|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts |
What's the difference between paranormal and supernatural?
|
|||||||||
Alexander Marsh Inner circle England 1191 Posts |
Well first you have to have an absolute definition of normal and natural before it can be beyond or super anything.
Heres a thought for all you Paranormalists, are you; From "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language", Fourth Edition: BEYOND... nor·mal Quote:
adj. ...IST?
My stuff: AlexanderMarshMentalism.co.uk
|
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3226 Posts |
Freeflyphil wrote:
Quote:
Bill Hallahan wrote: When you write that science and faith are incompatible, you are referring to potential incompatibility. The reason there is usually no incompatibility is because most faith-based belief-systems accept what scientists believe. Incompatibilities are not uncommon, but they are less common than agreement. Also, the fact that all scientists do not believe the metaphysics that others believe is not an incompatibility with science because, as you pointed out, science only deals with that which can be measured using evidence.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
freeflyphil New user phil 79 Posts |
What scientists believe is not the issue. Sure you could provide a huge list of things sceintists and theists both believe in. For example, the grass is green, the sky is blue , monday comes after sunday, the USA is north of Mexico, jet planes are faster than cars. But it is not the point. Science and faith are fundamentally opposite becuase sceince demands evidence and faith does not. Sceince will ammend its beliefs in the light of new evidence and faith will not. This is not a trivial difference but a fundamental one.
Just addressing a point that brings us back to topic. I really like Ian Rowlands presentation where he gives a reading to someone who generally believes him to be a pyschic/astrologer or whatever and only afterwards reveals he is nothign of the sort this both maintains the power of the effect during the performance and challenges the audience to think about issues afterwards. |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3226 Posts |
This is on topic insofar as Osiris's category list is insufficient, and that goes to the issue of the malleability of belief that was being discussed. The idea that science and metaphysics must always conflict is an erroneous one.
First, I was not talking about a set of common beliefs between science and metaphysics. I was talking about no conflicts between beliefs in each domain, which, of course, doesn't have to exist, but can. And second, while faith can refer to belief without evidence, that is an incomplete definition. There are at least 2 other definitions in the Merriam Webster dictionary. Only one of the definitions even implies that beliefs based on faith cannot change when confronted with hard evidence, and it isn't even clear that invariance of belief is required for that definition in all cases. As someone with a strong science education and metaphysical beliefs, I assure you there is no contradiction between my two belief systems. In fact, there is very little overlap between the ideas they both encompass. So I do not fit into either of Osiris's two categories, which was my initial point. On top of that, you will find numerous scientists with metaphysical beliefs. Even Einstein, who had none in his youth, had metaphysical beliefs when he was older. There is a common misunderstanding that science does not accept metaphysics. Some scientists don't, of course, but that is not their scientific opinion. They cannot construct experiments to disprove metaphysical ideas, at least not the ideas I believe, so their disbelief is not based on science. I do agree that a philosophy of pure reason does not allow for ideas outside of what is observed. But many faith ideas come from introspection, extrapolation, and personal experiences outside the domain of what can be discussed at the Magic Café. Some of these metaphysical ideas seem rational to many people. Some only to a few. I agree with you, I also like Ian Rowland's approach, although I've only heard of him and not had the good fortune to see him. He doesn't change people's beliefs using tricks.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
enriqueenriquez Inner circle New York 1287 Posts |
For many scholars, the main difference between Supernatural and Paranormal is Divine intervention. A supernatural phenomena may include the action of god (any god in the buffet), angels, demons, ghosts, etc... The paranormal are physical and physiological phenomena that are not comprehensible by our present understanding. Now, some things we can’t understand may be of supernatural origin, but a good deal is not.
A good borderline example are Poltergeists. Some people tend to believe that Poltergeist are the result of a supernatural force. There is a “ghost” or presence creating the events. Some other people think that a person with a deep psychological disturbance may cause the poltergeist. In this case, even when there are no ways to probe this scientifically, the events are defined as Paranormal. Based on this, I think that, in Mentalism, we work mainly around the idea of reproducing paranormal phenomena. BTW, I will like to copy here this paragraph from Benjamin Wohlmann’s Handbook of Parapsychology, for many, one of the main books on the subject. I think is though provoking and would provide good ideas for patter and presentation: “There are at the present time two guiding philosophies within parapsychology. According to one, the concept of paranormal has no permanent validity, but is simply an expression of our ignorance. In the fulness of time, parapsychology will be integrated to a consensual framework embracing all sciences. Such framework may have to be extended in various unexpected ways, but there is no danger of it to be stretched to the breaking point. According to the other school of thought, the significance of the paranormal is precisely that it signals the boundary of the scientific world. Beyond that boundary lies the domain of the mind liberated from its dependency on the brain. In this view, parapsychology, using the methods of science, becomes a vindication of the essentially spiritual nature of man, which must forever defy any strict scientific analysis. Which of these two antithetical philosophies will prevail remains a question for the future. In the meantime, there is no reason whatever why both parties should no cooperate in furthering our knowledge of this, the most perplexing field of inquiry ever to engage the curiosity of our species.” Now, regarding Bill posts, I respectfully disagree about the fact that a magician can change people’s beliefs. At least, not in the context of a magic/mentalism performance. Maybe if you start a cult and you help yourself a little with trickery, you may convince somebody, but other wise, I really doubt it. In order to be dangerous you have to be respectable. Sadly, magicians are among the less respectable professions in the world. While performing, a mentalist may provide reassurance for those who believe in the paranormal. He may make doubt those who doesn’t have an opinion. But in the context of entertainment, I guess there will be very few epiphanies. Using the example at hand, I’m sure that skeptics may have reassurance watching Ian perform a CR demonstration. But Ian can’t change anybody’s belief on psychic powers by saying he was faking a reading. At best he may change that person’s beliefs regarding his own powers, but not the person’s opinion on the paranormal. The fact that Ian is fake doesn’t probe that all psychic are fake. He is not probing how is done but how some people does it. In fact, the fact that he says is fake won’t even convince everybody. Some would say that he is a psychic but he doesn’t knows it. BTW, Ian himself on his web page provides the best arguments against trying to convince anybody of anything. Now, assuming I’m wrong, and after each mentalism performance we have dozens of new believers in the paranormal, why is that people who doesn’t believe in the slightness possibility of real ESP keeps performing? |
|||||||||
Father Photius Grammar Host El Paso, TX (Formerly Amarillo) 17161 Posts |
If you do your effects well, you will have no problem with your audience "believing" what you do is real. It is a lot like ventriloquism. Everybody knows the dummy is a doll, but with a good ventriloquist, early in the act the audience begins to sympathize with the dummy. They know it isn't real, but get caught up in the illusion. That is human nature, why we cry at movies (which aren't real), or jump in fright at a movie, or get our adrenalin up during a chase scene.
I have always spoken a specific disclaimer when I do mentalism effects, telling the audiene that what I am doing is an illusion, not real "psychic" phenomenon, and it never fails that a few people come by afterwards wanting me to "read their minds" or "tell them the future" and when I tell them, "It's just an illusion, I can't really do those things" they refuse to believe. Even offer me money to do it. Entertain ur audience and you always will have one. Try to convince them ur a psychic with mystical powers and you will always have people trying to debunk and expose you. There are more skeptics out there than just James Randi. I've never seen Randi attack an entertainer, just those who try to convince people that illusions are their real power.
"Now here's the man with the 25 cent hands, that two bit magician..."
|
|||||||||
freeflyphil New user phil 79 Posts |
"They cannot construct experiments to disprove metaphysical ideas, at least not the ideas I believe, so their disbelief is not based on science."
This is really setting sceince up for an impossible task. Of course one cannot construct an experiment to disprove the existence of something which has no physical presence. It is like saying you cannot prove that there are not invisible flying elephants above us and so disbelief in them is not based upon science. Can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy? Is doubt as to the existence of the tooth fairy unscientific? Whats the difference? Science deals with verification through physical evidence, something cannot be accepted by science without physical evidence. Many, few or all aceintists may happen to believe in metaphysical things but in order for science itself to accept them there must be hard evidence. Since metaphysicality is outside of the physcial realm it can never even in principle be accepted by science, even if any number of individual scientists may accept them. Just as perhaps some or even all scientists may prefer mentalism to card tricks or dance music to rock music doesn't mean that science itself can accept such views. You mentioned there are other definitions of faith besides belief without evidence, I would be interested to hear them. I would suggest that it is at least a neccedsary precondition. As far as mentalists being able to change peoples beliefs I would suggest this is entirley possible. However most mentalists who say they are mentalists/magicians are not the likely ones to do it. Uri Geller has convinced many that pyschic phenemenon are real through what most of us would agree are simply well presented mentalism tricks. Watch Derren Brown's Messiah show for a simliar effect. Changing peoples beliefs later in life is more difficult but it does happen. Perhaps one performer cannot do it, but frequent reinforcement is more likely to create doubt into peoples minds that some may act upon.Of course one cannot prove all pyschics are fake by proving even 99% of them are. But by showing that spoon bending, picture duplication etc can be achieved through non pyschic means may perhaps help sow the seeds of doubt in some people, especially those are on the borders of belief. |
|||||||||
Alexander Marsh Inner circle England 1191 Posts |
I think that some kind of belief in your 'powers' must be ingaged at some leval by your audience. But to make a whole show (or your goal as a performer) about trying to sway the audience to that belif for a life time is wrong and a pointless task.
As Andy Nyman put it, they should "buy in to your bull****" for the duration of the performance. Then they go home and get on with the rest of their life.
My stuff: AlexanderMarshMentalism.co.uk
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Belief or Entertainment (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |