Definition of Paranormal Activity

[star.logic]

So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion.

In this thread I am asking you what the definition of the concept of what people call "paranormal" can be stripped down to. Many people have many experiences, and many understandings, yet what is something that can be written in a text book or put to fact?

So if anyone would like to help me understand, then I ask, "What is the true definition of a paranormal existence?"

[Meri]

Hi, and welcome to the forum! I'm not sure there is an official definition of a paranormal experience, where everyone would agree on every word, but the Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/), which is a good online resource, defines it this way (http://skepdic.com/paranormal.html)

An event or perception is said to be paranormal if it involves forces or agencies that are beyond scientific explanation. Many paranormal events are said to be experienced only by those with psychic powers, such as extrasensory perception or psychokinesis.

There's a longer explanation at that link, if you're interested. I hope this provides some help.

[star.logic]

Is this what you believe? Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Ehhh.....it isn't a question of believing. It's a definition. :)

[star.logic]

If it's a definition, then why isn't there an official version?

I would like to either come to a conclusion of an official version, based upon the input of others beliefs here, or find it, as it already exists.

[Kaarjuus]

If it's a definition, then why isn't there an official version?


Official version of a definition of a common word? What exactly do you mean by that?

Is Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=paranormal&query=paranormal) "official" enough for you?


Main Entry: para·nor·mal
Pronunciation: "par-&-'nor-m&l, 'par-&-"
Function: adjective
: not scientifically explainable : SUPERNATURAL

[davidsmith73]

So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion.

In this thread I am asking you what the definition of the concept of what people call "paranormal" can be stripped down to. Many people have many experiences, and many understandings, yet what is something that can be written in a text book or put to fact?

So if anyone would like to help me understand, then I ask, "What is the true definition of a paranormal existence?"

There's been a recent discussion about this here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65987&page=7

but its a bit mixed up in other topics of discussion.


My opinion is that although certain phenomena (real or imaginary) are consistently labelled as "paranormal", there is no objective method by which phenomena fall into this category. Rather, people label certain phenomena as paranormal based on their personal subjective preferences.

A common definition is the one Kaarjuus gave us- "not scientifically explainable: SUPERNATURAL"

I object to this definition because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all". So here, people label certain physical phenomena as supernatural based on subjective preference. In other words it appears to them to be not explainable by science.

Note that this is different from saying paranormal means not yet explained by science, because here the implication is that the phenomena is explainable in principle. But when we offer this definition there is another problem.

To demonstrate this, just apply this definition of "paranormal" to these phenomena:

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600

I pretty certain that most will qualilfy as "paranormal" under this definition yet will seldom ,if ever, have been labelled as such. Why is that?

The excuse for this that was given on the other thread was that "paranormal" really refers to:

"phenomena that overturn old theory."

Nobody cared to address the fact that several of the phenomena mentioned in the NewScientist article, if confirmed, would require theory to be overturned. And of course we are still left with the question of how much theory is to be overturned, which is vulnerable to subjective interpretation.

Why do you want a definition of paranormal?

[Kaarjuus]

To demonstrate this, just apply this definition of "paranormal" to these phenomena:

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600

I pretty certain that most will qualilfy as "paranormal" under this definition yet will seldom ,if ever, have been labelled as such. Why is that?


A bit nonsensical list. Cold fusion is back? Where?

Homeopathy really works? Where?

[This Guy]

So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion.

In this thread I am asking you what the definition of the concept of what people call "paranormal" can be stripped down to. Many people have many experiences, and many understandings, yet what is something that can be written in a text book or put to fact?

So if anyone would like to help me understand, then I ask, "What is the true definition of a paranormal existence?"

Welcome to the forum!

Do you mean existence, or experience?

As for what most of us on this forum believe, I think you could use the definition of the phrase BS and be close enough ;)

The above definitions cover the word itself.

My view is, generally, a faulty explanation of an improperly observed/interpreted event. Or imagined events from either a faulty observation, or some form of delusion or deceit. Other things could fall under the broad heading of Paranormal I suppose, but I think most of such events or occurrences would fall under my personal definition.

Other, more eloquent, writers here will probably have better versions :)

I get the feeling you have some reason, beyond the mere understanding of the word Paranormal, for asking this. Yes?

[ail]

With respect to stripping it down the term "woo woo" helps me understand just fine.

[CFLarsen]

I object to this definition because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all". So here, people label certain physical phenomena as supernatural based on subjective preference. In other words it appears to them to be not explainable by science.

Name one physical phenomenon that these people would label "paranormal" but is explainable by science.

[Francesca R]

Is Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=paranormal&query=paranormal) "official" enough for you?not scientifically explainable I'd prefer "not yet or not currently scientifically explainable". The last part to cover the incidence of prior scientific explanations getting falsified but with no replacement explanation.

[davidsmith73]

Name one physical phenomenon that these people would label "paranormal" but is explainable by science.

esp, pk.

I assume they are all explainable by science because they are physical phenomena, ie, they are defined by physical descriptions. Anything physically defined is explainable by science in principle, wouldn't you agree? What the explanations end up being is a different story :)

[Zep]

esp, pk.

I assume they are all explainable by science because they are physical phenomena, ie, they are defined by physical descriptions. Anything physically defined is explainable by science in principle, wouldn't you agree? What the explanations end up being is a different story :)Um, no. ESP and PK are not physical phenomena at all. They are imaginary, or trickery. Just baldly saying that they exist does not make it so.

Please try again.

[davidsmith73]

I'd prefer "not yet or not currently scientifically explainable". The last part to cover the incidence of prior scientific explanations getting falsified but with no replacement explanation.

When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?

[davidsmith73]

Um, no. ESP and PK are not physical phenomena at all. They are imaginary, or trickery. Just baldly saying that they exist does not make it so.

Please try again.

When you say they are "imaginary" or "trickery", I presume you are refering to a number of conventional explanations offered for these phenomena. For example, "imaginary" might refer to certain cognitive mechanisms of the brain producing the illusion of esp etc. This is still a physical explanation.

Considering that you regard these phenomena as currently explained, why do you still call them paranormal?

[Darat]

When you say they are "imaginary" or "trickery", I presume you are refering to a number of conventional explanations offered for these phenomena. For example, "imaginary" might refer to certain cognitive mechanisms of the brain producing the illusion of esp etc. This is still a physical explanation.

Considering that you regard these phenomena as currently explained, why do you still call them paranormal?

Because their usual definition includes the paranormal and when you want to communicate clearly it is better to use words as they are generally used rather then assign your own meaning to them and risk confusion.

[Darat]

When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?

When there is some evidence for "pk", "esp" etc. that requires a new theory to explain it I am sure scientists will start to think up such a theory.

[Francesca R]

When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?Yes . . . and I would give science the benefit of the doubt and regard them as "not yet explained" rather than "not explainable". If the definition was "not explainable (ever)" then I would say that the set of paranormal things is unpopulated.

(I can't prove this . . .}

[This Guy]

When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?

From the link - "7 Tetraneutrons
FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist. They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics."

I would not consider anything detected in a properly conducted scientific experiment to be paranormal. If it can be detected/monitored/observed under scientific conditions, I would say it falls outside the realm of Paranormal, and into the realm of science.

Just my view though :)

[CFLarsen]

esp, pk.

I assume they are all explainable by science because they are physical phenomena, ie, they are defined by physical descriptions. Anything physically defined is explainable by science in principle, wouldn't you agree? What the explanations end up being is a different story :)

Please provide a scientific explanation for ESP and PK.

[Francesca R]

I would not consider anything detected in a properly conducted scientific experiment to be paranormal. If it can be detected/monitored/observed under scientific conditions, I would say it falls outside the realm of Paranormal, and into the realm of science.

Just my view though :)But if something is not even detectable scientifically (there is no evidence that it is there) then you can argue that it does not exist—so it doesn't need an adjective to describe it.

[This Guy]

But if something is not even detectable scientifically (there is no evidence that it is there) then you can argue that it does not exist—so it doesn't need an adjective to describe it.

I agree, and refer you to the term BS for an explanation of such things ;)

[Francesca R]

Ah . . . but I think I can detect BS, and maybe even analyse it. :D

[This Guy]

Ah . . . but I think I can detect BS, and maybe even analyse it. :D

Having both been subjected to, and stepping in it, I agree :)

[CFLarsen]

Because their usual definition includes the paranormal and when you want to communicate clearly it is better to use words as they are generally used rather then assign your own meaning to them and risk confusion.

Not "risk". "Seek".

[Larry Lovage]

I think the Skeptic Dictionary definition is terrible. There are all sorts of things that are beyond science's current ability to explain.

What constitutes paranormal activity has one thing in common, I believe: the mind.

My definition of the paranormal would be: Pertaining to effects either received in or caused by a human mind with no known physical agency of transmission, reception or action.

It's more specific to what constitutes the investigations of the JREF, and it excludes anomalous results from normal physical experiments that simply deal with objects or strange nonintuitive results that anyone can see.

That New Scientist list has been padded out with single anomalous results, to whit the homoeopathy, the Wow signal, the Levin Mars experiment positive result and possibly the cold fusion one. I don't think they count.

[CFLarsen]

I think the Skeptic Dictionary definition is terrible. There are all sorts of things that are beyond science's current ability to explain.

What constitutes paranormal activity has one thing in common, I believe: the mind.

My definition of the paranormal would be: Pertaining to effects either received in or caused by a human mind with no known physical agency of transmission, reception or action.

That New Scientist list has been padded out with single anomalous results, to whit the homoeopathy, the Wow signal, the Levin Mars experiment positive result and possibly the cold fusion one. I don't think they count.

Why does homeopathy not count as a paranormal phenomenon?

[This Guy]

Why does homeopathy not count as a paranormal phenomenon?

I would say Homeopathy products belong in the realm of Paranormal to the same extent that Placebos do.

My opinion is that both work because of/by psychological effects. And I would suggest that neither are any more effective than the user's ability to convince themselves of their effectiveness. From my limited look into the placebo effect, it appears that there is some confusion on exactly what is going on there.

But I think it's safe to say it's more a mental effect than a magic one :)

Positive mental feedback, IMHO, can have a positive physical effect on us. Maybe it somehow allows our minds to send more of the signals that help us fight infections/recover from injuries. I don't know.

My knowledge is very limited in this area.

I do know that from my personal experience, I am very rarely ill, other than minor aches and pains on occasion. I try to keep a positive attitude, and wither related or not, I haven't seen a doctor (other than a dentist) since my period of sleeplessness leading up to my divorce some 10 years ago. And I am not an example of how to treat your body (I smoke too much, exercise too little, and eat anything I want any time I want :eek:

[CFLarsen]

I would say Homeopathy products belong in the realm of Paranormal to the same extent that Placebos do.

My opinion is that both work because of/by psychological effects. And I would suggest that neither are any more effective than the user's ability to convince themselves of their effectiveness. From my limited look into the placebo effect, it appears that there is some confusion on exactly what is going on there.

But I think it's safe to say it's more a mental effect than a magic one :)

Positive mental feedback, IMHO, can have a positive physical effect on us. Maybe it somehow allows our minds to send more of the signals that help us fight infections/recover from injuries. I don't know.

My knowledge is very limited in this area.

I do know that from my personal experience, I am very rarely ill, other than minor aches and pains on occasion. I try to keep a positive attitude, and wither related or not, I haven't seen a doctor (other than a dentist) since my period of sleeplessness leading up to my divorce some 10 years ago. And I am not an example of how to treat your body (I smoke too much, exercise too little, and eat anything I want any time I want :eek:

I'm not talking about the placebo effect. I am talking about the purported effects of homeopathy outside placebo.

[This Guy]

I'm not talking about the placebo effect. I am talking about the purported effects of homeopathy outside placebo.

Are there proper scientific studies that indicate effectiveness of Homeopathy products beyond what would be expected from placebos?

If so, links/references please.

[davidsmith73]

Yes . . . and I would give science the benefit of the doubt and regard them as "not yet explained" rather than "not explainable". If the definition was "not explainable (ever)" then I would say that the set of paranormal things is unpopulated.

(I can't prove this . . .}

I agree (except that the only thing I regard as not ever explainable by science is qualia).

I think you are in a tiny minority who would have regarded tetraneutrinos as paranormal, but I could be wrong there.

Do you think many people would agree with you that tetraneutrinos were/are paranormal?

[Kaarjuus]

except that the only thing I regard as not ever explainable by science is qualia.

Assuming there is something to explain, i.e. they exist.

[davidsmith73]

Because their usual definition includes the paranormal

depends on your definition of paranormal, which is subject to alot of variation!

and when you want to communicate clearly it is better to use words as they are generally used rather then assign your own meaning to them and risk confusion.

Better still, you could avoid using the term altogther and just refer to specific phenomena. Why bother to lump together a load of unexplained phenomena that may or may not be related to one another, and at the same time exclude a load of other unexplained phenomena ?

[davidsmith73]

Assuming there is something to explain, i.e. they exist.

Quite. Thats a question for a separate discussion

[Darat]

Better still, you could avoid using the term altogther and just refer to specific phenomena. Why bother to lump together a load of unexplained phenomena that may or may not be related to one another, and at the same time exclude a load of other unexplained phenomena ?

It's called effective communication; so sometimes broad categories are very useful, other times they are not.

If you want to refer to whole range of phenomena that are claimed by some people to exist but for which there is no "scientific" evidence then it is a useful label that is understood by most people who hear it.

[davidsmith73]

I think the Skeptic Dictionary definition is terrible. There are all sorts of things that are beyond science's current ability to explain.

What constitutes paranormal activity has one thing in common, I believe: the mind.

My definition of the paranormal would be: Pertaining to effects either received in or caused by a human mind with no known physical agency of transmission, reception or action.


Thats fair enough, but I think you have just defined ESP and PK.

Also, why do you think other people also regard such things as UFO's, vampires or bigfoot as paranormal?

Could it be that peoples idea of what is paranormal and what is not is based on their own subjective preferences?

[CFLarsen]

Are there proper scientific studies that indicate effectiveness of Homeopathy products beyond what would be expected from placebos?

If so, links/references please.

Not that I know of. Which is why I said "purported". :)

Quite. Thats a question for a separate discussion

Perhaps.

Please provide a scientific explanation for ESP and PK.

You claimed such explanations existed. Let's hear the scientific explanation.

[davidsmith73]

It's called effective communication; so sometimes broad categories are very useful, other times they are not.

If you want to refer to whole range of phenomena that are claimed by some people to exist but for which there is no "scientific" evidence then it is a useful label that is understood by most people who hear it



I think the confusion it causes outweighs its immediate usefullness. It has too many subjective connotations, cf supernatural, not yet scientifically explained, phenomena related to unkown properties of the mind.

would your definition of paranormal be:

"Phenomena that are said to exist but have no scientific evidence for their existence" ?

[This Guy]

Not that I know of. Which is why I said "purported". :)


I'm liking the term BS to explain Paranormal, more and more ;)

[davidsmith73]

Please provide a scientific explanation for ESP and PK.

You claimed such explanations existed. Let's hear the scientific explanation.


Please lets not confuse two issues:

One is a statement that a phenomena is not scientifically explainable.

The other is a statement that a phenomena is not yet scientifically explained.

This is what you asked me first:

"Name one physical phenomenon that these people would label "paranormal" but is explainable by science."

To which I responded that I believe all physical phenomena are explainable by science. ESP and PK are physically defined phenomena (well, physical correlations anyway) so I assume that they are explainable.

[davidsmith73]

I would not consider anything detected in a properly conducted scientific experiment to be paranormal. If it can be detected/monitored/observed under scientific conditions, I would say it falls outside the realm of Paranormal, and into the realm of science.



I agree. Except that I would regard this as a definition of "supernatural" rather than paranormal. "Supernatural" has a much more objectively defined subdefinition -the physical world. "Paranormal" 's subdefinition - normal - is obviously prone to huge subjective variation.

[Darat]

I think the confusion it causes outweighs its immediate usefullness. It has too many subjective connotations, cf supernatural, not yet scientifically explained, phenomena related to unkown properties of the mind.

would your definition of paranormal be:

"Phenomena that are said to exist but have no scientific evidence for their existence" ?



No it would just be along the lines of its everyday use e.g.

"oh all that stuff that people believe in like spoon bending, things that go bump in the night and touching wood"

[This Guy]

I agree. Except that I would regard this as a definition of "supernatural" rather than paranormal. "Supernatural" has a much more objectively defined subdefinition -the physical world. "Paranormal" 's subdefinition - normal - is obviously prone to huge subjective variation.

I'd say it's mostly semantics. Without looking up and comparing the definitions of the two words, I generally consider them to be about equal.

Would true ESP, if it existed, be Supernatural, or Paranormal?

It would be an ability beyond normal human abilities (as we understand them). Supernatural, or Paranormal could apply IMHO.

But until proved, I'll stick with BS for both Paranormal and Supernatural :D

[davidsmith73]

No it would just be along the lines of its everyday use e.g.

"oh all that stuff that people believe in like spoon bending, things that go bump in the night and touching wood"

Would you agree that you are not using any objective criteria when assigning phenomena as paranormal?

[davidsmith73]

Would true ESP, if it existed, be Supernatural, or Paranormal?

It would be an ability beyond normal human abilities (as we understand them). Supernatural, or Paranormal could apply IMHO.

But if we just agreed that anything that is detectable in a scientific experiment is not supernatural/paranormal then I don't see how the terms could apply to "proven" ESP. I assume that when you say "true" ESP you mean that its effects have been observed.

In other words, if something was demonstrated to be beyond normal human abilities, it still must have been demonstrated by scientific method and thus must be a physical phenomena (not supernatural).

[This Guy]

But if we just agreed that anything that is detectable in a scientific experiment is not supernatural/paranormal then I don't see how the terms could apply to "proven" ESP. I assume that when you say "true" ESP you mean that its effects have been observed.

In other words, if something was demonstrated to be beyond normal human abilities, it still must have been demonstrated by scientific method and thus must be a physical phenomena (not supernatural).

I stand corrected. Replace "true ESP" with Purported.

True ESP (a mental ability beyond what we understand, proved in proper scientific experiments) would fall under the realm of science. It would not be paranormal.

Perhaps it would be (as alleged by some of it's believers) a natural ability that only a few have been able to put into practice. Perhaps it would be determined to be caused by some strange gene or something.

I guess if it could be demonstrated, under proper scientific conditions, yet not explainable, then it might be truly Paranormal, or Supernatural.

I'm not holding my breath waiting on that to happen though ;)

[CFLarsen]

Please lets not confuse two issues:

One is a statement that a phenomena is not scientifically explainable.

The other is a statement that a phenomena is not yet scientifically explained.

This is what you asked me first:

"Name one physical phenomenon that these people would label "paranormal" but is explainable by science."

To which I responded that I believe all physical phenomena are explainable by science. ESP and PK are physically defined phenomena (well, physical correlations anyway) so I assume that they are explainable.

No, David.

I didn't ask you which physical phenomena that these people would label "paranormal" and which you assume are explainable by science.

I asked you which physical phenomena that these people would label "paranormal" but are explainable by science.

You mentioned ESP and PK. Can you explain them scientifically, yes or no?

[davidsmith73]

No, David.

I didn't ask you which physical phenomena that these people would label "paranormal" and which you assume are explainable by science.

I asked you which physical phenomena that these people would label "paranormal" but are explainable by science.

You mentioned ESP and PK. Can you explain them scientifically, yes or no?

So you mean phenomena that have scientific explanations for them?

As I'm sure you are aware, there are certainly scientific explanations on offer for anecdotal reports of ESP and PK. For example, selective memory, confirmation bias etc. However, I do not believe that these explanations are valid when applied to the results of scientific experiments on ESP and PK.

[CFLarsen]

So you mean phenomena that have scientific explanations for them?

As I'm sure you are aware, there are certainly scientific explanations on offer for anecdotal reports of ESP and PK. For example, selective memory, confirmation bias etc. However, I do not believe that these explanations are valid when applied to the results of scientific experiments on ESP and PK.

"No", then.

Let's scroll back a bit:

I object to this definition because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all". So here, people label certain physical phenomena as supernatural based on subjective preference. In other words it appears to them to be not explainable by science.

Since you are unable to explain ESP or PK scientifically, which "certain physical phenomena" that can be explained by science were you thinking of?

[davidsmith73]

"No", then.

Let's scroll back a bit:

Since you are unable to explain ESP or PK scientifically, which "certain physical phenomena" that can be explained by science were you thinking of?


Lets be careful. We seem to be talking about different things. There is "not scientifically explainable in principle" and "not yet scientifically explained". I was refering to the former in the quote.

So, when someone lebels something as "supernatural" this means that they regard the phenomena as not scientifically explainable in principle. I object to this because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all".

[CFLarsen]

Lets be careful. We seem to be talking about different things. There is "not scientifically explainable in principle" and "not yet scientifically explained". I was refering to the former in the quote.

So, when someone lebels something as "supernatural" this means that they regard the phenomena as not scientifically explainable in principle. I object to this because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all".

I am not talking about "not yet scientifically explained" either.

Answer the question:

Which "certain physical phenomena" were you thinking of?

[davidsmith73]

I am not talking about "not yet scientifically explained" either.

Answer the question:

Which "certain physical phenomena" were you thinking of?

Yet again Claus, you have lost me.

What precisely is it you want to ask me? Be as explicit as you can please

[CFLarsen]

Yet again Claus, you have lost me.

What precisely is it you want to ask me? Be as explicit as you can please

Is it really that difficult to remember what you wrote? Here it is again:

My opinion is that although certain phenomena (real or imaginary) are consistently labelled as "paranormal", there is no objective method by which phenomena fall into this category. Rather, people label certain phenomena as paranormal based on their personal subjective preferences.

A common definition is the one Kaarjuus gave us- "not scientifically explainable: SUPERNATURAL"

I object to this definition because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all". So here, people label certain physical phenomena as supernatural based on subjective preference. In other words it appears to them to be not explainable by science.

Note that this is different from saying paranormal means not yet explained by science, because here the implication is that the phenomena is explainable in principle.

You point to "certain physical phenomena" that are scientifically explainable in principle.

I have - several times now - asked you what these "certain physical phenomena" are.

You have admitted that you cannot scientifically explain either ESP or PK. So, what are these "certain physical phenomena" you were thinking of?

[davidsmith73]

Is it really that difficult to remember what you wrote? Here it is again:



You point to "certain physical phenomena" that are scientifically explainable in principle.

I have - several times now - asked you what these "certain physical phenomena" are.

The "certain physical phenomena" that are scientifically explainable in principle would be ESP and PK to name two. They are scientifically explainable in principle because they are physically defined phenomena. I've already explained this.


You have admitted that you cannot scientifically explain either ESP or PK.

I have said that I do not believe there are current valid explanations for certain ESP and PK experiments. I assume that they are explainable in principle.

Your ability to misunderstand and misrepresent continues to surprise me.

[Larry Lovage]

Why does homeopathy not count as a paranormal phenomenon?homoeopathy isn't paranormal activity, it's pseudoscience.Thats fair enough, but I think you have just defined ESP and PK.Also, why do you think other people also regard such things as UFO's, vampires or bigfoot as paranormal?Could it be that peoples idea of what is paranormal and what is not is based on their own subjective preferences?Well, UFOs are unidentified flying objects. They're flying, they're unidentified. Nothing paranormal or scientifically impossible about either of those attributes. They've just never been seen or recorded in a verifiable unambiguous way. And if UFOs were aliens, they're living creatures - nothing scientifically impossible about aliens either. If by "Vampires" you mean the undead who drink blood, they're neither paranormal nor scientific - they're fantasy fiction. Bigfoot comes under the heading of cryptozoology - again, either the creatures exist or they don't, but they don't as far as I know float in the air, walk through walls or otherwise violate the laws of physics.Things that are paranormal by my definition are those things that are investigated by the JREF and fulfillment of which will yield the one million dollar prize. UFOs are not paranormal, but summoning them (that is, short of pulling a fliptop communicator out of your short-legged bellbottoms and saying "beam on down") would be.

Paranormal effects actually do not exist. PK does not exist. ESP does not exist. If they existed (in the way that the results of Dark Matter exist, or the anomalous alpha values exist or the uniform BB temperature exists, then they would be subject to scientific discussion like these other scientific subjects are. Even more so, if they existed they'd be directly investigateable. You'd be able to determine how far away PK worked, or through how thick an intervening wall it worked. (When Röntgen, discoverer of X Rays was asked by a journalist what he had thought when he had discovered the phenomenon, he tersely replied, "I didn't think. I experimented!") Susan Blackmore expressed one of the principal difficulties for the psi experimenter was the complete lack of progress over more than a century. The goalposts never ever moved further from just trying to determine if there even is a phenomenon.

The paranormal is that which would be tremendously useful if only it existed. Which I think is pretty much the point of the Prize!

[CFLarsen]

The "certain physical phenomena" that are scientifically explainable in principle would be ESP and PK to name two. They are scientifically explainable in principle because they are physically defined phenomena. I've already explained this.

I have said that I do not believe there are current valid explanations for certain ESP and PK experiments. I assume that they are explainable in principle.

Don't assume. Do. How are they explainable?

Your ability to misunderstand and misrepresent continues to surprise me.

David, you have lost all rights to complain that people misunderstand you, when you insist on redefining commonly accepted definitions.

You have dug your own grave. Don't come crying, if you can't get out.

[davidsmith73]

Don't assume. Do. How are they explainable? .

Because they are defined physically. I've explained this three times to you.

[CFLarsen]

Because they are defined physically. I've explained this three times to you.

Cut the crap, David.

Explain ESP scientifically.

Explain PK scientifically.

No more "please" from me. No more crap from you.

[The Atheist]

So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion....snip...

Hi there, and welcome.

To go a step further on the "paranormal" = BS theory, you may find it helpful to download one of these:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377451f74d05e792.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1714)

The reason it's showing high-BS at the moment is merely proximity to one of unter's (CFLarsen's) posts. In general, if it's showing high-BS, it's "paranormal".

[luchog]

I'm not talking about the placebo effect. I am talking about the purported effects of homeopathy outside placebo.

If you look up the origins and explanations of homeopathy, it's very much a "magical" process based strictly on non-physical, one could say supernatural, entities. Homeopaths take advantage of the placebo effect for what little efficacy can be observed -- the diagnostic/prescriptive process can have a profound pyschological effect, particularly with psychosomatic illness; but their explanations are definitely in the realm of the paranormal.

The problem is too many people try to shove it entirely into one category or the other. Either it's entirely paranormal, or it's entirely "scientific". The truth is that it combines elements of both. Paranormal in it's magical language and ritual, but with a crude but effective psychological component.

[star.logic]

..so you guys get off topic easily.

Thanks for all the replies, I've looked at them all equally!

[Mojo]

I would not consider anything detected in a properly conducted scientific experiment to be paranormal. If it can be detected/monitored/observed under scientific conditions, I would say it falls outside the realm of Paranormal, and into the realm of science.A key part of the distinction between real and "paranormal" phenomena is what is observed when properly controlled experiments are carried out.

In the case of real phenomena, they remain consistent, even if science cannot at present adequately explain them, and science starts looking for an explanation.

In the case of "paranormal" phenomena, the more closely they are examined the less is observed. Psychics can get apparently amazing results in situations in which they can cold read. Homoeopathy has incredible cures ascribed to it in anecdotal accounts. There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence for all sorts of dramatic "paranormal" effects. Under controlled conditions, the effects, that were so dramatic in the anecdotes, are at best marginal. Generally they simply disappear.

Hence the claims that paranormal phenomena cannot be scientifically observed, because they're "capricious" or "actively evasive". Hence the claims that double blinded placebo controlled trials are not an appropriate method of evaluating homoeopathy. These sort of phenomena evaporate when examined closely.

Phenomena that can be eliminated by good experimental design are not real.

[This Guy]

A key part of the distinction between real and "paranormal" phenomena is what is observed when properly controlled experiments are carried out.

In the case of real phenomena, they remain consistent, even if science cannot at present adequately explain them, and science starts looking for an explanation.

In the case of "paranormal" phenomena, the more closely they are examined the less is observed. Psychics can get apparently amazing results in situations in which they can cold read. Homoeopathy has incredible cures ascribed to it in anecdotal accounts. There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence for all sorts of dramatic "paranormal" effects. Under controlled conditions, the effects, that were so dramatic in the anecdotes, are at best marginal. Generally they simply disappear.

Hence the claims that paranormal phenomena cannot be scientifically observed, because they're "capricious" or "actively evasive". Hence the claims that double blinded placebo controlled trials are not an appropriate method of evaluating homoeopathy. These sort of phenomena evaporate when examined closely.

Phenomena that can be eliminated by good experimental design are not real.

I think we're saying about the same thing, except you explained it in more detail. :)

I would not consider the one shot lucky guess of a psychic in a laboratory to be conformation of the validity of psychic phenomena. It would have to be confirmed by the proper application of the scientific method to determine that.