What is paranormal, supernatural, or occult power?

[Hegel]

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

That is part of what www.randi.org has to say about the one-million-dollar prize. Wouldn't any thing that was shown 'under proper observing conditions' be BY DEFINITION normal, and natural, and therefore not something paranormal, supernatural or occult? Doesn't that mean that no-one could ever win, because if they gave evidence for it, it would be natural, and therefore would NOT qualify for the prize?

Thanks in advance!

[uneasy]

Here's my self indulgent response, giving a link to my own thread in the same vein. :) And someone there said they made a similar point a while ago. My scenario was that something "paranormal" would be proven to be plain old "scientific" between the preliminary test and the final test.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870058467

You raise an interesting point, but I think the terms of the challenge take care of it. If the claimant and JREF come to an agreement for the test of something "paranormal", then that test, whatever it is, is THE test for testing that particular "paranormal" thing. If no agreement can be made, then there is no test. JREF has the cash; they get to make this rule.

Unless you are claiming there's some "paranormal" thing that can't be observed. I think JREF makes it clear that whatever it is has to be measurable or the claimant is out of luck. Nobody's giving away a million for something they can't see.

[JimTheBrit]

The term ‘paranormal’ is unclear. Randi can use this ambiguity to reject claims which he suspects are genuine.
Rest assured that “the JREF would never choose to withhold the prize by taking refuge in the terminology” (http://www.randi.org/jr/05-04-2001.html). Tom Napier offers this definition, with no objection from Randi - [Supernormal powers must] “lie outside the range of normal human physiology or beyond the laws of science as they are presently understood” (http://www.randi.org/jr/07-30-2000.html). In a later commentary, Randi himself directly addresses the meaning of ‘supernatural’ in regards to application for the challenge: "supernatural," in my definition, means, "describing an event or condition that has been shown to exist, but which cannot be explained or accounted for by established laws of science.
I just know that this statement will attract enthusiastic criticism, but I'll reserve for myself the right to refine my definition, upon the presentation of contrary observations, better evidence, or a better statement....! And by "established," I mean, "established, subject to refinement." (http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html)

Extract from early draft of JREF $1M Challenge Unofficial FAQ.
As ever, corrections and improvements are welcome.

[Dancing David]

This is a good point, however it does not mean that if soemone demostrated ESP, that Randi would just say "Well, it's part of physics now!"

The Challenge rules are just in place to meke sure that people don't use chicanery and technology to pretend to have paranormal pwoers.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by Dancing David
This is a good point, however it does not mean that if soemone demostrated ESP, that Randi would just say "Well, it's part of physics now!"

The Challenge rules are just in place to meke sure that people don't use chicanery and technology to pretend to have paranormal pwoers.

I think that risk is there (that success = science = failure), but the challenge rules do more than just prevent cheats. It's an agreement that JREF enters into with the claimant. When they agree to the rules of the test, then passing that test indicates success. JREF would be on very risky legal ground to suddenly say it isn't.

The whole prelim/final difference still bothers me though, because the rules do indicate these tests could be slightly different.

An aside on terms: I never know what term to use so I often use "paranormal" in quotes to try to indicate I know the term is vague. Other words that might fit are supernatural or unexplained. I think this has been argued before in endless semantic wars. I also like to say JREF instead of Randi because let's face it, he'll be gone someday and I think there will be more continuity to talk about the cause rather than the man.

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by uneasy
My scenario was that something "paranormal" would be proven to be plain old "scientific" between the preliminary test and the final test.


I'm still having problems seeing how this can be so. In accepting to test the claimed abilites, the JREF must first have acknowledged that the ability is supernatural. Having passed the preliminary and/or formal testing, all that's happened is that the ability has been demonstrated - the mechanisms behind how the ability 'works' have still not been explained to any degree and thus the power must still be considered supernatural. Only after subsequent research begins to reveal an explanation for the power, can it then begin to be described as 'natural'.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by uneasy

The whole prelim/final difference still bothers me though, because the rules do indicate these tests could be slightly different.


I believe that the rules for the prelim and the final difference are decided at the same time. (i.e. Randi is prevented from throwing unexpected rules in after a successful prelim test.)

There are a few differences between the prelim and final tests:
- Randi is involved in final tests, although the prelim tests may be done by local people Randi trusts. (This is just a matter of practicality; Randi can't be everywhere at once.)
- The 'statistics' may be tightened up. for example, if you're claiming psycic ability, you'll be performing the exact same test, but the required level of correctness will be increased. (For example, instead of getting 80% on 10 guesses, you'll have to get 80% on 100 guesses.) Again, the numbers will all be decided on before the preliminary test is ever given

Something that many people here seem to forget: Randi has said several times that he does not want explanations on how the ability works, he just wants to know that it it actually does work. The main reason Randi said that was probably to avoid wasting time with people giving long-winded explanations on how their non-existant 'power' worked; however, it also means that a claimant won't have to show how their power has a scientific basis before the final test.

[Keneke]

Looks like theoretical researchers, upon discovering a new universal force, might net themselves a bit more grant money.