So, it is coming down to this:
Is there an agreed definition on the Randi forums as to what paranormal actually is?.
From the Million Dollar Challenge FAQ's:
Webster's Online Dictionary defines it as "not scientifically explainable; supernatural", and it defines "supernatural" as, "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature; attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)".
I assume that it is at a minimum, something that could never be explained by rational means, but must be partially repeatable at least in some form by one or more persons (otherwise it can be described as coinincidence).
It is not so homogenous. It could be something that cannot be explained by rational means, such as levitation. That doesn't need to be repeated to be considered paranormal.
Or it could be like your example - two events that coincide. The events themselves are unremarkable, but having them occur together is unlikely. The problem with this situation is that the distinction is arbitrary. With billions of "events" happening every day, even 1 in a billion coincidences are going to occur frequently. It is not remarkable or paranormal when that happens, even though it may feel that way to the individual who experienced it. Repetition just serves to make coincidence increasingly unlikely, but whether or not someone labels it paranormal simply depends upon where they are willing to draw that line.
So repetition is not what makes something paranormal. Repetition really serves a different purpose. First of all, repetition serves to document the event with greater accuracy. Most "paranormal" stories depend upon the recollection of an individual, which we already know can be unreliable. Repetition allows for a more objective assessment - usually demonstrating a natural cause. Second of all, the real interest is in scientific study. Some of our biggest breakthroughs have come about because of observations that seemed to defy the laws of nature. The result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was just as unbelievable (maybe moreso) as the result of Benveniste's homeopathy experiment. But one led us to Relativity and the other fizzled.
When it comes to the Million Dollar Challenge, Randi has been willing to draw a line at one in a million. This may be acheived by the demonstration of two one in a thousand events (repetition). He could acheive the same standard by asking for a single demonstration of a one in a million event, but repetition also gives him a better opportunity to uncover fraud.
Linda
