|
Post by talisman on Mar 4, 2011 17:40:50 GMT -5
I am currently working on a series of articles about the dubious side of science which I shall begin posting in the next few days. I'm so excited, I can hardly type.
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Mar 4, 2011 17:47:23 GMT -5
All really good points Mike. I always love your writing.
If we dreamed about it......did we change something we did once we were awake.....so then it changed the future event? So...would we even know that we did dream about the future or would we have a slight sense of deja' vu and just shake it off?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 4, 2011 17:59:12 GMT -5
I am currently working on a series of articles about the dubious side of science which I shall begin posting in the next few days. Dubious in what way, I wonder. Cold fusion perhaps - the infamous Fleischmann–Pons claims and related experiments. Maybe jolly hockeysticks, www.climate-gate.org/index.php - Yes, quite a few are prepared to sell out for the money on offer. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins,Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989.261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Mar 4, 2011 23:29:17 GMT -5
What it does mean is that claims for the paranormal need to be regarded with an open mind rather than either simple acceptance or dogmatic denial. . Ah yes. That 'open mind' that astrologers, spiritualists, faith healers and all the other purveyors of the impossible ask for. What their 'open mind' requires, of course, is the suspension of the power of rational thought.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 5, 2011 0:51:09 GMT -5
I still say it's subjective and, therefore, pointless to scoff because personal experience can't be undermined by the casual bystander. It's easy to shrug off another's opinion by claiming coincidence, but as with any other belief-based subject .. the credibility can't be measured the same by those who depend on research and totally objective opinion as by those who base their views on observation and experience.
Have you skeptics (with all due respect) ever had very vivid or lucid dreams? If so, what is your personal opinion of the experience; if not, how can you second guess people who have been there, done that?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 5, 2011 5:32:37 GMT -5
I still say it's subjective and, therefore, pointless to scoff because personal experience can't be undermined by the casual bystander. It's easy to shrug off another's opinion by claiming coincidence, but as with any other belief-based subject .. the credibility can't be measured the same by those who depend on research and totally objective opinion as by those who base their views on observation and experience. Have you skeptics (with all due respect) ever had very vivid or lucid dreams? If so, what is your personal opinion of the experience; if not, how can you second guess people who have been there, done that? Can you second guess someone who claims to have had a vision? How about the nun who claims that JP II cured her from the grave - months after he died. The church is using that as evidence for beatification, in other words its all mumbo jumbo - sorry jumbo
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 5, 2011 7:02:19 GMT -5
Have you skeptics (with all due respect) ever had very vivid or lucid dreams? If so, what is your personal opinion of the experience; if not, how can you second guess people who have been there, done that? *** The Sceptic is . . . IN *** Is that a trick question, Jen? Vivid and lucid dreams are ..er.. lucid and vivid. Can be very enjoyable. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 5, 2011 8:49:45 GMT -5
Have you skeptics (with all due respect) ever had very vivid or lucid dreams? If so, what is your personal opinion of the experience; if not, how can you second guess people who have been there, done that? i dont know if i am sceptic or not.. but i do know that i went into a very old house[had never been in it before] and knew exactly where the fireplaces,,the stairs were...and what carvings were on the fire places etc etc etc it didnt spook me in the slightest...i just knew that house inside out..in fact i knew it so well as i crossed the threshold i asked the person i was with to check out if i was correct on all the stuff i knew should be there....and it was
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 5, 2011 14:23:28 GMT -5
What it does mean is that claims for the paranormal need to be regarded with an open mind rather than either simple acceptance or dogmatic denial. . Ah yes. That 'open mind' that astrologers, spiritualists, faith healers and all the other purveyors of the impossible ask for. What their 'open mind' requires, of course, is the suspension of the power of rational thought. No it doesn't! Spiritualism is a religion so it doesn't even pretend to be making any kind of scientific claims. As for astrology, here are two facts about it. One, astronomy developed out of astrology. If it wasn't for the careful observations and calculations by astrologers it would have taken astronomers a lot longer to get going. Second, Jimmy Randi and his fellow 'sceptics' conducted an investigation into Michel Gauqelin's claims that there WAS a statistically significant relationship between sun signs and character traits. To their horror they discovered that he was RIGHT. How did they react? Well, they COULD have reacted by trying to find some kind of explanation for the data. They COULD have tried to redo the investigation and see if they'd missed some key point. Did they? Hell, no. What DID they do? They SUPPRESSED the results of their OWN investigation which had shown that Gauqelin's claims about astrology were TRUE. Real scientific, huh? Then there was the time they 'allowed' a few parapsychologists to attend and speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. How did they organise it? They spent hours denouncing all the parapsychologists as frauds, gave them about ten minutes each to speak and as soon as they began replying, walked out of the room. Yeah, reall scientific and open-minded and just concerned with truth, right? Faith healing only works on psychosomatic conditions IMHO. As such, it's no different from doctors giving patients a placebo. Or do you think THAT'S mumbo-jumbo as well? There's so much evidence already for telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and even precognition that it's just superstititious NOT to accept it and try to find a way to explain it in terms with scientific methods. Look, science has evolved loads of times. The examples Fret gives are good ones of bad science. Others are Lavoisier's comments on meteorites 'stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky' The phlogiston theory The ether Now we've got global warming The conflicts between quantum and relativity The increasing dodginess of Newtonian physics Science, like Kuhn showed, evolves in 'paradigm shifts.' It's pretty stupid just calling people names instead of actually considering the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 5, 2011 14:36:09 GMT -5
What DID they [sceptics] do? They SUPPRESSED the results of their OWN investigation which had shown that Gauqelin's claims about astrology were TRUE. Real scientific, huh? Then there was the time they 'allowed' a few parapsychologists to attend and speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. How did they organise it? They spent hours denouncing all the parapsychologists as frauds, gave them about ten minutes each to speak and as soon as they began replying, walked out of the room. <yawn> Sources? It's pretty stupid just calling people names instead of actually considering the evidence. It's even stupider not providing this evidence you talk about. Especially even after having been repeatedly asked for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2011 14:50:10 GMT -5
What DID they [sceptics] do? They SUPPRESSED the results of their OWN investigation which had shown that Gauqelin's claims about astrology were TRUE. Real scientific, huh? Then there was the time they 'allowed' a few parapsychologists to attend and speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. How did they organise it? They spent hours denouncing all the parapsychologists as frauds, gave them about ten minutes each to speak and as soon as they began replying, walked out of the room. <yawn> Sources? It's pretty stupid just calling people names instead of actually considering the evidence. It's even stupider not providing this evidence you talk about. Especially even after having been repeatedly asked for it. Enough evidence was presented even in that short post of the utterly irrational, dogmatic and fundamentally RELIGIOUS approach to the problem demonstrated by so-called scientists. To suppress evidence that conflicts with your preconceptions is to prefer LIES to TRUTH. However unpalatable the truth may sometimes be, it remains the truth and has to be faced. To do less is to display intellectual dishonesty. If you seriously wish to be provided of the innumerable instances in which telepathy, psychokinesis and clairvoyance has been demonstrated I shall be happy to do so. Unfortunately I fear that those who prefer the path of denial will continue to maintain their attitude of dogmatic doubt just as those who prefer the path of gullible belief will swallow anything. Both attitudes are indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 5, 2011 15:52:22 GMT -5
<yawn> Sources? It's even stupider not providing this evidence you talk about. Especially even after having been repeatedly asked for it. Enough evidence was presented even in that short post of the utterly irrational, dogmatic and fundamentally RELIGIOUS approach to the problem demonstrated by so-called scientists. To suppress evidence that conflicts with your preconceptions is to prefer LIES to TRUTH. However unpalatable the truth may sometimes be, it remains the truth and has to be faced. To do less is to display intellectual dishonesty. If you seriously wish to be provided of the innumerable instances in which telepathy, psychokinesis and clairvoyance has been demonstrated I shall be happy to do so. Unfortunately I fear that those who prefer the path of denial will continue to maintain their attitude of dogmatic doubt just as those who prefer the path of gullible belief will swallow anything. Both attitudes are indefensible. Please get to the punchline, Mike, pullleeeease. Assuming the pair of you are NOT in fact acting out an elaborate joke, then read on . . . I didn't see a single scrap. Please point it out, or at least make some more up. Then for all our sakes stop suppressing it. Where is it? See previous item. See previous item. Go on, then. We've been asking you to do exactly that for days. A dozen or so should be plenty to be going on with. If you're struggling, make it three. Bring it on. Let's test your assertion. Perhaps we can put your fears to rest. See above items.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Mar 5, 2011 22:11:08 GMT -5
Something is wrong in science somewhere since physics is giving us more fundamental particles than Ptolemaic astronomy had epicycles even though it was (and always will be) more accurate than Copernicus, and it is over a century since Einstein told us that Matter is only Energy, just as 'Mystics' had always said - but at many more levels than just two.
Now we have the Copenhagen Convention that everything is possibly true until observation fixes it for all time - completely violating Einstein's prohibition on information travelling faster than light, and quantum entanglement and information universe that all show scientific proof for traditional mystical understanding that the physical universe is only sensory interpretation of something much greater - and we capable of experiencing it as it really is beyond sensory filters.
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 5:37:30 GMT -5
... the physical universe is only sensory interpretation of something much greater - and we capable of experiencing it as it really is beyond sensory filters. The bit before the hyphen is pretty obvious and hardly in dispute, but the bit after it defeats me. What does it mean?
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 13:52:33 GMT -5
What DID they [sceptics] do? They SUPPRESSED the results of their OWN investigation which had shown that Gauqelin's claims about astrology were TRUE. Real scientific, huh? Then there was the time they 'allowed' a few parapsychologists to attend and speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. How did they organise it? They spent hours denouncing all the parapsychologists as frauds, gave them about ten minutes each to speak and as soon as they began replying, walked out of the room. <yawn> Sources? It's pretty stupid just calling people names instead of actually considering the evidence. It's even stupider not providing this evidence you talk about. Especially even after having been repeatedly asked for it. I don't think it would any difference whether it's dogmatic doubters or true believers. Both stick to their faith regardless of any evidence. However, Talisman, I will go and provide you with the evidence. When I do so what will you say in reply? In the meantime you might try reading a book (I forget the author) called 'Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science.'
|
|