The Oz group's experiment

[sackett]

The conclusion of the Oz group's report on testing for therapeutic touch includes this:

"The protocol's results . . . can be added to a succession of experiments that, since the 18th century, have never yielded a positive result."

There's a point that believers should address, if they can. As time passes - and it's getting to be a lot of time -- the likelihood that anything supernatural will be discovered grows smaller. A non-believer is justified in having low expectations; he can be forgiven, I think, for tiredly dismissing dingbat claims until some genuine facts come along.

The Oz group sound like patient, plodding, unimaginative, methodical drudges, that is, good experimenters. And yet, I like the way they remark, "Upon its conclusion, the satisfaction of having implemented a complete protocol is tinged with sadness." If we didn't all hope, inside our hard-boiled skeptical shells, for the discovery of something uncanny, the believers would never get a hearing at all.

 

[Peter Morris]

There's a point that believers should address, if they can. As time passes - and it's getting to be a lot of time -- the likelihood that anything supernatural will be discovered grows smaller. A non-believer is justified in having low expectations; he can be forgiven, I think, for tiredly dismissing dingbat claims until some genuine facts come along.

There is a pretty big flaw in your argument` Things are only "supernatural"/ "paranormal" as long as they have not been validated by science. Any phenomena that is validated automatically stops being paranormal.

Once in a while, not very often, but from time to time science does validate some superstition or another. The classic example is meteorites. At one time science dismissed them as not existing at all, while ill-educated peasants called them the wrath of God. So, science eventually realised that they do exist aftetr all, thereafter they were just normal, scientifically explainable phenomena. Turns out they aren't supernatural at all. So Randi and his fans say that no supernatural phenomena has ever been proved, and meteorites don't count because they are natural.


So, lets say, purely hypothetically, science vallidates the existence of ghosts. In that hypothetical case, ghosts would thereafter be normal, scientifically explainable phenomena. We could look back, and say that that ghosts aren't supernatural after all, and we were wrong to call them such. So Randi and his ilk would still say that no supernatural phenomena has ever been proved, and ghosts don't count because they are natural.

 

[steenkh]

Re: Re: The Oz group's experiment

So, lets say, purely hypothetically, science vallidates the existence of ghosts. In that hypothetical case, ghosts would thereafter be normal, scientifically explainable phenomena. We could look back, and say that that ghosts aren't supernatural after all, and we were wrong to call them such. So Randi and his ilk would still say that no supernatural phenomena has ever been proved, and ghosts don't count because they are natural.

Of course, but if someone had submitted the claim to JREF before it was proved elsewhere, Randi would have to let go of the million first.

 

[homer]

Actually that definition of paranormal is interesting . If I can really communicate using ESP and some scientific theory can be found that can be tested to prove this ,then ESP is not then paranormal .
So it rather looks as if paranormal just means, by definition ,something that can't work since if it does work it's not paranormal .

 

[walthrup48]

What, you mean Peter's definition?

I suppose it depends on the meaning of 'validation'. Also, there's the assumption that Randi uses the definition of "supernatural" and "paranormal" that Peter has put forward.