Paranormal

Hobbes

DeVore wrote:

Oh god, SHUT UP.

I had a premonition you were going to say that.

Psi wrote:

Incidently, was it bug, T4TF, solas or stevemu or I that did it? Forum rules have changed alot since the forum conception.

I forget who, tbh. But I kind of agreed with the sentiment. If someone wants to believe that those orbs on digital camera photos are in fact spirits thats up to them. If they want the other side of the answer there is always the skeptics forum.

cavedave

I dont believe many people would rank the paranormal as a "science". Sorry if that bothers anyone but I dont rank it as a science either. Its the study of things NOT covered by science if anything.

As pointed out by Dev this topic seems to have become a dredging ground for old issues.
I would like to point out some things.
1. Paranormal covers things not open to scientific investigation
This could mean things we cannot know. But Turing, Goedal, Heisenburg, Chaitin, Kolmogorov and many many other scientists investigate the unkowable. The unknowable is a topic for science.
This could mean things we do not have evidence for currently, like a ghost we saw but did not get a picture of. We all carry round sound recording 2 mega pixel picture taking UFO hunting devices and this seems to have reduced unexplained sightings rather then increased them, which i regard as suspicious. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/have-we-offended-them/2006/06/22/1150845307439.html

2. If a system says "nothing can be proved false" then nothing can be proved from that system. Most paranormal posters seem to accept this and regard the forum as a place to share experiences which I did not realise before. Good luck and I hope you enjoy the chat etc but I do now understand that the forum rules preclude proof of the paranormal.

6th

This thread has given no real indication of the limits and boundries of the forum. If you want to know about the forum cavedave I suggest you read it and dont limit you judgement to the charter and these type of threads on feedback.

I see a big difference between proof and evidence.

Evidence is:

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

Proof is:

The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

6th

Cavedave have a read of this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054952825

Dredge through all the crap and you should find some interesting bts and pieces.

stevenmu

cavedave wrote:

As pointed out by Dev this topic seems to have become a dredging ground for old issues.
I would like to point out some things.
1. Paranormal covers things not open to scientific investigation
This could mean things we cannot know. But Turing, Goedal, Heisenburg, Chaitin, Kolmogorov and many many other scientists investigate the unkowable. The unknowable is a topic for science.
This could mean things we do not have evidence for currently, like a ghost we saw but did not get a picture of. We all carry round sound recording 2 mega pixel picture taking UFO hunting devices and this seems to have reduced unexplained sightings rather then increased them, which i regard as suspicious. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/have-we-offended-them/2006/06/22/1150845307439.html

2. If a system says "nothing can be proved false" then nothing can be proved from that system. Most paranormal posters seem to accept this and regard the forum as a place to share experiences which I did not realise before. Good luck and I hope you enjoy the chat etc but I do now understand that the forum rules preclude proof of the paranormal.

I don't think the rules of the forum do, or should, preclude proof of anything. The problem is that the vast majority of the time experiences are discussed, there is no objective data available, we have to rely on subjective second hand information. We also have to keep in mind that hassling someone for evidence they can not provide is only going to drive them away. In this case assumptions have to be made to allow the discussion to go anywhere, specifically it has to be assumed that paranormal phenomona are possible and that the topic at hand *may* be an example of one of them. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

There's nothing wrong with viewing things from scientific viewpoint, but often there simply isn't the required information available to properly form a scientific viewpoint. And experience has shown that trying to force in a scientific viewpoint (generally something along the lines of "without proof of something happening, then nothing happened") only leads to discussion drying up and everyone leaving with a bad taste in their mouth.

I would be happy to see more science based discussion on the forum, but sometimes it simply won't work. If, for example, I were to start a thread claiming that I heard a voice in my head one day that informed me of some future event which later came to pass, how could this be investigated scientifically. It would not be something I can turn on or off or replicate on demand, simply something that just happened one day that I can't explain. Short of some very expensive MRI scans and a few weeks with a psychiatrist, there's not really much can be done.

On the other hand if for example someone posts saying they saw a light in the sky and is wondering what it was, we might look at where they live in relation to flight paths, look at timetables and the type of aircraft that could be around and so on (not rocket science, but scientific-ish).

It's a bit of a grey area and hard to codify exactly, but based on the thread, the topic and the information given, sometimes a scientific viewpoint works, sometimes not.

In terms of the charter and moderating, I'd like to think that we're able to spot the difference between someone who honestly drifts across the line while trying to stay on the right side of it, and someone who deliberatly jumps right over it, and react accordingly.

cavedave

I don't think the rules of the forum do, or should, preclude proof of anything.

I am coming at this from a logic point of view. The rules
1 ALL belief in the paranormal will be respected.
2 No demands for proof of paranormal validity.
do from a mathematical point of view preclude proof.

I were to start a thread claiming that I heard a voice in my head one day that informed me of some future event which later came to pass, how could this be investigated scientifically.

If the voice was not repeated it could not be investigated scientifically, science does rely upon repeatable experiments. If it was repeated it could be, using the tools you suggest or more simply you make predictions/bets and keep winning. After enough unlikely bets people would have to conclude that you could predict the future.

Zillah

DeVore wrote:

I dont believe many people would rank the paranormal as a "science". Sorry if that bothers anyone but I dont rank it as a science either. Its the study of things NOT covered by science if anything.

With the current attempt to push ID as "science" when in fact it is a barely tarted up example of another groups set of "beliefs" really makes me mad and I've no intention of backdooring the paranormal into science either. I dont have a problem with people who want to discuss it or believe it but dont start trying to teach my nephews and nieces it.

DeV.

You're kind of approaching the topic from a weird angle. By definition, everything a human can experience is covered by science. Its true that the "paranormal" is not science, but then again neither are "stars and space stuff" science. Astronomy is though. Similarily parapsychology is a science.

The word "paranormal" is a noun used to describe a group of similar phenomena. Whether it can be called science or not has nothing to do with the nature of the subject, but how you go about analysing it.

As the forum/charter is now it would be grossly innappropriate to put it in science.

6th

We all missed you Zillah, welcome home.

Nevyn

/me looks into her shiney ball bearing of DOOM and sees an alterate future were there is a boards.ie with out a parrots normal forum due to admin ire.............

6th

As long as its an alternate future I dont mind! As a matter of interest can you see what i'm doing in that future?

6th

Sisko really was a great captain btw.

Zillah

6th wrote:

We all missed you Zillah, welcome home.

Why thank you! New York was very cool. I was intending on not touching this thread with a ten-foot-typing-pole but I felt it was important to address the above.

And Sisko was cool, he hit Q. Picard never hit Q.

6th

Zillah wrote:

Why thank you! New York was very cool.

Wife is going there for a weekend without me next month

Zillah wrote:

I was intending on not touching this thread with a ten-foot-typing-pole but I felt it was important to address the above.

Ah sure it wouldnt be a feedback thread about the Paranormal Forum without you ... now who else is missing :rolleyes:

Zillah wrote:

And Sisko was cool, he hit Q. Picard never hit Q.

As much as I like Picard, Sisko was like Shaft in Space!

Nevyn

/me looks into the reflections on Sisko's head and sees an admin locking this thread soon, or was that Teal'c's head.....

oscarBravo

Thaedydal wrote:

/me looks into her shiney ball bearing of DOOM...

Any chance I could borrow that for a half hour on Friday?

DeVore

I'm not sure what you proved Zillah. It aint science, it aint going in the Sci area (as you pointed out so I dunno what your post was for).

Anything anyone has to add better do it in the next 24 hours.

DeV.

Crash

Thaedydal wrote:

/me looks into the reflections on Sisko's head and sees an admin locking this thread soon, or was that Teal'c's head.....

As long as it wasn't during the series where Teal'c grew hair, then that sounds accurate.

GuanYin

&#231 wrote: »

As long as it wasn't during the series where Teal'c grew hair, then that sounds accurate.

There are no hot people in Stargate, unless you have some weird MacGyver fetish... I say we continue with Devore's suggestion of the OC - maybe even an OC forum!!!!

It is great, no really, it is, stop looking at me like that, it is!! honest! Really!

There cheers for the OC forum....

Zillah

DeVore wrote:

I'm not sure what you proved Zillah. It aint science

You can't say "The paranormal isn't science" anymore than you can say "The human body isn't science", because both those things are just nouns. "Biology" is a science, it refers to the discipline of approaching the human body from a scientific perspective. Similarily, "parapsychology" is a science because its the discipline of approaching the paranormal from a scientific perspective.

The paranormal forum as it is would be more accurately (if cumbersomely) titled "Paranormal light hearted discussion for believers", and so its in Rec. If we put it in Sci then it would be more accurately titled "Paranormal for analysis and investigation".

As the forum is the former, it has a charter to reflect that. I'm not arguing for it being put in Sci, I'm just pointing out that your assertion of "The paranormal isn't science" is a fallacy, "science" is a process, a methodology, and it can be applied to any aspect of human experience, including weird shit like ghosts and UFOs. Esspecially weird shit like ghosts and UFOs.

The fact that the current incarnation of the forum doesn't do that doesn't mean it can't be done. Lighting and earthquakes would have once fit under the current meaning of "paranormal".

cavedave

You can't say "The paranormal isn't science" anymore than you can say "The human body isn't science", because both those things are just nouns. "Biology" is a science, it refers to the discipline of approaching the human body from a scientific perspective. Similarily, "parapsychology" is a science because its the discipline of approaching the paranormal from a scientific perspective.

Thanks, that actually makes perfect sense and answers my original question.

bonkey

Zillah wrote:

You can't say "The paranormal isn't science" anymore than you can say "The human body isn't science", because both those things are just nouns.

And nouns are meaningless? Ifthey're not, then being "just nouns" doesn't mean much.

The paranormal entails that which falls outside the limits of what is scientifically explicable. If science can explain it, it ain't paranormal.

Thus, the paranormal requires that one step beyond the boundaries of science and start dealing with the non-scientific.

the discipline of approaching the paranormal from a scientific perspective.

You can't. You can apply some of the techniques of scientific methodology, but you still have to have a base acceptance that either there's a scientific explanation or its paranormal. There's no and. It can't be both. Its one or the other.

Applying aspects of scientific methodology do not science make. If it did, then ID, creationism, flat-earthism, and countless other fields coudl equally call themselves science.

"science" is a process, a methodology, and it can be applied to any aspect of human experience, including weird shit like ghosts and UFOs. Esspecially weird shit like ghosts and UFOs.

Ah, but to remain within science, you have to stop at the point where you say "we have no explanation". Thats the point just before you enter the paranormal.

When people ask about how to get rid of a ghost, you have to say "there is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist, so there is no scientific method of getting rid of them" (or words to that effect).

Weird stuff which is difficult to explain...can be treated scientifically. No qusetion. But once you decide/conclude that this weird stuff is inexplicable by science, any further speculation/belief as to what it is is the paranormal aspect. There's still no crossover. You have weird stuff you can't explain - you either stay with science and say its weird stuff you can't explain, or you go with it being paranormal and leave science behind you.

Lighting and earthquakes would have once fit under the current meaning of "paranormal".

Yes, and stuff that currently fits under paranormal may some day have a scientific explanation.

That still only supports the idea that there is a connection between the two, not the idea that paranormality can be treated scientifically.

Indeed, the fact that they have moved from being paranormal to being scientificaloly explicable is more of an example as to why the two fields are seperate, rather than why they're not.

jc

Zillah

bonkey wrote:

The paranormal entails that which falls outside the limits of what is scientifically explicable. If science can explain it, it ain't paranormal.

Thats only one definition, and its a very short sighted and ultimately useless definition.

A smarter definition would be "that which appears to fall outside scientific understanding" or "that which falls outside current scientific understanding".

Allow me to explain why your defintion is ultimately useless: To define something as outside the realm of science means that you can never ever include anything in that group unless you completely understand the entire universe.

The Ouija board was once paranormal (according to some it still is) but it is now easily explained by the ideometer effect. So it is within the realm of science, but it was once outside "current understanding". Same thing with magnetism, sleep paralysis or epilepsy: All those things were once considered demons, possession or magic, now they're understood.

You have to completely understand something to confirm it is outside science, and if you can completely understand something then its not outside science. And if we treat things we don't understand as outside science (ie, paranormal) then everything not understood is paranormal, including certain types of bacteria, undiscovered particles etc etc.

Hence why your above definition is a short sighted paradox.

(Uh, you might want to move this debate to Paranormal....)

Zombrex

I think people are getting two issues here confused.

1 - Can events that are called "paranormal" by laypeople be studied using science

2 - Should the Paranormal forum be in the Science section, and therefore open to the type of sceptical exploration that biology or physics would allow

The answer to 1 is yes. The answer to 2 seems to be no, at least based on the views of the regular posters and the charter.

Technicallly anything could be placed under science, the sports section for example. But that would kinda miss the point of the sports discussion.

bonkey

Zillah wrote:

Allow me to explain why your defintion is ultimately useless:

I'll allow you to show why you think it is so.

To define something as outside the realm of science means that you can never ever include anything in that group unless you completely understand the entire universe.

Only if you believe that what is encompassed by science is static - that what today falls outside the realms of science can never fall inside said realms. To do this, science would have to be defined as the sum total of all that science will ever be able to explain.

I don't subscribe to this view, for a number of reasons. One overriding reason is because it leads to a future-dependancy which leads to the type of paradox you refer to.

I'd be interested in seeing a scientific argument for why your definition is the right one. After all, an overriding requirement of science is that it is based around testable, falsifiable hypotheses. If we require future discoveries to fall inside the realms of what is science today, I would argue that we fundamentally undermine this concept and thus it is a non-scientific definition.

So it is within the realm of science, but it was once outside "current understanding".

Or, rephrased, it is now scientifically explicable where previously it wasn't. Or, if you prefer "is not explained by anything which goes outside the boundaries of science, where previously it was".
Or, again, "is now addressed by science where previously it wasn't".

In other words, when science couldnt' explain it, the explanation invoked the paranormal. Now that science can explain it, it isn't paranormal....except for those who reject the scientific explanation as being a sufficient answer and still invoke the non-scientific in their explanation.

Same thing with magnetism, sleep paralysis or epilepsy: All those things were once considered demons, possession or magic, now they're understood.

Yup. And when they weren't scientifically understood, they were explicable by appealing to the paranormal. Now they are scientifically understood, they're still explicable by appealing to the paranormal, but you won't get many people giving you credibility for doing so.

In other words, 100 or 200 years ago, their explanations fell otuside the boundaries of science, and invoked the paranormal.

This is entirely in agreement with what I said...I don't see how its contradicting me in any way....unless (as I said) you believe that "science" is the undefinable set of all that ever will be explained by science, as opposed to being a time-dependant set of what is explanable at any point in time.

But once you define science that way, then the paranormal cannot be known to exist. There is no way of knowing whether or not science will someday explain what is given a non-scientific explanation today, on the gruonds that today it is inexplicable.

And if we treat things we don't understand as outside science (ie, paranormal) then everything not understood is paranormal, including certain types of bacteria, undiscovered particles etc etc.

You could refine my definition and say that the paranormal is anything who's explanation relies on the non-scientific, and leave the unexplained as a third option. After all, science and the paranormal deal with the explanations, not the lack of them.

I did say, however, that if science can explain it, it ain't paranormal, and I still hold that to be true. Ouija boards, as you said, can be scientifically explained. But the people for whom they are still paranormal are the peopel who insist that there is still "something else" at work, instead of or as well as the scientific forces invoked in the explanation.

Hence why your above definition is a short sighted paradox.

There is no paradox, unless - as I said - you wish to redefine science to be the sum total of all that ever will be scientifically explicable.

If you do that, then of course you have your paradox...because you've created a future-dependancy. Thats why I don't subscribe to the idea that science is a static "body" which encompasses all that ever will be explicable, rather than it being a time-dependant body which encompasses all that is explicable at any given point in time.

Wicknight wrote:

1 - Can events that are called "paranormal" by laypeople be studied using science

Thats an excellently phrased question which shows up what I'm talking about.

There is an event. There is the study of the event. There are the conclusions.

If the study limits itself to scientific principles and methods, it cannot conclude "this is paranormal". It can only conclude either that it can or cannot explain what is happening.

On the other hand, if the study can conclude "this is paranormal", it can only do so by invoking an explanation which goes outside the scientifically explicable and the scientifically verifiable.

The examination of weird stuff, and the search for explanations thereof can be scientific. But you cannot reach the paranormal without discarding the limits of science.

Thus, while the weird stuff can be scientifically addressed, the paranormal cannot.