Richard Dawkins now accepts the "perinormal"

[omegablue]

Surprised i am to read this:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm

Now im curious about WHAT exactly is he considering to be perinormal. Does anybody know anything about it? Any information or urls would be of great help.

regards

[TheBoyPaj]

I think it's safe to say "we'll know it when we see it". There might be some new development in technology or our understanding of the universe, and when it first breaks it might appear to be paranormal until it is fully understood.

Of course, a major skeptic making this sort of speech just gives ammunuition to those who say things like "telepathy exists, but science just doesn't understand it yet", because they don't understand what he's really saying.

The perinormal might be amazing, but you can bet it will be repeatable and testable.

[apoger]

The person who wrote the article obviiously has a very biased veiw of skepticsm and frankly I don't trust his explanation of "perinormal". As he describes it, there is no use for the word, as we can substitute "normal" or "natural" for all the descriptions used. Since Dawkins used the phrase, I must suspect that he had a definition in mind that had some use that the author missed.

Could someone that attended the event provide a better explanation of what went on?

[omegablue]

Agreed TheBoyPaj. That is why I want to know WHAT exactly Dawkins is talking about. This speech of his wasn´t for nothing , i bet.

And odd it is, that i can´t find any other source about it. Neither at JREF in the article about the last Amazing Conference. I´ll keep looking up and i´ll post anything that i happen to find on this subject.

thanks and forgive my bad english

[omegablue]

apoger,

Isn´t it too complicated claimimng that the person who wrote the article might have a biased view on skepticism? Ok, he might well be biased, but it would be good not to make any assumptions before we really know what was going on with this strange statements of Dawkins.

Afterall, Randi had nothing to say about this after the conference . Maybe he will show up here and give us his point of view on the subjectexplanation, as well as if he agrees with this "perinormal", and what it might be, and if its true that there is any chance about having to eventually pay up the prize.

And it is obvious that "perinormal" or even "paranormal" may well be replaced by "natural" but yet unknown phenomena. I suspect that Dawkins had a better look into some things that are being evidenced here and there and are being dismissed by skeptics in a very strange way. Well, this is just my oppinion, let´s keep looking and waiting for more info.

regards.

[SpaceFluffer]

As I understood it when I saw Dawkins' presentation, he is suggesting that we make a distinction between

1) Phenomena that have been tested and for which the evidence suggests a vanishing probability that the phenomena is real.
2) Phenomena that have not yet been completely tested, and which may be very unlikely to represent reality, but cannot be ruled out as such at this moment in time.

He is suggesting that we refer to (1) as 'paranormal' (outside of normal), and (2) as 'perinormal' (at the edge of normal). He gave examples of each, and I recall that he described homeopathy as perinormal.

His aim, I believe, is to make an important disctinction between things we don't yet understand, and things that we do understand. There's a grey area between them, to be sure, but his point is related to all of those 'Does this qualify for the $1M challenge?' threads that we keep creating on this forum.

Everything that counts as perinormal is still something that is very unlikely to exist, but it retains the possibility of passing into the normal, which the truly paranormal does not.

[apoger]

Isn´t it too complicated claimimng that the person who wrote the article might have a biased view on skepticism?

I don't know what you mean by this. Why would this be "complicated"? I think the authors bias is rather straight-forward. Thus my distrust. Not complicated at all.


I suspect that Dawkins had a better look into some things that are being evidenced here and there and are being dismissed by skeptics in a very strange way.


Yes, hence why I asked for clarification from someone that attended the event.

You addressed a reply directly to me, so I feel obligated to respond. However I am usure what issue you are trying to communicate about.

[omegablue]

I´m wondering if he would consider something else of the alternative medicine for the perinormal list, other than homeopathy.

Oh come on SpaceFluffer, make your efforts to recall something else there!

regards

[apoger]

Thanks for the clarification SpaceFluffer.

I am still unsure of the value of this sematic game, as the perinormal would apprear paranormal until evidence is accumulated, at which time it may be agreed that the phenomena is, by our understanding, normal. The perinormal seems like a useless "after the fact" observation.

Perhaps though there is something about the perinormal that I am not grasping.

[omegablue]

apoger,

i cant see this straightforward bias of the author about the skeptics. I cant see any harm done about being skeptical on the skeptics also...you know skepticism all the way.


Yes, hence why I asked for clarification from someone that attended the event.

I said that Dawkins may have reviewed some things that are being evidenced and was not being given the proper attention to. As well as correcting any position of totaly refuting these things as being impossible.

again, pls forgive my bad english ;)

[omegablue]

Apoger,

I have the same doubt of yours. I suspect that perinormal is the term to define what is being shown to the eyes of the scientific comunity in the form of evidences, and it is being classified as "worth of further studying". Oh damn, how i am curious about what would it be.

[delphi_ote]

What about the prairienormal, which proves that only people who play guitar are interesting? According to sources, Dawkins, Randi, Hitler, and the strawman have advocated its existence. The source also alleged Randi and Dawkins are "sitting in a tree, kay eye ess ess eye in jee."

Hooked on sensationalism worked for me!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

paranormal: I can read your mind using a fifth force that is yet to be discovered.

perinormal: I can read your mind using the unexplored fringes of my five senses.

~~ Paul

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by apoger
The perinormal seems like a useless "after the fact" observation.Not so. It serves to discriminate between those phenomena that are well understood to be bogus and those that we cannot yet conclusively conclude that this is so. So something like intuition or possibly homeopathy would be perinormal, ESP or astrology would be paranormal. No after the fact reasoning needed.

Think of it this way. Something that is perinormal will, in the future, become either normal or paranormal. Anything that is currently normal or paranormal will stay that way.

Dawkins made the point that perinormal phenomena are important for Randi's $1M challenge since they should not be considered eligible. This fuzzy region is tough to define though.

[arthwollipot]

I don't think there is a reliable testing procedure to distinguish between a paranormal phenomenon and a perinormal one. Thus, I don't think it's a useful distinction.

[omegablue]

SpaceFluffer,

How do you know that ESP and astrology will be bogus forever?

And I think that Randi could not even think about not paying the prize for homeopathy, because of his constant provocations and challenges on homeopathy claimants. I think labeling something perinormal would not save the prize´s ass. At least, if it does save the prize´s ass, it will not do the same for the challenge´s reputation.

see ya

[Explorer]

At last an injection of sanity and common sense objectivity into the argument, which the eloquent Richard Dawkins expoused in one lash of his tongue, putting the entire subject of anti-paranormalism, in context.

The author of the article though, was obviously biased, as he had the audacity to report the following:

"Though Dawkins proclaimed that skepticism, in contrast to religion, welcomes dissent and debate, alas, there was little evidence of this during the conference. Indeed, the star-struck crowd showed a religious-like enthusiasm for having their preconceived beliefs reinforced by one celebrity speaker after another. "

How many on this board would admit to being star-struck?

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Explorer
The author of the article though, was obviously biased... "Skeptical Investigations" is like that.

Their board of advisors is practicaly a Rogue's Gallery (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/aboutsi/index.htm) of adovcates for research of *ahem* "questionable integrity".

[TheBoyPaj]

Oh my. Montague Keen's on the list.

There goes the credibility...

[Open Mind]

Richard Dawkins once wrote ‘The paranormal is bunk� …..Does this imply Dawkins differentiation between paranormal and peri-normal, could be called peri-bunk? :eek: :D

Rather that give credence to Dawkin’s talk on a subject out of his field, I prefer to listen to those who have entered the field.

‘Parapsychology’s critics have long decried psi as irrational and have made an important contribution in doing so. The critics are partly right; psi is irrational, but it is also real.

Magician, parapsychologist George Hansen
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Intro.htm


PSI could be irrational to us, for what is ‘logical’ , ‘normal’ or ‘rational’ is limited by the sensory constraints of our world. Could the paranormal just be beyond the evolution of Richard Dawkin’s brain? :) Indeed beyond the logic of all of us, if so it might require peri-logic (hey this is peri-fun, making up peri-words :) )

If this is true, how can science accept the seemingly irrational paranormal by insisting it must function in what is considered a rational, logical manner?

Are skeptics basically saying 'when the paranormal/perinormal behaves normal, only then will I accept it exists? '

Is non locality rational? What about the consequences of relativity?

Of course the paranormal also gets dismissed often because it is not as easy to replicate results ..... but is it fair to expect sciences of the mind to produce the same level of repeatability as say physics? Which psychology breakthrough has produced highly repeatable results comparable with other sciences? The criticism of parapsychology has often been not making major breakthroughs in 80 or so years and gets routinely dismissed by psychologists, however what is really universally agreed (beyond common sense) amongst psychologists other than psychology is worth studying? :)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Open Mind
[B]Rather that give credence to Dawkin’s talk on a subject out of his field, I prefer to listen to those who have entered the field.

And what research has this person done? Where was this published?

but is it fair to expect sciences of the mind to produce the same level of repeatability as say physics?

Yes.

[omegablue]

And what research has this person done? Where was this published?

One of the researches you might have been looking for is this one: http://www.alternativescience.com/psychokinesis.htm

By Dean Radin, who is member of the board of the SkepticalInvestigations. This study was published on the journal Foundations of Physics.

If you call being skeptical even on the exagerate media-skeptics, a biased attitude, i might think this board welcomes your label. I think skepticism is always important, even on diagnosing what might be materialistic dogmas, rather than science.

but is it fair to expect sciences of the mind to produce the same level of repeatability as say physics?

Never, never. Someone has to be in deep misunderstanding about the different epistemologies of the different scientific fields, in order to suggest that sciences of the mind should be studied with the same procedures which are used to study physics, chemistry, biology and etc.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by omegablue
Never, never. Someone has to be in deep misunderstanding about the different epistemologies of the different scientific fields, in order to suggest that sciences of the mind should be studied with the same procedures which are used to study physics, chemistry, biology and etc. OK, so according to you I'm "in deep misunderstanding". Please provide good reasons why the mind should be considered completely differently from all other scientific fields.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by omegablue
One of the researches you might have been looking for is this one: http://www.alternativescience.com/psychokinesis.htm

I would have understood it if you had quoted that research, but instead you said "Rather that give credence to Dawkin’s talk on a subject out of his field, I prefer to listen to those who have entered the field" and then you quoted that magician guy.

Never, never. Someone has to be in deep misunderstanding about the different epistemologies of the different scientific fields, in order to suggest that sciences of the mind should be studied with the same procedures which are used to study physics, chemistry, biology and etc.

Why? Why do you think that the mind does not obey physical laws?

If Psi effects exist, what is it about them that prevents them from being observed under controlled conditions?

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
I don't think there is a reliable testing procedure to distinguish between a paranormal phenomenon and a perinormal one. Thus, I don't think it's a useful distinction. So having experts weigh the current evidence for or against a phenomena is not good enough for you? If it's done for partially understood areas of science, why not for claims of paranormal phenomena? It's certainly not an infallible method, but that's not my point; isn't the means to identify the two cases something worth striving for?

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by omegablue
How do you know that ESP and astrology will be bogus forever?Why would it change? Is reality going to flip out and become something where ESP and astrology suddenly exist?

And I think that Randi could not even think about not paying the prize for homeopathy, because of his constant provocations and challenges on homeopathy claimants.That's your opinion. Of course, Randi's challenges could have something to do with the fact that homeopathy doesn't work.

I think labeling something perinormal would not save the prize´s ass. At least, if it does save the prize´s ass, it will not do the same for the challenge´s reputation.It's got nothing to do with 'saving the prize's ass' - what the hell are you talking about? As I've already said, the labelling is meant to allow distinction between something that is not yet understood and something that is well understood. The prize has nothing to do with the labelling, although this new distinction does have implications for the prize.

[Diamond]

"Perry Normal" was the name of that skull that Randi had on his (sadly missed) weekly broadcasts...

[omegablue]

SpaceFluffer,

OK, so according to you I'm "in deep misunderstanding". Please provide good reasons why the mind should be considered completely differently from all other scientific fields.

I might have been a lil exagerate about "deep misunderstanding" , ok. The reasons i think mind should be considered different from the other scientific fileds is the obvious one: the fact that mind and mind problems are not materialistic "entities". Thus, not verifiable according to your average physics lab tools and procedures. There is no mathematical explanation for the mind, thoughts, and etc.. And does it make mind and thoughts false, bunk and pseudo-scientific? Hardly, i think. Its important to remember, even if it does not have EVERYTHING to do to this debate, that there wasn´t even mathematical explanation for the plane being possible do be invented by that time. Even after the first american plane lifted, Scientific American and many other skeptics, hilariously published "serious" articles showing how it would be physically impossible for a plane, being heavier than air, to get airborne. So let´s not be too confident about our scientific tools like physics and math being already very well developed in order to give us explanations about what is not yet well understood. Facts do occur, and if these facts are empirically testable and verifiable, then math and physics needs to be upgraded in order to embrace such new phenomena. These are just human tools, thus imperfect and incomplete, and in constant change, not absolute and universal truths. So, if some crazy mind in the future would care to develop some "math of the mind" , ok , fine by me. But it´s not tenable thinking about debunking everything that our current tools like math and physics could not explain at the moment, specially with tons of empirical evidences that points out the existance of such phenomenons.

And finally, some of the only tools which seems to be able to verify psychological and thus parapsychological researches, are: statisitcs and some EEG´s. And this two tools are used with success in many parapsychological researches which are misteriously ignored, buried and refuted by ad hoc hypothesis, in an strange way by the materialistic skeptical community.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by omegablue
Never, never. Someone has to be in deep misunderstanding about the different epistemologies of the different scientific fields, in order to suggest that sciences of the mind should be studied with the same procedures which are used to study physics, chemistry, biology and etc. Fortunately, the sciences of behavior are a bit more rigorous. But when studying the mind, like studying any other fictional entity, I suppose different procedures are allowed.

[omegablue]

TheBoyPaj

I would have understood it if you had quoted that research, but instead you said "Rather that give credence to Dawkin’s talk on a subject out of his field, I prefer to listen to those who have entered the field" and then you quoted that magician guy.

Sorry, i didnt quote the magician, but Open Mind did. Didnt you notice? ehehe... I just thought you could be asking for researches like that one I did quote.


Why? Why do you think that the mind does not obey physical laws? If Psi effects exist, what is it about them that prevents them from being observed under controlled conditions?

I wont dare to say that mind dos not obbey physical laws. I prefer saying that it does not obbey the currently KNOWN laws of physics. Read more about my oppinion on my previous post about SpaceFluffer comments.

About psi effects really existing, i dont know if it exist in fact. Though, I dont consider it to be impossible. And about psi not being able to be seen under controlled conditions, read that link i posted above, about Dean Radin research and conclusions about psichokinesis over electronic randomness. There are in fact many many others. But the reason that they are not taken seriously by the materialistic skeptical comunnity in general, remains unkown and many times, suspicious.

[omegablue]

Why would it change? Is reality going to flip out and become something where ESP and astrology suddenly exist?

You are stablishing your arguments with the apparently fringe idea that astrology and ESP are already inquestionably evidenced as false. So, where can i read that astrology and ESP are completely evidenced as false?? Remember the Mars Effect? The nightmare of CSICOP and Randi in the 70´s? They covered it up with all their efforts , because they could not explain it. So , instead of giving it further attention, they chose to, according to Randi´s words, "ignore it and hope it goes away". I cannot spot anything about debunking it objectively, other than biased skeptical claims and speculations, with ad hoc all the way. There are many many other astrological statistic studies that are much compeling about the existance of some unknown phenomenons which are (wrongly or not), associated with position of planets and stars. The fact is that little scientiffic attention is given to that matter, even for debunking it in an objective way, other than speculations and general strategic silence. Astrology might well be false afterall, but i think science did not investigate it well enough in order to discard it in a honest way.

That's your opinion. Of course, Randi's challenges could have something to do with the fact that homeopathy doesn't work.

Yes, my oppinion. I said that if Randi now consider homeopathy elligible for the prize, he could not change this. If homeopathy would proved right, he would have to pay. But this specific debate is not important.

The prize has nothing to do with the labelling, although this new distinction does have implications for the prize.

Ah, so you seem to have understood what the hell was i saying. :)

[apoger]

Is reality going to flip out and become something where ESP and astrology suddenly exist?

I do not think that anything is likely to change that will convince us that ESP or astrology has validity. I suspect that these things will remain catagorized as paranormal.

On the other hand we have no good evidence for homeopathy, nor is there any rational mechanism that we can discern that would explain it. I suspect that homeopathy will also remain in the paranormal category.

Indeed it is my personal conjecture that we are more likely to discover powers from the human mind than we are to discover that a water (that has memory of a substance it no longer contains) will cure a disease.

Yet the contention by those advocating the use of "perinormal", is that homeopathy is somehow "closer" to being validated and thus deserves a different label.

Perhaps if someone here can justify how homeopathy is "perinormal" rather than paranormal, it will help me understand why the term perinormal is needed at all.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
So having experts weigh the current evidence for or against a phenomena is not good enough for you? If it's done for partially understood areas of science, why not for claims of paranormal phenomena? It's certainly not an infallible method, but that's not my point; isn't the means to identify the two cases something worth striving for?

What you're talking about isn't "perinormal" or "paranormal". it's just plain normal. If there is evidence to support the existence of a phenomenon, then it's normal.

The distinction (as I understand it) is rather between something that is possible but hasn't been explained, and something that is known to be impossible.

However, you can't ever know something to be impossible. Exceeding the speed of light is something that we currently know is impossible, but you cannot ever rule out discovering something in the future which will make it possible.

My point is that the meaningful distinction is between normal and paranormal, rather than between paranormal and perinormal. By the definition provided, all so-called paranormal phenomena could be perinormal, but (and here's the point) there's no way to know.

[omegablue]

Well, it looks like nobody knows anything about these statements of Dawkins. I mean, nobody seems to know about exactly which phenomenons he was suggesting to be labeled as "perinormal" at the moment.