Paranormal & Physics: Evidence or Weird Interpretations?

[pallidin]

Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?

 

[Integral]

Pretty much by definition, there is no, nor can there ever be any direct evidence of Paranormal phenomena.

Simply because as soon as we have physical evidence it is no longer paranormal.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by pallidin
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?

There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble, getty, crumb, fragment, scrap, bit, shread, tittle, or remotest iota of evidence for paranormal phenomena.


Evidence for the paranormal comes in at least 4 forms:

Fabricating evidence. (See Crop Circles.)

Misinterpreting evidence. (Such as Near Death Experiences being "proof" of an afterlife.)

Ignorance of evidence. (See Parapsychologist Charles Tart.)

Anedotal evidence. (While its not always proper form to dismiss all anecdotal evidence out of hand, if there is no valid evidence to support the anecdote, it essentially cannot be used to establish anything.)


For resources, see:
Skepdic.com
Skeptic Report
James Randi Educational Foundation
QuackWatch
Australian Skeptics
http://www.badastronomy.com/
CSICOP
Snopes.com - A catalogue of Urban Legends
UrbanLegends.com

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble..."

Might I impose upon you, please, to define the word "bibble"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble, getty, crumb, fragment, scrap, bit, shread, tittle, or remotest iota of evidence for paranormal phenomena.

What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?

Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims? There are examples in the public record, especially with police investigations, in which the police will tell you that some particular person did help in a case allegedly by using ESP. The problem is that most any skeptic cries "random luck" in all such cases; no matter how unlikely this may be. He can't prove this, which means that your argument is out the window, but instead of realizing that we only have evidence, and not proof, many still claim incorrectly that we have no evidence for such things. This fallacy is an example of pseudoscience.

Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time. Was this just luck? Maybe. Is it evidence for ESP? Yes. Is it proof? No.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated.

Considering the shear number of "psychics" and their "predictions," it's little wonder that some of them will get significantly lucky.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Considering the shear number of "psychics" and their "predictions," it's little wonder that some of them will get significantly lucky.

This is no proof that all hits are luck; thus evidence does exist. This is the difference between evidence and proof.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is no proof that all hits are luck; thus evidence does exist. This is the difference between evidence and proof.

As I see it, the only evidence that exists is that some so-called psychics will get "hits." The fact that, to date (as far as I know), there has been no substantiated claim of any "hits" being frequent enough to rule out random probability.

Though it was my word first, "luck" was perhaps a poor choice since this relates to superstition, which is but another supernatural concept in itself. "Chance" would have been a better choice.

Regardless, I would suggest that the number of "hits" is likely to be along what might be expected by random probability, but that kind of math gives me a headache. If you know of someone with a higher frequency of "hits" than could be mathmatically expected, perhaps you could share.

Dixon wouldn't be a very good example, particularly with regard to Kennedy. That was a very tumultuous period and an especially risky one for a President with as many enemies as JFK. That kind of prediction would almost be expected.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the TV psychics and such, I give little to no credence to these as a rule; I was quite surprised to learn about Dixon. I had never heard of any such seemingly accurate and public prediction, but again, there is no way to filter any potential hits from the noise.

It seems to me that by now it has been established that genuine ESP, if it exists, is not repeatable on demand; except perhaps for extremely small perturbations about the norm. I have noticed that the most compelling anecdotal stories often involve extreme events such as the death of a loved one. This is a little difficult to duplicate in the lab. Still, even if we all practice ESP everyday without realizing it, it may well be constrained within the noise and can only be understood within the subjective interpretation of context.

For example, if a psychic tells the police to look for the body of a murder victim in "the lake", this may not mean much. If they say to look at this particular place in the lake and they find the body, this may be another matter altogether. Still, the statistics don't allow for this sort of special credit. I suspect that this happens because the interpretation of such extenuating circumstances is often subjective beyond use. This could speak more to the limits of our analysis rather than to that of the alleged phenomenon.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Might I impose upon you, please, to define the word "bibble"?

(I made up a definition for "getty" also... :D )

 

[Doc Al]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time.

Not exactly, see http://skepdic.com/dixon.html.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?

Well, if the ghosts never interacted the physical world, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate any empirical evidence for their existence.

However, as its been reported that the temperture drops in the presence of a ghost, I would definitely consider an infrared of a something walking around, in combination with a low-light or other camera to verify that there is nothing walking in front of the camera. (Assuming the camera footage is legitimate.)

Or perhaps a documented experience of Skeptics and Scientists asking a spirit to throw something across the room, then a cup flies across the room.

Note: The "orbs" you see in pictures are not evidence of anything except faulty photography.

Of all things people think are paranormal, orbs are perhaps the most fun. Dust never caused so much trouble.

"Orbs" are photographs of dust motes. They commonly appear when photographers use small cameras that have the flash unit close to the lens. Most small digital cameras fall into that category.

You can make your own orbs by shaking a dusty towel in front of your camera, a diagram is at the bottom of this post...

Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims?

That is one hurdle which is impossible to get across.

However, if ESP cannot be repeated or verified (such as a once in a lifetime event), then there is nothing that can be said about it. However, in the Skeptical Community, claims that sound like "I can't reproduce my power for such and such reason" is usually seen as an ad hoc. In any case, its not justifyable as evidence.

There are examples in the public record, especially with police investigations, in which the police will tell you that some particular person did help in a case allegedly by using ESP. The problem is that most any skeptic cries "random luck" in all such cases; no matter how unlikely this may be. He can't prove this, which means that your argument is out the window, but instead of realizing that we only have evidence, and not proof, many still claim incorrectly that we have no evidence for such things. This fallacy is an example of pseudoscience.

I want to quickly make a comment...

Yes, the police have in fact used Psychics. However, while mysteries have been solved with Psychics along side, the Psychics really don't do anything. That might sound a bit undermining and cynical, but it is true.

I don't believe psychics solve crimes by "Random Luck" because they don't help at all, they waste the police's time.

From http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101006.htm:

But what about testimonials from experienced homicide detectives who have actually used psychics? Most reported successes appear to be like the one that a New Jersey police captain attributed to Dorothy Allison. Her predictions "were difficult to verify as initially given," he said. "The accuracy usually could not be verified until the investigation had come to a conclusion." Indeed, this after-the-fact matchingóknown as "retrofitting"óis the secret behind most alleged psychic successes. For example, the statement, "I see water and the number seven," would be a safe offering in almost any case. After all the facts are in, it will be unusual if there is not some stream, body of water, or other source that cannot somehow be associated with the case. As to the number seven, that can later be associated with a distance, a highway, the number of people in a search party, part of a license plate number, or any countless other possible interpretations.

Other explanations for psychics' reputed successes include the following:
(1) Some psychics exaggerate their successes, even claiming positive results in cases that were failures or that never existed. (2) Psychics may use ordinary means of obtaining information which they then present as having been psychically obtained. For example, psychics have been accused of impersonating police and even of bribery of police officers in order to gain information. In one instance the psychic, unknown to a detective, had actually been briefed on the case by others.
Shrewd psychics can brief themselves by studying newspaper files or area maps, and some make use of the fortune tellers technique of "cold reading" ( a technique in which the psychic fishes for information while watching the listener's face for reactions that suggest correctness or error.) (3) Another potential explanation for psychic's apparent successes is faulty recollection of what was actually said. The fallibility of memory is well known, and many stories of psychic success get better as they are told and retold. (4) Many psychics deal in vague generalities: for example, one psychic reported perceiving, "the names 'John' or 'Joseph' or something like that." (5) And there are social and psychological factors that may influence people to accept the accuracy of information. Obviously their own belief system will have an effect.

The Bottom Line

Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.

...

Actually, the case against psychics is worse than just their inability to provide information that actually solves crimes. A far more serious problem exists with regard to the wasted resources of police departments who expend precious time and human activity in following up on a psychic's meaningless "clues." In one instance, the Nutley, New Jersey, police spent the whole of an afternoon in digging up a drainage ditch that Dorothy Allison mistakenly thought contained a missing boy. In another case, the fire department pumped the water from the flooded basement of an abandoned building in a fruitless search for a boy's remains that eventually were discovered across town. Even worse, psychics have wrongfully accused persons of committing crimes, a memorable example being that of Peter Hurkos, "the man with the radar brain," who mistakenly identified an innocent man as the notorious Boston Strangler. These examples answer the question that is often asked by those who defend the use of psychics, "what harm can it do?" Another argument defenders use is that, on occasion, a psychic's pronouncements prompted further search efforts, resulting in the discovery of the missing person's body, even though the psychic did not actually identify the location.
But surely police should not have to rely on psychics to urge them to do more thorough work.

In brief, knowledgeable police officials resist the temptation to employ psychics. They know that psychic claims lack any scientific verification and that, in fact, psychics do not solve crimes. No longer should police solve crimes and let publicity-seeking occult pretenders take the credit.

I am also aware that in Greece, psychic's are allow to act as valid witnesses for serious crimes such as murder (the idea is to get any information they can by any means). However, after every instance of a crime involving psychic testimony, the defendant sues the psychic for lying under oath (the psychic testimonies are quite rare for that reason).

Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time. Was this just luck? Maybe. Is it evidence for ESP? Yes. Is it proof? No.

Evidence for ESP? No. Here is why:

I am fairly certain this event was just this psychic's lucky day (I see someone else has already linked the Skepdic.com article). However, interpreting that luck as evidence for the paranormal would be at error.

Consider precognition. About 6 billion people fall asleep in 24 hours. Is it at all amazing that a few people's dreams might unfold the way it did in the dreams? Not at all, in fact its expected.

Psychics make predictions all the time, but people have a habit of counting the hits and neglecting the misses.

If its any consolidation at all: Psychics have been predicting the deaths of Presidents for years. President Bush made a trip to Omaha, Nebraska a few years ago, various psychics predicted that there was a conspiracy to kill the president. Well, I guess there wasnt.

Psychics are notorious for leaving their "predictions" extremely vague. For instance, if I said "the life of a political figure will end in the near future", what does it mean? Which political figure? Does "life ending" mean die naturally or get killed? What is the time span of "near future"?

At least to me, I think telling the President not to act out of security ordinance for personal appeal is commonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Doc Al
Not exactly, see http://skepdic.com/dixon.html.

This does not account for the several people I have seen interviewed that confirm Dixon's effort to contact the president. From what I saw, the linked explanation does not account for the actual events.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well, if the ghosts never interacted the physical world, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate any empirical evidence for their existence.

However, as its been reported that the temperture drops in the presence of a ghost, I would definitely consider an infrared of a something walking around, in combination with a low-light or other camera to verify that there is nothing walking in front of the camera. (Assuming the camera footage is legitimate.)

Or perhaps a documented experience of Skeptics and Scientists asking a spirit to throw something across the room, then a cup flies across the room.

In fact there is no proof that could be offered that would ever satisfy science; unless the ghost is willing to perform tricks on queue. If our alleged ghosties are less cooperative, then any testimony, film or video, any measurement, or any live broadcast or sound recording is effectively useless. So it seems to me that science demands evidence that is not allowed by the intrinsic nature of the phenomenon. Also, skeptics who change their minds are called true believers. I offer UFOs and Allen J. Hynek as evidence.

Note: The "orbs" you see in pictures are not evidence of anything except faulty photography.

Yup; dust, rain, and fine particulates look like orbs on a photograph. However, at the least there is one variety of large glowing orbs called ball lightning. Meteorologists now generally agree that this does exist, so not every glowing orb need be dust.

That is one hurdle which is impossible to get across.

However, if ESP cannot be repeated or verified (such as a once in a lifetime event), then there is nothing that can be said about it. However, in the Skeptical Community, claims that sound like "I can't reproduce my power for such and such reason" is usually seen as an ad hoc. In any case, its not justifyable as evidence.

I think that if ESP happens, in nearly all cases it cannot be controlled. So for me this rules out at least most pop “psychics” and claims. Also, if science can offer no viable means to test a phenomenon, then we are left with anecdotal evidence for guidance; and the skeptics really have nothing to say. This is why I am bothered by so many skeptical websites and arguments; the only explanation for the only evidence that we CAN have is that all experiencers [sic] are wrong or lying. It can't be proven as such, but we should all assume so because this makes more sense.

I don't consider this to be balanced perspective. To me this only says that since we can offer no answers, you all [the believers and "experiencers"] are nuts and liars.

Yes, the police have in fact used Psychics. However, while mysteries have been solved with Psychics along side, the Psychics really don't do anything. That might sound a bit undermining and cynical, but it is true.

I don't believe psychics solve crimes by "Random Luck" because they don't help at all, they waste the police's time.

There are cops who will tell you that this is ridiculous. What else can I say? The most impressive cases that I am aware of seem to leave little doubt that the psychic provided exactly the information needed. On at least one occasion the information was so impressive that the psychic was arrested and held for a time.

Evidence for ESP? No. Here is why:

I am fairly certain this event was just this psychic's lucky day

?

(I see someone else has already linked the Skepdic.com article). However, interpreting that luck as evidence for the paranormal would be at error.

Prove it was luck.

Psychics are notorious for leaving their "predictions" extremely vague. For instance, if I said "the life of a political figure will end in the near future", what does it mean? Which political figure? Does "life ending" mean die naturally or get killed? What is the time span of "near future"?

At least to me, I think telling the President not to act out of security ordinance for personal appeal is commonsense.

You seem to focus on TV psychics. Who on TV is credible; psychic or not? The really interesting stuff comes from personal experiences. It is hardly fair to point to the pop media for anything genuine in any subject. Heck, in my experience the evening news can't even be trusted.

It seems to me that weather prediction is about as accurate as Jean Dixon.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It seems to me that weather prediction is about as accurate as Jean Dixon.

Of course, most people tend to remember when a psychic makes a correct prediction, and forget the failures.

But with weather predictions this tends to happen the other way around. Nobody goes "wow, the weatherman was right, it rained today".



As for abilities that fail when they receive rigorous testing...well, if someone tells you that they are in fact a really good doctor, but they never got a degree because their ability didn't work when they had to write medical exams...

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by pallidin
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?

Define paranormal. Would a yeti or other cryptid species be a paranormal event? If so, then there are footprints, footage, photos, hair samples resempling but not matching those of any known primate and many testimonies of bigfoot creatures.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Define paranormal. Would a yeti or other cryptid species be a paranormal event? If so, then there are footprints, footage, photos, hair samples resempling but not matching those of any known primate and many testimonies of bigfoot creatures.

If you simply consider these to be ordinary animals, then I wouldn't consider it to be paranormal. The paranormal usually starts to creep in when people try to explain away their failure to actually find such a creature.

For example, some people seem to think that that Loch Ness monster is somehow invisible to all sonar. The idea that the monster might not exist doesn't seem to occur to them.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by master_coda
If you simply consider these to be ordinary animals, then I wouldn't consider it to be paranormal. The paranormal usually starts to creep in when people try to explain away their failure to actually find such a creature.

For example, some people seem to think that that Loch Ness monster is somehow invisible to all sonar. The idea that the monster might not exist doesn't seem to occur to them.

People actually think that the loch ness monster is undetectable by radars? I've never heard anything like that before.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
People actually think that the loch ness monster is undetectable by radars? I've never heard anything like that before.

It's only an explanation that I heard once. It was just part of a chat I had with someone on MSN. Their views weren't exactly "mainstream", even for fans of nessie.

I was only trying to give an example of what I think it takes for something to be paranormal.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by master_coda
It's only an explanation that I heard once. It was just part of a chat I had with someone on MSN. Their views weren't exactly "mainstream", even for fans of nessie.

I was only trying to give an example of what I think it takes for something to be paranormal.

Oh, so bassically you're saying something paranormal has to defy the current understanding of phyical possibility?

 

[SkinWalker]

As I understand "paranormal" in the context we are discussing, it is that which is outside the established norm of science. That is to say outside the bounds of physics, testable, reproducible, able to predict results of hypotheses, etc.

As to alleged creatures such as the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, et al, weren't they largely shown to be hoaxed?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0729_030729_lochness.html

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9603/nessie.html

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/pstory/0,3382,19344,00.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Jane Goodall, the worlds leading expert on large apes, believes a Bigfoot creature does exist.

http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp

There are also more and more professionals in various fields coming forth with their own evidence; a couple of forensics experts were the most recent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3152468.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

As for Loch Ness, this should not be considered paranormal, nor should any alleged Bigfoot for that matter. The large apes were once thought to be only rumor and wild stories until a few were finally captured and brought back to europe.

How about this wild theory? If a Loch Ness monster does exist, which I doubt that it does, then it could be hiding from the SONAR in cracks and crevices, or under some other cover in the lake. If I was Nessie, and I saw a fleet of boats coming at me making strange sounds[such an animal might well hear SONAR], I might hide as well.

What really gets me about this so called conclusion - that the SONAR sweeps prove that Nessie does not exist - is that it ignores such an obvious possibility. IMO, It is shameful that this opinion is touted as a "scientific opinion".

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What really gets me about this so called conclusion - that the SONAR sweeps prove that Nessie does not exist - is that it ignores such an obvious possibility. IMO, It is shameful that this opinion is touted as a "scientific opinion".

Sonar sweeps don't prove that Nessie doesn't exist. But they are evidence against the existence of Nessie.

People have been searching the loch for a long time, and haven't found any evidence to support the idea that Nessie exists. Based on all the knowledge we currently have, it is reasonable to conclude that Nessie does not exist. Of course we haven't proven that Nessie doesn't exist. No matter how much evidece we have, we can't really prove that Nessie doesn't exist.


Yet when it comes to the sonar sweep, we are somewhat on the same page. I agree that a single sweep of the loch is hardly proof that the monster doesn't exist. But it is "scientific evidence".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, as for the Wallace Bigfoot film; he never publicly admitted to any hoax; and his family stands to make a lot of money by claiming such. One thing about the film that has always struck me is that Bigfoot has boobs! I have never even seen an anatomically correct female monkey suit. If you watch closely, you can also see what appear to be muscles flexing in the legs. The detail always struck me as being beyond [at least] most hoaxes.

I am still unconvinced about this film either way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by master_coda
Sonar sweeps don't prove that Nessie doesn't exist. But they are evidence against the existence of Nessie.

I say drain the lake!

That would yield proof beyond a doubt.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?

Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims?

He's probably talking about scientific evidence. If an experiment is not repeatable, it fails scientifically. The claims are thus judged scientifically invalid.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
He's probably talking about scientific evidence. If an experiment is not repeatable, it fails scientifically. The claims are thus judged scientifically invalid.

This is not to be confused meaning that the claims are untrue. It only means that scienctists have not been smart enough to figure out better tests.

 

[wahoo q]

Just my two cents...most people involved in paranormal research are putting the cart before the horse, they are concerned with proving the existence of "ghosts", while the possibility of surviving human consciousness has not even been proved yet. This, coupled with most paranormal researchers lack of knowledge of the scientific method is the downfall of the community. Researchers look at too broad of a spectrum and fall short when their hypotheses fail to be reproducible. The ONLY way for the paranormal to ever be scientifically accepted is through science itself. As far as the calirvoyance and e.s.p. mentioned earlier look up "The Afterlife Experiments" by Dr. Gary Schwartz Ph.D of the University of Arizona, they are very interesting.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
As for Loch Ness, this should not be considered paranormal, nor should any alleged Bigfoot for that matter.

You mean a giant leviathan living in a loch that cannot support it with enough biomass for food, much less the twenty or so in a breeding population that would be the minimum needed to allow the species to survive for many generations?

I'd say that would make it paranormal. A normal beast of that size would deplete the food source in a few days.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by SkinWalker
You mean a giant leviathan living in a loch that cannot support it with enough biomass for food, much less the twenty or so in a breeding population that would be the minimum needed to allow the species to survive for many generations?

I'd say that would make it paranormal. A normal beast of that size would deplete the food source in a few days.

But I would still say that it isn't paranormal until you start trying to explain away such problems with ad hoc theories. Really, really ad hoc theories.

I guess what I was trying to say is that it isn't really the idea of an undiscovered animal that is paranormal, so much as the wild hypotheses that are generated to explain away evidence against their existence.