Logical impossibility? why is the paranormal a logical impossibility? I have heard this statement many times .

Question

But no one can actually explain why the paranormal is a logical impossibility. Given the fact that are 1000's of things we dont know about the workings of the mind and the fact human beings only use 6-10% of their minds why is the paranormal a logical impossibility?

Answer 1

To correct Kokopelli's reply regarding the dubious PEAR results:

In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says “in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance” [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data (1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one" (Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star" performers.

However, according to Ray Hyman, “the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. His hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%.

0.05 is only weakly significant, while 0.01 is not significant at all.

Answer 2

In 1986 a medical study was conducted in the US to test the effectiveness of aspirin in helping those with heart trouble.  Had the researchers restricted their study to 3,000 test subjects they would have found that aspirin was no better than a placebo.But because they had an unprecedented 22,000 people in the study they discovered almost at once that aspirin had an overwhelmingly powerful curative value -- in fact if you take an aspirin a day it will cut your chance of a heart attack by a massive 45%, almost in half.The reason for this curious result is that what statisticians call the 'effect size' of aspirin is very small (0.03).  Even though aspirin is a lifesaver that is now prescribed automatically to every coronary victim, its effect could not be observed in clinical trials until there was a large enough sample -- and it has taken more than 100 years for the effect to be discovered.

Something very similar appears to be the case with paranormal phenomena. The studies conducted in the past with a few hundred or a few thousand subjects produced marginal results that were not much better than chance expectation -- just like aspirin.In December 1989 Dean Radin of Princeton's Psychology Department and Roger Nelson of the PEAR lab published a paper on the meta-analysis of micro-PK experiments not, as might be expected, in a parapsychology journal but in the respected physics journal Foundations of Physics. Their paper was entitled, 'Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems.' In their analysis, Radin and Nelson tracked down 152 reports describing 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies by 68 different investigators involving the influence of consciousness on microelectronic systems.Radin and Nelson's studies showed that the aggregate of all these trials dramatically provided powerful evidence for micro-PK. For they found that the odds against the overall result being the result of chance was 1 in 10at35x. That such findings continue to be dismissed shows more clearly than anything could that the "skeptics" are not evaluating the data with extra care -- they are in denial.

Answer 3

Micro PK work is most likely as much bunk as all the research that preceded it, kokopelli, all the way back to William Crookes.  The odds of it being invalid, 1 in 10^35 or whatever, is absurd.  These are numbers pseudoscientists just throw around.  I'll bet their "experiment" could easily be demonstrated to Randi, as well as their supposedly confirming data.  But they'll never do it.  You know why?  For the same reason as all the others: they're not interested in getting a million dollars.  Okay, let's see their work in Nature Magazine.  I'm sure Nature learned its lesson after the Targ/Puthoff/Geller fiasco.  And where did you get that aspirin story?  Sounds fishy to me, what little I know about statistics.

   I don't know about psychic stuff being a logical impossibility, but it is a physical impossibility.  The people who snort about quantum mechanics do a lot of backpedaling and stuttering when asked about it by someone who really understands it.  How 'bout it, suspendor. How do you explain quantum effects over macro-distances?  How do quanta in a person's brain make a strain gauge sound?  Oh wait, they DON'T.  Only when gain of the gauges is set to where it would pick up a person breathing on it from three feet away.  I guess that's micro PK.

  There are many things we don't know, but we have very nearly filled in the frame of the puzzle and certain things are becoming less and less plausible the more we learn.  There are just fewer and fewer places in the Universe for magic to hide.

Answer 4

No, I said proving something doesn't exist is a logical impossibility.  Sure, there's a lot we don't know, but we're figuring out more all the time.  Actually, that 10% of the brain thing is an urban legend - we use all of our brains, just not every part all the time.  

If there's anything to the paranormal, don't you think sometime in the last few hundred years people have been talking about it at least one person would have been able to prove it?  All this guy wants is a 5 minute demonstration, and he'll give you a million bucks.  http://www.randi.org

Answer 5

Oh, it's definitely a logical POSSIBILITY. Anyone can experience the paranormal by swinging some cow intestines over your head while chanting...Possess me! Possess me, O Satan! I am yours!

Answer 6

Your absolutely right.

I do not understand why some people are acting so hateful for something they refuse to believe or even understand. They believe they are gate protectors of science but they are only people who want to find reason to rant and complain. They demand answers and will say anything to get someone to fight with them. In all honesty those that believe and search for answers are doing just that just like any other field. we do not owe the skeptics of the world anything and if they want the answers the proof then they should spend the time researching instead of just ranting it isn't real it is all fake.

Lord forbid someone has a passion for looking for answers but no if we don't prove the paranormal we must be con artist.

Research does not harm a single person and all we do is research in which by science we admit we can debunk 99% of the claims. We should keep in mind why we do what we do and not allow those who can not understand to get to us.

For every great invention of our time there has always been these hateful skeptics and if anyone would have paid them an ounce of notice we all still be living in caves

Answer 7

It can't possibly be a logical impossibility when it is fact, and the premise to all things, that we do not know everything about anything. From that, how can we rule anything out... or in for that matter?

The paranormal is not impossible in terms of logic, that doesn't make sense.

Answer 8

It's only a logical impossibility for people who don't understand quantum physics. Linear thinkers can't grasp the basic principles involved.

Answer 9

Without getting into the paranormal part of your question I would just like to point out that the idea that we only use 10% of our minds is a myth.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10pe...