Definition of paranormal?

[Humanoid]

Hi,

I was just wondering how the JREF distinguishes between claims that are paranormal and, uh, not paranormal.

By my understanding, the term paranormal is used to describe situations which fall outside the realm of our understanding of physics. Another popular definition is "metaphysics".

So if someone came along saying "I can demonstrate a perpetual motion machine", would this be considered paranormal as current physical understandings say that such things are impossible? How about if someone claimed they had an experiment which proved that the speed of light in a vacuum was not necessarily constant?

Or is the challenge specifically for people who claim to have clairvoyant, telekinetic and other psychic powers?

I've got nothing to bring to the challenge, but I was curious just where the line is drawn between what would be considered paranormal, and what would be considered "un-paranormal".

To me, a non-paranormal claim would be someone claiming to be able to memorize an entire phone book just by flicking the pages once, which could be explained by current physics and possibly shown to be the result of increased activity or neuron density in certain brain areas associated with memory.

So is there a standard here or will each claim be judged on its individual merit (or lack thereof?)

[Cuddles]

So is there a standard here or will each claim be judged on its individual merit (or lack thereof?)

Basically this. The JREF considers paranormal whatever they decide is paranormal. Usually this is fairly obvious, such as claims of levitation, telepathy and so on. Of course, many people say that their claimed abilities are not paranormal but entirely normal, but this doesn't really matter. If the JREF says it is paranormal, then for the purposes of the challenge it is paranormal.

There are sometimes grey areas and controversies. For example, a proposed test of speaker cables generated a lot of arguments about whether there was actually anything paranormal or fraudulent about the claims and whether the JREF should test them. However, the JREF doesn't generally consider scientific research as a paranormal claim. Your example about proving the speed of light varies would be unlikely to be accepted since that isn't really a paranormal claim, it is simply research, although quite possibly Nobel winning research if valid.

It's really worth remembering why the challenge exists - to challenge people who make fraudulent claims. It is there to go after psychics, dowsers and so on who con people out of money by claiming to do things they can't. Claims involving big studies and research just aren't the sort of thing they're going after, so that sort of thing is less likely to be considered eligible for the challenge.

[Dumb All Over]

As Cuddles said, Randi would probably have no interest in testing the "speed of light in a vacuum" claim. However, I'm sure he would be very willing to tackle any claim of perpetual motion, as has been discussed numerous times in these threads.

Humanoid, are you thinking of submitting an application to test for perpetual motion?

[William Smith]

Hi Humanoid. The JREF uses the term paranormal as a shortcut for "previously unknown/unexplained by science".

As for which claims get accepted: Everything which allows for falsifiability in the test protocol (hence: No deities, fairies, pixies, angels, etc.) and which is not already known to be BS: Cloudbusting, sun eating, etc.

If you want to make a claim, us forum members usually can give you a pretty decent evaluation if the JREF will accept it - given you have the necessary qualifications.
Official answers can be obtained at challenge@randi.org

[Rick Abrams]

Some claims may be true but unverifiable. There are sufficient stories of closely connected people receiving messages from dying relatives for them to have credibility. It is as unscientific to deny a paranormal connection and assert that coincidence is the explanation as it is to say the experience proves paranormal contact. Unverifiable claims, even if true, are worthless for science.

"Cognito ergo sum," to which an incarnate voice replied, "No, No, pensamos, por eso somos."

[Paul2]

Rick A, I don't see the difference between being verifiable and having credibility, as you contrast them. You say that messages from dying relatives can't be verified but are credible. It seems that they would only be credible to the extent they could be verified in some way (maybe the crux of the issue is how they are verified?).

Can you explain?

Also, isn't coincidence a more likely explaination sometimes than paranormal activity? (Coincidences will happen for the same reason that someone has got to win the lottery, even though it is very, very unlikely for that particular person. In a city of a million people (roughly), someone is going to have a million-to-one occurance.

[robinson]

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

2.3 Does my claim count as paranormal?

Possibly. Read through the JREF forum for a list of previous applicants if you’d like to see whether or not your claim has been tested before. The list can be found at: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Past claims have included: psychic or mediumistic powers, ESP, dowsing, magnetic humans, astrology, faith healing, etc.

If you are submitting a claim that works off a previous assumption, you have to present evidence proving the assumption correct first. For example, a claim of exorcism must have prior proof of the existence of demons, unless the existence of demons would be self-evident during the exorcism. If someone’s head spins ‘round the wrong direction during an exorcism, it is safe to say that demons (or some other entities) are responsible. Projectile vomiting, however, is nasty and probably explainable.

Some claims are, unfortunately, untestable. For example, claiming that you are able to make someone feel happy by talking to them is untestable, because it is impossible to objectively gauge someone’s level of happiness, especially if they have been told that after talking to you they should feel happy.

If your claim is untestable, there is nothing that can be done to alter that status unless you find a new claim or negotiate a protocol in which the results are self-evident and objectively testable.
http://www.randi.org/joom/million-dollar-challenge-faq.html

[Humanoid]

Thanks for the answers guys, it clears up things perfectly. I have heard about the JREF challenge before and read enough to get an idea of what it's about, but I tend to always go one step further and ask a "stupid" question just to make double sure I know.

I tried to find that FAQ earlier but it does seem many links to it are broken, so I didn't try that hard.

Anyway thanks again, if I invent any PM machines I'll be sure to patent them and profit from my own network of PM power stations, then maybe take you up on the challenge... I don't really see that happening though :)

[Rick Abrams]

Rick A, I don't see the difference between being verifiable and having credibility, as you contrast them. You say that messages from dying relatives can't be verified but are credible. It seems that they would only be credible to the extent they could be verified in some way (maybe the crux of the issue is how they are verified?).

Can you explain?

Also, isn't coincidence a more likely explaination sometimes than paranormal activity? (Coincidences will happen for the same reason that someone has got to win the lottery, even though it is very, very unlikely for that particular person. In a city of a million people (roughly), someone is going to have a million-to-one occurance.

Credible is very different from Verifiable. In court, juries make decisions based on credible evidence, which often cannot be verified. If Witness A says, "The traffic light was red when the defendant entered the intersection," there is probably no way to verify Witness A's statement. If, however, Witness A has 20/20 eyesight, had a clear view of the intersection and no one can find any reason for Witness A to be biased (e.g. the defendant rammed into Wit A's car), the jury will probably accept Witness A's testimony as true due to its Credibility.

It would be a bizarre conclusion for the jury to decide that Wit A had a hallucination coincidental with the accident.

Thus, the distintion between Credibility and Verifiable is very important. If we change to the field of religion, some people occupy a social position which makes their statements credible. The priest who says that the wine turns into blood is seen as very credible, but most people believe that a chemical test of the "blood" will prove that it is still wine. My limited point here is that people are accustomed to accepting Credible statements as if they were Verified statements. Therefore, it is important for people to distinguish between Credible and Verifiable.

When people claim unexplained communications (ESP), the communications can be Credible lthough not Verifiable. Ex: A dorm RA at a college felt like he had been hit full force with somethng a kin to a huge board while in the lounge with other students watching TV. He felt compelled to immediately leave and then seclude himself in the nearest bathroom and then he noticed that he keep motioning with his right his hand into his waistband and saying over and over, "Put it away, put it away, put it away." (He had no idea why he was compelled to do this with all his energy and concentration.) This lasted for about 3 times and then the entire "event" stopped. He tried to re-start it, but al the force and cocnentration was simply gone. For an unknown reason, he went to the room of a young student he knew was rather disturbed and as he goes into the kid's room he see the kid is coming into the dorm through his window. The RA questions the kid and finds out that a few moments before the kid had been off campus in town and he had a gun and he was shooting out street lights when a man came from the shadows yelling at him. The kid continue, "As I went to shoot the guy, I heard this inner voice that said 'Put it away, put it away, put it away.' The voice was so forceful, I stuck the gun into my waistband and came back here."

For the RA and the kid the fact that they had comunicated was highly credible and absolutely unverifiable.

Thus, we also have to remember that the inability to prove an event does not mean the event did not take place. Unless we can disprove an event, it is unscientific to say that it is coincidence. Something may be coincidence but no scientist should draw that conclusion without factual support. In other word "unverified" does not mean untrue or even coincidential.

[Rick Abrams]

Rick A, I don't see the difference between being verifiable and having credibility, as you contrast them. You say that messages from dying relatives can't be verified but are credible. It seems that they would only be credible to the extent they could be verified in some way (maybe the crux of the issue is how they are verified?).

Can you explain?

Also, isn't coincidence a more likely explaination sometimes than paranormal activity? (Coincidences will happen for the same reason that someone has got to win the lottery, even though it is very, very unlikely for that particular person. In a city of a million people (roughly), someone is going to have a million-to-one occurance.

Credible is very different from Verifiable. In court, juries make decisions based on credible evidence, which often cannot be verified. If Witness A says, "The traffic light was red when the defendant entered the intersection," there is probably no way to verify Witness A's statement. If, however, Witness A has 20/20 eyesight, had a clear view of the intersection and no one can find any reason for Witness A to be biased (e.g. the defendant rammed into Wit A's car), the jury will probably accept Witness A's testimony as true due to its Credibility.

It would be a bizarre conclusion for the jury to decide that Wit A had a hallucination coincidental with the accident.

Thus, the distintion between Credibility and Verifiable is very important. If we change to the field of religion, some people occupy a social position which makes their statements credible. The priest who says that the wine turns into blood is seen as very credible, but most people believe that a chemical test of the "blood" will prove that it is still wine. My limited point here is that people are accustomed to accepting Credible statements as if they were Verified statements. Therefore, it is important for people to distinguish between Credible and Verifiable.

When people claim unexplained communications (ESP), the communications can be Credible lthough not Verifiable. Ex: A dorm RA at a college felt like he had been hit full force with somethng a kin to a huge board while in the lounge with other students watching TV. He felt compelled to immediately leave and then seclude himself in the nearest bathroom and then he noticed that he keep motioning with his right his hand into his waistband and saying over and over, "Put it away, put it away, put it away." (He had no idea why he was compelled to do this with all his energy and concentration.) This lasted for about 3 times and then the entire "event" stopped. He tried to re-start it, but al the force and cocnentration was simply gone. For an unknown reason, he went to the room of a young student he knew was rather disturbed and as he goes into the kid's room he see the kid is coming into the dorm through his window. The RA questions the kid and finds out that a few moments before the kid had been off campus in town and he had a gun and he was shooting out street lights when a man came from the shadows yelling at him. The kid continue, "As I went to shoot the guy, I heard this inner voice that said 'Put it away, put it away, put it away.' The voice was so forceful, I stuck the gun into my waistband and came back here."

For the RA and the kid the fact that they had comunicated was highly credible and absolutely unverifiable.

Thus, we also have to remember that the inability to prove an event does not mean the event did not take place. Unless we can disprove an event, it is unscientific to say that it is coincidence. Something may be coincidence but no scientist should draw that conclusion without factual support. In other word "unverified" does not mean untrue or even coincidential.

[Paul2]

Rick, thanks for the distinction between credible and verifiable, I see what you're saying.

I've got other thoughts about this, but we'll have to wait until I have time.

[drkitten]

Some claims may be true but unverifiable.

And those claims are not eligible for the challenge, simply because there's not enough evidence available.

There are sufficient stories of closely connected people receiving messages from dying relatives for them to have credibility.

I disagree. If you point at a set of hoofprints in the dirt and tell me they were made by a unicorn, I will look at the number of horses that I know exist and the number of unicorns that I know exist, and disbelieve you.

This will remain true even if five hundred people tell me that they're unicorn tracks.



It is as unscientific to deny a paranormal connection and assert that coincidence is the explanation as it is to say the experience proves paranormal contact.

As medical doctors put it, "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." You should especially not think unicorns. I'm perfectly happy asserting coincidence when "coincidence" actively predicts the observed findings.

[Rick Abrams]

And those claims are not eligible for the challenge, simply because there's not enough evidence available.

I disagree. If you point at a set of hoofprints in the dirt and tell me they were made by a unicorn, I will look at the number of horses that I know exist and the number of unicorns that I know exist, and disbelieve you.

This will remain true even if five hundred people tell me that they're unicorn tracks.

As medical doctors put it, "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." You should especially not think unicorns. I'm perfectly happy asserting coincidence when "coincidence" actively predicts the observed findings.


If you want to persists in your belief of concidence with no factual foundation for your belief, that's your perogative. Bringing in stray elements like unicorns merely change what I wrote is the old fallacy of the Straw Man argument. True believers tend to reject ideas that do not conform to their preconceptions and some people appear to be true believers in their god of coincidence.

[tsig]

If you want to persists in your belief of concidence with no factual foundation for your belief, that's your perogative. Bringing in stray elements like unicorns merely change what I wrote is the old fallacy of the Straw Man argument. True believers tend to reject ideas that do not conform to their preconceptions and some people appear to be true believers in their god of coincidence.

Have you found that people do not understand you and quickly turn hostile?