• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Paranormal moniker suggestions

Free episodes:

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
So there has been talk recently on how to refer to those of us interested in the paranormal without dragging the ever present negative connotations forefront. I thought I would create a thread and throw out some possibilities as well as some ones to avoid.

A quick note, lets check the negativityness(Bushism, I kinda miss that guy) on this thread and keep it lighthearted.

Possibilites:
Paranormal Theorists/UFO Theorists (I think it implies thought yet stops short of defining the theories. You could then break into the specific theory to suit you need for a more granular definition.)


Definitely Not:
*anything* Buff
*anything* Enthusiast
Paratard (thanks Lance)
*anything* Nut
*anything* Believers
Alien Hunters


Im sure there are more. Ok, gotta go do real work now.
 
Para-concious :cool:

Ron's paranormal theorist + finer granulation is good I think. But I wonder if the "negative connotations forefront" is not sticking to the word "paranormal" itself. So why not high-strangeness sympathiser/investigator/researcher. Even "buff" sounds less offensive after high-strangeness ...

Anyway I am dyslexic so I pronounce sceptics as cesspitcs which is etymologically accurate ...;)
 
Along the lines of "theoretical physicist" how about "theoretical realist" as in "someone interested in the theoretical limits of reality"?

Full disclosure: I'm exhausted and am about to go to bed.
 
What do you mean?

Just me trying to be funny.

It was a reference to Ruby's statement: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter: "Are these people in very high positions Jack?", he responded "Yes. He died a short time later of cancer after claiming to have been poisoned.

And the death of John O'Neil on 911, who one of the top American anti-terrorism experts who investigated the 1993 WTC bombings and who was an Assistant Director in the FBI until late 2001.

Also, there is the HSCA Final Assassinations Report to consider when discussing "nutty conspiracy theories" that concluded in 1977 that both the JFK and MLK assassinations were the results of "probable conspiracy."

That all said, I really have no conspiratorial axe to grind. When I finally convinced my father that Oswald could not have been the assassin and that the Warren Commission was a shame, I hung up my conspiratorial debate hat. It's like climbing Everest or something, everything else is just a foothill. :)

Also, just because I don't buy into the "official government conspiracy theories" on many things, it doesn't mean I automatically buy into just any other conspiracy theory that comes along either.
 
I say we dispense with the "paranormal" or "anomalist" bucket and just call it science (or whatever). The problem is not in the term but in the individuals who think that we should lump forbidden or stigmatize fields of inquiry into one section. Its like the "free speech" zones with the chain link fence and armed guards--the question is obviously not about the kind of "fence" looks nice with our motley crew, but why we allow the use of the fence on the outset

For one, there are too many individuals (both in the forum and previous hosts/guests) who like to throw ghosts, goblins, mythology, ufos, aliens etc. into one bucket--makes it easier for detractors to avoid doing hard investigation, we can simply dismiss all abnormalities and anomalies as "fringe," or "paranormal." Ditto for idiotic terms as 'psuedoscience.'
 
Whatever term we come up will likely be a long-term loser.

It's often a matter of time before the inflection of the term flips it. For example, independent thinker seems pretty neutral and free of baggage. I like it. It's better than skeptic. It's better than believer. Independent implies thinking objectively and without agenda. Independent thinking isn't afraid of iconoclasm, neither is it going to avoid the acceptance of probability or commonly held views.

Add an inflection and we're back to the same old labels, boxes and prejudices. Are we independent thinkers? Or are we...'independent' thinkers?

Example: "Yeah. That's a typical response from an 'independent' thinker!"
 
Or we could you know, accept the fact we're going to be looked down on and mocked by others in general (despite the fact if you accost people one-on-one in private and discuss things rationally they might tend to agree with us) and take it in stride like adults instead of trying to make up a new pretend name for ourselves like a bunch of kids.
 
Or we could you know, accept the fact we're going to be looked down on and mocked by others in general (despite the fact if you accost people one-on-one in private and discuss things rationally they might tend to agree with us) and take it in stride like adults instead of trying to make up a new pretend name for ourselves like a bunch of kids.

Its not that simple to me. Listen I don't care if someone wants to chid me for my interests. There are "UFO enthusiasts" and "UFO Believers" and "UFO Buffs". Skip over to ATS, OpenMinds, or the MUFON forum. To some extent there are some here. But, there is a difference. You know what I mean. Perhaps its ego, but I honestly don't like being lumped in with the Tin Foil Hat Crowd. It is simple accuracy of interest I'm after. Now I do agree, begrudgingly, that no matter what is put forth it will be destroyed by the inflection of those who use it with disdain. So honestly I don't know where to go on this.
 
I get it but really you can't win. Easier to just develop a thicker skin and learn not to care. I know what I've seen and experienced and I'm happy to relate it to anyone who asks but I'm not interested in whether or not they believe me or even think me insane. Frankly, I expect it.
 
Right, the inflection thing will be there until the paranormal topic has gained respectability, regardless of the name we call it. And as we have seen, it took a lot of time and half a city to be destroyed by meteorites to get the science of meteoritics started ... So we'll probably be the weirdos for some more time. Actually I don't mind, there is a pioneering component in our position that is exciting, "ahead of our time" kind of thing...

But regardless of our detractor's sniggers, I do not like the word paranormal so much and like to use Physics of High Strangeness or High Strangeness Phenomena (HSP).

While I'm at it, here's a link to an article that I consider to be a good example of bringing HSP into the frame of science:
http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

Actually I would like to discuss it with you, and I am curious of the view of the paractast sceptic camp on this. If anyone is interested I'll post it in another thread.
 
But regardless of our detractor's sniggers, I do not like the word paranormal so much and like to use Physics of High Strangeness or High Strangeness Phenomena (HSP).

While I'm at it, here's a link to an article that I consider to be a good example of bringing HSP into the frame of science:
http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

Actually I would like to discuss it with you, and I am curious of the view of the paractast sceptic camp on this. If anyone is interested I'll post it in another thread.

Thanks for posting this. I think this needs to be a separate thread. I need to read the entire thing but so far it is fascinating. I think it will be a good discussion piece.
 
Thanks for posting this. I think this needs to be a separate thread. I need to read the entire thing but so far it is fascinating. I think it will be a good discussion piece.

Posted it in the UFO forum, see you there : Vallee-Davis HSP model

_____________________________________________________________________________
There has been a thread on it in 2007: Vallee/Davis Paper on UAP but the discussion mostly focussed on Vallée's whereabouts and connections.
 
Back
Top