What is "paranormal"?

[arthwollipot]

I'm in! Where do I sign up for the "things up my bum"?

Bumble.

 

[Thermal]

I thought paranormal was just a credible sounding euphemism for ghosties and magic? Kind of like the UFO nuts rebranded as UAP so they wouldn't sound quite so much like loons?

 

[arthwollipot]

I thought paranormal was just a credible sounding euphemism for ghosties and magic? Kind of like the UFO nuts rebranded as UAP so they wouldn't sound quite so much like loons?

Yes, but sometimes it's helpful to have a more precise definition.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, but sometimes it's helpful to have a more precise definition.

I can't imagine when it would be more helpful. It's a philosophical distinction.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can't imagine when it would be more helpful. It's a philosophical distinction.

You don't think it's important to be precise in philosophy?

 

[Myriad]

Monsters that are Paranormal:

Vampires
Zombies (horror movie versions)
Werewolves
The Mummy
Demons

Monsters that are Not Paranormal

Frankenstein's Monster
Nessie
King Kong
Godzilla
The Creature from the Black Lagoon

 

[theprestige]

You don't think it's important to be precise in philosophy?

With the exception of the law, no, I don't.

I certainly don't think it's important to be precise about paranormality as a philosophical distinction.

Put it another way: I'm sure there's any number of precise definitions out there. But practically speaking, it's a colloquialism. A figure of speech. Precision would be counterproductive.

 

[icerat]

With the exception of the law, no, I don't.

I certainly don't think it's important to be precise about paranormality as a philosophical distinction.

Put it another way: I'm sure there's any number of precise definitions out there. But practically speaking, it's a colloquialism. A figure of speech. Precision would be counterproductive.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. - George Box

 

[theprestige]

All models are wrong, but some are useful. - George Box

Something like that, sure.

 

[bluesjnr]

Something like that, sure.

Poor old George never lived to see your affirmation of his aphorism. Still, such affirmation may be useful yet,

 

[theprestige]

Poor old George never lived to see your affirmation of his aphorism. Still, such affirmation may be useful yet,

Useful how?

And what is the practical benefit to society, of advocating for a more formal and precise usage of "paranormal"?

 

[theprestige]

Monsters that are Paranormal:

Vampires
Zombies (horror movie versions)
Werewolves
The Mummy
Demons

Monsters that are Not Paranormal

Frankenstein's Monster
Nessie
King Kong
Godzilla
The Creature from the Black Lagoon

The story of Frankenstein's Monster examines the moral implications of ensoulment through science. It's entirely paranormal.

King Kong and Godzilla both violate strength to weight limitations on size and mass.

Your categorization had problems.

 

[Thermal]

This is getting sooooo ISF.

 

[theprestige]

This is getting sooooo ISF.

It was never anything else.

"Have you seen the latest on Nessie sightings?"

"I don't really go in for that paranormal stuff."

"Ackshully the Loch Ness Monster isn't paranormal."

"You know what? Let's split the check. Here's my half. Goodbye."

 

[arthwollipot]

Useful how?

And what is the practical benefit to society, of advocating for a more formal and precise usage of "paranormal"?

Clarity.

 

[novaphile]

Well...

My working definition for 'paranormal' is 'that which is not real' AKA 'that which can be ignored'.

 

[icerat]

Useful how?

And what is the practical benefit to society, of advocating for a more formal and precise usage of "paranormal"?

Potentially helps me work out neater categorizations of forums on this site.

 

[theprestige]

Potentially helps me work out neater categorizations of forums on this site.

The longstanding categories were working fine.

 

[Myriad]

The story of Frankenstein's Monster examines the moral implications of ensoulment through science. It's entirely paranormal.

King Kong and Godzilla both violate strength to weight limitations on size and mass.

Your categorization had problems.

The symbolism and morals of the Frankenstein narrative don't change the fact that within the narrative, Frankenstein uses entirely material means (body parts, surgery, chemicals, and electricity) to create and animate the monster. The overwhelmingly likely fact that those methods could never actually work in real life don't make them paranormal.

Likewise with the structural mechanics of King Kong and Godzilla. Being impossible in real life doesn't make a fictional concept paranormal.

The Warp Drives and Transporters in Star Trek aren't paranormal, even though they do things that we believe are almost certainly impossible and even though they sometimes malfunction in eerie ways. Technicians, not psychics or wizards or exorcists, are assigned to repair them after such malfunctions. But some of Spock's and Troi's powers are paranormal, along with those of many aliens such as the Q.

(In other SF, the word "psionic" or just "psi" is often used as code for "just like paranormal, but somehow scientific instead," just as in real-world academic parapsychology. "Psionic" is closest to what paranormal phenomena would be if they were even partly empirically verifiable. Hence, "psionic technology," "Psi-Corps" of psionically empowered police, etc.)

These are exactly the distinctions my categorization was intended to point out. "Paranormal" is often used to modify "phenomena," as if paranormal is a type of phenomenon. But that doesn't hold up under close examination. Paranormal doesn't describe a phenomenon itself so much as the explanation or model of the phenomenon's cause. Doctor Frankenstein, Ron Weasley's mother, and Thomas Edison can all make nonliving matter speak, but only one of those cases is paranormal.

 

[theprestige]

We're waaay over thinking this.