Talk:Paranormal/Archive 1

Who Coined the Term Paranormal

I am looking for information about when the word paranormal was first used and who may have coined the term for inclusion in the article. If anyone can find that and add it here or in the article, please do so. Thanks. --Nealparr 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Editing Guidelines

In my personal opinion, I think it would render this article somewhat useless if it degraded into a debate between science and the paranormal like many of the paranormal articles on wikipedia. In an effort to remain neutral, other articles have tried to present both views, which tends to make for a long article full of redundancy, bickering, unsubstantiated information, passionate opinions, etc. The result is typically a waste of time for all involved. I propose a different method to remaining neutral on this article. Present no view whatsoever. Since the paranormal is just a term to describe other terms, it doesn't need to be a long article presenting everything there is to present about the paranormal. What is undisputed is that there is a term called "Paranormal", and it has a definition. In fact, it's an adjective which means that it literally describes something else. I think we should define the term, refine the definition, and then leave it alone. Since the term describes several other things, it shouldn't be redirected to just one other term and requires its own article (a necessary article because its a popular term and deserves to be in wikipedia), but there really shouldn't be that much in the article. Basically, let's keep it clean. Debates about the paranormal can, of course, go in here. --Nealparr 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and citation everything! That seems to be the most common reason for throwing a NPOV tag in other articles. If you add something, reference it. It's better for all.--Nealparr 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Note

Though I helped in getting this article up and running, I no longer have time to maintain it. So have fun folks! I may be back later.

--Nealparr 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal Is Not Necessarily Supernatural Or Parapsychological

The word paranormal consists of two parts: para and normal. In most definitions of the word paranormal, it is described as anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible. Going off the two part word, it is implied that the scientific explanation of the world around us is the "normal" part of the definition and the "para" part makes up the beyond, contrary, or against part of the definition.

That's the strict definition.

Certainly things outside what would be considered "supernatural" meets that definition. Supernatural, for one thing, has an air of the religious or occult about it. Spontaneous time travel, which would be a paranormal phenomenon, might have nothing to do with religion or the occult and therefore the label of supernatural would be misapplied.

Likewise, spontaneous time travel, something considered "beyond scientifically possible" is not parapsychological as well. Parapsychology is limited (by parapsychologists) to studying psi (mental phenomena) and survival studies (reincarnation, etc.)

So there you have it. Not all paranormal phenomena falls under the terms supernatural or parapsychological. Spontaneous time travel is just an example. Many other paranormal phenomena meets the definition of "anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible" as well without necessarily fitting other similar terms. As another example, UFO phenomena -- even just the reported habits of making a 90 degree turns at extraordinary speeds -- fits the definition of paranormal and has nothing to do with parapsychology and might not have anything to do with the supernatural.

--Nealparr 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To further clarify the difference between paranormal and supernatural, I offer an analogy. Just like the words forest and jungle refer to densely populated areas of vegetation, but conjure up different images, paranormal and supernatural have different connotations. Paranormal means that something is considered unexplained definitively by science. It doesn't evoke any images beyond that. Supernatural, on the other hand, does evoke an explanation, one that is beyond the physical world. It too is outside the realm of science, but conjures up images of a spiritual world. Paranormal doesn't carry those connotations in all cases. In cases such as ghosts, sure. Ghosts can fall under both terms paranormal and supernatural. However, just because a phenomenon can't fall under the term "supernatural" doesn't mean that it can't fall under the term paranormal.

--Nealparr 03:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on you cannot just create your own unilateral definitions of words and supress references to dictionary definitions because you don't like them. Now clearly there is a debate here and the page should reflect that. You have an all encompassing definition of the paranormal (that includes many phenomena UFOs, cryptozoology etc. as well parapsychological stuff), equally it is clear that there are many people who do not(see comments on this page, the glossary of the Parapsychological Association, James Randi (OK not an appropriate authority perhaps) and above all dictionaries of English!) plus all the people like William Corliss, Forteans etc who study anomalies and don't refer to themselves as studying the paranormal! Tullimonstrum 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tullimonstrum, the definitions all say the same thing: "not scientifically explainable". That's not my definition, that's the definition listed in every dictionary, including the ones you linked to. When you get to definitions of "supernatural", they say "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil". Not all paranormal phenomena meets the latter definition. Now, I'll give you that a lot of people want to distance themselves from the term paranormal. The reason for that is that term implies a lack of science in what they do. So naturally some UFOlogist who want people to take them seriously would distance themselves from a term that literally means in opposition of science. However, there are volumes upon volumes of literature that put UFOs in the paranormal category. To say that all of those are wrong because some UFOlogists don't like the label does a disservice to what is trying to be a factual article.

In your version you said that there is a debate on whether the term "paranormal" includes anomalous subjects. That's fine. I wouldn't object to that. But, then you go on to say "Dictionary definitions of term would imply restriction of the term to purely supernatural phenomena as does does the glossary of the Parapsychological Association." That part simply isn't true for all the reasons I've already pointed out. Most definitions say nothing at all about the "supernatural", including the Parapsychological Association definition you linked to. If supernatural is included, it is included as another word to use, but not the actual definition. The definition is "not scientifically explainable". It's also a lot like saying, "there's a debate... but here's why I'm right." That doesn't belong in the article. That belongs on the discussion page.

Here's the most recent version as a compromise:

Many see the term paranormal as synonymous with parapsychology, which deals with psychical phenomena like telepathy, ESP, and survival studies like ghosts and reincarnation. However, the paranormal is often considered to also include subjects considered to be outside of the scope of parapsychology, including UFOs, cryptozoology, the Bermuda Triangle and many other non-psychical subjects.

It's entirely accurate, neutral, and covers what we are both saying, because paranormal "is often considered" to include other subjects, without going so far as to say "it does include them".

--Nealparr 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK by me although I have taken the liberty of inserting "sometimes", as rather more neutral than "often" as I am still not wholly convinced your usage is the norm (it was entirely new to me). Tullimonstrum 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it a bit just to make better sense of what I had written without changing what you had written.

--Nealparr 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. One more thing has just occured to me though. Strictly speaking whatever the paranormal is it cannot be synonymous with parapsychology as that is a field of study just as "animals" is not synonymous with "zoology". 138.251.202.128 08:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal Definition

This article could use some expanding, but please don't just redirect it to Parapsychology. Parapsychology and Paranormal are two separate things. As a square can contain triangles, but triangles don't contain squares, Paranormal can include parapsychology subjects, but parapsychology can't contain all paranormal subjects. UFOs are not a parapsychological subject. Nealparr 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think UFO's were considered paranormal - just unidentified or unknown. What would be the difference between paranormal and anomalous phenomenon? Paranormal alwsys struck me as having a supernatural or psychic aspect, rather than something merely unknown. According to Bartleby.com, "Paranormal refers to psychic phenomena outside or beyond the normal or natural." Dreadlocke 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's open to debate, but UFOs have a long standing of being considered a paranormal subject. The reason is because they are in fact unknown. If UFOs were identified as actually being extraterrestrial, then they would move into a "normal or natural" classification (Though extraordinary feats of flying associated with them -- like the ability to make a 90 degree turn at really fast speeds -- may still be considered paranormal). Since no one has established exactly what UFOs are, they remain anomalous. For all we know, they could just be balls of light similar to ball lightning, swamp gas, atmospheric anomalies, the list goes on an on. Extraterrestrials themselves could be actual extraterrestrials, figments generated by the mind, psychic visions, entities posing as a "typical" extraterrestrial (some researchers have noticed similarities between aliens and old mythological gods and goddesses)... again, the list goes on and on. Bartleby's definition of paranormal, specifically how it says "psychic phenomena", is how most view the term paranormal, but it's not actually the definition used by parapsychologists who study psychic, or PSI phenomena, as shown in the citation I added. (What is PSI? What Isn't?, Parapsychology Association, accessed August 01, 2006). Like I said above, while psychic phenomena fits into the definition of paranormal, so do weird creatures, vampires, UFOs, astrology, and so on. None of those are psychical subjects. Finally, there's really not that much of a difference between paranormal and anomalous phenomena except for the connotations of the supernatural associated with paranormal. Ball lightning for example might be perceived as anomalous where a ghost sighting might be called paranormal. --Nealparr 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that paranormal is an explanation for anomalous phenomena. Others inclue fakery, psychological factors, fringe science or at least science not yet within the mainstream, etc. Anomalous phenomena is really Fort's damned data - weird outlying data points not accepted by whatever currently passes for the consensus. He never imposed any explicit explanations on it. (Emperor 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I was just reading through The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ" and the definition of "paranormal" there looked just like a brief summary of wikipedia articles, and this article is so short, so I wikified their definitions it to see how many "paranormal" (by definition) wikipedia articles already exist. Sadly they ALL exist. --Ollj 07:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a page that gives a comprehensive list of all the different paranormal phenomonons that exist know to man. Could anyone help me or make some suggestions?

For example Shadow people is one that is not listed.

You may want to try the paranormal category page. The way it works is any article with the Category:Paranormal tag attached to it automatically shows up there and a link to the page placed at the bottom of the article. Shadow people are listed there. If you're looking to make sure that all paranormal phenomena find their way there, just add the tag.

Hope this helps! --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Magick

The link to the term "Magick" is not directly related to the term paranormal and should not be listed on the page. It was possibly added for the purposes of promotion.

I agree. I think I'll remove it for now and if there's strong objection it can be put back later.--Nealparr 13:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Approaches

I have three more approaches (beyond the current edit) that I hope to add to the article soon. Bare with me as my time is limited. But I feel that they are necessary additions to give the full range of how the paranormal is approached, or at least the predominent ways.--Nealparr 04:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Statistically highly significant results

would be point of view, and a controversial point of view at that. To say that the statistics were high is neutral, but to say that they are "highly significant" is a matter of opinion. The significance of these experiments are hotly contested. This section as I wrote it originally was meant to just give a nod to the experimental approach without getting too indepth on the debates surrounding it. Those debates are fully covered in the main article, parapsychology. Here, I was hoping that the section can be merely informative, mentioning that there are experiments going on without going too far into the results of those experiments or the criticisms of those results. It's just meant to be a small section. That's why when I mentioned the Ganzfeld Experiment I didn't mention results of it. That's more for the Ganzfeld page.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, "highly significant" is tech-speak. It is to say that the significance is, if I remember, over 95 to one against it happening by chance (and of course these are more than that). "Highly significant" isn't an opinion, but I see how it could be seen as that by someone who didn't read those sources. Yes, I wasn't quite right because it's 95 to 5, but look here.

Well, yeah, it doesn't seem like the right thing to have this crit and resp here, as it is only a tiny part of the whole scene. But if people are going to put in specific crits like the "psi assumption", then there should be specific responses. I'm going eventually to put the crit and resp in its own article, if no one objects, and then it can be referred to more easily. And is there some trick to make it say "talk | contribs" for a signature? I don't know how.Martinphi 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Look at the use of "highly significant" in here:

Results

At a median follow-up of 35.2 months, 395 failures (26.8%) had occurred. Adjusting for dose as a continuous variable, the hazard ratio for failure was 2.03 (p < 0.0001) for 569 intermediate-risk patients (stage T1-T2 and Gleason score 7 or PSA 10–20 ng/mL) and 5.16 (p < 0.0001) for 456 high-risk patients (stage T3-T4 or PSA >20 ng/mL or Gleason score ≥8) compared with 448 low-risk patients (stage T1-T2 and Gleason score ≤6 and PSA <10 ng/mL). For intermediate-risk patients, each 1-Gy increment in total radiation dose was associated with a highly significant 8% reduction in the probability of failure (hazard RATIO = 0.92, p = 0.005).

Perinormal

The citiation actually doesn't make the statment made in articlespace, nor in the actual header of the link. Am I missing something? Shot info 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually after reading the article (which appears to be an op-piece) then going to the parent page [[1]] I am wondering out loud if this meets WP:RS?

Some editor merged perinormal into this article like a year ago. It used to have its own short article. I dressed it up a bit on the prose, but I don't really care if it gets removed. When it was added, I went looking around for more info on the word and couldn't find any support for it beyond Richard Dawkins. I didn't have the heart to remove it, but I'm wondering if it meets WP:Notability.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Which statement does this section make that isn't in the source? The pregnant man part I see, but that has a different source (though that source doesn't say anything about perinormal).

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking around Google, most of the references for Perinormal either point to here, or are verbatim copies of what is here. : ) Wikipedia is a monster!

It's a Dawkins only term apparently. It shows up on Randi's site several times, but always in refernce to Dawkins, and it seems to be Dawkins-coined. YouTube has video of the conference where the term was introduced [2].

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it, I assume neither of you two object? --Minderbinder 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object. If anything, it can have its own article if someone thinks it's noteworthy enough.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To add my own two cents' worth: perinormal is a strange word and I have not come across it outside of this Wikipedia article. There is a need for reliable sourcing before giving a lot of attention to this word.--Ianmacm 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When you removed the perinormal information from this page, did you consider placing it back into its own article? Failing that, did you consider adding it to Dawkins' article? Did you consider redirecting the perinormal redirct to Dawkins article? I hate when good information completely disappears from one article with no effort made to see if there is somewhere else it might belong. Dawkins is a very well known person who uses the word "perinormal" a lot. People, (like me), see him use the word on YouTube or somewhere, and then we come here, type "perinormal" into the search box, and we're taken to the "paranormal" article which has nothing to say about the subject. Dawkins' concept is worthy of its own article. 70.20.175.189 06:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that perinormal is really only a creation of a small number of people, WP:NOT particularly when it's apparent originator now distances himself from the comment, and it's use by those who should know better. Basically perinormal should direct to Dawkins, or be deleted. Shot info 06:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out there's already a blurb about it at Anomalous phenomenon#Paranormal anomalies, so I've switched the redirects over to that. However, it might be worth considering removing that information as well, and then just deleting the redirects as broken. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That blurb originated from this article, as a part of synching up. If it's dropped from here it's probably safe to drop it from there.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Parachute and paranormal trivia section

I was strongly tempted to remove this, since:

a) it lacks a citation,

b) it is non-notable in the context of the article and

c) a Google search found nothing to back up this claim.

Unless anyone objects or provides a reference, it will be removed quickly. It may even be someone's attempt at a joke.--Ianmacm 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editor added that awhile back and I didn't really have the heart to remove it, so I moved it to a trivia section (it was in the etymology section). I generally only tag and remove unsourced controversial stuff, obvious vandalism, or spam, and it didn't seem like the editor was posting it in bad faith. I don't think anyone would object to a removal though, because the editor only made that one edit. I say go for it.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers needed

This book Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology edited by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research has been cited on the article but no page numbers included. Any help with this please appreciated, or this source will have to be replaced. PunkRockerTom (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Participant-observer approaches to the paranormal

There is a section "Participant-observer approach" but it appears to be based entirely on original research. One source cited is "Logical Investigations Husserl, E. 1970 Humanities Press", no page numbers are given and from a quick look this book does not even mention the paranormal. I think this section should be removed. PunkRockerTom (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Paranormal vs Supernatural

How do we distinguish paranormality from the other supernatural events? Article does not explain. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be:

• If a theologian cannot explain it, it is supernatural.
• If a parapsychologist cannot explain it, it is paranormal.

Otherwise, yes, pretty much the same. But of course it would be better to find literature on the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Paranormal

There's a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal#Category:Paranormal about whether Category:Paranormal should be categorized under Category:Pseudoscience or its parent Category:Fringe theory. We could use some more opinions so please join in. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if paranorma andlcommon natural events linked?

Know alot of Paranormal events. Can be explained by natrual however perhaps unknown natural effects> And it seems that several Paranprmal are hasppebing at the same time.i.e. sightenings of big Foot monsters UFO activity even ghost sightenings!Has this been said in article? Cant locate it! Thanks!Stabbingdagger (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source saying that people who believe in paranormal stuff also believe in this, we can include it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Can we add Cryptozoology and/or Cryptids to the list of main articles? The Paranormal article lists Cryptids RobP (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Paranormal activity

The paranormal criterion should be added, because paranormal phenomena are very real and are not only brain-dependent and psychologically predisposed. Many people have encountered ghosts and unexplained things, including UFOs, poltergeist and moving objects, door slamming, human magnetism - according to Randi, it's just sticky skin; Seriously is it scientific? The paranormal phenomenon is primarily a phenomenon unexplained by science, not a nonsense. Alex&Trevex 20:53, 24 July 2017 (CEST)

 Not done. Unsourced material can't go into the encyclopedia. You will need to supply reliable sources.

• no original research
• use reliable sources
• sources must be verifiable

Edaham (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paranormal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204041009/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm
• Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818162958/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Paranormal Investigative Perspective

In the United States, the possibility of proving that paranormal phenomena exist has captured the imaginations and intrigue of the country. Paranormal; investigative, reality television shows, have given the general public a rudimentary approach on how to go about collecting scientific evidence to substantiate anomalous activity. A paranormal investigation usually has a process; " Fieldwork with multiple groups centered on ‘hunting’ ghosts reveals several notable themes, including rhetorical appeals to both science and religion, magical rites, the extensive use of technology to mediate evidence and experiences of ghosts, and the narrative construction of hauntings” (Baker, Bader, 2014).

== Open-minded Skeptics ==

Popular paranormal investigative groups, on occasion, fall into the group of being open-minded skeptics, “What open-minded skepticism really means to them is that one is open to the paranormal conclusion as the correct conclusion” (Hill, 2012).

== The Correct Mentality of a Skeptic ==

For the definition of skepticism, I have to quote Hess (1993), because he says it best, “In the United States, “skepticism” is often a positive trait; it suggests an empirical, pragmatic, independent, self-reliant, and anti-authoritarian approach to the world” (p.15). Skeptics get confronted all the time from paranormal investigative groups. Mostly, to accuse the skeptic on being fallacious, but most skeptics like Shermer (2011), says “I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe, but because I want to know” (p.2).

--C York 23:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordrahl0715 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Good research and sources, but a personal opinion piece using WP:SYNTHESIS isn't appropriate for WP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Two More Issues

The article fails to account for these 2 paranormal facts:
1. White and black money (banking industry) as determined by OR gate testing, quantum computing, Question of Truth. Most people react psychologically to having black money on their bank accounts and as such black money represents parapsychology.
2. Haunted, "rotten" buildings (insurance industry) as determined by people and special type of OR gate testing. People react to haunted, "rotten" buildings by not being able to enter a seemingly open building and being struck with terror and fear upon entering others, thus also a parapsychological phenomenon or just paranormal. Care to investigate and update the article?
81.191.206.177 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Content must be referenced to what others say in reliable sources. We don't investigate things ourselves. That would be original research, and unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It's merely to go through the databases and what they say. I do not have access to the most comprehensive databases on the issues. An investigation into existing literature, in other words. 81.191.206.177 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: the faces of people who turn utterly crazy are known to take on entirely different characteristics, say Megyn Kelly turning black face on live television. That's a 3rd issue to amend the article with. Thanks. 81.191.206.177 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. Wikipedia is created entirely by volunteers, who seek out and add well sourced content to articles that interest them. It's not the job of any editor here to search for sources to support content you want added to the encyclopaedia. That's your job. Or someone else's if you can talk them into it, but that would seem unlikely in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)