Jump to content

Time Travel verses the Paranormal


Recommended Posts

Hmmm... This might get interesting between Joe and Darby since they both claim to have higher education in psychology. Darby uses it to interrogate people...Joe uses it for...hmmm not sure yet. Lol.:)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Exactly my point. A tornado blows through the plains of Kansas. It can be definitely detected, metrics can be applied to it, it can be studied and from the study definite predictions can be made about the next tornado blowing through the plains of Kansas, Oklahoma or Colorado. When that next tornado does occur we can test the predictions. And sure enough, when we do observe the next tornado we verify repeatability, at least to the limits of exact similarities between the testbed tornado and the observed recurrance. No two tornados are expected to be exactly alike but the gross details can be verified (or falsified).

 

That's not the case with paranormal investigations. When experiments fail to verify the hypothesis in the case of paranormal investigations the noise ("bad vibes") that interferes with the expected outcome is added to the theory as a free parameter that is not derived from the theory. The experimenter is predisposed to believe that "bad vibes" affect experimental results without any experimental evidence of "bad vibes" existence and then "bad vibes" is given as the agent that prevented repeatability.

 

The experiment was supposed to be an investigation into what a paranormal event is or isn't and before verifying or falsifying the case it tosses an undefined, and by virtue of the nature of the experiment itself unverified, paranormal event ("bad vibes") into the experiment to explain why it failed. It's self serving, circular logic and a tautology. It's neither science nor an honest inquiry.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I most definitely agree it was a flawed self serving experiment. Thus my point in using a blind man analogy. You are correct that a tornado in and of itself can be classified and studied by you and I. However if you were a blind man and could not see the force you were dealing with, you would only be able to guess what it was. So in the end this blind man has a powerfull force which he could not see, he knew was there, he feebly attempted to control, and finally may or may not happen again.

 

So here we have these "kids" attempting to control and recreate experiences they may or may not have had at one point in the past with this great force they can not explain, but clearly know was there. In doing so, they or anybody else for that matter who attempts these experiments to control this unseen power, give more ammunition to mainstream scientists who say such a force obviously not there. When clearly a power so great as to create the universe will not fall under the control of a mortal human to be used in such a petty way.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
However if you were a blind man and could not see the force you were dealing with, you would only be able to guess what it was. So in the end this blind man has a powerfull force which he could not see, he knew was there, he feebly attempted to control, and finally may or may not happen again.

Another asymmetric (inapplicable) example. You assume the blind man cannot use calibrated, scientific instruments? I sense in your zeal to try and prove your point (which I do not think you or anyone can do within the realms of the scientific method), I think you are constructing easily falsifiable analogies.

 

with this great force they can not explain, but clearly know was there. In doing so, they or anybody else for that matter who attempts these experiments to control this unseen power, give more ammunition to mainstream scientists who say such a force obviously not there. When clearly a power so great as to create the universe will not fall under the control of a mortal human to be used in such a petty way.

There is the embedded, but uproven assumption again. In this argument you assume that this "power so great" actually exists. That is an invalid scientific position. This is where you are using a spiritual system (unsupported belief) in a scientific debate. No go.

 

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.

Sorry, I was not implying you, personally or specifically. I respect your ability to separate emotion from a good debate. I was speaking "in general" about folks around here. There are a lot of over-sensitive people here who do not distinguish scientific criticism from personal criticism.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another asymmetric (inapplicable) example. You assume the blind man cannot use calibrated, scientific instruments? I sense in your zeal to try and prove your point (which I do not think you or anyone can do within the realms of the scientific method), I think you are constructing easily falsifiable analogies.

No, I was simply using an analogy which could be easily understood by anybody, but for you, we will take away the blind mans legs, arms, and tape his mouth with duck tape and sit him in a field on a bare spot of concrete. i.e. you knew exactly what I was meaning.

 

There is the embedded, but unproven assumption again. In this argument you assume that this "power so great" actually exists. That is an invalid scientific position. This is where you are using a spiritual system (unsupported belief) in a scientific debate. No go.

Not so, not so at all. I believe the same thing as most scientists believe, which is at some point in what we label as time, something wonderful and powerful happened. The universe was born. You prefer to call it a "big bang" caused by the force of gasses blowing up and attempt to study it, to find out where, when and why. I prefer to call it creation, by a higher power and attempt to interact with it, to connect to it, and find meaning. Neither are "proven fact", simply a belief. The same way if an alien came to earth, many scientists would want to take it apart and study it, where as I would rather talk to it and learn from it in that manner.

 

As far as debating with unsupported beliefs, you have already given prime examples where that happens every day. crack pot global warming scientists (obviously just imo) argue everyday even though their facts are self serving and political.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I was not implying you, personally or specifically. I respect your ability to separate emotion from a good debate. I was speaking "in general" about folks around here. There are a lot of over-sensitive people here who do not distinguish scientific criticism from personal criticism.

Oh, no worries at all my friend :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
However if you were a blind man and could not see the force you were dealing with, you would only be able to guess what it was.

Again, on my point. Yes, if a force exists that I cannot see I can make a guess at what it is. But a "guess" in the case of scientific inquiry is far different than than simply adding a free parameter without any specific reason.

 

I can study the issues of forces based on what is already known about forces. From the results of previous verified research I can postulate what should be observed in the case of the unknown force under investigation and also postulate what other effects are also implied.

 

For example I postulate based on experiments performed than atoms have at their core a massive particle that I'll call a proton and that it has a positive charge. I know from previous investigations that there also exists a particle known as an electron that orbits the nucleus and that it has a negative charge. I also know that based on previous inquiries that electrons don't seem to crash into the nuclei of atoms and that positive and negative charges attract.

 

I now have a problem. I have experimental verification of two sets of data that conflict with each other. But I haven't as yet explored the implied forces that prevent this from occuring. So I make some educated "guesses" and though I don't at first explain the "how" I do end up with the "why" - Pauli's exculsion principle. No two Fermions can occupy the same quantum state. Electrons, neutrons and protons are all Fermions thus electrons don't crash into the nucleus. I then run experiments and I end up verifying the principle. Somewhat later I'll also discover possible exceptions and the conditions that might allow for the exceptions so that a proton can absorb an electron and what to look for to verify that set of circumstances. To do so I'll invent a linear particle accelerator and slam electrons traveling at close to the speed of light into protons (only to discover that they simply get very, very close to the protons and spray a lot of other "elementary" particles about the room).

 

I have never seen a proton or an electron and I have never seen the electromagnetic or quantum forces that are in play. I'm a blind man. But even though I'm a blind man I have successfully investigated electrons and protons, the forces in play, implied results of electron-proton interactions and come to rational conclusions supported by experiment to explain why electrons don't crash into protons.

 

There are guesses and then there are guesses. One form of guess is far different than the other.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with those statements completely Darby. Although the last line is a bit smug if read into by somebody.

 

You must understand though I have never claimed to have any of these powers, gifts, or what ever one prefers to call them. I am simply stating that I believe this force is not like your atoms which you seem fond of. It can not be controlled, it does what it wills, and it is intelligent, and you can not discount a person's personal experience with it, if no other logical answer is found.

 

History is full of numerous examples, I will steer clear of any religious example so as to avoid any bias. In the 1960's a middle aged man in Spain was blind. This man had been blind since childhood because his optic nerves were damaged, so it was not some form of psychosomatic injury or anything like that. For some reason this man decided to travel to Scotland and visit a runic type healer. Upon his return home, doctors were baffled because the man's sight had been restored. His optic nerves had regrown somehow. No viable explanation was ever discovered, and it was ultimately labeled a fluke of nature. This does not come from religious texts, but from medical journals.

 

So...how did this happen? Was this and other accounts like this flukes of nature? Can a placebo effect be so strong as the man just believing in the runic healer, or was this simply an example of a higher power willingly intervening on behalf of this man through this healer? I do not know the answer to these questions, but what I do know is it happened, and men far more intelligent than I could not answer either. So it was given the "the human body is an amazing thing" speech.

 

Now do I believe in these soothsayers and tv evangelists who claim to work all sorts of miracles? No I do not, but do I believe there is a higher power which I can feel, can not see, but is capable of doing these things? Absolutely.

 

These are things which frustrate scientists because they can not grasp them with their hands, or see them under a microscope or read a theory about them to create yet another (or postulate as you like to say) hypothesis about it. It still does not take away from the fact that it occurred.

 

scientists operate inside this limited box of "I can prove a=b so it must be so". I put forth that you must also realize there may be exceptions as you said, however, the exception may not be inside your box.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are making progress towards mutual understanding, I believe, even if we do not end up changing anyone's beliefs. I've got a 3 day weekend to work towards replying to several points you have made, as well as my friend Kerr. First, let's deal with this one:

 

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.

No, that is not what I mean, even though I do understand what you are saying. However, some concepts (especially complex science and engineering topics) simply cannot be broken down into layman's terms within the span of time, or media bandwidth, available in an elevator discussion or an internet forum. That is why science and engineering degrees take 4 years... because much of the knowlege must be acquired in a progressive process of building new, more complicated knowledge upon simpler, fundamental concepts. I have attempted to teach some more complex concepts of aerodynamics to ruthless here on this forum in the past. But no matter how much I break it down into laymans terms, the fact that it takes my actual students many semesters of contact classtime work to acquire this knowlegde is what prohibits a layman from ever being able to comprehend the details on an internet forum.

 

But the reason I do not agree with what you say above even goes deeper than just the response I give in the last paragraph. It is also because lay people seem to think all they need is common sense, life experiences, and intuition to "get it." The problem is that science and engineering are rife with examples where what you believe is "common sense" or "intuition" are actually incorrect when faced with the detailed engineering analysis of a phenomenon. In fact, this is an important part of my instruction to students: Pointing these types of examples out to them, and showing them how their ideas of "common sense and intuition" can steer you dead-wrong, and why it is important to follow the detailed engineering analysis procedure to ensure you don't take shortcuts that lead to a wrong answer...and in aerospace, a wrong answer can mean a dead human.

 

Let me give you just one example, from my ARO 101 course. Since it is the first aero engineering course that freshman take, this example IS conducive to breaking things down into layman's terms... while at the same time acting as an example to show students how you must not "trust your intuition" but rather learn and follow the detailed engineering process. The example deals with teaching students about hydrostatics and fluid pressure concepts, and I present this example BEFORE I begin to teach them the detailed equations and analysis methods of hydrostatics. On the board I draw a diagram just like this one for the students to consider:

 

spacer.png

 

Identical fluids in all the containers, and the fluid levels are all equal height as shown by the dotted line at the top of the fluids. Then I ask the question of the class: "In which of these containers is the pressure at the bottom of the container the largest?"

 

Invariably (unless a student has already had exposure to hydrostatics) an unknowing student's "common sense and intuition" will tell them to find the container that has the largest volume of liquid in it...and that would be the container that has the highest pressure at the bottom. The student might size all the containers up and then proudly raise their hand and claim "container D has the largest volume of fluid so it will have the highest pressure at the bottom."

 

And the student would be incorrect. The "common sense shortcut" has failed them, because the principle of hydrostatics (which I then go on to introduce the basic equation and how one analyzes such problems) tells us that the pressure in any fluid is only dependent upon the depth of the column of fluid, and it is not at all dependent upon the shape of a container or the volume of fluid in that container.

 

This is just one, VERY simple example of how using short cuts and calling them "intution and common sense" do not work, and will lead you to wrong conclusions. Every single course & subject I teach in aerospace has a great many situations just like this, and of increasing complexity. Especially when you get to understanding how the drag of an aerospace vehicle depends upon so many things, and there is NO "common sense or intuition" that can be used as a short cut to avoid doing the hard work. This is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT lesson in engineering to change the way the majority of students think about the world around them to help them mature. Some students refuse to change their way of thinking in this regard, often because they are stubborn and wish to "believe" instead of "know". They never complete their degree and do not move on to become engineers because they would rather "believe their truth" rather than "know the actual truth."

 

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.

Not at all my point in what I was saying to ruthless. My point is the one I just made above, in excruciating detail. Going through the "hard work" of an engineering education gives you new tools (scientific tools that are demonstrably superior to "common sense and intuition") that can and will help ruthless to reason about an experience... which can not only help him AVOID jumping to an unsupported conclusion (just because his intuition tells him that is what he should think), but could very well be used to actually form a testable scientific hypothesis about what he experienced.

 

It is not arrogance, and it is not even "I am smarter than you." Rather, it is "I am more educated than you and I wish to explain what I know, that you do not, that will help you avoid jumping to an incorrect conclusion." The "smarter than you" is arrogance. The education aspect is the normal mode of a teacher who passes on valuable knowledge.

 

This, I would like for you to explain if you will.

Gladly, but not in this reply. Next reply. Possibly later tonight, but more likely tomorrow. Along with other clarifications that I also think will get us closer to mutual understanding.

 

Good night...

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the reason I do not agree with what you say above even goes deeper than just the response I give in the last paragraph. It is also because lay people seem to think all they need is common sense, life experiences, and intuition to "get it." The problem is that science and engineering are rife with examples where what you believe is "common sense" or "intuition" are actually incorrect when faced with the detailed engineering analysis of a phenomenon. In fact, this is an important part of my instruction to students: Pointing these types of examples out to them, and showing them how their ideas of "common sense and intuition" can steer you dead-wrong, and why it is important to follow the detailed engineering analysis procedure to ensure you don't take shortcuts that lead to a wrong answer...and in aerospace, a wrong answer can mean a dead human.

Ok, yes, I do understand and also agree with you in this instance. My argument however, is when all is said and done, many things as you say can be discredited or proven to be an over active imagination, BUT...there are occasions just as in UFO's as well, that science has thrown every thing but the kitchen sink at it, and still fail to explain it. It is at that time it comes down to a personal belief. Especially if it is you that it happened to. Now you may continue to do experiments and test theories and everything else because your mind tells you to try and figure it out at all costs, where as I will simply except it for what it is, or what it seems to be to me I should say, until proven otherwise. Now who is to say I am wrong? and I understand the flip side of who's to say you're wrong as well, but Until the universe is solved by man (which is something I just feel will never happen) it simply comes down to belief.

 

As I said, man is the one who is flawed, he named his god, and it is wrong to push religious beliefs onto anybody, especially as a pretext to war or to deceive and oppress. But if you come to this understanding through open communication and debate, have a willing and open mind, then it makes me happy because It is a joyful experience to share.

 

Now as to your little chart...lol, I have no idea for the answer. I never so much as picked up an engineering book in college. If I had to guess though I would say all 4 flasks also have the same "amount" of fluid as well, but that "B" would have the most pressure at the base simply based on shape, because if it has the exact same type and amount of fluid as the other 3, which would = the same amount of weight, but the least area for it to go. Either that or they are all the same because of some formula I'm sure you will explain... **Shrug** :D

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am simply stating that I believe this force is not like your atoms which you seem fond of. It can not be controlled, it does what it wills, and it is intelligent, and you can not discount a person's personal experience with it, if no other logical answer is found.

Yes, people's personal experiences with "it" can be discounted because of the problem with a lack of repeatability, gullability, outright fraud, desire to please paranormal investigators, desire to embarass paranormal investigators, 15 minutes of fame syndrome, etc. Moreover, it wouldn't be me making an extraordinary claim (of a paranormal event). I don't have to explain anything or offer some alternate theory if "no other logical answer is found." If someone wants to make a claim it's up to them to justify their conclusions. Oh, sure. We can quip back that they don't need to justify their extraordinary claim and that's true. But I've yet to see one of them make that choice. They want to be believed. They need to be believed. And it soon becomes apparent that they are obsessed and turn to the most logical place to get their answers...and alt-sci BBS on the Internet. Ay-yup. That would be my first choice too. ;)

 

Tossing three more free parameters into the mix (it is intelligent, it has a will, it cannot be controlled) by presupposing them to be true statements without any rational justification doesn't help the case for the paranormal. You haven't as yet even shown that there is an "it", let alone that it is intelligent, has a will and/or cannot be controlled.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
...."B" would have the most pressure at the base simply based on shape, because if it has the exact same type and amount of fluid as the other 3, which would = the same amount of weight, but the least area for it to go. Either that or they are all the same because of some formula I'm sure you will explain

Rainman did explain...

 

"...the pressure in any fluid is only dependent upon the depth of the column of fluid, and it is not at all dependent upon the shape of a container or the volume of fluid in that container. "

 

Since it appears that the "depth" of the column of fluid of all the containers are equal, from what Professor Rainman posted as an explaination, the pressure at the bottom(P) is equal relative to ALL the shown containers, despite the varied shapes of the containers.

 

Now, relative to : " Either that OR they are all the same "...one would hope that such an answer is acceptable to the professor.

 

On an exam, the question would probably appear as follows :

 

"In which of these containers is the pressure at the bottom of the container the largest?"

 

1--Container A

 

2--Container B

 

3--Container C

 

4--Container D

 

5--Container E

 

6--All of the Above ?

 

The answer : 2--Container B ! That or either 6--All of the above (because of some formula).

 

Sorry, but it seems that the professor of the class would have to mark that answer as incorrect, and assume that the student missed that portion of the lesson when it was explained by the professor.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Granted, science is extremely valuable, as are the scientific methods. However, simply put...

 

Science does NOT answer ALL the questions regarding ALL the experiences.

 

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 ?

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites

KT,

 

From Ray's diagrams we really don't know the answer to the question of which one has the greatest pressure because there are no metrics.

 

But we can say, based on experimental verification, that locally (near to the surface of Earth where there is no appreciable gravitational gradient for sufficiently small objects), we only need to know a minimum of information about the individual systems.

 

We need to know the mass of the liquid (m), the volume of the liquid (V), the local gravitational acceleration (g) and the depth of the column (h).

 

The pressure is defined as the density of a stationary liquid times the local gravitational acceleration times the height of the column of liquid

 

P = (m/V)*g*h

 

(m/V means "unit of mass per unit of volume"...density)

 

That's it. The shape of the container isn't relevent.

 

Of course if you had two otherwise equal (equal in volumn, not necessarily in shape) columns where one column is stationed 3,000 miles above the surface and the other stationed on the surface of the Earth the pressure wouldn't be equal because the variable "g" would not be equal in each system. But that's the point. The parameters "m", "V" and "h" are constants (assuming that there are no gross Special Relativity issues involved) - "g" is a variable. It will change based on the distance between the location of the column and the center of gravity of the system in which it resides.

 

If we assume in Ray's diagrams that the liquid density is the same in each diagram and that the distance from the center of gravity is substantially the same and we see that the height of each column is substantially the same then the pressure is substantially the same in each column.

 

Keep in mind that if we have, for example, two equal containers at the same distance from the center of gravity but put liquid hydrogen (h) in one and liquid plutonium (pu) in the other the pressure won't be the same. That's because the density isn't the same. The density m(h)/V is not the same as the density m(pu)/V where the volume (V) is the same in each case.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Ray's diagrams we really don't know the answer to the question of which one has the greatest pressure because there are no metrics.

If you were the student sitting in Rainman's class, this is what you would say in response to the question ?

 

Because, as a matter of fact, there are...

 

"Identical fluids in all the containers, and the fluid levels are all equal height as shown by the dotted line at the top of the fluids. "

 

And sure, obviously, if the containers were spread through-out the known universe, there might be a difference, but you know that wasn't the question. But then from your replies, maybe you didn't really read Rainmans question, did you ? Or have some sort of phobia about just admitting you made a mistake.

 

No big deal, really, we all make mistakes, even if it is only once or twice a year. :P

 

We need to know the mass of the liquid (m), the volume of the liquid (V), the local gravitational acceleration (g) and the depth of the column (h).

 

The pressure is defined as the density of a stationary liquid times the local gravitational acceleration times the height of the column of liquid

 

P = (m/V)*g*h

 

(m/V means "unit of mass per unit of volume"...density)

 

etc, etc, etc...

In the sales world, this would be known as "The Razzle Dazzle Response Technique". Good try, though.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, people's personal experiences with "it" can be discounted because of the problem with a lack of repeatability, gullibility, outright fraud, desire to please paranormal investigators, desire to embarrass paranormal investigators, 15 minutes of fame syndrome, etc. Moreover, it wouldn't be me making an extraordinary claim (of a paranormal event). I don't have to explain anything or offer some alternate theory if "no other logical answer is found." If someone wants to make a claim it's up to them to justify their conclusions. Oh, sure. We can quip back that they don't need to justify their extraordinary claim and that's true. But I've yet to see one of them make that choice. They want to be believed. They need to be believed. And it soon becomes apparent that they are obsessed and turn to the most logical place to get their answers...and alt-sci BBS on the Internet. Ay-yup. That would be my first choice too.

Of course they can be discounted because you choose to do so. Sure you have people who are wanting fame or profit and prey on the gullible. You have the same exact thing in mainstream science as well. I can link you a charter to the United Nations which would have changed the way every country conducts business, and puts limits on emissions, and creates profit for the major powers. All this in the name of science and global warming. It was not until some brave guys came forward with hacked e-mails showing out right fraud that anybody took a second look. Now many back office scientists feel vindicated to a great degree. Al Gore and his crack pot team of scientists have been exposed and serious flaws discovered in their works. All this for pride and profit.

 

Face the facts...scientists discount personal experiences as noise, anomalies, artifacts, or what ever label they want to call it not because of the reasons you listed, but because of fear and mainly pride. you do not have the courage to stand and simply say "I don't know." Those 3 words haunt scientists. They go into a shell, they start giving formulas as to why this or that can't be so because it can not be repeated. They say their must be a logical explanation, and if one can not be found, well let's just call it an artifact like on an x-ray, it's not really there. It makes them feel better because now they can go show how the other experiences can be explained away. they quickly forget about the 1 or 2 they could not explain because it may show they don't have all the answers...PRIDE, the refusal to admit they may be wrong.

 

As I have said, I never will force my beliefs onto any man, but I will stand up for what I believe, and who are you or any man to take a personal experience and from somebody and say it did not happen. Just because you can disprove 99% of personal experiences does not mean you can disregard the final 1%. How arrogant are you to believe this great force must obey you and conform to your scientific parameters?

 

I do not seek fame, I do not seek profit, I am in no means gullible. What I am is objective and understand sometimes there are no scientific answers to a situation, and when such a situation arises I am not so prideful to accuse the party of fabrication.

 

"Don't sail to far out in the ocean Christopher, you'll fall off the earth"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have the same exact thing in mainstream science as well.

Yes you do. But there's a substantial difference. In the case of mainstream science you can deal with a proposition made by a scientist about an observation or theory by applying very specific and rigorous tests to see if the same or similar result can be repeated under the same conditions as he original. For the past 2000+ years we've been doing just that. Valid observations can be and are repeated all the time on demand. Invalid observations cannot be repeated.

 

Paranormal "observations" have never passed the test of repeatability. They've only managed to become the subject of "reality" docudramas on the ScyFy Network because they're very cheap to produce (relative to a regular sci-fi series with real actors working at SAG scale), late night talk radio shows where the evidence is given by people who sound like they took their scheduled dose of Risperdal just before deciding to call in with their paranormal observation story and it sells a lot of books that quickly end up on the $1.00 shelf of you favorite book store.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal "observations" have never passed the test of repeatability.

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and just like UFO's, most likely never will pass a repeatability test

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.

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

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :).

 

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 :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rainman, I think you missed Kerr's question up there.

 

About what part of the scientific method covers his experience.

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

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cosmo locked and unlocked this topic
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...