Electrons are omnipotent? I think electrons are pretty much the opposite of omnipotent.

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: The hypnotist is not excercising a supernatural or paranormal ability Agreed. - i.e. an hitherto unknown or unexplained phenomena undetectable by any devices we have made. Disagree. The power of suggestion and the things the subconscious mind is capable of were, at one point, unexplained and undetectable by contemporary technology. Until the invention of the Geiger Counter, we could not detect radiation, only observe its effects. Devices only measure what they are designed to measure. It seems quite probable to me that there are still forms of energy rare and subtle enough that we have not developed a way to detect them. There is no mesmeric fluid connecting the hypnotist to the subject, there is no magical link, it is not the power of his mind or any other exotic explanation - it is not the power of the hypnotist, it is a learned skill. Just as a doctor has no special powers, just learned skills (ie medical knowledge), even when prescribing a sugar pill instead of a real drug. All of the supernatural and paranormal explanations failed, Agreed. The placebo effect is a good example of something we don't fully understand, but which we don't consider to be supernatural. I similarly don't see any reason to apply supernatural explanations to other unexplained phenomena. no one needed to produce a explanation that existed "outside science" or invent special detectors to discover an unknown psychic connection between hypnotist and subject. The power of suggestion is not "outside science" but it was unknown to the science of the time. Just as I believe we observe things now that are unknown to the science of the time, but which are not "outside science." Ergo - hypnotism has been tested and proven not to be supernatural or paranormal, just as herbal remedies have been tested and that which worked we called "medicine" and that which didn't we made into soup and a nice bowl of pot pori - not magic, not witchcraft, just natural medicine that can be analysed and explained using standard textbook science. Agreed.   That proves you right in a single well documented instance where an aledged supernatural or paranormal phenomenon has been shown to be a natural effect in the subject (but not the hypnotist) and it also proves me right. That cannot then be extrapolated for all aledged supernatural or paranormal phenomenon. It would be nice, then we'd both remain "right", but it cannot.   I don't wish to extrapolate to all alleged phenomena. I agree with the need for a critical eye. But I also think we should have the humility to accept that some things may happen which current science is not able to understand. The current state of scientific knowledge cannot detect and explain everything that exists, that's why we still do science, there is much we still do not know. No scientist would ever make the "apparent belief" statement you have attributed to them. If that were the case then we'd simply stop doing science and take up needle-point or something. Agreed. But I do think that attitude is implicit in some rationalists. The only difference between our position (as I understand them) is that you think reports of ghost sightings can be entirely explained by what we already know (hallucination, mental illness, fabrication, misidentification) and I think some of them can be explained by things we do not yet know.   Science observes phenomena, formulates ideas and tests them against future observation. If someone claims to be able to levitate a house-brick by the power of their mind then science says - "We don't know how you do that, please demonstrate it so we can observe this phenomenon and use those observations to formulate ideas on how this could be achieved and then test those ideas". If the claiment responds with "I can't do that while you're watching" then science has every reason to cock a sceptical eyebrow. A sceptic takes the short-cut route from claim to cocky eyebrow raising based upon previous claims of the same aledged levitational abilities. This scepticism would instantly evapourate if the phenomenon could be demonstrated under controlled conditions (ie conditions controlled by the observer, not the claimant). Hypnosis was demonstrated, observed, studied and found to be predictable, repeatable and very real (in very specific subjects). Agreed. But not all phenomena can be repeated reliably under controlled conditions. Earthquakes cannot, for example. If there were a phenomenon much rarer than earthquakes and occurring in a very localized area, it would be a very long time before we were lucky enough to have anything other than anecdotal evidence for it. Belief is not science. Of course it isn't. I don't disbelieve that there may be some phenomenon that allows people to see ghostly images, there is simply no evidence to support it. There is anecdotal evidence. I understand the weaknesses of this, scientifically, but lots of anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as no evidence at all. If you don't count anecdotal evidence, then there is no evidence that dreams exist. If you gave the knowledge to understand electricity to the remote tribe then they would not see it as magic so in that respect I agree wholeheartedly. I predict (not a belief) that we will never be able to classify most of the supernatural or paranormal phenomena regardless of how well we understand the Universe and its laws. Time will tell. :)

• Geiger Counters do not detect radiation, they measure the effects of radiation.
• All detectors we develop measure the effect of the thing, not the thing itself.
• The apparatus used by ghost hunters does not detect ghosts. (hahahahaha)
• Neutrinos are very small, very weak, carry no charge and pass through matter.
• Neutrinos were hypothesised but not proven to exist, however by understanding how they could react with other more readily observed particles and produce a recognisable signature it was possible to develop a detector to look for that signature.
• To detect a rare and subtle form of energy we would need to understand the effects of that energy in order to develop a detector.
• Mensuration (the art of measuring) has problems when what you want to measure is significantly smaller than the thing you are using to measure it with.
• I am not comfortable with the term "power of suggestion". This is not a power, it is a skill.
• Susceptibility to suggestion is a characteristic of the subject, all of us are susceptible to suggestion some of the time.
• Susceptibility to suggestion cannot be measured or detected.
• We can use various medical apparatus to map brain activity but this does not necessarily work the other way around.
• We have mapped the regions of the brain that respond to religious belief, but that does not mean that every time those regions show activity the person is having a religious moment, or that non-religious people do not show activity in those same regions. Nor does it show (erm, which is my reason for bring it up here) that the person is susceptible to religious suggestion.
• Unscrupulous individuals have been preying on the susceptibility to suggestion for millennia
• The susceptibility to suggestion was not unknown to science - it is a psychological behaviour (!?! wrong word) and psychology is as old as philosophy. If psychologists were unaware of suggestion then I do wonder what they've been studying for the past 3000 years.
• I don't do humility very well, I find it as disagreeable as arrogance so prefer to avoid both.
• Science does not have an answer for everything.
• Not having an answer could simply mean the question was badly asked.
• Not having an answer usually means there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion from.
• We could add impressionability, susceptibility, suggestibility, group hysteria, confirmation bias, wish fulfilment, intoxication (deliberate or inadvertent), chemical imbalance and an array of other psychological conditions to your list of imagining, barking, lying or mistaken but I would not use any of them myself.
• I prefer to regard any explanation that requires the use of as yet unknown science or the paranormal as an unjustified extrapolation of the limited evidence available.
• Stewart said he lived in a haunted house and ghosts are indeed real. There is insufficient information in that post for me to say anything.
• Dave posted three separate anecdotes on ghosts and possession (if we accept that while not being exactly the same phenomena, may be related in some way), again with insufficient information to form a viable explanation other than "we just don't know (from the information provided)". [my explanation for the behaviour of the guard dogs was wild speculation that is generally testable, but not testable in this particular example - it is merely a spaniel of doubt to throw into the works]
• I see no reason (or need) to speculate a solution requiring unknown or undiscovered science just because there is insufficient evidence to present a viable resolution using known science.
• Earthquakes are predictable, forcastable and give early-warning indications to a limited degree. All three of those method are far from perfect and have limited accuracy, but then so does meteorology. They rely on statistical analysis and constant monitoring of seismic activity in areas of known earthquake activity, not on anecdotal evidence.
• Stochastic events are by definition unpredictable, that does not make them impossible to explain.
• Paranormal and supernatural phenomena are not stochastic, they are uncooperative and inconsistent.
• No paranormal or supernatural phenomena has ever been shown to be in any way real.
• Magic has never been shown to be in any way real.
• We know dreams exist without anecdotal evidence. My wife talks in her sleep and I can interact with her while she is doing this (much to my amusement and bedevilment).
• Rapid Eye Movement is associated with dreaming, in non-REM sleep dreaming is rare. 
• I have witnessed my cats dreaming, they are incapable of providing anecdotal evidence.

Dean wrote:   thellama73 wrote: If you could demonstrate electrical power to a remote tribe who had never seen it before, they would regard it as magic, but that would not make it supernatural. It is just an insufficient understanding of the universe and its laws. All I'm saying is that I believe that most of the phenomena now classified as supernatural or paranormal can be explained by our insufficient understanding of the universe and its laws. If you gave the knowledge to understand electricity to the remote tribe then they would not see it as magic so in that respect I agree wholeheartedly. I predict (not a belief) that we will never be able to classify most of the supernatural or paranormal phenomena regardless of how well we understand the Universe and its laws.

Gerinski wrote: But many if not most current technologies are based on physical "laws" which were not known in the middle ages so it would have been impossible for people of the time to even wonder if they might violate their "laws of physics" or not.

Preternatural is a fine word if you want a superlative adjective for a person's skill, but it is a superfluous distinction to make for paranormal phenomena.

Natural - Existing in, determined by, conforming to, or based on nature.

 

Normal - Constituting or conforming to a type or standard; regular, usual, typical; ordinary, conventional.

 

Paranormal - Designating supposed psychical events and phenomena such as clairvoyance or telekinesis whose operation is outside the scope of the known laws of nature or of normal scientific understanding.

 

Supernatural - Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

Preternatural - Outside the ordinary course of nature; differing from or surpassing what is natural.

 

Phenomenon - A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed; a particular (kind of) fact, occurrence, or change as perceived through the senses or known intellectually; esp. a fact or occurrence, the cause or explanation of which is in question.

 

[from the OED]

• Having an extra finger is preternatural, being able to play guitar better than anyone else is preternatural, calculating square-roots in your head is preternatural, Usain Bolt is a preternatural sprinter, a dog with two heads is preternatural...
• Levitating house bricks, walking through walls, reading minds, bending spoons, talking to the dead, foretelling the future, psychic healing, turning lead into gold, seeing or experiencing Ghosts (that are spirits of the dead), etc. are not preternatural nor are they natural, they are either paranormal or supernatural or both.
• Ghosts (that are not spirits of the dead), UFOs and aliens and cryptids are not natural or preternatural, or supernatural, they are paranormal (having said that, descriptions of some cryptids, Aliens, UFOs and ghosts would require them to be supernatural, or at least impart them with some supernatural ability or characteristics, and some cryptids could be natural).
• Vampyres, succubi, incubi, shapeshifters, changelings, gods, devils, demons, angels, djinn, werewolves, wraiths, elementals, faeries, etc. are neither natural nor preternatural nor paranormal but are supernatural.