PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[Cuddles]

And ALL of them have a subjective component - which is, I believe, why David uses other terminology.

He doesn't use any terminology, that's the whole problem. Those definitions are general usage. Arguing with that is just refusing to accept reality.

NEVER? ... so the theory of continental drift didn't overturn another scientific theory. The theory of evolution didn't overturn any other scientific theory. They were both considered to be refinements of existing theory?

Exactly. In fact, in both of those cases there was no theory to overturn. Until continential drift was accepted, no-one even thought the continents had ever moved, so there was no theory on how they could have done so. Evolution is not a theory, but assuming you mean evolution by natural selection, there was no viable theory before it. A few, like Lamarckism, tried, but could never explain everything and so were never accepted. Genesis is not a scientific theory.

When you define the paranormal in the ways it has been defined here, this is a given. I presume this is also why David chooses not to use the term.

He chooses not to use it because if he did he would be seen to be exactly the same as all the other woos claiming evidence of the paranormal. What he apparently fails to notice is that he is still seen as this.

Personally, I think there are non-paranormal ways to explain ESP type effects that are either relatively weak or not controllable.

For an example, see Kelly's thread on "what happened here?" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66638

Now, I beleive that this type of experience is what most people will label psychic or psi. However, I don't think that believing it occurred (I don't think Kelly was lying) requires us to reject all of Newtons theories anymore than the airplanes do.

This simply makes no sense. It doesn't matter that some people would label it psychic and claim she sensed it with her mind. It was not a paranormal event. Several possible explanations have been given, none of which require weird mental powers. People can label it psi if they want, but they are wrong.

Now, if you relabel her experience as 'non-psychic' because non-paranormal explanations exist (keep in mind, no one can state with certainty what the true explanation is) you are essentially redefining psychic to be that which has no known scientific explanations and you have created a subjective tautaulogy for psi and paranormal.

On the other hand, if you keep the label of 'psychic' for the experience and accept that non-paranormal explanations are adequate to explain it, then you no longer have the problem of psi invalidating all scientific observations to date.

And this makes even less sense. No-one has ever claimed that psychic and paranormal mean the same thing, so I have no idea what you are trying to say. Psychic refers to effecting things with only your mind. This is paranormal since there is no way this can happen, if current science is correct. You can't claim it to be both psychic and non-paranormal, since anything psychic is, by definition, paranormal. There are other things that are considered paranormal that are not psychic, such as UFOs. And again, it is irrelevant that people label it psychic. If there are real explanations, then it was not psychic, and therefore not paranormal.

The only problem you seem to have is that some people call it psychic, and therefore I have to change my definition of paranormal because I can see a real explanation. The simple fact is, either it is psychic, and therefor paranormal, or it is not psychic. If it is not psychic but you claim aliens told her then it would still be paranormal. If it is not psychic and there is a real explanation then it is not paranormal.

I say I am wearing a red hat. Other people say I am wearing a blue hat. Other people say they aren't sure what colour it is and it warrants further investigation. In reality I am not wearing a hat at all, they are all wrong. Now replace the word "hat" with "paranormal" and the colours with "psychic" and "aliens".

 

[Ersby]

Until continential drift was accepted, no-one even thought the continents had ever moved, so there was no theory on how they could have done so.

But there were theories to explain why the continents were the shape they were, and why flora and fauna on disparate parts of the world had certain similarities.

 

[Beth]

And ALL of them have a subjective component - which is, I believe, why David uses other terminology.

He doesn't use any terminology, that's the whole problem. Those definitions are general usage. Arguing with that is just refusing to accept reality.

Well, I would disagree that he doesn't use any terminology, he just isn't using the term paranormal because it's not sufficiently precise to communicate what he wants to say. As a statistician, I try not to use the word "average" despite it being a well-known term to most people. It's not sufficiently precise so instead, I'll use terms like mean, median or mode because they are sufficiently well-defined to suit my meaning. That's not refusing to accept the reality of "average", it's simply being precise.

Exactly. In fact, in both of those cases there was no theory to overturn. Until continential drift was accepted, no-one even thought the continents had ever moved, so there was no theory on how they could have done so. Evolution is not a theory, but assuming you mean evolution by natural selection, there was no viable theory before it. A few, like Lamarckism, tried, but could never explain everything and so were never accepted. Genesis is not a scientific theory.

Hmm....I thought Lamarckism was a scientific theory and a relatively well-accepted one prior to Darwin's theory. Saying there was no viable theory before it seems a bit disengenuous to me.

He chooses not to use it because if he did he would be seen to be exactly the same as all the other woos claiming evidence of the paranormal. What he apparently fails to notice is that he is still seen as this.

I think he fails to use it because he wants more precision that the word allows for the discussion he would like to have. I don't get the impression he cares much what others might think of him.

This simply makes no sense. It doesn't matter that some people would label it psychic and claim she sensed it with her mind. It was not a paranormal event. Several possible explanations have been given, none of which require weird mental powers. People can label it psi if they want, but they are wrong.

I disagree. I think such experiences do deserve the label of psychic. I think only by admitting that such experiences are psychic that we can begin to explore how, why and when they occur, which is what I'm hanging aroung on this forum to do.

And this makes even less sense. No-one has ever claimed that psychic and paranormal mean the same thing, so I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Some people claim that psychic is a subset of paranormal. Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

Psychic refers to effecting things with only your mind. This is paranormal since there is no way this can happen, if current science is correct.

Actually, it often refers not to affecting things with the mind, but knowing things without any known vector of information transmission. This doesn't necessarily imply a conflict with current sciencific knowledge, only a lack of knowledge about how the information was transmitted.

You can't claim it to be both psychic and non-paranormal, since anything psychic is, by definition, paranormal.

I disagree. See above. I presume that is why David isn't using the term paranormal. He wants to discuss certain types of psychic experiences without presuming they are paranormal.

The only problem you seem to have is that some people call it psychic, and therefore I have to change my definition of paranormal because I can see a real explanation.

No, I'm asking you to reconsider how you define the word psychic, not the word paranormal. The experiences that many people consider 'psychic' have reasonable non-paranormal explanations. Since I am interested in such experiences, I don't want to dismiss them as non-psychic, I want to learn more about who has them, when and why.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

psychic: 1 : of or relating to the psyche : PSYCHOGENIC
2 : lying outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge : immaterial, moral, or spiritual in origin or force
3 : sensitive to nonphysical or supernatural forces and influences : marked by extraordinary or mysterious sensitivity, perception, or understanding

paranormal: : not scientifically explainable : supernatural

These words are pretty vague, but psychic appears to imply paranormal. Someone wanting to have a serious discussion of a particular event would do well to avoid both words.

~~ Paul

 

[Beth]

psychic: 1 : of or relating to the psyche : PSYCHOGENIC
2 : lying outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge : immaterial, moral, or spiritual in origin or force
3 : sensitive to nonphysical or supernatural forces and influences : marked by extraordinary or mysterious sensitivity, perception, or understanding

paranormal: : not scientifically explainable : supernatural

These words are pretty vague, but psychic appears to imply paranormal. Someone wanting to have a serious discussion of a particular event would do well to avoid both words.

~~ Paul

You're right.

I'll try to avoid psychic from now on - at least on this forum. I find that if I am interested in hearing about such experiences, it's useful to use the term to elicit discussion about what they have experienced even if I personally consider it to be due to non-paranormal causes