Richard Dawkins now accepts the "perinormal"

I think it's safe to say "we'll know it when we see it". There might be some new development in technology or our understanding of the universe, and when it first breaks it might appear to be paranormal until it is fully understood.

Of course, a major skeptic making this sort of speech just gives ammunuition to those who say things like "telepathy exists, but science just doesn't understand it yet", because they don't understand what he's really saying.

The perinormal might be amazing, but you can bet it will be repeatable and testable.
 
The person who wrote the article obviiously has a very biased veiw of skepticsm and frankly I don't trust his explanation of "perinormal". As he describes it, there is no use for the word, as we can substitute "normal" or "natural" for all the descriptions used. Since Dawkins used the phrase, I must suspect that he had a definition in mind that had some use that the author missed.

Could someone that attended the event provide a better explanation of what went on?
 
Agreed TheBoyPaj. That is why I want to know WHAT exactly Dawkins is talking about. This speech of his wasn´t for nothing , i bet.

And odd it is, that i can´t find any other source about it. Neither at JREF in the article about the last Amazing Conference. I´ll keep looking up and i´ll post anything that i happen to find on this subject.

thanks and forgive my bad english
 
apoger,

Isn´t it too complicated claimimng that the person who wrote the article might have a biased view on skepticism? Ok, he might well be biased, but it would be good not to make any assumptions before we really know what was going on with this strange statements of Dawkins.

Afterall, Randi had nothing to say about this after the conference . Maybe he will show up here and give us his point of view on the subjectexplanation, as well as if he agrees with this "perinormal", and what it might be, and if its true that there is any chance about having to eventually pay up the prize.

And it is obvious that "perinormal" or even "paranormal" may well be replaced by "natural" but yet unknown phenomena. I suspect that Dawkins had a better look into some things that are being evidenced here and there and are being dismissed by skeptics in a very strange way. Well, this is just my oppinion, let´s keep looking and waiting for more info.

regards.
 
As I understood it when I saw Dawkins' presentation, he is suggesting that we make a distinction between

1) Phenomena that have been tested and for which the evidence suggests a vanishing probability that the phenomena is real.
2) Phenomena that have not yet been completely tested, and which may be very unlikely to represent reality, but cannot be ruled out as such at this moment in time.

He is suggesting that we refer to (1) as 'paranormal' (outside of normal), and (2) as 'perinormal' (at the edge of normal). He gave examples of each, and I recall that he described homeopathy as perinormal.

His aim, I believe, is to make an important disctinction between things we don't yet understand, and things that we do understand. There's a grey area between them, to be sure, but his point is related to all of those 'Does this qualify for the $1M challenge?' threads that we keep creating on this forum.

Everything that counts as perinormal is still something that is very unlikely to exist, but it retains the possibility of passing into the normal, which the truly paranormal does not.
 
Isn´t it too complicated claimimng that the person who wrote the article might have a biased view on skepticism?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by this. Why would this be "complicated"? I think the authors bias is rather straight-forward. Thus my distrust. Not complicated at all.


I suspect that Dawkins had a better look into some things that are being evidenced here and there and are being dismissed by skeptics in a very strange way.
Click to expand...


Yes, hence why I asked for clarification from someone that attended the event.

You addressed a reply directly to me, so I feel obligated to respond. However I am usure what issue you are trying to communicate about.
 
I´m wondering if he would consider something else of the alternative medicine for the perinormal list, other than homeopathy.

Oh come on SpaceFluffer, make your efforts to recall something else there!

regards
 
Thanks for the clarification SpaceFluffer.

I am still unsure of the value of this sematic game, as the perinormal would apprear paranormal until evidence is accumulated, at which time it may be agreed that the phenomena is, by our understanding, normal. The perinormal seems like a useless "after the fact" observation.

Perhaps though there is something about the perinormal that I am not grasping.
 
apoger,

i cant see this straightforward bias of the author about the skeptics. I cant see any harm done about being skeptical on the skeptics also...you know skepticism all the way.


Yes, hence why I asked for clarification from someone that attended the event.
Click to expand...

I said that Dawkins may have reviewed some things that are being evidenced and was not being given the proper attention to. As well as correcting any position of totaly refuting these things as being impossible.

again, pls forgive my bad english ;)
 
Apoger,

I have the same doubt of yours. I suspect that perinormal is the term to define what is being shown to the eyes of the scientific comunity in the form of evidences, and it is being classified as "worth of further studying". Oh damn, how i am curious about what would it be.
 
What about the prairienormal, which proves that only people who play guitar are interesting? According to sources, Dawkins, Randi, Hitler, and the strawman have advocated its existence. The source also alleged Randi and Dawkins are "sitting in a tree, kay eye ess ess eye in jee."

Hooked on sensationalism worked for me!
 
paranormal: I can read your mind using a fifth force that is yet to be discovered.

perinormal: I can read your mind using the unexplored fringes of my five senses.

~~ Paul
 
apoger said:
The perinormal seems like a useless "after the fact" observation.
Click to expand...
Not so. It serves to discriminate between those phenomena that are well understood to be bogus and those that we cannot yet conclusively conclude that this is so. So something like intuition or possibly homeopathy would be perinormal, ESP or astrology would be paranormal. No after the fact reasoning needed.

Think of it this way. Something that is perinormal will, in the future, become either normal or paranormal. Anything that is currently normal or paranormal will stay that way.

Dawkins made the point that perinormal phenomena are important for Randi's $1M challenge since they should not be considered eligible. This fuzzy region is tough to define though.
 
I don't think there is a reliable testing procedure to distinguish between a paranormal phenomenon and a perinormal one. Thus, I don't think it's a useful distinction.
 
SpaceFluffer,

How do you know that ESP and astrology will be bogus forever?

And I think that Randi could not even think about not paying the prize for homeopathy, because of his constant provocations and challenges on homeopathy claimants. I think labeling something perinormal would not save the prize´s ass. At least, if it does save the prize´s ass, it will not do the same for the challenge´s reputation.

see ya
 
At last an injection of sanity and common sense objectivity into the argument, which the eloquent Richard Dawkins expoused in one lash of his tongue, putting the entire subject of anti-paranormalism, in context.

The author of the article though, was obviously biased, as he had the audacity to report the following:

"Though Dawkins proclaimed that skepticism, in contrast to religion, welcomes dissent and debate, alas, there was little evidence of this during the conference. Indeed, the star-struck crowd showed a religious-like enthusiasm for having their preconceived beliefs reinforced by one celebrity speaker after another. "

How many on this board would admit to being star-struck?
 
Explorer said:
The author of the article though, was obviously biased...
Click to expand...
"Skeptical Investigations" is like that.

Their board of advisors is practicaly a Rogue's Gallery of adovcates for research of *ahem* "questionable integrity".
 
Richard Dawkins once wrote ‘The paranormal is bunk” …..Does this imply Dawkins differentiation between paranormal and peri-normal, could be called peri-bunk? :eek: :D

Rather that give credence to Dawkin’s talk on a subject out of his field, I prefer to listen to those who have entered the field.

‘Parapsychology’s critics have long decried psi as irrational and have made an important contribution in doing so. The critics are partly right; psi is irrational, but it is also real.

Magician, parapsychologist George Hansen
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Intro.htm
Click to expand...

PSI could be irrational to us, for what is ‘logical’ , ‘normal’ or ‘rational’ is limited by the sensory constraints of our world. Could the paranormal just be beyond the evolution of Richard Dawkin’s brain? :) Indeed beyond the logic of all of us, if so it might require peri-logic (hey this is peri-fun, making up peri-words :) )

If this is true, how can science accept the seemingly irrational paranormal by insisting it must function in what is considered a rational, logical manner?

Are skeptics basically saying 'when the paranormal/perinormal behaves normal, only then will I accept it exists? '

Is non locality rational? What about the consequences of relativity?

Of course the paranormal also gets dismissed often because it is not as easy to replicate results ..... but is it fair to expect sciences of the mind to produce the same level of repeatability as say physics? Which psychology breakthrough has produced highly repeatable results comparable with other sciences? The criticism of parapsychology has often been not making major breakthroughs in 80 or so years and gets routinely dismissed by psychologists, however what is really universally agreed (beyond common sense) amongst psychologists other than psychology is worth studying? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom