Science investigating the Paranormal

6th

Ok if this thread is about parapsychology the i posted this article in paranormal but it didnt get much attention - maybe it will here.
Its an article from Eric Dingwall. For anyone who hasn't heard of him:

British anthropologist, Director of the Department of Physical Phenomena at the ASPR from 1921-22, Research Officer of the SPR from 1922-27. Author of Revelations of a Spirit Medium (with Harry Price), 1922, How to go to a Medium, 1927, Ghosts and Spirits in the Ancient World, 1930, The Haunting of Borley Rectory - A Critical Survey of the Evidence (with Kathleen Goldney and Trevor Hall), 1956, Some Human Oddities, 1962. After sixty years of active psychical research he eventually gave up in exasperation with the low standards of evidence and the disreputable conduct of parapsychologists.

Article here: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/dingwall/responsibility.htm

pH

Robert L. Park's "Seven Warning signs of voodoo Science"

1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise.
4. Anecdotal evidence backs up the claim.
5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
7. The discovery requires a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

This is a comment about Point 3 above:

"The most egregious examples are all in parapsychology. Indeed, in studies spanning more than a century, not one of the many thousands of published papers alleging to have observed telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition, has achieved any level of acceptance among scientists outside the parapsychology community. This is truly remarkable. I can find no other example of a research area in which such a huge body of work has failed so completely to persuade scientists outside the band of true believers conducting the studies. Indeed, in the case of parapsychology it is difficult to see how even the true believers remain convinced.

In the first place, there is nothing resembling progress in parapsychology. Ordinarily, the maturing of an area of research involves three phases: the initial studies are devoted to showing the effect is real, and to identifying the parameters that control the strength of the effect. As the effect is made stronger, research moves on to identifying plausible mechanisms. The final phase involves controlled laboratory tests of these mechanisms. Research into parapsychology is still stuck in the first phase, with each new study merely trying, without much success, to establish that there is something to study.

So no, parapsychology is not a science by any definition of the word. It is a series of poorly controlled experiments trying to detect an effect at very edges of statistical significance. Where are the theories, hypotheses and laws of parapsychology?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

The paranormal exists, then by definition we cannot examine it using scientific method because it is outside the scope of our defintion.

The "paranormal" isn't a thing to exist or not exist.

"Paranormal" is a description (a rather bad one) given to phenomona that we do not currently understand. Whether the specific phenomona is happening the way that believers claim it is ("ghosts!", "ufos!", "esp!", "bigfoot!") is largely irrelevent to explaining what actually is happening.

Your definition that paranormal is something that always lies outside of the natural world is a bit like talking about numbers that are higher than infinity, ie it is a logical error, since if it exist then it is the natural world. Our definition of the natural world expands to encompass it when or if we discover it.

psi wrote:

Again no. It doesn't matter what the definition is. The mere act of applying science to a phenomenon makes it non-paranormal.

Well I wouldn't quite say that.

If, after applying science to the phenomenon it is discovered that the properties of the phenomenon conflict with the current understanding of phsyics, chemistry or biology (and as such have to be updated), then I would say that the event was "paranormal", but is now "normal" as our understanding has increased to encompass it.

On the other hand if the phenomenona can be explained using current scientific theory and understanding then yes it is not paranormal and never was.

psi wrote:

Again no. The definition is that they are outside science. Once science can study it, it is not paranormal.

That isn't the definition since that definition doesn't make sense, like asking for the numbers higher an infinity.

The definition is that it is outside known science and scientific understanding.

psi wrote:

Well it is nice and convenient that you use your own personal definition that suits your arguement and not a definition that is generally accepted by either skeptics or "believers".

If you can explain to me how your definition is not a logical paradox I'll accept that definition.

Until then I'll stick with the one from www.dictionary.com

par-a-nor-mal
Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation

As soon the range of scientific explanations has increased, due to study and understanding, to encompass the specific phenomona it is no longer defined as paranormal, since the range of our explanations can now explain this event.

You definition is also dangerous because it assumes that what we know and what it is possible to know are the same things, which they are clearly not.

psi wrote:

Yes and once we redefine the matural laws of science, by definition of the word paranormal, we also redefine what is paranormal so yet again, we cannot study the paranormal through science.

That is studying the paranormal throught science. If you study something you don't understand and then come to an understanding that is the whole point of science.

psi wrote:

True but again, you can't change one set of goal posts and not the other.

No one is changing goal posts Psi.

What you are basically saying is that science cannot study the non-understood, since as soon as we understand it it becomes understood and is therefore no longer non-understood. Therefore you are not, and never were, studying the non-understood.

But that is nonsense. Claiming that "changes the goal posts" doesn't even make sense. Something isn't its classification. Classification of things can change.

A paranormal event is called paranormal because of the status of our understanding of the event, not because of the characterists of the event itself. It is not a characteristic of the event itself (which doesn't change), only of our ability to understand it (which changes quite a lot).

psi wrote:

This doesn't mean that paranormal can be studied scientifically

"The paranormal" isn't a thing. It is a classification. Paranormal events or phenomona (ie events or phenomona that we classify as paranormal) can be studied scientifically, as can anything that can be observed.

Again what you are saying is like saying that we cannot study the unknown because once we know it then it isn't unknown, so we were in fact not studying the unknown but rather the known, so we were never studying the unknown, which is a logic mess.

Just thinking about that is making my head spin.

We can study the paranormal just like we can study the unknown. But once we have done that it is probably not going to be paranormal or unknown anymore (unless our study was a failure). That doesn't mean we weren't actually studying the paranormal or unknown.

psi wrote:

It merely means that we previously hadn't looked hard enough or more likely, we were wrong about something.

Exactly.

psi wrote:

Secondly, you have again apporached this arguement with a biased and closed mine.

Psi my argument is basically "everything is possible", so how you classify that as closed minded is beyond me. But anyway ....

psi wrote:

You have assumed by your own arguement that paranormal does not exist.

Paranormal is not a thing. It doesn't exist or not exist, anymore than the "unknown" does exists or does not exist. It is a classification given to an event or phenomona that we don't understand.

If the event is something that contradicts our range of scientific understanding then it is paranormal, and our current range of scientific needs to expand to encompass this new and strange event. Basically we start off with what we think is "normal", we discover something that is paranormal (above normal) so our understanding of what normal is changes to encompass this.

psi wrote:

Admittedly, you may not intentionally have done this, but by creating a definition of paranormal that suits your needs, you have stacked the deck.

Its not my definition Psi, it is the standard definition.

psi wrote:

Ahh again, you fall back to using poorly though examples.

Psi you ask for an example, I give an example and you claim that example was poor. I'm getting abit sick and tired of answering your constant demand for examples only to have them ignored.

You wanted to know of a paranormal event study of which can be based on current scientific understanding. I said any involving light or sound. Do you disagree with that or not?

psi wrote:

The act of discovering a source will remove it from paranormal classification.

Only in the way of discovering anything will remove it from "unknown" classification into a better set specific defintion.

As I said, "paranormal", is not a characterist of the thing itself, only of our understanding off it.

Just like "unkown" isn't a classification of the next big thing we will discover.

psi wrote:

I have repeatedly said and shown how they are not involved.

And yet you repeatable use their classification of an event or pheneomona as the basis for any possible scientific study, ie we are going to find out this is or is not remote view, a ghost, person who can see into the future ... why?

psi wrote:

No, YOU describe a paranormal event in detail and devise and experiment.

Groan ... ok, but I would remind you I'm not the one screaming for evidence of an experiment in the first place. I've already explained that just because I can't come up with an experiment doesn't infer that it is impossible to do so

Give me a bit ... this could take a little while ...

psi wrote:

No, observation is not the same as scientific methodology. A simple concept you cannot seem to grasp.

Scientific methodology is a method of observing something to ensure (or try to ensure as much as possible) that you can trust the out come of that observation.

psi wrote:

Do you even know what your point is anymore or are you on such a revenge vendetta that you won't actually take on any points made and are just trying to "score a win".

My point, which I believed was quite clear, was that just because I cannot devise an experiment to study a paranormal event there is no inference from that about the possibility of studying such event.

I cannot devise an experiment to study nucluer fusion either, does that mean such an experiment is beyond the human understanding? It would be very arrogant of me to believe so, as I'm sure you would point out if I made such as claim.

So your constand demand that I come up with an experiment to study an as yet completely unknown paranormal event, is rather tedious and irrelevent to any point either of us is making, especially considering any examples I've used have been attacked by you for making "assumptions" about the nature of the phenomona in my own examples. If you can come up with a way of using an example without a set of base assumptions to make the example specific (and as such an example rather than just a general statement) I would like to hear it.

6th

I cant help but agree with pH's post above even though I am a believer. All I can have confidence in is my personal experiences and those of people I trust are being genuine. I do take some instances as genuine based on shared elements of personal experiences but I do not for a second just to presume something to be true because it maps or backs up my own beliefs.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

If you study what you think is a species of bear and turns out to be a type of racoon. Have you actually studied a bear at any stage?

No, which is why it is rather foolish to call something a "bear" until you know it is a bear

The status of what is or is not "paranormal" is dependent on the status of our current understanding of the universe. The universe is the same, what is normal was always normal, just like the racoon was always a racoon.

If you study an "unknown animal" and find out it is a new species of bear have you still studied an unknown animal just because now the animal is in fact "known"?

The answer is of course yes.

That is of course if the bear was in fact unknown to being with.

If on the other hand you simply didn't bother to read the page in the Big Book of Bears that covers that bear then you weren't in fact studying an unknown bear.

Which is why I keep saying you have to ignore the classification of events based on lay man/believers classifications. They probably won't know if something is "paranormal" or not to begin with. This happens all the time with UFOs, things classified as alien aircraft just because the person doesn't know the range of human air craft.

Something can be paranormal, but for it to be paranormal it must possess characteristics beyond our understanding of physics, chemistry or biology.

Ignorance of science alone is not a reason to classifiy something as paranormal.

pH

6th wrote:

I cant help but agree with pH's post above even though I am a believer. All I can have confidence in is my personal experiences and those of people I trust are being genuine. I do take some instances as genuine based on shared elements of personal experiences but I do not for a second just to presume something to be true because it maps or backs up my own beliefs.

And to be honest I have to agree with you, if you 'believe' that ghosts exist/or that esp exists because it fits with an overall belief system and makes sense to you then you'll get not criticism from me!

However once you say there is 'proof', or it is scientific then I'm going to want to see this proof, and be more critical when you start obfuscating and trying to 'redefine' words like proof and evidence.

However, if you go one step further and now start selling this stuff to vunerable people, targetting the sick, grieving or emotionaly disturbed with crystal cures for cancer or messages for departed loved ones to make a fast buck for yourself - I'm going to be hostile to the extreme.

GuanYin

Once again you go off on some tangent wicknight.

Paranormal, by my posting or yours, doesn't need to be a "thing" or not - the meaning of my posting could quite easily be a classification or an object. Obviously I meant a classification, however you wish to use the less obvious meaning to suit your purposes. Again poor show.

As for my definition - I'm using an acknowledged Skeptic definition on a skeptic forum. I didn't create it.

Incidently, your "dictionary.com definition" was again a biased choice. You took the one of three definitions given that suited your arguement. Biased reporting again (how many times is that now?) is not a tool of science.

The same page also gives:
"not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and phenomena "

- from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

and
"seemingly outside normal sensory channels [syn: extrasensory] [ant: sensory] 2: not in accordance with scientific laws"
from - WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Your definition, incidently came from: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

So which was it, you chose the definition best biased to your arguements or you chose the first evidence you found while ignoring the others?

If your sorry attempts to use language to muddle issues is really about all you can put forward, then I'm not arsed replying to your posts, because its just a one-up-manship nonsense fest and not actually doing anyone any good (except maybe your ego).

If you want to rethread the above post without the muddying of the waters and try keep the discussion sensical, I'll re-review your contribution.

Zombrex

6th wrote:

I cant help but agree with pH's post above even though I am a believer. All I can have confidence in is my personal experiences and those of people I trust are being genuine. I do take some instances as genuine based on shared elements of personal experiences but I do not for a second just to presume something to be true because it maps or backs up my own beliefs.

That is actuall quite refreshing to hear 6th

6th

Thats fair enough, though for me the fact that science has not expalined or discovered any truth behind peoples calims does not make the experiences any less real for me. I respect the position of science on the matter but for me science is not the be all and end all.

6th

Wicknight wrote:

That is actuall quite refreshing to hear 6th

I hold the ideals of the paranormal forum and its posters but I get equally annoyed and certain claims when people state things as fact and refuse to back them up. But the Paranormal forum is not the place for demands of proof, just as the Christianity forum isnt for their beliefs - thats why i like this thread and hope it will answer some of the questions i've had in my head myself.

As for the battle of words here, its getting tired, there is no set language of the "paranormal" and that is one of the things that is holding it back.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

"not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and phenomena"
- from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Perfectly happy with that definition as well ...

psi wrote:

"seemingly outside normal sensory channels [syn: extrasensory] [ant: sensory] 2: not in accordance with scientific laws"

Also perfectly happy with that definition

I'm perfectly happy to use any of those definitions Psi, as they basically say exactly the same thing as the one I've been using. So I'm failing to see the problem here. As I said, the definition I've been using is the standard one

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Perfectly happy with that definition as well ...


Also perfectly happy with that definition

I'm perfectly happy to use any of those definitions Psi, as they basically say exactly the same thing as the one I've been using. So I'm failing to see the problem here. As I said, the definition I've been using is the standard one

"not understandable in terms of known scientific laws abd phenomenon"

You can't study something via scientific method if you cannot understand it.

As scepticone said, you can study claims to paranormal phenomenon via science, however if there is anything truely paranormal, it is outside the scope of science.

Your possibility rules out the chance that there *is* anything that is paranormal (by the skeptic definition), which is an ssumption on your part thatyou have no basis for.

You used past evidence, but past evidence is not a future indicative.

Zombrex

6th wrote:

Thats fair enough, though for me the fact that science has not expalined or discovered any truth behind peoples calims does not make the experiences any less real for me.

Well it depends on what you mean by "real"

I don't think the point is to say that what you have experienced didn't happen. Obviously something happened in every single case of a paranormal experience otherwise they wouldn't have been experienced.

The point is that the clasification that we as humans seem compelled to put on events we don't really understand, might be incorrect and at times can be largely baseless.

We as a species seem to have a hard time simply saying "no idea what that was". It seems to be against our nature, which might explains why there is such discussion around paranormal events when so little is actually known. We hear an explination from somewhere else and attempt to fit it around our experience because the uncertainity is unnerving.

I think a lot of people get rescentful towards the scientific community because they believe that the scientific community are trying to say the experience that they had wasn't real. They aren't really, but what they might be saying is the explianation that was fitted over the experience maybe incorrect.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

No, which is why it is rather foolish to call something a "bear" until you know it is a bear

The status of what is or is not "paranormal" is dependent on the status of our current understanding of the universe. The universe is the same, what is normal was always normal, just like the racoon was always a racoon.

If you study an "unknown animal" and find out it is a new species of bear have you still studied an unknown animal just because now the animal is in fact "known"?

The answer is of course yes.

That is of course if the bear was in fact unknown to being with.

If on the other hand you simply didn't bother to read the page in the Big Book of Bears that covers that bear then you weren't in fact studying an unknown bear.

My question was rather simple. It involved a yes or no answer. Could it be that you did not understand it, or chose not to answer it.

If yo did not understand it, can you please tell me the difficulty you had.

If you chose not to answe rit and instead muddle it, can you explain why?

Which is why I keep saying you have to ignore the classification of events based on lay man/believers classifications. They probably won't know if something is "paranormal" or not to begin with. This happens all the time with UFOs, things classified as alien aircraft just because the person doesn't know the range of human air craft.

I have not at any stage used such references. They have all come from you and your inferral that I have.

Something can be paranormal, but for it to be paranormal it must possess characteristics beyond our understanding of physics, chemistry or biology.

Ignorance of science alone is not a reason to classifiy something as paranormal.

You seem to think that paranormal is a scientific term. It isn't.

mysteria

Finding concrete proof is difficult in a lot of fields, and with ongoing research the proof and results change with time and progress. In allopathic medicine for example, "hands on healing", reiki, chi, pranic, laying-on of-hands, faith healing or whatever you choose to call, was considered nonsense and still is by some Drs. Yet it's available on the NHS in certain areas. 10 yrs ago supplements like Milk Thistle were dismissed by doctors. Now it's recommended by the WHO for liver problems which is what Holistic Consultants always used it for. So called " alternative" therapies such as reflexology, massage and Indian head massage are paid for by the Dept. of Health here in Ireland for patients with certain illnesses.So are a lot of Holistic Health supplements. But a lot of doctors still don't know that and 10 years ago the concept that this could ever happen was ridiculed. My point is that in many areas todays research leads to tomorrow's Science. The unbelievable becomes reality. I believe the same is true of the paranormal, especially with such great strides being made in Neuroscience and Psychoneuroimmunology. We don't have to rely on Parapsychology alone. Remember there are still people in the world in tribal areas who would not believe you could board a plane and fly to another country. Just because we don't have all the proof yet does'nt mean it's impossible. And the truth IS out there.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

"not understandable in terms of known scientific laws abd phenomenon"

You can't study something via scientific method if you cannot understand it.

That is not what the definition means Psi, and I think you know it.

Not understandable in terms of known scientific law does not mean not understandable.

The vast majority of science was at one point not understandable in terms of known scientific laws. Where do you think quantum physics came from. It came from the fact that quantum interaction was not understandable in terms of known scientific law (Newtonian mechanics), which is why known scientific laws was expanded greatly by the study of quantum mechanics, and still is being expanded.

psi wrote:

As scepticone said, you can study claims to paranormal phenomenon via science, however if there is anything truely paranormal, it is outside the scope of science.

Well "outside the scope of science" is a bit of a logical paradox, like numbers larger than infinity, so I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm going to assume you mean outside the scope of current scientific understanding and practice as performed by humans based on our current understanding of the universe.

If that is the case everything was at some point outside the scope of science.

psi wrote:

Your possibility rules out the chance that there *is* anything that is paranormal (by the skeptic definition), which is an ssumption on your part thatyou have no basis for.

If anything fits the definition of paranormal it is paranormal, just like if something is unknown then it is unknown.

Because at some point it because known doesn't change the fact that it was originally unknown, just like if something was paranormal doesn't change once scientitic understand has increased to encompass it.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

My question was rather simple. It involved a yes or no answer. Could it be that you did not understand it, or chose not to answer it.

Did you miss the "No" at the very start?

psi wrote:

I have not at any stage used such references. They have all come from you and your inferral that I have.

Apologies, I missed that because I didn't think you would use an entire post to prove I'm right.

You implied I am using a made up definition of the word paranormal to suit my argument. I'm not. I'm using the standard definition of the word, as you seem to have just proved.

psi wrote:

You seem to think that paranormal is a scientific term. It isn't.

I don't because its not, its a classification often applied by lay-people simply to events or phenomona they don't undestand.

I've repeatably said it is a rather bad and inaccurate classification, and I think I even went so far as to call it a bit of a nonsense word. But it is the one that is being used here so I guess we are stuck with it. If I ruled the world I would have done away with the word a long time ago.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

That is not what the definition means Psi, and I think you know it.

Not understandable in terms of known scientific law does not mean not understandable.

again I meant not understandbale by scientific laws, I thought that would be evident.

Now that you have again used an obtuse approach to gloss over a flaw in your view point I'm sure we'll move on and forget it.

The vast majority of science was at one point not understandable in terms of known scientific laws. Where do you think quantum physics came from. It came from the fact that quantum interaction was not understandable in terms of known scientific law (Newtonian mechanics), which is why known scientific laws was expanded greatly by the study of quantum mechanics, and still is being expanded.


Well "outside the scope of science" is a bit of a logical paradox, like numbers larger than infinity, so I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm going to assume you mean outside the scope of current scientific understanding and practice as performed by humans based on our current understanding of the universe.

If that is the case everything was at some point outside the scope of science.

Past evidence is not future indicative. You cannot say that because all previous instances have lead to X then all future ones will too.

It is basically an arguement along the lines of "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephanst are pink".

If on the other hand you can show that everything works to a finite set of universal laws. Please go ahead. I'm sure I and the Nobel Prize committee will review your post with interest.

If anything fits the definition of paranormal it is paranormal, just like if something is unknown then it is unknown.

Because at some point it because known doesn't change the fact that it was originally unknown, just like if something was paranormal doesn't change once scientitic understand has increased to encompass it.

No, You again miss a simple concept.

The paranormal (as in all paranormal phenomenon) are outside the scope of current science. That is *WHY* they are paranormal. Otherwise they would just be normal.

Can you agree on that?

Assuming you do - If some phenomenon, allegedly paranormal in nature (a claim by one of your much maligned believers) is investigated in the context of current science and characterised. Then it was never paranormal.

If it is not now, but at some point later becomes explainable through new understandings of science, then the previous definition of science holds, and it turns out that it was not paranormal after all.

That is the nature of the paranormal and that is why scientific method cannot uncover it.

The thing is, we cannot assume that all future events wiill fit to some model of the laws of nature that we have not yet uncovered. It would be folly to think so. We may one day come across a phenomenon that simply does not fit in with any law of the universe that we know. We can suggest that there is a law that we don't know about that fits it, but and this is key

belief that a phenomenon will it into as yet unknown and undiscovered laws of nature, that we have no evidence for, is just as bad as believing that the phenomenon is a ghost or goblin

Both are based on supposition and not on fact or evidence.

pH

mysteria wrote:

Finding concrete proof is difficult in a lot of fields,

Firstly all proof is concrete, and finding it is hardest of all in the fields that it doesn't exist.

and with ongoing rearch the proof and results change with time and progress. In allopathic medicine for example, "hands on healing", reiki, chi, pranic, laying-on of-hands, faith healing or whatever you choose to call, was considered nonsense and still is by some Drs. Yet it's available on the NHS in certain areas. 10 yrs ago supplements like Milk Thistle were dismissed by doctors. Now it's recommended by the WHO for liver problems which is what Holistic Consultants always used it for. So called " alternative" therapies such as reflexology, massage and Indian head massage are paid for by the Dept. of Health here in Ireland for patients with certain illnesses.So are a lot of Holistic Health supplements. But a lot of doctors still don't know that and 10 years ago the concept that this could ever happen was ridiculed. My point is that in many areas todays research leads to tomorrow's Science. The unbelievable becomes reality. I believe the same is true of the paranormal, especially with such great strides being made in Neuroscience and Psychoneuroimmunology. We don't have to rely on Parapsychology alone. Remember there are still people in the world in tribal areas who would not believe you could board a plane and fly to another country. Just because we don't have all the proof yet does'nt mean it's impossible. And the truth IS out there.

This is typical of the dishonest arguing style employed by believers on this type of thread. You now throw alternative medicine into the mix, and try and equate that fact that the NHS is providing these treatments with 'scientific' proof. The NHS could provide a healing crystal for every child in the UK, it has no bearing as to whether there is any scientific proof that crystals heal people.

May I also draw your attention to ALL 7 of the "warning signs of voodoo science" I posted above.

psi wrote:

As scepticone said, you can study claims to paranormal phenomenon via science, however if there is anything truely paranormal, it is outside the scope of science.

This is incorrect. I concede that science may not be able to explain a 'truly paranormal' effect, but if something exists then you must be able to show the effect in a reproducable scientific way, the explanation that's paranormal I can accept (albeit reluctantly).

mysteria

Do you realise how boring this is for anyone interested in Science, research & the paranormal?

Zombrex

mysteria wrote:

My point is that in many areas todays research leads to tomorrow's Science. The unbelievable becomes reality.

Very few (none?) of these areas have been shown scientifically to work, they are on the national health services because people want them, not because they are now considered scientific.

And a lot of people, especially doctors, are quite disturbed by that.

mysteria wrote:

Just because we don't have all the proof yet does'nt mean it's impossible. And the truth IS out there.

Where?

That is a good point, and I think sometimes people confuse what science is actually saying. Science is not saying nothing is happening. It is saying that we don't know that is happening. Therefore putting our own classifciation on something because we like the fit isn't really a good idea.

Take something homotheripy. If someone survived a terminal cancer and who also took homotheripy the supporters of the theripy would naturally say that that was because of the homotheripy. But the scientific community would say "hold on, you don't actually know that".

So any future conclusions from that are rather dangerous. It would be wrong if you (as in the general you, not you mysteria) say well homotherepy cures cancer and give it to a load of cancer people.

mysteria

Really Ph my post has more to do with this topic than talking about bears. And it is a very valid point!

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Did you miss the "No" at the very start?

Opps I did, apologies.

Apologies, I missed that because I didn't think you would use an entire post to prove I'm right.

prove what now?

You implied I am using a made up definition of the word paranormal to suit my argument. I'm not. I'm using the standard definition of the word, as you seem to have just proved.

Ah yes, again the one you used with the most convenient language for you, but not the others that don't.

Muddly, Muddly, Jumbly Monkey there wicknight.

I don't because its not, its a classification often applied by lay-people simply to events or phenomona they don't undestand.

Lay people like yourself?

But you say that science can investigate the paranormal. But then you refute the term.

So what is it you think that science can investigate?

Has it been all along that you made a claim based on a private definition?

I've repeatably said it is a rather bad and inaccurate classification, and I think I even went so far as to call it a bit of a nonsense word. But it is the one that is being used here so I guess we are stuck with it. If I ruled the world I would have done away with the word a long time ago.

But it is the one you used in your claim?

Wicknight, you really talk nonsense.

Your initial claim is that science can explain the paranormal (you used prove and science in conjnuction alot until you were corrected). But now you say that the paranormal is nonsense and you only want to talk about scientifically verifiable phenomenon.

so your WHOLE arguement is that science can be used to validate scientifically verifiable phenomonenon?

Well if that is the case, well done, I agree. You win.

However, I would like you to show emperical evidence now that EVERYTHING can be verified scientifically.

GuanYin

pH wrote:

This is incorrect. I concede that science may not be able to explain a 'truly paranormal' effect, but if something exists then you must be able to show the effect in a reproducable scientific way, the explanation that's paranormal I can accept (albeit reluctantly).

Back to the start I fear.

If you do not understand the nature of something, how do you show its effect in a scientific way? Surely by being paranormal, rather than phenomenological, it cannot be readily defined. Where would you even begin to look.

I'd agree that once we can measure something we can study it scientifically, the point is, once it is paranormal, we cannot.

mysteria

Sorry wicknight, I've been with you until now but do you really believe the NHS and Irish Dept. of Health provide services for people "just because they want them?" We can't even get a hospital bed in most hospitals. They provide them because there is adequate evidence that they work, but there are only a certain amount of approved therapies and supplements. Homeopathy is a nano-science that many GPs are now studying and practising. I work with doctors who welcome holistic as well as medical input because the future of medicine is a mix of both. The placebo effect is well known, but this applies equally to allopathic medicine.

mysteria

How much paranormal research has anyone here done under controlled conditions?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

again I meant not understandbale by scientific laws, I thought that would be evident.

That makes even less sense as support for your argument

If something is not understandable by scientific law then the understanding of the law is wrong or incomplete, which is exactly what I've been saying since the beginning.

psi wrote:

If on the other hand you can show that everything works to a finite set of universal laws. Please go ahead. I'm sure I and the Nobel Prize committee will review your post with interest.

You keep missing the "known" bit. Current known scientific law is not all scientific law.

psi wrote:

The paranormal (as in all paranormal phenomenon) are outside the scope of current science. That is *WHY* they are paranormal. Otherwise they would just be normal.

I agree 100% with that statement.

The key word being "current" science. As I pointed out everything we know has at one point been outside the scope of current science. "Current science" increases and improves to encompass the new stuff. That is what science and understanding are. They grow.

Which is why something can at some point be classified as paranornmal, or unknown, or just plain weird, and at a later stage be understood and considered simple.

psi wrote:

Assuming you do - If some phenomenon, allegedly paranormal in nature (a claim by one of your much maligned believers) is investigated in the context of current science and characterised. Then it was never paranormal.

It is "paranormal" if it contradicts, and therefore requires update, to current scientific understanding of the day.

Once the current scientific understanding has been updated, it is then just "normal" because the understanding has grown to encompass it.

psi wrote:

If it is not now, but at some point later becomes explainable through new understandings of science, then the previous definition of science holds, and it turns out that it was not paranormal after all.

It was paranormal at the time. As I explained, the classification "paranormal" is dependent on the current state of human understanding.

If you are in doubt about this sustitute the word "unknown" for "paranormal". If something was unknown and then discovered that doesn't mean that before it was discovered it actually was known. The classification "unknown" depends on what we as a species actually know. As does the classification paranormal. Paranormal is dependend on our current understand of what is normal

psi wrote:

The thing is, we cannot assume that all future events wiill fit to some model of the laws of nature that we have not yet uncovered. It would be folly to think so.

You don't have to. Even if we never discover a 10% of the natural laws in the unvirse (of which it is quite possible are infiniate number), that doesn't mean they cannot be discovered, only that we haven't or are incapable of doing so.

I know this is getting a bit abstract, but imagine the atomic theory. If the universe had ended in 1790 and we or no one had ever discovered atomic theory, does that mean it was not possible to do so? No, it just means we didn't.

It is logical to assume that anything that can be observed can be studied using the scientific method and explained, even if one admits that that does not hold true when applied to humans.

I don't know if humans will ever discover everything, only that it is possible.

psi wrote:

belief that a phenomenon will it into as yet unknown and undiscovered laws of nature, that we have no evidence for, is just as bad as believing that the phenomenon is a ghost or goblin

We do have evidence for the law, the thing we are observing is the evidence for the law.

6th

I've done now, how about you, i still cant find anything on the Irish Institute of Parapsychology & Metaphysics papers etc?

Zombrex

mysteria wrote:

How much paranormal research has anyone here done under controlled conditions?

I did in leaving cert. Not the most exhaustive study ever carried out, but our biology teacher had a PhD so he knew what he was doing, and we took it very seriously.

We didn't find anything, which actually did upset one of the girls who thought she was psyhic btw.

Zombrex

mysteria wrote:

Sorry wicknight, I've been with you until now but do you really believe the NHS and Irish Dept. of Health provide services for people "just because they want them?"

Yes. There has been uproar by some quarters, mostly doctors and reseach staff, over the move to include certain "alternative" medicine on the national health services here and in Britian. It is a political decision, it isn't coming from the doctors.

This subject is actually discussed a lot on this forum.