That's a strawman argument response. Not only did I not say that, it didn't even enter into my response by any stretch of the imagination as an implied response. I simply stated the facts as reported: the carefully chosen Duke U investigators had already made up their minds about whether or not paranormal events were real. They were undergrad students, not "a lot of scientists". Undergrads are not scientists. They are impressionable teenagers/close post-teenager students.
They represent the very thing that your last post argued against - closed minds. They expected a certain outcome and fit their experimental results to that case even though a review of the raw data clearly reveals that their results equate to random noise. You can't have it both ways.
My last post and any post of this sort for that matter argues against closed minds on both sides of the coin. The exact reason the study in which you speak of faild is those students thought they would be able to control a force greater than any man alive. For instance, if I were a great tornado winding my way through the plains of Kansas and you attempted to harness my energy for your own bidding, I would wager to say you would fail miserably. Oh you may figure a way to collect some of my wind now and again, but only sporadically. You definitely know I am there though because you feel my force, and not just because you can see me, you could be a blind man for all I know. This still does not change the fact that I am there.
The real argument is whether or not what is classified as paranormal is actually normal. "Para" means "equal to". It may or may not be so but the evidence clearly suggests that it is not only not normal but that it is more likely than not that it doesn't exist when put to the test of repeatability. If it were a part of reality it should be such that given the same set of circumstances, or at least close to the same set of circumstances, similar results can be repeated. But that isn't the case. "Repeatability" or actually the lack thereof, is shielded by ad hoc caveats that are intended to cover the lack of repeatability. "Bad vibes" being present is usually the excuse given, whatever that means. The fact is "bad vibes" is stated such that it can be molded to fit the otherwise failed set of facts. There's no way to falsify the "bad vibes" excuse because it can always be redefined to fit the next argument
This, my friend, is neither a real argument nor a fact. This, in my field is a classic defense mechanism by yourself. because you have no answer for a problem, you decide to break down a word into it's simplest form, and then explain how it is wrong, when you can clearly understand another’s point, yet have no solution. Like the bully in school, who when confronted with something he does not like, decides to fight somebody to make himself feel better.
The second part of you statement in regards to "bad vibes" is valid to a point. Although it is more a lack of understanding on the would be "psychic" than it is a validation to the disbeliever. Just as when my car makes a funny noise and I take it to a mechanic and my car makes a liar out of me. Does that mean there was never a noise because the mechanic can not hear it? No it does not, it simply means at this point in time I am not able to reproduce the noise although it was clearly there. maybe my engine had to be cold to produce the noise, or maybe it only makes the noise when I drive above 55 mph. The fact still remains, there was a noise, I just can not reproduce it, and it may never happen again.
That a few people believe that this or that might be true doesn't mean that their opinion is to be given equal weight to that which has been put to the test of experiment or that "you can't disprove me" means that that argument has any weight
Ahhh, the arrogance of man. The true answer to that is yes it does. It is not until something is disproven that it becomes false, or something is proven that it becomes a fact. your science can not explain how the universe was formed. Sure they have multpile theories of gasses existing and exploding out of complete chaos that somehow created a harmonious order, but as to where these gasses came from they have no idea, just more theories. Even more, your science has no idea how the seen universe is held together. Their math will not add up to them, they know there must be something else there, but they can not find it. "60% of the universe is held together by dark matter" I read recently in a magazine. This is seen as fact in much of the "scientific circle", in spite of the fact dark matter has never been proven to be a factual substance in the first place. The simple fact is until science can prove or at very least explain how it is wrong using fact, the door remains open, and any interpretation has just as much weight as another.
I would like all who think "science gives up" on things, or who wish to judge scientists as "not being open minded" to please not misinterpret (or project) what Darby is saying and doing here. In other words, don't get your panties in a bunch (i.e. get emotional) and jump to the conclusion that he is attacking what you believe or think.
Thinking science "gives up" and are "close minded" are two completely different things. I have never looked at science as giving up. On the contrary, I think science tries with all it's might to discover new things, and answer age old questions. However, I still feel many are close minded because they operate within the bounds of what they already can explain.
As to getting emotional or feeling attacked, you guys clearly do not understand my mind set. I never have, nor will I ever get emotional or feel attacked. I simply look at it as another persons point of view, and their opinion. With regards to jumping to conclusions, I simply look at an individuals past works, and take into account their slant on an issue as a basis.
Especially the rise and dominance of the USA. That dominance is in jeapordy unless we can nurture that rational thought, reason, and scientific method
This, I would like for you to explain if you will.
You cannot come to appreciate the fullness of what Darby is pointing out until you have gone through the process of a higher education that is based in science .AND. come to an understanding precisely why it works and is NOT a "closed-minded" approach
Well, I'm kind of 50/50 on that one. I understand exactly what Darby is pointing out and explaining. I just happen to disagree with his particular point of view on this issue, because my "higher education" is a science field that deals with the human mind, not numbers on a board. If you mean "higher education" in order to understand because of a tendency to talk over a person's head and an inability or unwillingness to break points down in layman's for all to understand, then yes I agree completely.
Ruthless (just for one), I respect the hell out of you, dude. I truly and honestly do. I am not just saying that. And I understand when you say "I have had experiences that you cannot understand..." I really do. But now I want you to understand that this fact goes both ways. Because you have not completed the science-based education I have implored you to follow, it is a fact that I have had experiences as a result of this education that you cannot understand. And because I have had those experiences and you have not, I know they are holding you back from understanding why science is not flawed, and the vast majority of scientists are not "closed minded."
Another example of "I am smarter than you, and I'm telling you it was either in your imagination, the wind, a shadow...etc" Because it can not be reproduced, does not mean it did not happen. It simply means you are unable to explain it. That is not the fault of the person it happened to.
And science
is flawed in
every way, because we are flawed as a species. We are flawed in objection by emotion, by air pressure, by our beliefs, by politics, oh god the list goes on and on.
Science is powerful stuff, and it is pretty much responsible for every single technological convenience we all enjoy in our lives, not the least of which is that computer we use to participate here and the internet that permits us to participate. If you wish to corrupt science by passing judgment ("closed minded") about something you are under-educated about, then you are aiding and abetting the further erosion of the society we have built.... which remains the absolute most free and empowering society the world has seen, in the history we know of.
Yes, I agree. We do try our best to be objective, and we have discovered much. We have even came up with some pretty fancy gadgets as you say that are fun to play with. But to corrupt science you would need to introduce untruths into factual equations. Giving an alternate view point is not corrupting science, it is merely forwarding the opportunity for yet another door to be explored.
