[quote]
I think the assertion here is a pretty good one
[quote]
Which of the contradictory assertions are you agreeing with?
That meteorites were paranormal 200 years ago, since they broke the laws of science known at the time?
Or that meteorites *weren’t * paranormal 200 years ago, since they are explained by laws of physics known today?
I have only a short time to contribute to this discussion today, so I will pick out just a few small items from your posts.
OK. We are talking about the treatment or prevention, not the cause. Fair enough.
IANAD, but I have a friend who contracted polio long ago. I doubt that rubbing his legs with damp wool will make him walk again. Please give a cite for your claim that rubbing a limb with damp wool will cure or prevent polio.
If the definition of paranormal is “anything unknown or different from common knowledge,” you’re right, and that def is quite broad. If the def only includes “what contradicts common knowledge, often invoking unknown or unlikely forces,” the ulcer claim is not paranormal. A bacterial cause of ulcers, while thought unlikely at one time, did not require the postulation of unknown, supernatural or paranormal forces. It just required some careful testing.
I could postulate that cataracts are caused by too much green light and not enough broccoli. I might be ridiculed at first, but thru careful testing, I could theoretically be proved right. I would not call this a paranormal claim at any stage.
I could postulate that cataracts are caused by C-rays that cannot be detected and are controlled by the thoughts of your monster-in-law, and this would be a paranormal claim. If I am eventually proved right, it would still be a paranormal claim, and the paranormal will have been proven. So far, I am not aware of any such claim that has been proven beyond a doubt.
RE: meteorites
I guess if, 200 years ago, the claim was made that the rocks that fell from the sky were put there by supernatural forces, it would be a paranormal claim. If some scientists were saying, “Hmmm…could there be some space fragments that sometimes fall to earth?” then it would not be. I don’t know enough about such history to make this determination.
Remember, we are still working on a definition here – what you have been calling “word games.”
Lets be clear on this. I never said it would “cure or prevent polio.” What it doesw is relieve the SYMPTOMS of polio. It can “re-educate” the muscles and restore mobility to a paralysed limb.
cite: Swaim-A Dogma Upended
But that’s not the definition.
try this: “Something is paranormal if it seems impossible according to the laws of science as they are currently known.”
Maybe YOU wouldn’t call YOURSELF paranormal, if you really believed your theory and were trying to show it to the World. But other people, who reject your theory, would call you a quack, a crank and a woo-woo.
Look, you don’t think that’s paranormal? Randi might disagree with you. If you tried to sell your cure for cataracts, you’s no doubt get a little note from him inviting you to apply for the million dollar prize. Just have a look in his archived commentries for magnetic shoes sold as a medical treatment. Perhaps you would explain what makes them paranormal, and your cataract cure NOT paranormal.
Also, if magnetic shoes were proven effective in double blind mediccal trials, and became accepted as legitimate medicine, would you still call them “paranormal?”
I don’t understand the distinction. If you were proved right, the known laws of physics will be re-written. But that happens all the time.
What makes THIS re-writing of the laws of physics “paranormal” and other re-writings of the laws of physics “normal?”
Nothing paranormal about crop circles, if real flesh-and-blood (or whatever they use) aliens were making them.
Here’s a good definition: “Paranormal” is using a feather. “Abnormal” is using the whole chicken. 
Well, because the laws of physics do not react to doubt (someone may doubt the existence of Newton’s Third Law, but that won’t protect them from beng hit by a train), doubt should not have a place in defining what is paranormal, i.e. in violation of the laws of physics. Consider someone giving a demonstration of a heavy object floating in midair:
Audience: WOW! That must be the work of something paranormal!
Exhibitor: No, it’s just an application of superconductivity combined with magnetism.
Does the fact that the audience was unfamiliar with the relevant laws of physics justify the “paranormal” label? Suppose the Exhibitor never explained the actual science involved, letting each audience member continue to believe they’d witnessed a paranormal event. Does that unshattered belief make the event paranormal? Suppose some time later, an audience member describes the event to a nonwitness, who doubts the veracity of the account. Does that doubt make the event paranormal? Exactly when does the paranormal label attach, anyway?
Now suppose the Exhibitor isn’t a flesh-and-blood person, but just the randomness of the universe, which one day gives a spectacular display to a bunch of witnesses, with the same (unexplained) results. Does it only become “paranormal” as soon as someone who didn’t see it, doubts it? By that logic, anything that was ever doubted by anyone could qualify as paranormal. Your definition seems restricted to scientists, though, so is something only paranormal if it is doubted by someone with a university degree in a scientific discipline?
Actually, that sounds bang-on to me (and nearly identical to the definition I offered earlier in the thread) except you’re putting too much weight on “currently known” to justify too broad a use of the word, in places where “unexplained” would do nicely. Heck, Columbus had no knowledge of the Americas when he set sail for Asia. That doesn’t make the Americas paranormal by European standards. Even when Columbus returned, describing all the wierd things he’d seen, some scientists of the day might have thought such things impossible. That doesn’t make the Americas paranormal, either.
Incidentally, do reputable scientists ever actually use the word “paranormal”? Seems to me if they saw something the violated known laws of physics, the first thing to do would be to check their instruments, then test again, then make a note of the event (if it recurs) and continue analysis, on the assumption that every effect has a cause, even if the cause is currently unclear or generally assumed to not exist.
Actually, it doesn’t, in the sense that the laws are completely trashed and redrawn. There has been gradual refinement, but major paradigm shifts do not occur “all the time”. That attitude is used to justify all kinds of nonsense, by claiming that scientists never get things straight.
How embarassing. I meant the first law, natch.
Incidentally:
The movie only cited the first law, and on reflection I find it rather amusing that a first law of metaphysics essentially trashes metaphysics. I bet the second law is: “Weren’t you listening?! It’s all CRAP!”
Nonsense! ESP can exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws.
ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics. So why don’t we all have ESP? All our other senses vary in ability from one person to another, and who knows what is involved in sensing those electrical patterns? (if that’s what they are) And do we have the necessary ability to decode them?
Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence, but he scored no hits when isolated by a faraday cage.
Just checking in here to give you some validation. I get the same feeling from the so-called “sceptics” here: arrogance. "We already know it all, and anything else just doesn’t fit. Perhaps not only “paranormal” but “sceptic” should always be put in quotes.
Precise communication has always been a troublesome issue on this board. Terms like “believer,” “true believer,” “sceptic, skeptic and skeptik” all should have precise meanings if we are to communicate in a meaningful manner. Instead they are mis-applied, used as pejoratives, or even titles!
I don’t consider myself a “believer,” I consider myself an explorer. Some of those who call themselves “skeptics” do not fit the dictionary-definition.
Change makes people very insecure. History always shows strong resistance to new ideas or to different ideas, things that don’t fit into a comfort zone. Insecurity breeds fear, which breeds belligerance. We have seen it throughout history, and history is repeating itself on this board.
Unfortunately there are also real sceptics on this board, who do fit the dictionary definition of “suspending judgement” rather than “rejecting unproven ideas” that the self-named “skeptics” here exhibit.
Actually, it is fortunate we have real sceptics here. I have an immense amount of respect for them; it’s just unfortunate they get lumped in with the “pseudo-skeptics” when the term is brought up.
Wish we could call a spade a spade.
I disagree. There may be a structure in the brain that can transmit and receive signals like a radio. But science as it stands at the moment does not know of any such structure. Therefore the suggestion lies outside what is currently known.
The phrase “laws of physics” is too restrictive, anyway. Maybe “currently accepted scientific knowledge” would be better.
To the contrary, labeling something “paranormal” is not about the thing itself but how we feel about the thing. It is about our psychology, not physics.
Peter’s definition rocks.
Nah. If you’re going to hold Lavoisier up as an example of the failings of science, it’s important to note that while he may have said meterorites were a violation of the laws of physics, it’s pretty obvious that he didn’t know the heck he was talking about.
Snake: I asked earlier in another thread what a “pseudo-skeptic” was; now I’m going to have to ask what the difference is between a “sceptic” and a “skeptic”.
I can say quite calmly that this is a serious load of paranoid bullshit. If a phenomena is observed and someone proposes a surprising explanation, it could easily be rejected becuase existing proven explanations are adequate. If, for example, a psychic gives a detailed reading of a visitor, you could propose it is due to telepathic or spiritual abilities (which are unproven) while a more mundane (and well-established) cause involves cold reading. To eliminate cold reading as a possible explanation, stringent controls need to be put in place and the “reading” repeated with a new subject.
There. I explained the flaw without feeling resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance, though I’ll admit to eye-rolling contempt.
Well, in that case, the word “paranormal” has no place in a thread titled “Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?” which suggests a search for objective evidence “about the thing”. You can’t have it both ways, where “paranormal” applies to science when science is wrong, and to psychology when science is right.
That would be true of ANY validated paranormal claim. Sceptics may currently say that dowsing violates the known laws of physics. What if dowsing were later proved true, and a new law of physics described to explain it. Then you could say that the doubters didn’t know what the heck they were talking about, and that it doesn’t violate the laws of physics. It would be the same thing.
Okay, when dowsing is validated, I’ll take that as evidence that people who currently discount dowsing don’t know what the heck they were taking about. Not before.
Yeah, made-up terminology about other people sometimes has that effect. A check of fifteen online dictionaries shows all of them listing “sceptic” and “skeptic” merely as variant spellings of the same concept, with no indication of relative degree (i.e. I’d like a reputable cite for your definition, preferebly not one coming from a person firmly enmeshed in study of the paranormal). Rather than try to seperate “good” sceptics from “bad” skeptics (and apparantly “really bad” pseudo-skeptics), why not just used the existing terms skeptic/sceptic (good), cynic (bad) and naysayer (really bad)?
Or would that be too confusing?
I’d like that, but I just see too many pseudo-skeptics saying they are sceptics but in actuality they are cynics and “naysayers.”
Gee, we can really have fun with spelling:
sceptics = suspend judgement on the unproven.
skeptics = think they’re sceptics but tend toward cynicism.
skeptiks = deluded cynics who want to be sceptics but can’t, cause they reject it all
pseudo-skeptics = pretend to be sceptics, but function as cynics.
sckepticks = not only bad, but EVIL!
This is truly a two-edged sword:
believers = those who believe that the paranormal is worth investigating.
true believers = fuck investigation, it’s all true!
beeleievers = the sckepticks are out to get us!
beeleavers = if I believe than you must believe as well! Or… (insert current retribution)
and
paranormal = things that occur that seem to fall outside the current definitions of science.
paraknowrmal = things we are sure are true even though we have no evidence and which others reject.
parrotnormal = I know it’s real cause I heard it from a true believer! Awk!
and so on…
Maybe we need an Official SDMB List Of Acceptable Definitions (LOAD) for Hot Topics Often Vehemently Argued Beyond Acceptable Standards of Reason.
HOT LOAD for short…
All we need is an unbiased moderator/administrator and an unbiased doper to work together to create it. 
Sssssss
Uh, call me a sceptic/skeptic/pseudo-skeptic/cynic/naysayer if you must, but let’s not have fun with spelling, okay? Creative labeling is a superficial tactic and does absolutely nothing to help your claims, which remain unproven.
Four down, one to go.
Well, it’s unclear to me what your statement means, but I don’t think rejecting a complex unproven explanation when adequate simple proven explanations exist qualifies as resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. The “flaw” is in how you claim to perceive reaction to paranormal ideas. It is not true that a negative reaction proves the existence of resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. You claim that it does is what causes me to roll my eyes and hold your misuse of logic (as well as a self-serving martyr complex i.e. “I’m being victimized, therefore there is some truth in what I am saying”) in contempt. I don’t recognize that you are being victimized. Rather, I recognize that if you attempt to advance pseudoscience among people who recognize it as such, you risk ridicule, and deservedly so.
Dude, this was hilarious! “Parrotnormal”–a riot!