Ah, but you see, therein lies the rub. Whether it's common or uncommon, yours is a subjective interpretation of the meaning of the term, further qualified by various connotations, "implications" and "inferences".
As I said before:
"Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation or that indicates phenomena that are understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure." Paranormal - Wikipedia
I don't think I interpreted the term as subjectively as you suggest. The highlighted portion is in essence what I described, that the term may have more than one meaning or a broader one is hardly a surprise (and certainly not one to me), hence my point about being clear on how terms are used and understood. Besides the very fact that millions of people do attribute supernatural causes to all/some/or any paranormal phenomena indicates a high degree of synonymity exists in many people's minds.
Indeed all one need do is describe something as paranormal and millions of people would automatically attribute supernatural causes to it. They are making an irrational (as irrational as discounting them out of hand as hocus-pocus, something I haven't done btw) presumption which is not I grant you entirely or explicitly directed by the use of the term paranormal, but it is significantly partially explicit (if you get what I mean) to make it seem a "logical" deductory process.
You're mired in semantics. You use the language and concept of "supernatural" and the language and concept of "paranormal" as though they were equivalent and interchangeable. They are not. You are confusing normal vs. paranormal with natural vs. supernatural. "Commingling" terms, if you will. :wink:
No I make the distinction, hence my insistence on making that clear. Many do not, which suggests that the term is in fact elastic or not clear enough to be synonymous. That is why semantics are in fact very useful, not a mire at all, in this situation.
To be clear, I don't believe that any of these phenomena, if they do exist in reality, are anything but "natural". The same applies to any thing or any phenomenon that exists or occurs in the universe. It's just that our understanding of nature is far more limited than we like to admit. Even more so our ability to test and explain it all by current "scientific method", though that is considered the only valid way to ever evaluate or analyze anything. To my mind that way of thinking is narrowminded, shortsighted, arrogant, and ironically unscientific.
I agree, in as much as I believe that scientific praxis and methodology will and should develop in ways which will compass the kind of investigation we are discussing. But if you don't believe that, and believe that current science is hamstringing itself by not opening its minds to methodolgies which are currently considered unscientific, which specific methodologies do you suggest be reevaluated?
Ironic too, and compounding our lack of understanding, those who view themselves as the most rational and scientificially minded are those who most quickly and categorically dismiss the possibility of "paranormal" phenomena. Is it any wonder then that these phenomena remain "outside the range of scientific understanding"? Rather than being seriously investigated, they are laughed at and ignored by the very scientists who might advance our understanding. Even those who might be interested in doing the research avoid it out of fear of ridicule. That by very definition guarantees these phenomena paranormal status. It also indicates an arrogant, closeminded, and again, most unscientific attitude.
Well this makes the presumption that to be rational and to be closedminded are in some way contradictory when in fact to think rationally means to investigate all possible ideas in order to separate the rational ideas from the irrational ones and then discount the irrational ones in favour of the rational ones. Therefore one is intending to discount irrationality, hardly openminded really?
The laws of physics insofar as they describe the workings of our universe are still incomplete and continue to develop and evolve. Lagging far behind is our understanding of metaphysics and the interrelation between those schools of study. At its fundamental level, all physical matter in the universe is comprised of energy after all, at least as we define it in our current understanding. The power and influence of mind, what it is and how it may figure into the equation, is barely understood at all.
Well personally I see metaphysics as either a purely philosophical study or a branch of theology. But that's just me. I don't see that as contradictory to the understanding that all matter in the universe is comprised of energy. Though I do accept that good scientific praxis would seek to synergise our abilities to philosophically investigate the universe and to physically investigate it by rational means.
I put great stock in rigorous and proper scientific study, but to be honest, my real faith lies in my connection to the natural world and the universe of mind. I gain much broader and deeper understanding by observing and immersing myself in nature than I ever could through scientific analysis. Some of my experiences there transcend and defy easy explanation by conventional scientific methods.
This I admire and respect, even if I can't go all the way to the water and drink with you on that.
I did not apply the term in a "neutral manner", nor as a "catch-all", I use the term as defined - without the connotations erroneously and often emotionally associated with it. I suppose by contrast it might be seen as carrying an air of neutrality. Again, I will reiterate that you are operating on your own subjective definitions and interpretations here. No matter how commonly or uncommonly these implications, understandings (or misunderstandings) are, they are still off base. If you are in doubt, please go back and read the definitions. Don't feel badly though, many people feel compelled to attach these dismissive "hocus-pocus" connotations onto anything described as paranormal, especially those who claim a "rational and scientific" mind.
Well no actually how commonly the term is misused or indeed repurposed is of great significance. That's really at the root of my point. Just as those who think of themselves as rational and scientific often too readily dismiss the paranormal as hocus-pocus, those who think of themselves as spiritual and metaphysically inclined often all too readily attribute supernatural and irrational causes to the paranormal and discount rational analysis altogether.
Why would I feel bad btw?
:tongue:
As do I. Here at last we can completely agree. Hooray. :smile:
That first bit is very much worth remembering. (I would put some qualification on it, but I agree with your intent.) It's also worth considering that many phenomena that we now consider paranormal or strange may very well be considered commonplace in the future. After all, the mountain gorilla was first discovered just over a century ago - before that it was a mythical beast. At almost that same moment manned flight became a reality - prior to that considered a fantasy, if not delusional folly. Not to mention space travel or the computer screen you're looking at - things that would surely be considered impossible and magical by preceding generations.
Our felicitous agreement continues. :wink:
We unquestioningly accept the "scientific method" of testing as the gold standard, we think it's fixed and finite, that it's the ultimate and the only way to test or analyze anything in the natural world. The reality is, it is a work in process that has been evolving for millenia and continues to change and develop. Though it works well to explain many things, it is all but useless for others. For example, how does one scientifically test or explain universally recognized phenomena such as love, hate, creativity, attraction, spirituality, etc.? Might some of the phenomena on the OP's list be equally esoteric and nebulous, equally defiant of testing by these methods? Does that necessarily make them less real?
Well love, hate, creativity, attraction and spirituality actually do have detailed and compelling scientific explanations, and where they are not conclusively explained scientific methodology has shown itself extremely apt to the process of trying to fully understand them. But I suppose I take your meaning, I'm just happy to have a prosaic explanation for them rather than a poetic one.
Though it is difficult to pinpoint an exact moment that we arrived at our current methodology, what we currently accept as the "scientific method" with its "modern" refinements only began to come into being in the mid to late 19th century (the work of Charles Sanders Peirce being a noteworthy advance in many ways). Though it seems to have always been there, it really was not widely practiced until the mid 20th century. Brilliant as they were, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, et al, are mere stepping stones in the advancement of human scientific knowledge. Hopefully scientists will continue to approach the mysteries of our natural world and our universe with open minds, and we will continue to grow in our understanding."To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things." -- Sir Issac Newton
Well I certainly don't make the point that we have all the answers, or that those answers will be swiftly discovered. So we agree here. Felicitously. :wink:
