The Girl with "X-ray" vision

[CFLarsen]

Mind you I read a couple of years back in the Sunday Times that a 1/3rd of the UK still believes the Sun orbits the Earth. I really find this incredibly difficult to believe though.

It doesn't, Ian. The Earth orbits the Sun.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you believe you're telling me something I don't understand?

You sure know how to ask questions, Ian.......

 

[Interesting Ian]

If we're talking about the period after the mechanistic revolution of the 17th century, what did they think was paranormal which then turned out to be normal?

If it is potentially scientifically explicable then it cannot be paranormal by definition.

But information being acquired by means other than the 5 senses must by definition be paranormal. Anything which in principle cannot be and could never be scientifically explained is paranormal, yes?

 

[askolnick]

Up is not down

Of course -- this is obviously so and must be so from the scientific perspective. You'll have no arguments from me about this. Science is necessarily conservative. That's the way science works; that's the way it must work. Before we admit the existence of extraordinary claims it is required that, at least in principle, there is some prospect that it can be subsumed under some overarching inclusive scientific theory. Is this a realistic possibility?? Ummm . .nope . . I rather doubt it.

Nevertheless a complete non-sequitur I'm afraid

I have to disagree with this too.

Science does not require new phenomena to be subsumable under some scientific theory. It requires convincing evidence that the phenomena is real. When Bayer invented and marketed Aspirin 110 years ago, no one had a clue how it works. It took nearly a century to establish theories to explain it. When Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and all the other scientists who studied the sun and the stars before the 20th century, the energy that these bodies emitted contradicted all known theories. Yet the phenomenon was real and was scientifically studied.

And today, scientists are struggling to come up with a theory to explain why the expansion of the universe is speeding up. This observation a few years ago shook the world of science because it contradicted all existing theories. So science, as it's supposed to work, is continuing to gather new facts that hopefully will lead to a new confirmable theory. Facts don't have to fit existing theories to gather and study them. That's not how science works. That's how pseudoscience works.

It is true that when facts contradict existing theory, then they must be measured carefully and confirmed by compelling evidence. More often than not, facts that contradict well-established theories, are not facts but mistakes -- or in the case of the paranormal, they are often delusions and outright fabrications. That's why we need to especially careful in examining hypotheses that contradict established facts or confirmed theories.

The difference we're seeing here is that true science demands compelling evidence (especially when a claim contradicts firmly established theory). Pseudoscientists seem to think that the more a claim violates existing theories, the more likely it is true and that the requirement for compelling evidence is a niceity being imposed upon them by the closed-minded policemen of orthodoxy.

 

[askolnick]

science vs. religion

Science is not conservative, is it? The geocentric theory was conservative, in that it was the prevailing paradigm held by the massive belief body of European philosophs and church conservative dogmatists. After they burned Bruno and threatenened Galileo it took about 500 years for them to admit that the earth went around the sun.
In the meantime, we deveoped the technology that allowed us to walk on the moon.

Excuse me. That wasn't science, that was religion. Or didn't you notice that Bruno and Galileo were tried at the Vatican, not at any university?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...But information being acquired by means other than the 5 senses must by definition be paranormal...

No. It is scientifically established that we have more than 5 senses. How many more depends upon how finely we divided the systems. Is pain actually two different systems? What about temperature?

 

[askolnick]

...Anything that may at one time have been considered "paranormal" could quite easily come to be accepted as "normal" once evidence is provided that the phenomenon in question actually exists. In the case of Demkina, there is zero evidence that she actually possesses the powers she claims to possess, though there is plenty of evidence that she's rather talented at making people falsely believe that she possesses said powers.

I think Euromutt is barking up the right tree.

 

[askolnick]

Mind you I read a couple of years back in the Sunday Times that a 1/3rd of the UK still believes the Sun orbits the Earth. I really find this incredibly difficult to believe though.

That's not as bad as it is here in the United States, where we have a President who thinks the sun circles him.

And 1/3 of the population agrees.

 

[askolnick]

Do you believe you're telling me something I don't understand?



If we're talking about the period after the mechanistic revolution of the 17th century, what did they think was paranormal which then turned out to be normal?

Oh, there's quite a few. Hypnotism (then called Mesmerism) turned out to be true (although many of the claims were not). And the alchemists were right about transmutation (although not about the existance of the Philosphers stone). Their theories how to achieve it were all mystical -- and wrong. But we now know how to do it using natural laws, although it's hardly an economical process

 

[CFLarsen]

It's far from certain that Bruno was burned because of his belief in the Copernican system:

Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
Catholic Encyclopedia

Although the actual charge against Bruno was docetism, adherence to the doctrine that Jesus did not actually have a physical body and that his physical presence was an illusion, the world of science has long claimed Bruno as a martyr. It is said that, like Galileo Galilei, his Copernicanism was a factor in his heresy trial, but, unlike Galileo, some of his theological beliefs were also a factor. Also, unlike Galileo, he refused to renounce his beliefs.

But even the above "connection" between Bruno and Galileo may be exaggerated. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "(...) in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[1]

In fact, the precise charges of heresy on which Bruno was condemned are unknown, as the official record has long been lost. In Galileo's case we have the formal judgment of the Inquisition declaring that "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical". In Bruno's, the role (if any) of his heliocentric teachings and belief in an infinite unverse is not a matter that can be conclusively proved on either side.
Wikipedia

 

[askolnick]

If it is potentially scientifically explicable then it cannot be paranormal by definition.

But information being acquired by means other than the 5 senses must by definition be paranormal. Anything which in principle cannot be and could never be scientifically explained is paranormal, yes?

These statements I believe are not true. One of the most important assumptions of science is that every observed phenomenon is potentially scientifically explicable. So that's hardly a definition.

The essential nature of a paranormal claim is that it's based on dubious observations that conflict with confirmed scientific laws and theories.

Conflict with existing theory alone does not make a claim paranormal. The fact that Natasha Demkina's claim defies known laws and theories does not make her claim false. It just makes it imperitive that her claim be supported by very carefully collected and confirmed evidence. And the best evidence collected so far indicates that her claim is not true.

And your statement defining observations outside of the 5 senses as paranormal is nonsense. First of all, humans have quite a few more than 5 senses. But more important, the vast majority of scientific observations are made by scientific instruments, not through our senses. We can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch X-rays. Yet we know they exist because we can show their effects on certain materials (photographic film, electronic sensors, etc.). When Roentgen discovered X-rays 110 years ago, it was so mysterious and unsupported by known facts and laws, many scientists called Roentgen's report a hoax. But in a matter of days, scientists around the world confirmed Roentgen's claims and scientists set about rewriting the laws of science -- leading to the birth of modern physics.

Natasha Demkina's so-called X-ray vision, however, is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can't think of a useful definition of paranormal except one having to do with the supernatural. If an event is outside of the framework of scientific epistemology, then it is supernatural and might be called paranormal. If an event is purely naturalistic, then it doesn't make sense to call it paranormal, except perhaps informally before we begin to understand how it works.

The problem, then, is this: Can something really be supernatural? If it is entirely outside the natural world, we can't know about it and so why bother even to postulate its existence? That leaves us with supernatural entities that have an effect on the natural world. I do not understand how this could occur without some component of the entity being natural so that it can interact with the natural world; there has to be a nexus. Once one component is natural, then, by induction, the entire thing is natural.

So I think Ian is correct that everything is natural by definition, more or less. That leaves us with having to find evidence for our beliefs.

~~ Paul

 

[askolnick]

Wiki Wickedness Wins

I've watchlisted it but I'm a bit short of time right now.

I know what you mean. That's why I've just thrown in the towel. Wikipedia appears to make it so easy for a malicious crank to rewrite history -- and so difficult to stop him. Seeing how unreliable Wikipedia is, I'm giving up because it's just not worth the time and aggravation. The scoundrel who has vandalized the Natasha Demkina entry wins by default. Wiki doesn't seem to have an efficient method to deal with deliberate deception. And I have more important things to attend to.

The moderator who was trying to deal with this just withdrew from the dispute resolution process. That's how Julio Siqueria works -- he's like the Hydra monster of deceit. He wears everyone down by following one false or twisted statment with another until rational people throw up their hands and walk away. That's what he's done at the Museum of Hoaxes and has now done at Wikipedia.

 

[askolnick]

I can't think of a useful definition of paranormal except one having to do with the supernatural. If an event is outside of the framework of scientific epistemology, then it is supernatural and might be called paranormal. If an event is purely naturalistic, then it doesn't make sense to call it paranormal, except perhaps informally before we begin to understand how it works.
~~ Paul

Paul, I don't think that this is a satisfactory definition. Supernatural means contrary to natural laws and not subject to scientific understanding. The term paranormal was created by people who claimed that some phenomena exist that are outside of known existing laws. They claim that, unlike the supernatural, paranormal phenomena can and should be subjected to scientific study.

The creation of the universe by God is a supernatural claim. The bending of spoons by Uri Geller's mind is a paranormal claim. What they have in common is that neither has a shred of credible evidence to support it.

The the first claim is clearly outside of scientific inquiry. The second isn't.

 

[brettDbass]

On a similar vein, about two and a half years ago, I and some colleagues put up a spoof web site where we constructed an entire fictitious system of "voodoo medicine" to parallel homoeopathic medicine, showing how both could equally well be described in terms of sympathetic magic, and both were equally well (or badly) supported by actual evidence. www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/

Recently, a sense-of-humour challenged homoeopath found the site (not quick on the uptake), and he has now reported us to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for "disgraceful professional conduct". Because it's not supposed to be good form to criticise your colleagues, doncha know.

It may be he'll live to regret opening that particular can of worms.

Rolfe.

I see you're famous, boys. Well done!

Reading the latest issue of New Scientist there was a whole double-page article about the Voodoo Vets & homeopathy thing, starting with a report on your very site.

Naturally, their reporting was impartial, but truthful.
I hope (if this somehow goes to the hearing stage) it goes your way.

 

[logical muse]

I have to disagree with this too.

Science does not require new phenomena to be subsumable under some scientific theory. It requires convincing evidence that the phenomena is real. When Bayer invented and marketed Aspirin 110 years ago, no one had a clue how it works. It took nearly a century to establish theories to explain it. When Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and all the other scientists who studied the sun and the stars before the 20th century, the energy that these bodies emitted contradicted all known theories. Yet the phenomenon was real and was scientifically studied.

And today, scientists are struggling to come up with a theory to explain why the expansion of the universe is speeding up. This observation a few years ago shook the world of science because it contradicted all existing theories. So science, as it's supposed to work, is continuing to gather new facts that hopefully will lead to a new confirmable theory. Facts don't have to fit existing theories to gather and study them. That's not how science works. That's how pseudoscience works.

It is true that when facts contradict existing theory, then they must be measured carefully and confirmed by compelling evidence. More often than not, facts that contradict well-established theories, are not facts but mistakes -- or in the case of the paranormal, they are often delusions and outright fabrications. That's why we need to especially careful in examining hypotheses that contradict established facts or confirmed theories.

The difference we're seeing here is that true science demands compelling evidence (especially when a claim contradicts firmly established theory). Pseudoscientists seem to think that the more a claim violates existing theories, the more likely it is true and that the requirement for compelling evidence is a niceity being imposed upon them by the closed-minded policemen of orthodoxy.

Excellent post! Great points and eloquently put.

You should think about becoming a writer

 

[CFLarsen]

Excellent post! Great points and eloquently put.

You should think about becoming a writer

Yes, he should. Hint, hint...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Excellent post! Great points and eloquently put.

You should think about becoming a writer

Huh?? Excellent post? Not in terms of addressing my post it ain't. I wasn't going to bother answering him, but since you and possibly others are under the delusion it answers the points I made, I think I've changed my mind.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I think I've changed my mind.

I hope it works better than the old one.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, I don't think that this is a satisfactory definition. Supernatural means contrary to natural laws and not subject to scientific understanding. The term paranormal was created by people who claimed that some phenomena exist that are outside of known existing laws. They claim that, unlike the supernatural, paranormal phenomena can and should be subjected to scientific study.

I know that's how the term is used, and that's how I use it, but what good is it really? It just means "I think I saw something weird and I don't know what it was." At least with supernatural you're making a bold claim.

But you're right, I guess we have to stick with a fuzzy definition of paranormal. Then we can ask the claimant whether he thinks the event was naturalistic or supernatural. Mostly we'll just get blank stares in return.

~~ Paul