The concept of dead people actually being able to interact with the living is a stretching things a little further. The only thing I can say on that one is that I have witnessed (first hand, not on TV, where who knows what plants may be in the audience) mediums working, and, from what was originally a position of utter cynicism, I have seen and heard some pretty inexplicable stuff, which makes you an awful lot less cynical.
It's good to have an open mind. More times than I care to admit I've been entirely convinced of something. Every fact was in place and I was sure of a conclusion. But when you're most convinced, one simple inarguable fact knocks all your careful mesh of knowledge to pieces.
I'm not being philosophical about knowledge, even if it's a branch of philosophy, I'm just older and in this anyway, wiser.
On the other hand, you don't want your open mind to drop out your ear.
I am way out of my depth on the science and the quotations on this thread, but I do find it interesting, and I find as always that the proponents of science above all else don't address two obvious issues (although these old chestnuts have perhaps not yet been raised here amid all the arguing!!! LOL):
1. Where does the line lay between natural and supernatural? Is any phenomenon that is observable actually "above nature" or is it simply that it is natural, but we don't have the tools or maybe even the inherent abilities to carry out the right kinds of tests, beyond casual observation.
Yeah, the second part {bolded}
OK, I'll be the spokesperson for scientists
Scientists don't draw a line because there is no such thing as the supernatural. If something exists within the domain of the universe, then by definition, it's natural. Therefore, everything is natural. We may not understand the pattern exhibited by the phenomena yet, so we call it unexplained - not unexplainable or supernatural, or outside the realm of science, i.e. real understanding.
DirectRabbit wrote:
To use an example from my world, when I interview people for jobs, I used to carry out a scorecard "scientific" process to gauge their suitability for the role. I often got it wrong. Latterly I ignored the process and followed my intuition, and invariably got it right! Intuition, ESP, telepathy, call it what you will, is something that cannot be objectively tested or measured by scientists, yet most people acknowledge its existence and efficacy. It is the indefinable something that links you to another person, and enables you to know them quite deeply on a limited acquaintance, beyond rationality.
Likewise so called ghost or psychic phenomena. There is too much evidence for there not to be "something there", but what it is and how to measure it (beyond very basic measures of temperature or EM fields) has eluded scientists so far.
I don't see the overwhelming evidence that you see. These reports are entirely subjective, and thus subject to all sorts of biases; they're not reproducible, and are teeming with logical fallacies. That's the whole point you're stressing, I realise - but the universe displays predictable patterns and only predictable patterns - that's a fact - however difficult they may be to observe or measure. It's people that are unpredictable (not really, we just need big enough computers and lots of time - but it's probability I'm getting at here), thus it is more reasonable to put the burden of proof on these random phenomena that only certain people can observe/experience at random times. This is the same with mainstraim science - science is conservative - it takes a lot of good hard evidence to overturn established theories and laws. I would have no problem (nor do most scientists I know) if telepathy or ghosts existed - I have no emotional predisposition either way - it would be really cool if it did, though! The problem is that most of the people claiming "supernatural" experiences are taking subjective experience and extrapolating wild conclusions and grand "theories" way beyond the data.
Anyway, virtually all these phenomena have much "simpler" and more reasonable explanations. Your intuition example - intuition is nothing more than (sub)conciously picking up on environmental clues, e.g. body language, pupil dilation, vocal changes (pitch, tempo), etc. We just call it intuition for brevity's sake.
This is not the greatest article, but it makes the point that most of these phenomena have simpler explanations (the study doesn't explain everything, but it's better than the ghost "hypothesis")
2. and it is linked to 1. Things which used to be considered supernatural are now parts of conventional science. Science is always on the brink of discovery. My knowledge of sub-atomic particle theory is about on a par with my knowledge of Mandarin Chinese, but I have seen TV programmes which informed me that certain particles which were considered pure invention in the past have become scientific fact more recently. Similarly in all fields, from astronomy to medicine... This suggests, by logical deduction, that things which are presently considered outside science will ultimately be capable of explanation/measurement etc.
Again, I don't use the term supernatural in what you're describing. Things that were once unknown are now known. It's the converse - science explained away supernatural "explanations". It did not incorporate them. But your point is valid, to an extent. The popular media is s-hit at conveying science (in the US, at least). They make it appear as if science all about miraculous discoveries - they fail to report all the intervening science. Like MI said, most of these discoveries were predicted by standing theories. It's very rare that science experiences a paradigm shift.
DirectRabbit wrote:
Therefore, I tend to maintain healthy cynicism, but keep an open mind...
Scientists have to be open-minded, creative, imaginative, original or science would go nowhere, but we position ourselves on the more skeptical side of the spectrum. You don't want to be so open you're brain falls out (WJC, 2006), which seems to be the plague of humanity.
That article is quite interesting, especially as it kind of concludes somewhere I'm trying to get to, namely that we need more sophisticated measuring devices to get to the bottom of certain phenomena.
I think actually we're in danger of having a violent agreement here!
I think you're right that the problem with most psychic or paranormal phenomena is that it is almost entirely subjective, and our equipment is not subtle enough to properly deal with it.
Not sure I'm with you on my intuition thing though. One thing I didn't mention, as it is a bit freaky (even I find it freaky, but I have decided if the freakiness cap fits, then wear it), is that part of my recruitment process, when I'm sifting through CVs, is just holding the paper CV in my hands snd getting a vibe off it. It's just an inanimate object that has been touched by the candidate, but I use that energy I assume the person has imparted to get some feel for the person. I suppose it could be luck or auto-suggestion, but like I say, the business I am part of here has a team picked by me and it is the most successful office of its kind oin our group, mainly because of commitment and energy levels of staff. Of course, maybe I am just a good leader LOL
As you point out, though, I am almost hoist by my own petard (ouch), as what I have just described is very subjective - any attempt at objective measurement of it would be futile.
I do kind of feel that with the reporting of "supernatural" phenomena, however, there must be a law of averages at play somewhere. Ok, the evidence is mostly highly subjective, but surely there is so much of it that, statistically there must be some accuracy in there - a kind of best fit curve.
Hmmm the problem with science is that it can be difficult to understand - the original subject matter of this thread is probably not beyond me intellectually, but it would take me hours reading this and background stuff to know what you guys were on about LOL And I'm lazy. In common with most of the non-scientific community.
Plus of course, all the media is interested in is drama (don't get me started on the media!), so misreporting, over-dramatisation or no reproting at all are probbaly your options when it comes to science!!
but the universe displays predictable patterns and only predictable patterns - that's a fact - however difficult they may be to observe or measure. It's people that are unpredictable (not really, we just need big enough computers and lots of time - but it's probability I'm getting at here),
I agree with just about everything you said and it was well said, but I think in most cases it's predictable for humans to place the patterns on a naturally chaotic nature. Constants and laws are one thing, patterns... I disagree they are of the same universal order.
Anyone looking at a stock market will see order, but there is none even at even the smallest granularity. You can force or exploit a fleeting inefficency in the market to gain an edge, but there is no pattern, except the predictability that people, humans, will impose one. Very few people can open their minds to this fact.
I especially agree with this:
one_irish_rover wrote:
The popular media is s-hit at conveying science (in the US, at least). They make it appear as if science all about miraculous discoveries - they fail to report all the intervening science. Like MI said, most of these discoveries were predicted by standing theories. It's very rare that science experiences a paradigm shift.
The problem here is that humans have such a short attention span. The media just caters to it.[/quote]
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
