What We Think Of As "Paranormal" May Be .....

[macqdor]

What We Think Of As "Paranormal" May Be Something Else Entirely

Excellent Read

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/03/13/what-we-think-of-as-paranormal-may-be-something-else-entirely/?fbclid=IwAR1ZbZfgrYqNPDJ62UmrfhuZDG9PgSaGDfqMwfU8gmvlCUm6Z-Xf9_anySs#72fda287543d

Quote

A lot of what is now considered normal aspects of the observable universe were once considered paranormal.

Quote

The truth of the matter is that “paranormal” really just refers to anything we don’t already have a solid scientific understanding at the present time. Even today, to a remote Amazonian tribe, a simple photograph may still be suspected of having soul-stealing powers.

 

 

Quote

Even today, the United States Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is developing technology to allow pilots to fly aircraft with brainwaves.

 

Quote

We must be careful not to give in to our human nature to dismiss what’s “para”—that is, above, beside or beyond—our understanding, just because we don’t have an explanation for it at this very moment.

Quote

Most of Earth’s species are still awaiting discovery according to recent studies. And Mother Earth is but one of eight unremarkable planets revolving around our Sun, and our Sun is only one of an estimated 250 billion (250,000,000,000) stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and our galaxy is only one of an estimated 2 trillion (2,000,000,000,000) galaxies in the observable universe.

That is, there is a lot out there we don’t yet understand that may be “paranormal” today but quite “normal” tomorrow.

great read in its entirety. skeptics stand clear

 

 

 

[stereologist]

This is a terrible article. It is full of rubbish ideas.

Quote

In both cases, each word is used to describe something positive and beneficial.

That has nothing at all to do with the uses of the prefix para. Why was that put in the article? It's called clutter. Consider other words such as paramilitary, parathyroid, or paragraph.

He writes

Quote

what’s paranormal today may be considered commonplace tomorrow.

It's also possible that what is paranormal today may not be considered tomorrow. Examples: fairies and leprechauns.

He makes remarks that are simply laughable.

Quote

What we think of as “paranormal” is often just a fact of nature.

That's simply ridiculous. It is a fact of nature then it would be studied and not considered paranormal. His examples either go back centuries or were not considered to be paranormal in the first place.

This is a laughable comment:

Quote

The truth of the matter is that “paranormal” really just refers to anything we don’t already have a solid scientific understanding at the present time. 

That is ridiculously wrong. We don't consider dark matter paranormal. We don't consider apparent supraluminal events to be paranormal. We don't consider the brain to paranormal. We don't consider earthquake prediction to be paranormal.  We don't consider black holes to be paranormal.

He follows that up with a ridiculous set of comments about atoms and the Manhattan Project. By the 1800s the idea of atoms was being based on scientific research. The structure of the atom was worked out by the early 1900s. 

Next he mentions the money tossed down the toilet in these projects.

Quote

During the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. and Soviet militaries invested millions of dollars into psychic research, psychotronics, and mind control experiments.

Does he mention that these projects were failures?

Then he tries to slip in more baloney with this,

Quote

Without expounding upon the merits of each here, suffice it to say, research into the “paranormal” has sometimes led to our better understanding of the natural universe in areas like quantum mechanics, electromagnetic energy, and human biology.

Examples? No. Just trying to get in an unsubstantiated claim.

Then comes the real issue here. He wants money for his company so they can continue doing what they have been doing.

Here is what he states.

Quote

In the case of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), the stigma of anything that might be considered paranormal has a chilling effect on our nation’s ability to address a potential national security risk. It also severely limits the advancement of human knowledge. Advancements in technology have led to credible, reliable evidence that UFOs exist—far beyond simple anecdotes of untrained observer reports in prior decades. 

This is about pretending that things that haven't produced what he claims "credible, reliable evidence that UFOs exist" should be given more cash.

This is a poorly thought out, mixed bag of mush suggesting that the failures of the TTSA should continue to be funded.

[esoteric_toad]

@Stereologist

I was going to do the same, go paragraph by paragraph but you beat me to it

That and I just ate a pound of fried chicken livers and a tub of red beans and rice. Think it is time for a nap.

 

[macqdor]

@esoteric_toad  LOL 

 

There's more paragraphs.  All worth reading   

[macqdor]

@stereologist

Try not to be so defensive  ;-)

 

[papageorge1]

'Paranormal' is a colloquial term for things that don't fit inside the box of our current scientific paradigm. It is not a precise or scientific term.

If it exists, it must be 'normal' is the stricter use of the words. I agree with the gist of the article in that people's initial aversion to outside the box things holds back science. In reality, these so-called paranormal things show just how little we know of this universe. To me, it just makes life and the universe a more fascinating place!

Edited March 14, 2019 by papageorge1

[esoteric_toad]

3 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@esoteric_toad  LOL 

 

There's more paragraphs.  All worth reading   

I read the whole thing off of the link.

The problem with "paranormal" anything as it is presented is that it seemingly never offers any real evidence to back up the claims in the first place. There is zero real effort to explain anything other than it is "paranormal" and leaves it at that. Every example of something that would have been called "paranormal" in that article was eventually explained using SCIENCE. 

While I live a life that does not allow me to explore the world in search of truths of the paranormal I feel that the resources I have at my disposal, in my free time, contain a huge wealth of knowledge. Unfortunately my inability to suspend disbelief does not allow me to accept every bit of information that supports your view on the "paranormal". In fact I have been trying to find just one example of the supernatural that cannot be explained away by completely prosaic means. Not a single one. 

If there is a "field" that can be dismissed relatively easy it is virtually anything that falls under the heading "paranormal". That may be unfortunate but it has a long history of being anything but truthful, honest, strict with it's procedures and it's complete lack of any real scientific merit. At best it falls under the catagory of anthropology, a study of beliefs.

If you believe then that is all that matters. That is up to you. 

[macqdor]

@papageorge1

So very true.  

 

I think it was Werner Heisenberg that said.

Quote

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

which supports my argument of there being more things in existence that we don't know about than know about.

Its a great article.

 

[papageorge1]

31 minutes ago, esoteric_toad said:

Every example of something that would have been called "paranormal" in that article was eventually explained using SCIENCE. 

 

I think that is the gist of the article. Non-physical beings, the afterlife and poltergeists might be understood through science one day but we are currently being held back by an aversion to even considering the possibility. There is an attachment to the prevailing materialist paradigm that is getting in the way is  the point of the article.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, macqdor said:

@stereologist

Try not to be so defensive  ;-)

 

Try not to push rubbish as an excellent read.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

'Paranormal' is a colloquial term for things that don't fit inside the box of our current scientific paradigm. It is not a precise or scientific term.

If it exists, it must be 'normal' is the stricter use of the words. I agree with the gist of the article in that people's initial aversion to outside the box things holds back science. In reality, these so-called paranormal things show just how little we know of this universe. To me, it just makes life and the universe a more fascinating place!

Science is built on seeing and researching things that are as you say outside of the box.

That is what drives science. It does not hold science back.

Examples today are dark matter and dark energy.  Why is antimatter not balanced with matter? Whole fields have grown from observations that are out of the box such as QM, and epigenetics.

The list is huge and it is due to all of the varied research that is done.

[stereologist]

This poorly written article is a claptrap of odds and ends tossed together with the summation that there should be more money for the TTSA.

The basic rambling theme is that unless something is well established it is paranormal. Apparently, the author knows less about the meaning of that word that he does about the prosaic videos that the TTSA has released.

[papageorge1]

37 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Science is built on seeing and researching things that are as you say outside of the box.

That is what drives science. It does not hold science back.

Examples today are dark matter and dark energy.  Why is antimatter not balanced with matter? Whole fields have grown from observations that are out of the box such as QM, and epigenetics.

The list is huge and it is due to all of the varied research that is done.

Fine, but there is a problem in that many in science will only accept change and new discoveries in small bites. Mention something dramatic like normal adults repeatedly  witnessing poltergeist phenomena and they go irrationally resistant.

A mature scientific attitude to me would be.......the anecdotal evidence for poltergeist phenomena is very strong but science is a long way from understanding how this could possibly occur.

Edited March 14, 2019 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Fine, but there is a problem in that many in science will only accept change and new discoveries in small bites. Mention something dramatic like normal adults repeatedly  witnessing poltergeist phenomena and they go irrationally resistant.

 

The reason people are resistant to things that are just anecdotal is that there is no evidence. There are plenty of excuses, but no evidence.

Science is evidence based. Science makes predictions and tests those predictions to determine if the theories explaining the facts are correct.

Plenty of theories have come and gone. They were tested and dropped. Phlogiston is a famous case. Cold fusion is famous too.

There are also all sorts of fakes out there even more dramatic that people claiming poltergeist activity. How about the experiments showing that prayer increased the chance of pregnancy? There was a published study on that topic in a peer reviewed journal.

[papageorge1]

Just now, stereologist said:

 

The reason people are resistant to things that are just anecdotal is that there is no evidence. There are plenty of excuses, but no evidence.

Science is evidence based. Science makes predictions and tests those predictions to determine if the theories explaining the facts are correct.

Plenty of theories have come and gone. They were tested and dropped. Phlogiston is a famous case. Cold fusion is famous too.

There are also all sorts of fakes out there even more dramatic that people claiming poltergeist activity. How about the experiments showing that prayer increased the chance of pregnancy? There was a published study on that topic in a peer reviewed journal.

Did you see the second paragraph I added to that post.

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Did you see the second paragraph I added to that post.

You later added this:

Quote

A mature scientific attitude to me would be.......the anecdotal evidence for poltergeist phenomena is very strong but science is a long way from understanding how this could possibly occur.

A mature scientific attitude looks for evidence, not tales.

The anecdotal evidence for poltergeists is as weak as anything could be. It is weaker than tales two suns, hidden planets in our solar system, 3 days of impending darkness, sudden human evolution, and all of the other laughable tales out there.

As I keep pointing, the first step is to determine if the events claimed did in fact happen. There really is no point in going beyond that at this point. These stories are stories and there is nothing to corroborate them. There are many excuses as to why there is no evidence. The excuses often become more complex than the stories being told.

[macqdor]

Quote

Try not to push rubbish as an excellent read.

@stereologist

Omg you're the guy the article was referring to.  Did you just use the word "rubbish?"  

why does every skeptic use that word?  Its the ultimate dismissive word.  

interesting.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@stereologist

Omg you're the guy the article was referring to.  Did you just use the word "rubbish?"  

why does every skeptic use that word?  Its the ultimate dismissive word.  

interesting.

The article was referring to getting cash for a joke called the TTSA.

Please take the time to apply some critical thinking when you read.

[stereologist]

The article get nearly everything wrong. The story of Anton von Leeuwenhoek is not correct either. 

What happened when he saw the saw creatures moving in his microscope he called out for others to come and see them. He wanted to share this marvelous discovery with others.

So when this is written in the poorly written article it is wrong "For him and many during that time, the discovery of microorganisms was a paranormal moment."

Unlike stories like poltergeists this was a repeatable discovery with a wealth of evidence produced in a short period of time. Paranormal? Not at all. It was science in the making with Anton's microscope designs being a step in a long process of producing a wide range of microscopes known today.

 

[macqdor]

Quote

When one relies on sight to perceive the world, it is like trying to stare at the galaxy through a crack in the door." Kreia

@stereologist   

not key hole in the door.  crack in the door.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, macqdor said:

@stereologist   

not key hole in the door.  crack in the door.

That's what I thought. You have nothing of interest to say.

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You later added this:

A mature scientific attitude looks for evidence, not tales.

The anecdotal evidence for poltergeists is as weak as anything could be. It is weaker than tales two suns, hidden planets in our solar system, 3 days of impending darkness, sudden human evolution, and all of the other laughable tales out there.

As I keep pointing, the first step is to determine if the events claimed did in fact happen. There really is no point in going beyond that at this point. These stories are stories and there is nothing to corroborate them. There are many excuses as to why there is no evidence. The excuses often become more complex than the stories being told.

You are actually showing the unbalanced scientific attitude I was referring to. About everything important about my life has no scientific evidence to support it happened. Common sense tells me the quantity, quality and consistency of adult testimony on the paranormal is overwhelming. If you don’t agree, then there it must sit.

[macqdor]

It is not that which exist responsibility to tell science e.g. us humans that's it real.   Whoever thinks that is arrogant.

the premise of the article stands strong.  only a career skeptic would use the word "rubbish."   its predictive dismissiveness.

 

 

[stereologist]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

You are actually showing the unbalanced scientific attitude I was referring to. About everything important about my life has no scientific evidence to support it happened. Common sense tells me the quantity, quality and consistency of adult testimony on the paranormal is overwhelming. If you don’t agree, then there it must sit.

You are quite mistaken. Science is not about stories. It is about evidence. You show that you have no interest in science.

Your claims of "unbalanced scientific attitude" apply to you, not me. You wish to avoid the basic methodology of science that seeks out evidence.

There you go again with the story: "quantity, quality and consistency". The reason I say it is a story is that you never ever go further than post those words. You never try to support your story.

Common sense tells us that a pile of stories is just a pile of stories.

What you have not done is checked out the stories to see if they happened as claimed. Every single story that has been investigated carefully has been shown not to have happened as told. 

Let me finish my addressing this "About everything important about my life has no scientific evidence to support it happened." Really? No photos? No mention in a newspaper? No posts online? No emails? No house nor property?

[stereologist]

The weaknesses of the article have barely been touched on by me.

It is rubbish. It is the sort of childish rambling that apparently appeals to those that know little to nothing about science, the meaning of words, history, facts, etc.

Let's make a list of the issues I brought up which is of course a short list.

1. Get's it wrong that para has a connotation of being positive or beneficial
2. Makes an unwarranted assertion that paranormal today might be commonplace tomorrow. It neglects all of the issues that have remained tall tales.
3. Falsely claims that paranormal is a fact of nature when they just imaginative fiction.
4. Falsely claims that not have a rock solid understanding of a subject makes it paranormal. Plenty of counterexamples given.
5. Forgets to mention that all of the psychic studies done by the government were all failures.
6. Falsely claims that paranormal research has been a boon to science. Gives no examples because there are none.
7. Get's the Leeuwenhoek story wrong.
8. Makes an appeal for funding for the TTSA.