Time Travel verses the Paranormal

KT,

Yep. I looked at your post, went back and actually read Ray's entire post and...

I gave a good answer to a really good question. Unfortunately it wasn't Ray's question.
 
Paranormal "observations" have never passed the test of repeatability.
Click to expand...

Yes, and just like UFO's, most likely never will pass a repeatability test, but because it does not conform to your standards of testing only proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding. Just as until a flying saucer lands on the white house lawn they will be nothing more than a docudrama on the science fiction channel.
 
Yes, and just like UFO's, most likely never will pass a repeatability test
Click to expand...

The proper practice of the scientific method does not jump to a conclusion like this when there are no facts in evidence to support it.

but because it does not conform to your standards of testing only proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding.
Click to expand...

It "proves" nothing of the sort. It ONLY proves that you have not been able to measure it and reduce it to something repeatable...yet. Let me say it again:

The proper practice of the scientific method does not jump to a conclusion like this when there are no facts in evidence to support it.

If you wish to abandon the scientific method and jump to a conclusion, that is where "believing" takes the place of "knowing." It is OK to do, just make sure you know and admit that you are doing it (i.e. don't try to sneak it by).
And also know that if you decide to do this, you are no longer properly practicing the scientific method. You have decided to give up on science and just believe whatever it is you wish to believe.

That is the clarification that needs to be made...and I could quote a couple more of your earlier quotes above, eyecare, to make this clear. The clarifiction is the distinction between the proper scientific method, and whether or not we, as individuals, properly apply it.

The scientific method itself is not flawed (because it is self-correcting). What can be flawed is our implementation thereof. When you brought up the AGW Alarmists "scientists", this distinction applies. Because there are facts which falsify Dr. Mann's "Hockey Stick prediction" based on the AGW theory, and because Dr. Mann continues to ignore and not admit this falsification, what we have is a "scientist" who is not properly practicing the scientific method.

RMT
 
Rainman, I think you missed Kerr's question up there.
About what part of the scientific method covers his experience. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I was wondering what would happen to a dedicated scientist who strickly follows the scientific method and he sees a ufo land in his backyard and then it disappears on him leaving absolutley no evidence behind at all. Does he close his eyes and repeat over and over "I refuse to believe what I just saw its not scientifically possible!! No I refuse to believe!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"
And then he runs into a wall and hits his head and blacks out and then when he wakes up is relieved because he now thinks it was a dream and he is ok now because he doesn't have to apply the scientific method?
Lol /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

If this ever happens to a dedicated scientist would it be better for us to knock him out and tell him it was all a dream to save his sanity? Because obviously he would not be able to just believe something he saw that he couldn't apply the scientific method to. I just wonder what would be in the best interest of the scientist.

If the scientist got pushed from behind by an unseen hand should we just tell him he has been working too hard and take a little vacation and everything will be ok? Does he just shrug it off and never mention it for fear someone will think he is crazy? Or does he rack his brain trying to figure out if a gust of wind suddenly intensified in only one certain area and hit only him?
Or that someone pushed him earlier but his brain was just now recording it? Does he think about it hard all night trying to desperatly apply the scientific method or does he cave in and eventually say "geez maybe that place was haunted"

LOL man it might be kind of fun to see a ghost push a scientist who strickly only practices the scientific method and watch what how he handles it. Lololol /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Oh...and what if he went and got all kinds of scientific instruments to measure all kinds of electromagnetic fields or anomalies in the area and the experience never repeated itself and the instruments showed nothing.
What does the dedicated scientific method scientist do then about the experience he had?
 
Rainman, I think you missed Kerr's question up there.
About what part of the scientific method covers his experience.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. In fact, I had PM'ed Kerr and told him I would be getting to his posts.
RMT
 
Passive-aggressive.

As you are so fond of pointing out to others, Pamela: You have no idea what sorts of scientific findings will arise in the future. You do not. So you seem to want it both ways. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
RMT
 
Its ok I know you are really going to have to rack your brain for this one. Take your time. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Its ok I know you are really going to have to rack your brain for this one. Take your time.
Click to expand...

Passive-aggressive.

What if I were to claim that I am feeling offended by you, Pamela? Would the moderator notice?
RMT
 
I think as you are so fondly of saying that you should take all the emotions out of it and simply answer the question. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you can.
 
Kerr,

As promised, I wanted to address a couple of your thoughts from two posts all at the same time:

Science must be applied when it can be thus applied, however, there are instances where Science has not reached a level of answering all the questions relative to all the experiences, so to develop an understanding of the dynamics of those experiences, what to do ?

Ignore the experiences Science can't yet address and pretend they don't happen ?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But by the exact same token, you do not jump to a conclusion that cannot be supported. Acknowledging you have had an experience is one thing. Concluding it was one thing (that you might wish to believe) over some other thing (that might be more mundane) is a whole different story. That is precisely why the scientific method is not flawed: It does NOT try to explain things that cannot be repeatibly demonstrated. Science is patient.

Now let's collect two other things you said together and address them both at the same time.

However, my wife swears that she saw a man dressed in black watching her while she was washing some dishes. He was leaning against the entertainment center, and my wife thought it was me. When she turned to face the man directly, in essence, to say something to me, she realized it wasn't me, and the man simply vanished into thin air.

We now have a problem. Is my wife fibbing ? Is she suffering from some sort of mental disability that reuslts with hallucinations, or was that man really there ?

<font color="red"> and then this one: [/COLOR]

As an example ;

When I was younger, our family would travel to visit close friends in the San Fernando Valley. One night, the subject of a near-by "haunted house" came up and being skeptical, I demanded to go and see this "haunted house".

We walked up the road, and stood in front of the supposed "haunted house" and I laughed, as the home looked normal to me. As we were walking away, my friends were a few steps ahead of me, when something seemed to push me down onto the ground from behind, with the definite feeling of hands being placed onto my back and being shoved.

I was angry, and turned to look to see who it was that did it, but in looking, there wasn't anybody "seen" that could have pushed me. All my friends were in front of me, and the lay-out of the street was such that no one could have pushed me and run away fast enough to hide.

So...

Tell me what "scientific method" you have to explain what happened relative to my experience ?
Click to expand...

Agreed that science cannot explain all things at the current TIME, but no one has ever made that claim. The scientific method is how one attempts to go about explaining something but never subscribes that all things can be explained. In TIME, some things may be able to be explained, if enough data it taken, and especially if some event can be repeated enough to take definitive data.

Science sets up hypothesi, and tests them. And one hypothesis that must be considered in both of your situations cited above is this: That the sensory apparatus of the human body may report things erroneously. We know this is a fact, and I can cite one simple one: The schlieren effect on a hot day in the desert that makes one see what one believes to be water on the ground, off in the distance. Science has been able to prove what causes this illusion. It is the changing density of the air refracting the light passing through it. In fact, we use changes in air density resulting from the schlieren effect to visualize shock waves in a supersonic wind tunnel. It is a form of interferometry. But before one understands that science can explain this illusion of the eyes, someone less scientific may actually believe they are actually seeing water. They could jump to that conclusion.

Let us be clear: I am NOT saying "science can prove your wife or your sensory apparati were reporting defectively." Because clearly there is not enough experimental data to make that conclusion summarily. But this MUST be one hypothesis of the many that would be tested, were a scientific approach to be taken. Please read the following article:

Can We Trust What We See?

So there are two options with respect to your wife's and your experiences:

1) Admit that one cannot explain it ("prove what happened") given the amount of data present. In other words, to use a scientific phrase, "the null hypothesis is still in force until more data comes in that helps us explain what is going on."

or

2) Rather than coming to no conclusion, decide that I wish to believe that what my senses are reporting to me as having happened, actually did happen as I believe it happened.

Do you see the difference? This is how and why science is not only a discipline (because it is taking a disciplined approach), but also self-correcting. The scientific method remains mum on "declaring any conclusions" about your experiences until sufficient data is in hand to validate coming to any conclusion.

Even myself, as a practitioner of science, may "hold some form of belief" if I were to have a similar experience. Indeed, I believe in God. But I cannot show evidence of a God that will satisfy the inquiry of the scientific method. And some "scientists" do believe that mankind is the primary cause of global warming. My distinction is that I will clearly delineate when I am exhibiting a "belief" vs. a "scientific conclusion."

It is nothing more than the difference between saying "I believe something happened to me" as opposed to "science can prove that a ghost really did push me down". I know you understand this distinction, Kerr. So now have I made myself clear? And BTW, this is the exact same distinction that Darby has been pointing out all along. There is a right way to do science, and if you wish to subscribe to a personal belief, that is fine...just don't call it science! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
I think as you are so fondly of saying that you should take all the emotions out of it and simply answer the question.

If you can.
Click to expand...

And yet more passive-aggressive.

I am stating, for the record, that you are offending me, Pamela. Have you read the TOS? Or do you believe that you cannot be offensive to anyone?

RMT
 
If you wish to abandon the scientific method and jump to a conclusion, that is where "believing" takes the place of "knowing." It is OK to do, just make sure you know and admit that you are doing it (i.e. don't try to sneak it by). And also know that if you decide to do this, you are no longer properly practicing the scientific method. You have decided to give up on science and just believe whatever it is you wish to believe.

That is the clarification that needs to be made...and I could quote a couple more of your earlier quotes above, eyecare, to make this clear. The clarifiction is the distinction between the proper scientific method, and whether or not we, as individuals, properly apply it.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness...finally /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course it is what I believe. How many times have I said I will never force my beliefs on anybody. I have never said I applied the scientific method in coming to the conclusion that god is real. What I stated was I would share my beliefs with any who ask. These are personal experiences that we are talking about, not some random bunch of numbers.

This argument goes both ways however, and that has been my point. That mainstream science says "there is no god. there was no creation. there is no paranormal, etc..."

These statements are made as facts, when in reality it should be stated as "we believe there is no...xyz, because science has yet to support it" That is ok as you said, just don't state it as fact.

To say I have given up on science is not correct however. The scientific method in and of itself is a marvelous thing. It is the man who practices it who is flawed. However as you say, it is self correcting and somebody will come along eventually and fix your mistake.

As to my intention you ask about earlier, I will answer now so it will be very clear how I practice my beliefs.

My intention, and my practice is using the very science we speak of and help people. When somebody says why do I feel this way, why do I have these thoughts, why do I....etc" I explain how an imbalance of chemicals in the brain leads to various, or past traumatic events, ...etc" Along the way however I always speak of meditation and relaxation, and it is there I explain my simple beliefs, and what works for "me". I am not preaching about god, I am not telling somebody they will go to hell, I am not saying I can see the future. I am saying breathe, sit back, relax, clear your mind, and find yourself.

My intention is to help people, to promote a healthy and happy life, and If I can help just one person smile and feel good today it makes my day.
 
Of course it is what I believe. How many times have I said I will never force my beliefs on anybody. I have never said I applied the scientific method in coming to the conclusion that god is real. What I stated was I would share my beliefs with any who ask. These are personal experiences that we are talking about, not some random bunch of numbers.
Click to expand...

Understood, and agree.

This argument goes both ways however, and that has been my point. That mainstream science says "there is no god. there was no creation. there is no paranormal, etc..."

These statements are made as facts, when in reality it should be stated as "we believe there is no...xyz, because science has yet to support it" That is ok as you said, just don't state it as fact.
Click to expand...

Strongly agree! :D Any scientist who says "there is no god" is also just expressing their belief, and yes there are scientists who believe this who will also try to say that lack of evidence, is evidence (i.e. we cannot give evidence for God, therefore no God can exist). That is sloppy reasoning, and unscientific just as much as "I had an experience that felt like X happened, so I believe X happened and it was paranormal."

To say I have given up on science is not correct however. The scientific method in and of itself is a marvelous thing. It is the man who practices it who is flawed. However as you say, it is self correcting and somebody will come along eventually and fix your mistake.
Click to expand...

Again, strongly agree!

My intention is to help people, to promote a healthy and happy life, and If I can help just one person smile and feel good today it makes my day.
Click to expand...

That is a great intention. Good going, and I wish you abundance and joy in achieving your intention!
RMT
 
It is nothing more than the difference between saying "I believe something happened to me" as opposed to "science can prove that a ghost really did push me down". I know you understand this distinction, Kerr. So now have I made myself clear?
Click to expand...

I understand the distinction, however, what you have done is lessen the experience.

By saying " I believe something happened to me " places the experience into a category of "belief", and not as an absolute occurance.

I don't "believe" something happened to me, I "know" something happened to me.

The question then becomes "What did happen ? " not a question of " Did something happen ? "

Do you understand the distinction ?

Concluding it was one thing (that you might wish to believe) over some other thing (that might be more mundane) is a whole different story. That is precisely why the scientific method is not flawed: It does NOT try to explain things that cannot be repeatibly demonstrated. Science is patient.
Click to expand...

Here, you did the same thing. You lessened the experience. "Wishing to believe"...sorry, there is no "wishing to believe" involved.

I never said it was a ghost that pushed me. I mentioned that we went to look at a house that was said to be haunted. I also said something seemed to push me down onto the ground from behind, with the definite feeling of hands being placed onto my back and being shoved.

You assumed from the information given, that I concluded it was a ghost ? Where did I say that ?

Also there seems to be an assumption that steps were not taken to try and discover what happened, that I merely shrugged my shoulders, believed it was a ghost, and went on my merry way.

Working in the home inprovement field, and having some experience with actually working in the field, I am reminded of the customer that came into the store to make a purchase. What it was, I don't remember. However, in asking questions, to determine what product was best suited for his needs ( could be likened to a scientific process ) discovered he planned on working on an area within his main electrical box, between the meter and the electrical feed from the powerpoles.

I asked him if he notified the electrical company to turn the power off, and he said that he didn't.

I tried to warn him that he was making a mistake. He became rude and lorded over this simpleton of a clerk in a store that he was an "Electrical Engineer ", and knew what he was doing.

Being customer friendly, I didn't press the issue, and several days passed when the "Electrical Engineer " came into the store to talk to me. He apologized for being rude and during the conversation, he admitted he made a mistake.

As he went to use a screwdriver to detach the wires between the meter and the power feed, the screwdriver was sucked out of his hands, and melted into a pool of metal and plastic. That he wasn't killed was a blessing, by luck or by divine intervention, either way, could have turned out very different.

That he is an educated electrical engineer, great, but at the same time, just because he sits behind a desk all day, drawing up a variety of electrical plans and projects, without actually working with electricity, he is missing some potentially vital "experiences".

And because of his pride, refused to listen to some "low-wage earner in a two-bit hardware store", and almost killed himself. But when he was wrong, he had the capacity to not only admit he made a mistake ( as opposed to throwing in facts and figures in an attempt to razzle dazzle ); But also was able to apologize for his attitude whilst inflated by his ego.
 
I understand the distinction, however, what you have done is lessen the experience.

By saying " I believe something happened to me " places the experience into a category of "belief", and not as an absolute occurance.

I don't "believe" something happened to me, I "know" something happened to me.

The question then becomes "What did happen ? " not a question of " Did something happen ? "

Do you understand the distinction ?
Click to expand...

I certainly do understand, and apologize for not wording it better. It was not my intent to lessen the experience or even try to deny that something did happen to you. That you experienced "something". I was attempting to make the same distinction that you have made, and you have done it more clearly:

1) That something happened to you, that you had an experience: Yes, of course. You were there, and I trust that you are relating the facts as you experienced them. (Side note: We can also recognize that with all people reporting experiences this may not be the case... in other words, using a UFO example, there MAY be some people who do not truthfully report what happened, in the hopes they can write a book, go on the UFO speaking circuit, what have you. And to be excruciatingly clear, I am NOT suggesting YOU are doing this with your experience)
2) That you, nor anyone else at this juncture, can accurately and truthfully identify WHAT it was that you experienced... that is the part I am talking about.

Here, you did the same thing. You lessened the experience. "Wishing to believe"...sorry, there is no "wishing to believe" involved.

I never said it was a ghost that pushed me. I mentioned that we went to look at a house that was said to be haunted. I also said something seemed to push me down onto the ground from behind, with the definite feeling of hands being placed onto my back and being shoved.

You assumed from the information given, that I concluded it was a ghost ? Where did I say that ?
Click to expand...

You did not say it. And I was not assuming that you did say it. Rather, I was using as an example to contrast the scientific approach. Again, I apologize as it was not my intent to deny that you experienced some event. I was only pointing out that some people (you did not, as far as what you told me) can and will jump to a conclusion. My point was that to do so is not scientific and not in accordance with a scientific method of investigation. Look back at my recent replies to eyecare, and you can see a better example of what I was pointing out. The words eyecare did use were certainly indicating a rush to judgment/conclusion when he said:

and just like UFO's, most likely never will pass a repeatability test, but because it does not conform to your standards of testing only proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding.
Click to expand...

The words "most likely never will pass a repeatability test" and "proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding" both sound like taking that extra step from "I had an experience" to "I now draw conclusions about that experience." He has shown no evidence to support these conclusions, so we would brand them as a personal belief, but not any form of scientific conclusion. Indeed, in the second case the assumption of "beyond the means of (science) understanding" can be falsified if one day a set of experimental measurements DOES lead to an explanation for some UFO experiences. So the conclusion is not supported, while we can still agree that someone had an experience.

I hope I have made myself clear, and again I apologize for not making it clear earlier and leaving the impression I was denying that you had an experience. But now, having admitted that, can you also admit that, while you had an experience, if you cannot explain what it was then one of the potential explanations which cannot (yet) be discounted is: It is possible my eyes (or that of your wife's) were being presented with an illusion. This was the reason for sharing the study in the link I provided. I am not saying it is a fact, but that it has not been discounted as a possibility. We cannot simply assume that all of your senses (or your wife's) were working flawlessly.

Are we in agreement?
RMT
 
LOL...Yes, we are in agreement. I didn't get the opportunity to convey everything I had in mind, as my wife was demanding that I spend some time with her.

What I also attempted to include in my post, was that for an aerospace engineer, as experienced and educated as he may be, is not an experienced investigator in the field of the paranormal.

The investigator of the field of the paranormal that investigates cases from within the depths of the library or an office on the 40th Floor of an executive suite, will be lacking in the experiences of those who are actually IN the field doing the "grunt" work.

As an example :

Working for a door installation company, the "project engineers" are great at working up the details of a job from their offices. Going off blue-prints, they use their education and experience of mathematics to determine the specific details relative to the labor, expenses, and materials required to complete the project.

However, since they rarely visit the actual job site, it turns out that the doors don't fit into the elevators nor can be carried up the numerous flights of stairs to the upper floors of the building.

So, the field workers end up having to remove the windows of the designated rooms and using a construction elevator to lift the doors "up to" the upper floors of the building, and bringing them in through the openings of the windows.

Despite the knowledge of the project engineers, and the skill with working off the blue prints, physically visting the work site and experiencing the physical details in person would have prevented some costly mistakes, both in additonal expenses ( renting the construction elevator ) and labor.

However skilled you may be with aerospace engineering, does not replace the education of actually going out into the field for a length of time and experiencing events first hand.

With regards to paranormal events, until you actually spend time "in the field" doing investigative work in the trenches, as it were, really, all you have is what you are reading in books and what you see on paper.

In the case of my wife and what she saw, I don't know what it was she saw, other than what she said happened. That she saw a man standing there, I have to believe she is telling the truth and did indeed see such a man.

Now, what dynamics are involved in the event, I have no idea. I can't say that it was a "ghost", however, honestly can't say it wasn't a ghost, either -- but, must simply say, I don't know.

Whether the greatest scientific mind in the world, or just plain old me, since I don't have the data to make a decision regarding her experience, all I can say is -- I don't know.

Same with the event of something "feeling" like hands on my back and being shoved, that it was a ghost, since I was a kid at the time, and only did a simple investigation, again, can only say relative to what happened -- I don't know.

I think we once disussed the game of old called "Telephone", where one person is told something, then that information is passed down the line amongst a group of people, then the last person recites what was told. In most cases, the difference between what was told to the first person, compared to what the last person recites is enough to actually become a form of entertainment.

Sure, there are numerous instances of fraud, and fakes, and/or alternative explainations to numerous events. However, there are enough experiences that makes it not necessarily so ALL the time, relative to ALL of the experiences.
 
eyecare,

but because it does not conform to your standards of testing only proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding.
Click to expand...

Correct. But I'll add that it isn't "my" standards, it is "our" standards of testing. It is the actual tax paying public that funds these projects. Spending money for to-date failed experiments becomes a matter of public policy and not a subject of the whim of alt-sci opinion. If some group of totally private investors want to continue to the research then it is not my problem - they can spend their money anyway that they see fit. However if it is public funds behind the project then "my" standards have to be applied.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that tends to confirm these alt-sci theories. All that I ask is that "you" stop asking me to fund further research absent clear and compelling evidence that my dollars are being spent wisely. Otherwise spent your own dollars: dig into your own bank account and make a real dollar contribution to the research.

Are you willing to do that? That is, to spend real dollars from your own private funds to further the effort. If so, how much money are you personally willing to contribute?
 
Back
Top