Where does the paranormal start?

[Carn]

Just read the claim and the corresponding thread about the claim "I am not human(and it cannot be checked for except by dna tests)".

Now some being having a practical identical external and internal appearance and functioning(otherwise other options than dna tests would be possible, e.g. looking at her), would certainly be paranormal, if one thinks of how much in common dna of humans and some apes have and still there are thousands of possible tests to determine whether something is human or ape.

But when would the claim "i'm not human" actually start becoming paranormal?
Natural mutation can at least result in human beings, which upon a first look are not immiediately identified as humans, more extreme mutations, where a lot of tests, even dna tests would give non-human as result could happen.

So is there a definite border?

And what about animals?
A horse with wings, that enable it to fly naturally(of course hollow bones and so on), or a ape, who can formulate the challenge application and correspondence himself, would certainly be paranormal.
A dog with a deformed, unusable and short fifth leg would be non-paranormal, but a dog with a useable healthy fifth leg would be something different.

Any good ideas?

Carn

(BTW, is the challenge limited to humans or can any being, that is capable of writing, getting notarization and sending a challenge application, apply?)

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The criteria seems to be "it's paranormal if Randi says so".

I know that sounds flippant, and it doesn't do much for the woo image of Randi as autocratic ruler of the challenge, but there are things which Randi says are acceptable while others would disagree.

Homeopathy is something which the practioners believe is scientifically within our understanding, while others think it's paranormal. I'm sure that some of the purveyors of those stupid audio accessories think they're being scientific in their tests. But for the purposes of HIS challenge, Randi calls the shots.

Regarding the dog with 5 legs, is that possible in terms of what we know about mutation? You'd have to ask a biologist, but it doesn't sound like it is beyond our current understanding.

 

[Brian]

My thinking was that discovering a new form of life would not be paranormal, even if that life form came from Jupiter. We live in a Universe where life naturally exists. Even if we discovered a Yeti, all we'd have to do is add a new primate to the biology texts. (after we stood around slack jawed for a few hours going wow)

 

[Gr8wight]

I think it's a question Randi doesn't have to deal with a lot. For example, if someone had captured a 'yeti' or had other incontrovertible proof of one's existence, I hardly think the JREF would be their first stop.

 

[Carn]

I think it's a question Randi doesn't have to deal with a lot. For example, if someone had captured a 'yeti' or had other incontrovertible proof of one's existence, I hardly think the JREF would be their first stop.

Why not if he gets a million for showing the yeti twice?
That is 1 million for 2 short shows(which include taking a bit blood and maybe an x-ray) and in no way keeps them to show the yeti to others and let them pay for.

Carn

Actually it's around 2 million, so JREF is a realy good paying customer.

 

[jmercer]

Well... my first reaction is that it's Randi's money. And for a million bucks, he's certainly more than entitled to decide what constitutes paranormal to him.

If I ever have a million that I could put up (fat chance!), then I'd probably go with the following:

Merriam-Webster gives this definition:

Main Entry: para·nor·mal
Pronunciation: "par-&-'nor-m&l, 'par-&-"
Function: adjective
: not scientifically explainable : SUPERNATURAL

For what it's worth, I don't believe that mutations (natural or unnatural) are paranormal because they are already known to exist and the mechanism is largely understood.

To me, something paranormal would have to be certifiably in violation of some kind of natural law.

 

[Carn]

My thinking was that discovering a new form of life would not be paranormal, even if that life form came from Jupiter.

Depends on!
There are scientific accepted well founded theories about how lifes has evolved and evovles, that would be totally contradicted by the appearance of some of the cryptozoologic claims.

Yeti and Big Foot are a remote possiblity as primates come in different form and sizes, but Nessie would totally blow up evolution science and biological laws.
It sits in a lake, that cannot support a population of more than 10, and yet the creatures survive since millions of years. Biologically it is impossible for such a small population to exists for long. Sooner or later a bad winter, a diseases or genetic defects will kill them.
And flying horses would certainly a total suprise, especially that we have not seen some so far.

About extraterrestrial life, within the solar system existance alone is not paranormal(after all NASA ans ESA are spending some millions to find something on Titan), unless some billion green men suddenly crawl out of their hiding holes on mars or a humanoid from Jupiter visits us and does so without any protection suit.

Extraterrestrial life from outside the solar system has a hard time to get here, without cicumventing some scientific laws, so their appearing alone could be paranormal alone. (Even a generation ship could be enough, because of that technical stuff operating for thousands of years).

Carn

 

[Carn]

For what it's worth, I don't believe that mutations (natural or unnatural) are paranormal because they are already known to exist and the mechanism is largely understood.

But the mechanisms which cause mutations have their limits. E.g. the next 20 years(limit due to unknown potential of genetic design) there will never come a living human out of a chicken egg, so a chicken repeatadly producing such eggs would certainly be paranormal, as the eggs themselve.

Carn

 

[jmercer]

But the mechanisms which cause mutations have their limits. E.g. the next 20 years(limit due to unknown potential of genetic design) there will never come a living human out of a chicken egg, so a chicken repeatadly producing such eggs would certainly be paranormal, as the eggs themselve.

Carn

Well, now we're talking totally different things, I believe. There's a difference between mutation and having a chicken produce a human embryo in a chicken egg. That would certainly be paranormal, but not a mutation!

 

[jmercer]

Depends on!
There are scientific accepted well founded theories about how lifes has evolved and evovles, that would be totally contradicted by the appearance of some of the cryptozoologic claims.

Yeti and Big Foot are a remote possiblity as primates come in different form and sizes, but Nessie would totally blow up evolution science and biological laws.
It sits in a lake, that cannot support a population of more than 10, and yet the creatures survive since millions of years. Biologically it is impossible for such a small population to exists for long. Sooner or later a bad winter, a diseases or genetic defects will kill them.
And flying horses would certainly a total suprise, especially that we have not seen some so far.

Based on the way we generally choose to define paranormal and supernatural here in this forum, yes, you're correct. But since you started this thread with "Where does paranormal start", let me throw you a curve ball.

If something is proven to exist in apparent violation of known natural laws, does that mean it is exempt from those laws? Or does it mean that there are laws we don't know about yet? (Or perhaps there are implications to "known" laws that we don't understand.)

About extraterrestrial life, within the solar system existance alone is not paranormal(after all NASA ans ESA are spending some millions to find something on Titan), unless some billion green men suddenly crawl out of their hiding holes on mars or a humanoid from Jupiter visits us and does so without any protection suit.

Extraterrestrial life from outside the solar system has a hard time to get here, without cicumventing some scientific laws, so their appearing alone could be paranormal alone. (Even a generation ship could be enough, because of that technical stuff operating for thousands of years).

Carn

Well, again... if a billion little green men suddenly crawl out of holes on Mars, would that necessarily be supernatural or paranormal? I don't think so... my guess would be that a perfectly logical and rational explanation for them would be found. I guess my problem is that you're throwing around "scientific laws" a lot, like they're all-encompassing, fully understood and complete. But we don't even have a Theory Of Everything yet. (There are some candidates, but that's always the case.) And a T.O.E. is a LONG way from being a set of laws.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not suggesting that the "woo" factor's selective misuse of science's blind spots is valid. But at the same time - if confronted with something that violates our known scientific beliefs - we can't just cry "paranormal". That would take us back to the bad old days where anything inexplicable was automatically either "magic", or "divine intervention", or "demonic activity", etc.

The right thing to do is to accept the reality (A billion little green martian men exist), and then try to understand HOW that reality exists.

Heck, not too long ago, science was turned on it's head by discoverning that the universe is constantly accelerating - and no-one knows why, or what's causing it. Is that paranormal? Or just an indication that we don't know everything yet?

 

[KRAMER]

A Clarification

Mutation is a fact of science. A snake with two heads, or the sudden discovery of a living, breathing, howling Yeti, is NOT paranormal. Living organisms thriving around underwater volcanoes at temperatures under which all other forms of life would die instantly? Also not paranormal.

Science also tells us that we can be confident about the existence of extra-terrestrial life, so the discovery of such (or an actual visitation) would also NOT be a paranormal phenomenon.
Such life may be intelligent, or may be not too dissimilar from a mold spore. Either way, NOT paranormal.

On the question of homeopathy, I believe that Randi puts it in the paranormal column because it not possible for it to work without the laws of nature being completely circumvented. He feels that the "water-memory" principle upon which it is based amounts to a magical theorem akin to alchemy, and equally as erroneous in concept. So, if it does indeed work, it would be just as paranormal as a perpetual motion device, as it would defy the laws of physics.

 

[entropy]

Water memory

I liked Dawkins' approach to homeopathy at TAM3: first demonstrate the phenomenon, only then speculate about the mechanism! I was pleased Dawkins took that approach (in contrast to some skeptics) because I think that a water memory is one of those ideas that is on the outer bounds of plausibility.

It is plausible in that it would be a local effect: the water must be in contact with the substance. (Contrast the far less plausible idea that such a memory could be created merely by thinking about the substance while staring at a glass of water. Don't laugh; I'm sure somebody somewhere believes in that.) The memory would probably have to degrade over time, or it would get "full" !

There is no known way that such a memory could exist. If it were experimentally demonstrated, scientists would be faced with explaining it either using existing theories in new ways, or with entirely new theories.

Bear in mind that all of chemistry is now ultimately understood in terms of quantum theory: it's been reduced to physics. Quantum theory is extremely successful. There are very few known chemical phenomena that cannot be explained in terms of quantum theory, and with great accuracy, to many decimal places.

But quantum theory is also very complex, and I think there is scope for as yet undiscovered chemical or physical phenomena that could be explained by the theory. In other words, quantum theory is so complex that you can't just say: this, this, this and this are the only possible phenomena. To give a retrospective example, superfluidity was first discovered in the 1930s, but it wasn't until the 1950s that it was explained in terms of quantum theory, by Richard Feynman. And Feynman was specifically trying to explain an already observed phenomenon. Had he just been playing around with the theory, seeing where it led, he might never have found the possibility for superfluidity. Water memory could be this kind of phenomenon: it's implicit in quantum theory, but very difficult to bring out.

The other possibility is that we would need an entirely new theory to explain water memory. The new theory would have to be consistent with quantum theory in its predictions, as quantum theory's predictions are very accurate. But Dawkins' point was that all of this is moot until some kind of water memory or homeopathic effect is demonstrated! Which is an obvious point, really, but one that needs to be made given the number of people whose imagination runs way ahead of their ability to test their ideas!

 

[drkitten]

If something is proven to exist in apparent violation of known natural laws, does that mean it is exempt from those laws? Or does it mean that there are laws we don't know about yet? (Or perhaps there are implications to "known" laws that we don't understand.)

As far as I can tell, these are three equivalent statements, and I'm not sure how you would make a meaningful distinction between them.

"Obviously," anything that exists must be in accord with the actual laws of the universe. Just as obviously, we don't know the actual laws of the universe (or science would have come to an end).

 

[jmercer]

As far as I can tell, these are three equivalent statements, and I'm not sure how you would make a meaningful distinction between them.

"Obviously," anything that exists must be in accord with the actual laws of the universe. Just as obviously, we don't know the actual laws of the universe (or science would have come to an end).

Yep, that was exactly the point I was trying to make - I just wanted people to consider it, rather than just read my opinion on it. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

 

[Jono]

Is it Randi's money??

Not that this might be a question of great or grave importance.

But is it all Randi's money?
I simply ask because I recollect that I read something about how about 10 000 dollars is his the rest is from somewhere else, as he does recieve financial aid and contributions from others.

 

[Carn]

Re: A Clarification

Mutation is a fact of science. A snake with two heads, or the sudden discovery of a living, breathing, howling Yeti, is NOT paranormal. Living organisms thriving around underwater volcanoes at temperatures under which all other forms of life would die instantly? Also not paranormal.

Science also tells us that we can be confident about the existence of extra-terrestrial life, so the discovery of such (or an actual visitation) would also NOT be a paranormal phenomenon.
Such life may be intelligent, or may be not too dissimilar from a mold spore. Either way, NOT paranormal.

I was trying to understand where the line is drawn, because what is perfectly explainable with science is with some things a shifty issue.

The yeti i would also not note as paranormal, but if he is also 200m high, winged and capable of flight, then i think it would be paranormal, because such a creature could not have avoided detection for so long.

Same with extra terrestials, my billion marsmen are not extreme enough, but a billion suddenly discovered living on the moon, together with ancient fossils and ruins of their ancestors or intelligent live in the core of the sun, could again be extreme enough to defy science to an extreme extent.

Also extraterrestial life visting us in strange newton laws defying ufos, abducting people to make useless tests is a valid paranormal claim, if proveable.

I'm just trying to get an idea, where this vague line would be drawn, though there can certainly be no definite rules.

Carn

 

[KRAMER]

Re: Is it Randi's money??

But is it all Randi's money? I simply ask because I recollect that I read something about how about 10 000 dollars is his the rest is from somewhere else, as he does recieve financial aid and contributions from others.

The million dollars that backs up the JREF Challenge is NOT Randi's money.

It was donated by a friend of the JREF who felt that a million dollar prize would draw more applicants than a $10,000 prize. It is in a Goldman Sachs account called The JREF Prize Account, and cannot be touched unless the Challenge is won.

 

[Jono]

I understand

I understand, thank you for answering my question as swiftly.

I was simply curious.