Definition of Paranormal Activity

star.logic

Scholar
S
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
61
So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion.

In this thread I am asking you what the definition of the concept of what people call "paranormal" can be stripped down to. Many people have many experiences, and many understandings, yet what is something that can be written in a text book or put to fact?

So if anyone would like to help me understand, then I ask, "What is the true definition of a paranormal existence?"
 
Hi, and welcome to the forum! I'm not sure there is an official definition of a paranormal experience, where everyone would agree on every word, but the Skeptic's Dictionary, which is a good online resource, defines it this way

An event or perception is said to be paranormal if it involves forces or agencies that are beyond scientific explanation. Many paranormal events are said to be experienced only by those with psychic powers, such as extrasensory perception or psychokinesis.
Click to expand...

There's a longer explanation at that link, if you're interested. I hope this provides some help.
 
If it's a definition, then why isn't there an official version?

I would like to either come to a conclusion of an official version, based upon the input of others beliefs here, or find it, as it already exists.
 
star.logic said:
So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion.

In this thread I am asking you what the definition of the concept of what people call "paranormal" can be stripped down to. Many people have many experiences, and many understandings, yet what is something that can be written in a text book or put to fact?

So if anyone would like to help me understand, then I ask, "What is the true definition of a paranormal existence?"
Click to expand...

There's been a recent discussion about this here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65987&page=7

but its a bit mixed up in other topics of discussion.


My opinion is that although certain phenomena (real or imaginary) are consistently labelled as "paranormal", there is no objective method by which phenomena fall into this category. Rather, people label certain phenomena as paranormal based on their personal subjective preferences.

A common definition is the one Kaarjuus gave us- "not scientifically explainable: SUPERNATURAL"

I object to this definition because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all". So here, people label certain physical phenomena as supernatural based on subjective preference. In other words it appears to them to be not explainable by science.

Note that this is different from saying paranormal means not yet explained by science, because here the implication is that the phenomena is explainable in principle. But when we offer this definition there is another problem.

To demonstrate this, just apply this definition of "paranormal" to these phenomena:

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600

I pretty certain that most will qualilfy as "paranormal" under this definition yet will seldom ,if ever, have been labelled as such. Why is that?

The excuse for this that was given on the other thread was that "paranormal" really refers to:

"phenomena that overturn old theory."

Nobody cared to address the fact that several of the phenomena mentioned in the NewScientist article, if confirmed, would require theory to be overturned. And of course we are still left with the question of how much theory is to be overturned, which is vulnerable to subjective interpretation.

Why do you want a definition of paranormal?
 
star.logic said:
So I'm new here, I'd like to say Hi and welcome everyone to an open discussion.

In this thread I am asking you what the definition of the concept of what people call "paranormal" can be stripped down to. Many people have many experiences, and many understandings, yet what is something that can be written in a text book or put to fact?

So if anyone would like to help me understand, then I ask, "What is the true definition of a paranormal existence?"
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum!

Do you mean existence, or experience?

As for what most of us on this forum believe, I think you could use the definition of the phrase BS and be close enough ;)

The above definitions cover the word itself.

My view is, generally, a faulty explanation of an improperly observed/interpreted event. Or imagined events from either a faulty observation, or some form of delusion or deceit. Other things could fall under the broad heading of Paranormal I suppose, but I think most of such events or occurrences would fall under my personal definition.

Other, more eloquent, writers here will probably have better versions :)

I get the feeling you have some reason, beyond the mere understanding of the word Paranormal, for asking this. Yes?
 
With respect to stripping it down the term "woo woo" helps me understand just fine.
 
davidsmith73 said:
I object to this definition because there is no way to tell if a physical phenomena is not scientifically explainable. Its only in retrospect that we can say "oh yes, it was explainable after all". So here, people label certain physical phenomena as supernatural based on subjective preference. In other words it appears to them to be not explainable by science.
Click to expand...

Name one physical phenomenon that these people would label "paranormal" but is explainable by science.
 
CFLarsen said:
Name one physical phenomenon that these people would label "paranormal" but is explainable by science.
Click to expand...

esp, pk.

I assume they are all explainable by science because they are physical phenomena, ie, they are defined by physical descriptions. Anything physically defined is explainable by science in principle, wouldn't you agree? What the explanations end up being is a different story :)
 
davidsmith73 said:
esp, pk.

I assume they are all explainable by science because they are physical phenomena, ie, they are defined by physical descriptions. Anything physically defined is explainable by science in principle, wouldn't you agree? What the explanations end up being is a different story :)
Click to expand...
Um, no. ESP and PK are not physical phenomena at all. They are imaginary, or trickery. Just baldly saying that they exist does not make it so.

Please try again.
 
acuity said:
I'd prefer "not yet or not currently scientifically explainable". The last part to cover the incidence of prior scientific explanations getting falsified but with no replacement explanation.
Click to expand...

When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?
 
Zep said:
Um, no. ESP and PK are not physical phenomena at all. They are imaginary, or trickery. Just baldly saying that they exist does not make it so.

Please try again.
Click to expand...

When you say they are "imaginary" or "trickery", I presume you are refering to a number of conventional explanations offered for these phenomena. For example, "imaginary" might refer to certain cognitive mechanisms of the brain producing the illusion of esp etc. This is still a physical explanation.

Considering that you regard these phenomena as currently explained, why do you still call them paranormal?
 
davidsmith73 said:
When you say they are "imaginary" or "trickery", I presume you are refering to a number of conventional explanations offered for these phenomena. For example, "imaginary" might refer to certain cognitive mechanisms of the brain producing the illusion of esp etc. This is still a physical explanation.

Considering that you regard these phenomena as currently explained, why do you still call them paranormal?
Click to expand...

Because their usual definition includes the paranormal and when you want to communicate clearly it is better to use words as they are generally used rather then assign your own meaning to them and risk confusion.
 
davidsmith73 said:
When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?
Click to expand...

When there is some evidence for "pk", "esp" etc. that requires a new theory to explain it I am sure scientists will start to think up such a theory.
 
davidsmith73 said:
When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?
Click to expand...
Yes . . . and I would give science the benefit of the doubt and regard them as "not yet explained" rather than "not explainable". If the definition was "not explainable (ever)" then I would say that the set of paranormal things is unpopulated.

(I can't prove this . . .}
 
Last edited:
davidsmith73 said:
When tetraneutrinos (see newscientist link) were first discovered, but had no explanation to replace the current theory, would you have regarded them as "paranormal"?
Click to expand...

From the link - "7 Tetraneutrons
FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist. They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics."

I would not consider anything detected in a properly conducted scientific experiment to be paranormal. If it can be detected/monitored/observed under scientific conditions, I would say it falls outside the realm of Paranormal, and into the realm of science.

Just my view though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom