other things that haven’t been demonstrated, either - aliens, psychokinesis, etc. Some things seem to fall into both categories - telepathy, no, but ESP, yes (what’s the difference?) - magical psi, no, but psi, yes (ditto). Why you have decided to put some unproven things into one category (they’re real, but we don’t know how they operate), some into another category (they’re not real), and still others into both categories, remains a mystery, since there’s no evidence that any of these phenomena even occur.

If your position is misunderstood, it seems to me that you have only yourself to blame.

247

I can tell the difference between believing in the possibility of something that is unproven and believing in the essential reality of that thing. I guess you’re not there yet. There’s still time, if you learn how to read carefully.

Like I said. Some people know how to read carefully, others read what they expect to see, others skim.

Those who matter understand my position. If one is not rigerous, they don’t matter much to me. It’s not my job to teach them.

248

Actually, I’m pretty sure I never said suggestion shouldn’t have a negative effect on PSI. I thought I’d repeatedly stressed that doubt shouldn’t have an effect on PSI, i.e. the mere presence of a doubter. I know suggestion can have an effect on performance of proven abilities like athleticism and concentration, but haven’t you said several times that we have no way of knowing to what degree (if any) PSI abilities (if any) correlate to other human abilities? You’ve already dismissed a connection to physical strength (i.e. the fact that a psychic can bend a spoon shouldn’t prove he should be able to bend an I-beam); I just don’t see how you can justify a connection to skills requiring concentration. During Geller’s performances, he talks nearly constantly. There’s no indication he has to concentrate particularly hard at all to bend a spoon. If there was a doubter in the room and if doubt has a negative effect on PSI and if Geller has the ability to bend impressive items like chrome-vanadium spanners, then surely if Geller really concentrated hard (if PSI is affected by concentration, which we known could but is not always affected by suggestion), he should be able to over-ride the negative effect and bend a spoon using PSI.

Of course, there are so many qualifiers in that statement that it’s essentially meaningless. I’d like to offer a clarification, though, on the difference (for the purpose of this discussion) between “doubt” and “suggestion”. “Doubt” is sitting there quietly, dubious about what is being shown to you. “Suggestion” is saying things or making gestures that may affect the performer’s concentration. Sure, if Randi was following a dowser around the test field blowing an air horn and saying things like “Water, huh? You know that’s real easy to find in these parts. Heck, some guy once tried to bet me a million bucks he could find a dry hole, heh-heh-heh.” it would be fair to say the dowser’s concentration (though not necessarily his PSI abilities) would be affected. If Randi, however, stands fifty feet away and says nothing but is thinking “this guy’s a fake”, can you explain how the dowser’s concentration or his PSI abilities would be affected?

Heck, if PSI is real, one would expect a psychic of sufficient power would have stepped forward by now and said “I have special abilities, and I don’t care how many doubters and skeptics are in the room with me. I’ll show them!” As long as psychics use a conveniently untestable claim (“Doubt is disrupting my abilities”) to explain away their failures, I don’t see how their abilities could ever be proven.

249

Just an interjection and a point…
It seems many of the arguments opposing the paranormal here are predicated on James Randi’s tests as “proof” which I would argue is no proof at all and invalidates your arguments and positions.
The Amazing Randi has no more credibility in scientifically disproving (or proving) the paranormal than the paranormalists he tests have in demonstrating paranormal powers or effects. He is not a scientist and only consults scientists occasionally. I would argue his standards are not rigorous nor apply apparatus nor detection equipment a true and accurate experimentation might involve. I invoke general hypocrisy and lack of skepticism where it might be applied most effectively… against yourselves. Why do you self proclaimed skeptics consistently fail to apply your own standards and cite Randi’s “experiments” as proof that the paranormal has been disproven?
I personally believe that the paranormal is too crucial and far ranging of a term to be limited to the stereotypes that skeptics would perpetuate in the form of hardline woo-woo and Randi’s pandering (livelyhood). In the spirit of fighting ignorance, I suggest that if you would like to experience true progress and scientific reasoning in the field of the paranormal (and I use this term as it applies to my own earlier definition) that you at least consider the innovations in thought and science of physicist F. David Peat.
Of particular interest to me is the paranormal phenomenon of Synchronicity and his views and theories on the subject.

250

And just a counterinjection and a counterpoint…

Why does Randi have to be a scientist in order to make his work valid? As far as I know, the scientific method isn’t copyrighted or anything.

Because that’s not what we do? Randi’s tests may establish that a particular psychic is a fraud, but they make no statement on the impossibility of PSI abilities. The repeated failures do make one jaded, I’ll admit, to the point where our first instinct when meeting a claimed psychic is to hide our wallets. In any case, the promise of a cool million should certainly provide enough incentive for a psychic to negotiate test conditions with Randi, then try to meet those conditions.

As for F. David Peat, he lost me when he lamented: “It is unfortunate that our leading physicists of today are less open minded!”

251

Hah! Well, that’s ironic and loosely synchronistic or perhaps intentional on your part (But only you would know truthfully whether you have just had a paranormal experience as they are sometimes characterized by subjectivity.), as your instant dismissal and close mindedness is exactly his point!

In context:

[QUOTE=F. David Peat]
The idea of synchronicity evolved after a long period of gestation, a time in which Jung appears to have been concerned not only with structure and dynamics of the unconscious but also with the nature of time and causality. Indeed, for a psychologist, Jung had many contacts with the leading physicists of the day, not only the well publicized collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli but also discussions and exchanges with Einstein, Heisenberg, Pascual Jordan and Markus Fierz. (It is unfortunate that our leading physicists of today are less open minded!)

[QUOTE]

252

Expressed or implied doubt is widely recognized as a form of suggestion.

If PSI is real it will manifest the way it will manifest, and probably not adhere to your faily-tale expectations, since it hasn’t so far.

You’re post is so hypocritical! If you don’t believe in PSI, how can you assume how it will manifest? (Not that that stops you!) But we’ve been through that before, and your response is obscurantism and running away.

And you have already demonstrated that you see only what you want to see and dismiss or ridicule anything that doesn’t adhere to your narrow world-view.

If PSI is real, it will show up how it shows up, and believe me, it will not be asking for permission of “The Amazing Randi” or Bryan Ekers to do so.

You act like an educated person, but you make too many leaps of logic and too many assumptions (“If PSI was real, it would do thus and such…”) that a truly educated person would avoid.

Are you just a poser?

253

Guess the shoe fit! At least in the second category.

254

It’s a lifetime of conditioning, I’m afraid. When I hear someone demand that scientists be more “open minded”, I get suspicious immediately, as pleas for open-mindedness when it comes to PSI are, upon examination, actually requests for a lower standard of evidence. If PSI could generate a measurable, repeatable effect, you wouldn’t need to tell phsycists to be open-minded; they’d already be analyzing the heck out of it and trying to replicate it on their own.

Of Peat’s four examples of “synchronicity”, three involve dreams and one is about a cartoonish slapstick coincidence. If that’s the best he can offer, then I find him unconvincing, Jung-invoking notwithstanding.

255

Define “implied”, please. Is the mere presense of Randi even if he says nothing enough “implied” doubt to throw a psychic off his game?

As far as I know, PSI hasn’t manifested, period, so all bets are off.

I hate running (I have bad ankles), and my “bad faith” accusation stands because you’re still dismissing my earlier explanatory posts without addressing a single point contained within them. I simply believe that you will keep calling me evasive because you have no other response, nor an interest in forming one.

I’m not demanding PSI ask permission. I want PSI to manifest. I’d love to see PSI manifest. I just don’t like con-artists.

Well, a TRULY educated person might’ve given up trying to respond to you by now, but fortunately, I’m dogged. My stance isn’t quite “If PSI was real, it would do thus and such…”, but rather “If PSI could do what proponents claim, it should be also able to do thus and such…”

flexes my rippling muscles, then sighs at less-than-impressive image in mirror

Nope.

256

Then what you say can’t be trusted?

What a surprise. It’s what I’ve been pointing out for the last several pages.

So then, on to your new improved position…

which proponents? All of them? One of them? A select few?

Who does the selecting?

Since you keep avoiding questions, and now changing parameters, your posts seem to indicate that you evidently don’t want to look bad. You can’t seem to admit to mistake, even to yourself (or maybe you do realize it, but are afraid to let anyone else know.

A poser changes what e does in order to look good, to fit in. They have no internal integrity, they simply seek acceptance of their current peer group.

257

If you don’t want to trust what I say, that’s your right.

And if you don’t want to adress what I’ve said, that’s your right, too.

You can’t even say for sure that what I’ve said is is a mistake, becuase we’re debating aspects of something not known for certain to exist. We may as well be debating the finer points of law on the planet Nemulon Four. I can just re-iterate what I’ve already said, and it’s up to you to accept it or not:

Claiming that spectator doubt ruins PSI performance is a convenient excuse to cover fakery. The mechanism by which spectator doubt might ruin real PSI performance (if such a thing exists) is unclear. Even in the presence of doubt, people manage to perform remarkable non-PSI tasks. I can see no reason why a sufficiently focussed psychic, if his powers are real, should not be able to perform in the presense of watchful spectators who are seeking fraud. If the psychic knows there is no fraud, how could the mere presence of doubt be so shattering to the confidence that PSI abilties completely fade?

By that definition I am like unto the Pet Rock and quite non-posable.

258

And also, often, in the presence of doubt people fail to perform even unremarkable non-psi tasks which they have successfully performed before.

That’s because none are so blind as those who will not see.
You only see what you want to see.

That is so stupid as to not deserve an answer.

259

I’m tempted to start singing “Bad faith, bad faith, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?”

In any case, I’ll try to resist the urge to repeat it again. Even though it’s correct, the repetition alone might make me start to sound like… well… you.

And also, often, in the presence of doubt people succeed in performing unremarkable tasks which they have successfully performed before. Geller has bent so many spoons that he’s had about five thousand of them welded onto a 1976 Cadillac. Doesn’t this suggest that for Geller, spoon-bending is pretty damn unremarkable? So why can’t he do this oft-performed stunt in the presense of Randi, or even the relatively affable Johnny Carson?

Well, the correct answer is that the psychic should suffer no loss of confidence at all, if he believes his abilities are real. Heck, if someone tells me I can’t do something, or just sits there implying I can’t do something, and I know in fact I can do something, I not only do it, I make a point of doing it extra-casually and nonchalantly. “Doubt me, will you? HAHAHAHA-haaaaaaaa…! LOO-zer!”

260

You still haven’t even tried, despite repeated requests, to explain how you go about deciding which unproven things you’re willing to consider possible, and which you’re not. It’s quite obvious from your posts that there are some things you believe in, and some you don’t. Since there’s no empirical evidence for any of them, you must be categorizing them in some other way. How do you make the distinction between psi and the Tooth Fairy? Why is one any more or less believable than the other? Why don’t you dedicate yourself to an examination of what’s making children’s teeth disappear from under their pillows? Sure, we know that their parents are usually doing it, but isn’t it possible that it’s the Tooth Fairy who’s responsible for at least a few of the cases? Are you going to do some research into this? Why not?

This is where the SnakeSpirits and Aeschines of the world puzzle me. Sure, it’s possible that psi exists. It’s possible that people have been abducted by aliens. But it’s equally possible that there are aliens from Venus living in my middle desk drawer. There’s no evidence for any of them. This puts all of these things into the same category - too improbable to warrant more than the briefest consideration.

Yet the “believers” avidly pursue one or two of these wildly improbable things, but ignore the others. How do they decide which phantom to chase?

If you’re “open to every possibility,” how do you get out of bed in the morning? After all, the bedroom floor might have been replaced overnight by a bottomless pit of molten lava. Is this possible? No? How narrow-minded of you to dismiss this possibility out of hand! You need to be more “skeptical” (using SnakeSpirit’s own, rather odd, definition of the word). Better make sure before putting your feet down. Is it possible that, even though you’re seeing the floor, and not molten lava, that it really is molten lava, but you’re being prevented from seeing it by some unknown force? Now what do you do?

Uncritical acceptance of all possibilities, no matter how improbable, is intellectually crippling - if carried to its logical conclusion, it’s physically crippling, as well.