The dictionary describes "Paranormal" as an incident outside the rational.
It is very difficult to draw a line, what is paranormal or not. Was magnetism a paranormal phenomenon or superstition before H. C. Ørsted discovered it in the 19th Century?
In its true sense, the paranormal is defined by an anecdote, suspicion or unfounded theory. Therefore, the solution to the paranormal need not be scientific either.
Eg. a paranormal activity would be a chair that moves. The paranormal explanation may be that "Aunt Oda" haunts the house. The explanation is given. In the paranormal realm, it is not necessary to have a reason why one just thinks it's "Aunt Oda". Likewise, it is not needed to seek another explanation. Therefore, this sort of investigation and result are also seen in broadcasts about the paranormal. One does not exactly seek the empirical solution. To the great frustration of those who are scientific or skeptical.Per definition, science will be unable to accept this as proof, even lesser if the TV-host shouts this “proof” into the camera.
In the empirical science, one will examine the chair and find a down-to-earth cause. Only very far in the process, one will make a theory that something truly strange happens.
The paranormal and empirical science seems to be incompatible, as the difference lies in the argumentation and in a belief.
In a way, the paranormal approach is more "edible" to the ordinary citizen, as one can put his own beliefs into an event that may be unpleasant.
However - what has once been paranormal has been positively rejected or accepted by the established science, precisely by making an empirical study. So the boundaries are very fluid, and scientists investigating the paranormal must be very courageous in terms of reputation and sudden lack of work!
