Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Change a skeptic's mind?


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#61 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:00 AM

But there is another group is observable phenomena, more subtle, that you can't study "b]


Observable phenomena that can not be studied? I find this to be an interesting notion.

I admit that I am having trouble imagining something that can be observed, but not studied, however. Can anyone come up with some examples?

Regards, Canis

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha


#62 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:52 AM

There are plenty examples Canis, just look around you. Just because something is observable that doesn't mean it can be explained or studied WITHIN the current framework of science. And just because they are not explainable under the current framework of science, doesn't mean they do not exist either.


Now that said, not all 'ooooh's and aaaah's" can be considered "unexplainable' either.
Posted Image

#63 PhenomInvestigator

PhenomInvestigator

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 12:18 PM

One need not discard any view, one need simply acknowledge that alternatives might exist. There is quite a bit of evidence available in journals such as the Journal of Parapsychology for example that strongly suggest alternatives. Further, many theoretical physicists are beginning to ask the most basic questions based on their emerging acceptance of the reality of anomalous phenomena, including most interestingly, macro PK.

The point is that one should not become enamored of any belief system, including that of materialism or scientism. I am not saying that scientific protocols should be abandoned, far from it. But I do caution that one must be sure that the problem at hand is consistent with the measurement capabilities available. When the data is not highly measurable and quantifaible, ie when it turns from quanta to qualia, existing techniques and assumptions prevalent in materialistic science will be less useful. This is more a statement of fact regarding the nature of physical science than a suggestion that it is useless. Some anomalous phenomena, such as PK, is quantifiable and indeed has been studied carefully in research laboratory conditions. The phenomena which is less amenable to such physical analysis involves studies of mind, belief and consciousness. Yet this is an expanding area of interest to many leading physicists, many of whom are charter members of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE).

As to the approach, we look for patterns in the data. We look for trends which acheive significance in various ways. We note phenomena that seem to share common ground and ask the obvious questions of 'why' and 'how'? We do not accept every report as valid; in fact various meta-studies conducted over the past several decades suggest that up to 90 percent of all such reports should be seriously questioned. So the notion that everything cannot be accepted at face value is supported. However, and this where skeptics get it wrong, this does not mean that everything can or should be discarded. Indeed what is studied is that other 10 percent or so, and in that we find some of the most interesting data which leads us to wonder how complete our basic theories truly are.

It is clear from the history of science that science is emergent. Physical laws are always in flux and likely will be for the forseeable future. Anomalies should be considered indicators that the physical laws need change. Heloicentrism was at one time an anomaly as was quantum mechanics. So holding that physical laws must dictate what is correct and what is not seems a bit short-sighted. Yet this is the very heart of many critics' position. An illumnating alternative is found in the scientific theory of Conscious Realism and Observer Mechanics. This is reading that any serious critic should consider carefully. You can see an introduction at: http://www.cogsci.uc...ousRealism2.pdf

Non-material events can be experienced. In fact that is the precise conumdrum facing science. It is incorrect to say that becuase something is unmeasurable it is de facto impossible. We cannot reliably detect gravitons, yet most theoretical physicists have no problem with their existence. We cannot measure hyperdimensions, yet mainstream physicists rely upon them to explain quantum mechanics.

Regarding 'how it works': one notion is that we are in fact interacting with content-rich information fields and it is our reactions to these fields which inform anomalous psi experiences. The other notion that is far more popular in the 'paranormal' community is that discarnate entities are responsible. I am not personally persuaded of this latter position as it provides no uniform explanation for most phenomena and abilities. It would seem more reasonable that a single basis should exist, and this is the strength of the information field interpretation.

As stated earlier, the key object to research is adopting techniques to reflect the realities of the data; understanding that not everything is measurable in the traditional sense. For example, in mediumhip research, the goal is to determine if anomalous information transfer occurs. This is done by carefully isolating the participants, including experimenters, and then seeking patterns in the data suggestive of such information transfer phenomena. Clearly we can use statistical analysis for this purpose, so in this sense we have measurement. But to date there is no measuring device for confirming the flow of such information although there are those in the neurophysics community quite interested in that problem. More importantly this example illustrates what is and is not scientifically demonstrable: we can (and have repeatedly) demonstrated anomalous information reception. What has not been proven (and frankly I have no idea how one could) is that this information must be coming from the deceased as many believe. So there are limits as you have suggested.

Science and spirituality can indeed be combined. Many people working in research Parapsychology are otherwise hardened scientists. But as a group have been mightily affected by the research and its implications. It is this realization which actually motivates many of us. And yes, there is a common belief that science, in some expanded form from what it is today, can and should help us understand more about ourselves, our universe and our potentials.
Anomalous Phenomena is Unexplained not ImpossiblePsi is Subtle not AbsoluteAnything is possible, it's all a matter of Probability---------------------

#64 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 05 April 2010 - 12:27 PM

There are plenty examples Canis, just look around you. Just because something is observable that doesn't mean it can be explained or studied WITHIN the current framework of science. And just because they are not explainable under the current framework of science, doesn't mean they do not exist either.


Now that said, not all 'ooooh's and aaaah's" can be considered "unexplainable' either.


Well, I must be lacking clear vision or imagination or something. I was really hoping to get an actual example of something that can be observed but not studied, because I can't think of a single one. Looking around me, I can see one either. C'mon, wontcha help a fella out? :D

Regatds, Canis

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha


#65 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:03 PM

Well, I must be lacking clear vision or imagination or something. I was really hoping to get an actual example of something that can be observed but not studied, because I can't think of a single one. Looking around me, I can see one either. C'mon, wontcha help a fella out? :D

Regatds, Canis

The problem you are facing right there in your post :)
Posted Image

#66 Robot

Robot

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Physics, Flying, Guitar, Robots, Paranormal

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:32 PM

"theoretical physicists are beginning to ask the most basic questions based on their emerging acceptance of the reality of anomalous phenomena, including most interestingly, macro PK."

Which Physicists, How many can you name?


"Heloicentrism was at one time an anomaly as was quantum mechanics."

Can you elaborate on this statement?


"yet most theoretical physicists have no problem with their existence. We cannot measure hyperdimensions, yet mainstream physicists rely upon them to explain quantum mechanics."

Can you elaborate on "most" theororetical Physicists and Gravitons? Any examples of hyperdimensions, other than theoretical? Which PART of quantum mechanics?

Please define your definition or "Mainstream Physics" and your association with it. A member of the community? Academic correspondance? Physics internet sites?

Edited by Robot, 05 April 2010 - 01:35 PM.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(Proverbs 18:2)http://www.ghostphysics.blogspot.com./

#67 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 05 April 2010 - 02:18 PM

Well, I must be lacking clear vision or imagination or something. I was really hoping to get an actual example of something that can be observed but not studied, because I can't think of a single one. Looking around me, I can see one either. C'mon, wontcha help a fella out? :D

Regatds, Canis

The problem you are facing right there in your post :)


Please explain that. I don't understand.

I am sincerely interested in hearing an example of something that can be observed, but not studied.

Obviously, this is a little alien to my way of thinking, but I have never once expressed the opinion that science is able to explain everything, or that because something is not explainable by science, that it does not exsist. I hold those to be foolish statements.

Nor do I feel that something observable but not studiable is necessarily impossible. I just was hoping for some help in recognizing such a thing. :)

Regards, Canis

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha


#68 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 09:29 PM

There are plenty examples Canis, just look around you. Just because something is observable that doesn't mean it can be explained or studied WITHIN the current framework of science. And just because they are not explainable under the current framework of science, doesn't mean they do not exist either.


Now that said, not all 'ooooh's and aaaah's" can be considered "unexplainable' either.


Name one phenomenon that is observable but can't be studied. If it can be seen with our eyes or our instruments then it can be studied. You realize I hope that this is all physics but if it is not as you seem to be implying then it's magic.

#69 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 06 April 2010 - 02:51 AM

First of all, let me put it this way. This is a statement I have made on the same forum a few times in the previous decade I have been a member here.

For person A, they have a certain set of experiences, education, knowledge and inclination and all they do is to gather information so as to support what they believe, the same is true for person B and C and D as well. They could be a scientist, they could be a philosopher, they could be a rock star....... on a personal level we all do gather information to support what we believe is to be true.


In this discussion, here is an example of what I just mentioned.

In my original post (which I quoted from the book Celestine Prophecy, because I felt those words were meaningful in the current context of discussion) I mentioned that

As I said before, the old sceptical attitude was great when exploting the more visible and obvious phenomena in the universe, such as trees or sunshine or thunderstorms. But there is another group is observable phenomena, more subtle, that you can't study - in fact, you can't even tell they're there at all - unless you suspend or bracket your scepticism and try every possible was to perceive them. Once you can, then you return to your rigorous study".





But there is another group is observable phenomena, more subtle, that you can't study "b]


Observable phenomena that can not be studied? I find this to be an interesting notion.

I admit that I am having trouble imagining something that can be observed, but not studied, however. Can anyone come up with some examples?

Regards, Canis



There are plenty examples Canis, just look around you. Just because something is observable that doesn't mean it can be explained or studied WITHIN the current framework of science. And just because they are not explainable under the current framework of science, doesn't mean they do not exist either.


Now that said, not all 'ooooh's and aaaah's" can be considered "unexplainable' either.


Name one phenomenon that is observable but can't be studied. If it can be seen with our eyes or our instruments then it can be studied. You realize I hope that this is all physics but if it is not as you seem to be implying then it's magic.




Here we can see that things went off the rails when Canis opted to "choose" the only portion he believes from my original post, and ironically changed the entire meaning of my post. There is NO mentioned of a phenomenon that can "never" be studied, all it means is that with the current limitations of science, there are phenomena that are difficult (if not impossible) to explain. I hope I made myself clear. So perhaps if we can unwind a bit in our thought process, we can get a hold of what they are. And to answer you ohreally? you answer is in your question itself:- If it can be seen with our eyes or our instruments then it can be studied. That IF is your answer.

Edited by MoonChild, 06 April 2010 - 02:54 AM.

Posted Image

#70 Robot

Robot

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Physics, Flying, Guitar, Robots, Paranormal

Posted 06 April 2010 - 06:47 AM

"Yet this is an expanding area of interest to many leading physicists, many of whom are charter members of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE)."

These folks are very interesting indeed!

http://www.scientifi.../about_sse.html

Real People with REAL Credentials, some right here in Virginia. I will be sending some emails out to some of these folks today, I'm interested in what they have to say, Ill let you know if I get any replies.

Edited by Robot, 06 April 2010 - 06:47 AM.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(Proverbs 18:2)http://www.ghostphysics.blogspot.com./

#71 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 06 April 2010 - 08:14 AM

ohreally

Name one phenomenon that is observable but can't be studied. If it can be seen with our eyes or our instruments then it can be studied. You realize I hope that this is all physics but if it is not as you seem to be implying then it's magic.


Here we can see that things went off the rails when Canis opted to "choose" the only portion he believes from my original post, and ironically changed the entire meaning of my post. There is NO mentioned of a phenomenon that can "never" be studied, all it means is that with the current limitations of science, there are phenomena that are difficult (if not impossible) to explain. I hope I made myself clear. So perhaps if we can unwind a bit in our thought process, we can get a hold of what they are. And to answer you ohreally? you answer is in your question itself:- If it can be seen with our eyes or our instruments then it can be studied. That IF is your answer.

But there's one point that you are still confused about. I don't mean if as in maybe I mean it as in when phenomena is observed.


Just because something is observable that doesn't mean it can be explained or studied WITHIN the current framework of science.


Yes, I think you made yourself clear this second time, but you've still have made an inaccurate statement.
Since you state there are things that can't be explained or studied within the framework of science then it ends up being magic, again.
Btw Science isn't a framework. It is method that removes bias and reveals how this universe works. A very useful method as I hope you realize.


#72 Robot

Robot

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Physics, Flying, Guitar, Robots, Paranormal

Posted 06 April 2010 - 08:55 AM

A self-winding wristwatch was once lost in a remote area of the Amazon Rain Forest. It was eventually found by a native from a very remote tribe. The native and the tribe had never seen a watch before, so they took it to the Village Shaman.

The Shaman said,"When all the moving sticks reach the top, the sun will be over head, if the sticks ever stop moving shake the device, there is a demon inside moving the sticks, he must ocassionally be shaken to keep him from falling asleep.

The Shaman's model was functional and repeatable. The watch served them well, and often told them when the sun was overhead. They kept the demon awake for years before he died from exhaustion.


Many Modern Physics models are very useful and functional, but no more "REAL" than the Shaman's model.

Just food for thought..................................................................


As far as naming things, NASA calls a "whistle" , a "Pressure Induced Harmonic Oscillation". Nobel winning Physicist,(Richard Feynman), calls a "whistle" a "whistle". A rose by any other name, is still a rose.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(Proverbs 18:2)http://www.ghostphysics.blogspot.com./

#73 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 06 April 2010 - 09:25 PM

A self-winding wristwatch was once lost in a remote area of the Amazon Rain Forest. It was eventually found by a native from a very remote tribe. The native and the tribe had never seen a watch before, so they took it to the Village Shaman.

The Shaman said,"When all the moving sticks reach the top, the sun will be over head, if the sticks ever stop moving shake the device, there is a demon inside moving the sticks, he must ocassionally be shaken to keep him from falling asleep.

The Shaman's model was functional and repeatable. The watch served them well, and often told them when the sun was overhead. They kept the demon awake for years before he died from exhaustion.


Many Modern Physics models are very useful and functional, but no more "REAL" than the Shaman's model.

Just food for thought..................................................................


As far as naming things, NASA calls a "whistle" , a "Pressure Induced Harmonic Oscillation". Nobel winning Physicist,(Richard Feynman), calls a "whistle" a "whistle". A rose by any other name, is still a rose.


The shamans model explains nothing. And could easily be falsified.

#74 cali-dreams

cali-dreams

    Junior Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Interests:Ouija

Posted 07 April 2010 - 10:42 PM

Take a skeptic( well know if possible) to a well known and very real haunted location and let them experience things on a first hand basis and see what they have to say. Most likely something like this, Uh, uh, uh......

I bet I could! they have never seen me an the Ouija, I can do a few things now that I have been studying the Lessor Keys of Soloman. There are 72 reasons I know I can change a skeptics mind LOL
Ouija is my friend

#75 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 09:30 AM

Take a skeptic( well know if possible) to a well known and very real haunted location and let them experience things on a first hand basis and see what they have to say. Most likely something like this, Uh, uh, uh......

I bet I could! they have never seen me an the Ouija, I can do a few things now that I have been studying the Lessor Keys of Soloman. There are 72 reasons I know I can change a skeptics mind LOL


Ok, put your Ouija board where your mouth is. I'll be looking forward to what the weegee board tells you about me.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users