Normal and para-normal

[oldunbeliever]

I am not a frequent poster here but enjoy lurking. Thought I would take a stab at something I've been wondering about.

First let me first assert that I am a confirmed skeptic, and believe in rational thought as opposed to blind faith.

That being said I have a kind of curious paradox to put before this group to see what you think.

We dwell much here on the para-normal, ESP, remote-viewing, telepathy and other such para-normal ideas. They are by definition non-rational, non-natural, non-scientific and non-demonstrable.

Consider however that it is now commonly and scientifically accepted that, for instance, our brains give off measureable and useable electrical current, and that there are now devices by which quadraplegics and amputees can control protheses by thought. Such things might have been considered super-natural at one time. Clearly, also, is is possible for two people who know each other well to communicate with their eyes in the absence of any other verbalization or gestures. None of these things are considered to be in any way super-natural. You could certainly not claim the million dollars by setting up a test in which you prove that you can communicate with another person simply using eyesight communication or that you can control the needle on an ammeter through electrodes attached to your brain. These things are accepted and proven as quite natural and therefore demonstrable and normal

Now suppose, just for the sake of argument, that scientists discover and prove that communication, telepathy if you will, between two minds is possible using the electrical current known to be present in the brain and, let's say again for argument's sake, emmanating from it. This would then no longer be super-natural but would be a scientifically accepted fact. You would not be able to claim the prize with a demonstration of this since it would not be supernatural and the prize is only given if someone demonstrates some supernatural phenomenon.

Thus something is supernatural or para-normal only until such time, if ever, as it is scientifically proven not to be. If someone demonstrates telepathy beyond any doubt then by definition it is no longer supernatural and they cannot claim the prize. If it *is* supernatural then it cannot be demonstrated and again cannot win the prize.
Your thoughts on this. What am I missing?

 

[Aepervius]

Yeah you miss a lot

1) From the FAQ out of my poor memory, it is agreed on a protocol BEFORE demonstration what you need to demonstrate to win 10^6 $. Once it is agreed, if you demonstrate it, you win it. Even if it is not "supernatural" they win it because they demonstrated what was agreed on in the protocol.
2) My opinion is, if the prize will be won this will be by a FREAKING good fake. So it does not really matter.

 

[blutoski]

We dwell much here on the para-normal, ESP, remote-viewing, telepathy and other such para-normal ideas. They are by definition non-rational, non-natural, non-scientific and non-demonstrable.

[edited for brevity]

Your thoughts on this. What am I missing?

Phenomena that are originally classified as physically impossible, but could be if a new scientific discovery is made, are sometimes referred to as "perinormal" within the skeptics' community. Some of cryptozoology qualifies, as another example.

Probably more a subject for the "Million Dollar Challenge" folder.

Or just read the existing thread: "Can a scientist grab the million?"http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53213

 

[Soapy Sam]

oldunbeliever- however unlikely those specific examples, I don't think you are missing anything in principle.
Times and knowledge change. You know that. I know that. Accepted scientific conclusions are overthrown and replaced by new ones. But evidence does not change.(Unless it was wrong to start with).

We might find a possible explanatory mechanism for telepathy, but we would still have to prove it had occurred. And we should be able to prove that without the mechanism- supposing it actually had occurred.

But yes, in principle you are right. If we could prove a plausible mechanism for telepathy in terms of known facts, telepathy would cease to be considered paranormal.

 

[Dragon]

oldunbeliever,

As Sam said it's no good speculating about mechanisms unless you can demonstrate an effect in the the first place (and this applies to any effect, paranormal or otherwise).
The prime example of this sort of wooly and wishful thinking* is the homeopaths nonsense about water memory and quantum entanglement etc.
So far as the $1m prize is concerned then it doesn't matter whether the demonstration turns out to be of something which is explainable by science or whether it was labelled "paranormal". Once the protocol is agreed and the test passed then the dosh is handed over.
Sticking with the homeopaths, Randi has long offered them the prize if they can distinguish between a "remedy" and the stock solvent in a DB trial - it is of no importance that proponents of homeopathy don't regard it as paranormal - JREF say it would qualify.
Richard Dawkins speculated TAM3 that the prize could be won by some new science and used the term "perinormal". Randi said that it would be worth the money.

* I do not mean to suggest that you are a wooly or wishful thinker

 

[oldunbeliever]

Thanks for the replies. It seems that the answer to my "what did I miss?" question was the thread "could a scientist grab the million". Appreciate the link. Of course, if a scientist made an amazing new discovery that defied previously accepted science and was proven and accepted by replication and peer review, then the million would be peanuts compared to the fame and fortune that would result.

 

[Ririon]

I tried to find some examples from history similar to your hypothetical case in this thread:
Past Woo->Science Paradigm Shifts
But I didn't have much luck.