Post edited 10:29 am – May 10, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 10:29 am – May 10, 2011 by Nosfer

Learjet said in another thread that we took offtopic again:

I hear echoes of the "is cryptozoology paranormal" thread…

Well, believers think that ghosts exist and yet they're still paranormal.

Beyond normal experience? Ghost Hunters find ghosts at every

investigation now. Beyond normal would be NOT finding ghosts everywhere

lol. Therefore not finding ghosts is paranormal.

Echo…Echo…Echo…  Yep, I hear it, too;  See what happens when we go into reruns!

Problem here is perception of the phenomenon in question.   ie, WHO is doing the labeling.  Another problem is the definition itself.  Words DO evolve but if you let one take on additional meanings or qualifications such as "it can't be solid" then you should do it for all of these terms which has serious implications for the name of this site lol 

I think we all would say that the term Skeptical as used in the site's name refers to the ancient usage where one let's the evidence do the talking (either way)  Not, as it is more and more

commonly used, to label a denyer.  If we are going to hold that definition fixed and to its roots, then shouldn't the same hold for paranormal?

ET is plausible, though not a "normal" experience.  They are within the realm of possibility as defined by modern science.  Many descriptions of the craft, themselves, however, are reported to exhibit characteristics not explainable by the current scientific knowledge of humans.  UFOs are paranormal but their pilots are not?

I agree that there is a view of the paranormal having to do with ghosts and their ilk.  But, then, what ARE their ilk?  What is it that separates a ghost from an ET?  We haven't seen either of them…at least there has been no irrefutable proof of anyone seeing either of them.  They are both well beyond the scope of the normal experience except on TV shows as Learjet says

Edited: Formatting.

Learjet said:

I like Wiki's version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal I didn't realise the term was coined around 1915 – 1920 so I learned something today.

I see some skeptics don't believe paranormal phenomena actually exists. —>  "The standard scientific models gives an explanation for what appears to be paranormal phenomena is usually a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or anomalous variation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual paranormal phenomenon."

Personally I'm still on the fence.

I'd say I'm on the fence, too (regarding existence)  I have seen no proof that paranormal phenomena (in any of the definitions we've seen here in the last few days) exist.  I've also seen nothing that proves they do NOT exist.

I would submit that someone who believes that something doesn't exist (with no proof to support non-existence) is really no different than one who believes that something exists with no underlying proof.  Neither are making their decision based upon evidence.  Guessing vs Knowing.

Stephen has said something a few times regarding the term, something along the lines of "I don't want to believe, I want to know"  For the most part I think that's a fairly good and concise description.  But, the caveat here is that "knowing" is a moving target.  Knowing is only as good as our perception and understanding at the time we declare something "known".  There have been things that we "knew" that have since been disproved, showing how little we have known.

We, at one time, knew/accepted the universe to be geocentric.  But the understanding was wrong and heliocentrism prevailed…which was later found not to be the full picture, either.

Things do change their status based upon human awareness.  Take UFO, for example.  Unidentified Flying Object.  Pure and simple, although it seems to be a term that is becoming more and more synonymous with  Alien Spaceship.  Something goes flying by that a human doesn't understand and it is rightly described as a UFO.  It later turns out to be a new form of airplane or even simply a previously known aircraft and then it becomes identified–the term UFO no longer applies.  Or, it is determined to be a craft from Zeta Reticuli.  In this case it still ceases to be a UFO and, instead, is now a known extra-terrestrial craft.

The link Learjet provided does touch on ET/UFOs:

"The possibility of extraterrestrial life is not, by itself, a paranormal subject."     To which I would say that I agree.

AND/BUT

"The paranormal aspect of extraterrestrial life centers largely around the belief in unidentified flying objects and  the phenomena said to be associated with them."

Since I did not write this I cannot say for sure, but "phenomena said to be associated with them." could very well mean to refer to the reported characteristics of some of the craft; characteristics not explainable by our current scientific knowledge as I alluded to in the intro post above.

I think we immediately need to throw out any TV show from any serious discussions of the paranormal; ratings trump truth and one can never trust the results from the likes of GH, GHI, GA, GHA, PS, MH, EP, and OUSE.  It is interesting the things that we DO "accept" without witnessing them directly, though.

There is a distinct difference between Unexplained and Unexplainable and Unexplainable by GH

Skooter said:

 

I am waiting for GH to really REALLY get caught like Bear Grylls did and have to put a disclaimer on at the beginning of the show. That would be great.

 

What does it take to be "really REALLY caught"?  We've shown a few examples on here of undeniably faked footage, ie reshowing the same footage of a flashlight with different dialogue being used.