Paranormal ignorance?

Question

Knowing that we don't know everything about anything:

Why do you scientific folks seem to think that there's no such thing as the paranormal? That is, why is it that anyone who experiences something science can't YET explain you call it a scam, hoax, hallucination, paranormal?

Modern science is very limited in terms of how much we have gathered about the universe. WHO ARE YOU to say that such things DEEMED paranormal aren't real? Have you even read the other side of the argument? Have you even read the myriad of case studies or controlled experiments PROVING the existence of such things?

Why is it that when someone asks a paranormal question, YOU are so apt to answer in a lengthy and verbose manner that YOU are right? Where do YOU get your knowledge from? Books! You haven't crafted the science. You got the knowledge from so-and-so, just like anyone else.

SO: WHY are YOU right? Proof? We BOTH have proof!

(Feel free to answer any, or all, of the aforementioned questions, thanks)

And, yes, there are such studies. It's close-mindedness that makes you look past them and immediately call it false.
www.world-mysteries.com <--- great, unbiased reference.


OH! Also, logically speaking: All of life's truths can be founded by logical deduction. Well, with the premise that we don't know everything about anything, we cannot come to any definite conclusions, can we? Nothing is sound in terms of that fact. WE ALL could possibly be wrong. So, what is the point of saying who is or isn't? What does that prove? It doesn't prove any ONE right. It proves all wrong! ALL! You see?

My proof? Edgar Cayce, myself, my family, Neale Walsch, Sylvia Browne, my friends, www.world-mysteries.com, etc. Look it up! Look up proof, you'll find it. If you aren't searching, though, don't expect to FIND anything.

Um... and to those of you who seem to hate Sylvia Browne and other psychics: PSYCHICS are human and imperfect. THEY DON'T have all the answers, nor do they claim to be. As for Sylvia: she got psychically tested as being only 75-80% correct. NO ONE, psychic or not, is 100% correct.

You see? Scientific proof is what you want! You want proof in this way, or that. Hey, research it, then tell me all of us are wrong. You all wait for some proof to come along. Well, why don't you look for it. If you find none, call it quits. But, if there is proof, you should be able to find it. I've found mine in my life. I've had much more than "proof" happen to me on a daily basis. If you knew me, things would be different. But, unfortunately we can't meet. Unfortunately, you do not look for the proof. If something exists, you'll find it. I believe if you only LOOK, you'll find it. But, so far you've been presented with bs (and, yes, many people demean psychics and the actual proof that is out there).

It's not our job to give you proof, it's YOUR job to look for it. Isn't that the basis of the scientific approach? That is, to search for the answer?

Answer 1

I am a scientist. I have done experiements related to Parapsychology. I'm not exposing the details on this forum, but if you want a sample of real science in this field, see the Journal of Parapsychology. It's not the first time I've mentioned it here, and I don't believe any of the skeptics have taken the time to look into the experimental design involved and published in that journal (which, by the way, was open for peer review).

Some people are stubborn to a fault and will not accept any evidence that doesn't support their beliefs. Some people are lazy and won't do the work. Some people are just nay-sayers and will always look for contradictory arguments rather than focusing on finding truth. And some people, the real skeptics, examine the facts and attempt to help the science advance by poking holes in the details presented in the research rather than generating their own conclusions without ever examining the work. That last group are the skeptics that I can embrace.

In my opinion, this type of question is not appropriate in this forum. It borders on a rant. Don't let other people set your agenda or define your discussion. Post questions that you want answers to rather than posting a challenge. It's much more productive for everybody involved.

Answer 2

The overwhelming lack of evidence, coupled with the fantastic nature of paranormal claims, makes them extremely unlikely. Impossible? No, we can't prove that. Just extremely unlikely.

Extremely unlikely explanations should be rejected when much more likely explanations can be found and cannot be ruled out. Scams, hoaxes, hallucinations, etc., all are much more likely explanations.

If you've noticed, the skeptics are no different than the paranormalists in the way they answer -- both are very confident of their positions. Your point here is not borne out by the evidence.

Scientists get their knowledge ultimately from scientific investigation, not books. Books merely record the information. Many skeptics here are scientists in their careers, as a matter of fact.

Proof? No, we don't claim proof in the strict sense. Absolute proof is only obtained in pure mathematics and liquor.

Paranormal studies? To the extent that they are methodologically sound, peer reviewed and confirmed, they do not show evidence of the paranormal. That's the problem.

www.world-mysteries.com is one the last places to find sound, reproducible, scientifically valid studies. It's a crock site.

See the link on Edgar Cayce. There is nothing compelling about this charlatan.

Sylvia Browne accurate to 75-80%? LOL! I don't think so. More like 0 - 1% or thereabouts. You must have gotten those numbers off her web site. See the Sylvia Browne link.

"t's not our job to give you proof, it's YOUR job to look for it. Isn't that the basis of the scientific approach?". NO -- that is completely and utterly wrong. You've got it backwards. The burden of proof always lies with the one making the positive claim. Scientific claims aren't treated as true by default until they are proven false. Rather, in scientific methodology they are consider tentative and unreliable until sufficient evidence is brought forth for them. I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of science to get into such a discussion. See the gmu.edu link for a discussion of burden of proof in science.

Answer 3

Scam, hoax, hallucination, and I'll add innocent error, are all documented, time and time again. These are the prosaic explanations and the only ones ever to be conclusively demonstrated.
Science has discovered more than you and other paranormal fans are willing to admit. We have learned about physical laws and limits. We have learned about the interactions that govern the Universe and have gotten to the point where there is very little that is not understood. Doubt in the supernatural comes from an accumulation of knowledge, not a dearth of understanding.
There is also the fact that no paranormal claim has ever been verified. Millions of tests and trials over the last 80 years have produced not one iota of convincing evidence. It is time to admit that certain things don't exist. And they will not exist, no matter how loudly some people whine about it.
Those who don't believe in supernatural/paranormal things are not the ones required to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making the claims. They have failed, spectacularly. And keep in mind, most of these alleged phenomena have been believed for much longer than modern science has been in practice. There's been enough time.
The real world is not as glamorous as the paranormal one, but since it is real, it is a lot more rewarding.

A. Mercer: excellent post. In fact, lots of good posts. I will be curious to see what these do to your world view. Qw33n, if I were in your shoes, I would be tempted to go and read a lot. In fact, that's what I did 40 years ago, and ever since. After reading the real science, the other stuff will be less attractive.

Answer 4

You are grasping at straws if you are quoting Edgar Cayce and Sylvia Browne as your proofs. They are known scammers and con artists.

The sad fact is that so far no one has come up with any decent proof of paranormal powers. Physicists can detect and measure things that are incredibly small (atoms, electrons etc) and incredibly large (galaxies). The senses of human beings operate in the middle of the range. They can detect some radiation (light); moderate vibrations (sound). They can tolerate a very small range of temperatures. Human beings are the product of evolution -- we have organs to detect light, sound, touch, temperature etc.

No one has ever made a convincing case for (1) forms of energy that are undetectable by modern physics and (2) human sense organs that can detect those unknown forms of energy. Evolution works by selecting useful characteristics. Don't you think that if telepathy existed that most people would be able to do it reliably and consistently, just like most people can see?

Even though there is a lot that scientists don't know, biology and physics make it very unlikely that there are any such things as paranormal powers. The evidence for them is weak or non-existent.

Answer 5

What science and skeptics want is proof. So far, the paranormal researchers have not been able to supply anything that is considered proof. They have what they call evidence, but so far I have never heard of anything as proof.

First off, toss out all anecdotal evidence as proof. That can be used to back up proof later, but in itself it is nothing. Anyone can imagine something and then end up believing they saw it. So, science will not listen to people saying they saw a ghost. If you relied on anecdotal evidence as proof then leprachauns would be considered real because there are people who claim to have seen them.

Next up, don't rely on measurements caught by instruments. You see that on all of the paranormal investigation shows. They walk around with devices to detect all sorts of stuff. The second they see one of these devices register they proclaim it a ghost. What is the baseline in that? When has a ghost been directly measured in a controlled situation so that we can compare their results and know exactly what readings a ghost will give.

You talk of controlled experiments. What science journals are they listed in? Don't just do an experiment and put it in a book or on the web and proclaim it proof. Something that scientists will want is to be able to replicate the experiment and to double check on everything that was done for the experiment. That is why they submit their work to journals, so that their peers can review it.

Science cannot just go off and start to believe in anything. It needs to be something that can be measured or observed in some repeatable way. That is the problem with paranormal. So far, no one has been able to come up with something that is measurable and repeatable.

Also, the scams, hoaxes, hallucinations that people have, and the misidentification of normal events as paranormal do not help the cause of the paranormal. Another thing that is not helping is the non-scientific attitude that many of the paranormal researchers have. Yet another thing that does not help the paranormal is the research that shows how the human mind can be tricked in so many different ways into believing something happened that did not happen.

What paranormal claims have ever been proved true and are accepted by science today? At least the cryptozoologists can point to the gorilla and the panda and say that science once considered those to be myths.


You lost all credibility when you listed Sylvia Browne as proof. She has been proven wrong so many times. Also, she has refused to live up to her agreement to be tested under in a controlled, scientific manner. She is not proof in any way, shape, or manner.

Also, you are demanding people go and research it themselves. If you expect them to believe in it then please provide the proof. Give a link to a page that describes scientific testing and the results that support the paranormal.

You are the one making the claim. It is not the job of science to verify your claim. Some may go and check it but if science does not pay any attention to it then it is your fault for not providing evidence to support your claim.

Tell you what. If you can prove the existance of the paranormal then there are lots of skeptic organizations that will give you money. Just go and let them test your claim and see the proof themselves.

Here is the link to a big one.
http://www.randi.org/

He has shifted his testing to only go after big name publicity hounds (such as Sylvia Browne). His prize is big though. One million dollars. That is a pretty big pay for a few days of work, yet no one has been able to claim it. The people who have tried suddenly do not seem to be capable of paranormality when they are carefully watched while they work.

Answer 6

Because there is no evidence. I looked at that site - nothing new there. We dismiss the paranormal because there is no reason to think it exists. In 30 years offering a million dollar prize for proof of the paranormal, James Randi still has his money, safe as ever. If you think you can prove the paranormal exists, take it from him. But you never will.

Yes, I DO craft the science. That's what being a scientist is about. Exploring the natural world. You might want to try it sometime, because apparently YOUR books are useless.

Answer 7

in step with probability in some human beings's comments, yet it relatively is all that's, an opinion. persons are the judges of their very own studies and particular, some human beings do no longer look into extra into studies which would be defined with the aid of organic phenomena. There are continually going to be human beings who don't dig, even with the undeniable fact that that's a generalization to assert that anybody who believes in the magical is ignorant. no person ought to choose every person else's character in keeping with their ideals until that perception is center to character and, i've got confidence, the perception in the magical has no longer something to do with character.

Answer 8

SO: WHY are YOU right? Proof? We BOTH have proof!

Really? Please provide yours. You can't, because there isn't any that has been successfully peer reviewed.

Science is not in the business of proving the unprovable. Hallucinations are "real" in the reality that the brain is creating the illusion. You have a great deal of misunderstanding of what science is and is not. Science has never meant to prove the existence of that which can't be measured. That said, that doesn't mean that the paranormal doesn't exist - it only means that using the scientific method there is no way to prove its existence because you can't measure the unmeasurable. This is the same reason science can't be used to prove or disprove the existence of God - there is no way to devise an experiment to measure the quantity. Science has limitations - it can't do everything.

Answer 9

The Method of Science :

A proof of a theorem or fact MUST be reproducible on demand.

All natural phenomena which are explained by scientific laws can be validated (the laws) since they can be readily tested.

So called paranormal actions like telekinesis, telepathy have not been observed to fall outside statistical norms.

Whatever is unexplained by Science falls to Religion and PSI. However Scientists are seriously working on these areas but everywhere the Method of Science must be obeyed.

Answer 10

Excellent points and I agree with you! I always say to disbelievers, show me proof that the paranormal ~doesn't~ exist. They remain strangely silent...possibly frightened. Keep on believing, some day soon, all sceptics will be silenced!

http://www.moonslipper.com/ghosts.html