Science investigating the Paranormal

mysteria

pH wrote:

You make it something to do with the topic by continually throwing your 'qualifications' around and claiming a Ph.D. in your sig


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50588356&postcount=48


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50602635&postcount=170

Are you going to give us a hint as to what subject you earned both your doctorates in, and let us know which institution awarded the 2nd one?

I've mentioned my qualifications very few times in all the times I've posted them, mainly because I prefer to interact with people as "Sandra". This grilling has nothing to do with the topic. If I posted any of these remarks I'd have been banned by now.( I am in Paranormal for accidentally hitting the wrong buttons on the pc twice :eek: )What have I to gain from lying? I chose to work in a field where I'm called a fortune-teller half my life. I haven't written pages trying to trash other peoples opinions, speaking for all scientists. So I'm done with explaining myself. Anyone who needs help out there no problem (like the several people I've offered help to who are afraid to talk to me on the boards. I have my certs, that's it folks, find another whipping...er...person.

Zillah

mysteria wrote:

What have I to gain from lying?

What have you to gain by avoiding the subject?

You certainly have a lot to lose by doing so.

EDIT: Heeey. She removed all that stuff about qualifications from her sig. Curiouser and curiouser.

mysteria

OK I've removed all reference to my lifes work. Now can you just leave me alone?

mysteria

Zillah wrote:

What have you to gain by avoiding the subject?

You certainly have a lot to lose by doing so.

EDIT: Heeey. She removed all that stuff about qualifications from her sig. Curiouser and curiouser.

Is this for me or Psi Zillah she refuses to show hers publicly. And I've done it ( edited my sig)for me, not for your lot. I'd be banned for even one of the posts against me. I am NOT the topic.

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

Is this for me or Psi Zillah she refuses to show hers publicly. And I've done it ( edited my sig)for me, not for your lot. I'd be banned for even one of the posts against me. I am NOT the topic.

I refuse to divulge personal information and have always done so.

Personally I don't expect people to take qualifications as anything. I have said I work professionally in research though. Barring you and 6th I've never listed my qualifications to anyone and I only did so to you to make a case for the worthlessness of qualifications.

As for being on topic, I don't know, we moved on to parapsychology and there has been an arguement about how credible it is. Here we have an active parapsychologist who has claimed several degrees and said that she has no problems telling people about her qualifications. Yet refuses to offer the mere title. In the context of the credibility of parapsychology (which I have no problem with either way) you may be very much on topic.

Zillah

Rofl.

So, you want to be the topic when you can say "I'm a scientist with all these degrees!" and people respond well and accept it. But as soon as someone points out that you may in fact be inventing degrees then suddenly you're not the topic.

Farce.

6th

Mysteria

The thread title is Science Investigating the Paranormal.

You claim that Parapsychology is a science.

Parapsychology covers the study of the Paranormal.

So asking someone who claims to be a parapsychologist about an institute they claim to have founded over 20 years ago is very much on topic.

So again I ask if you are willing to share any information about this institute or its studies? Of course I can wait for the book but could you give us any information on that either? When i google the Institute of Parapsychology & Metaphysics all i get, as i've said before, is a link to your site. I could just as easily claim to be a Professor at Hogwarts and but it on my site, doesnt mean people should accept it as fact.

You now say you wont answer any of my questions because you can get past an incident we had a while back, you clearly have problems dealing with this so can i suggest maybe some reiki or the likes to help you get over it?

You think I have a problem with "another paranormalist" on this site? ..... I wouldnt even call myself such a ridiculus thing in the first place so you can add that title to your CV.

Zillah is bang on saying you avoid stuff when you dont have answers.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Can you prove this or is it merely your belief?

It is a logical tautology. Something cannot exist that follows no scientific law, even if the scientific law applies only to itself. The fact that it exists means it follows a law.

A very famous scientist (can't remember who, natch) said that "if God exists he is a law of nature, A follows B unless C [God]", which is why he thought it unlikely God existed.

psi wrote:

But retrospectively it was never paranormal. It was just something that people thought paranromal. Preternatural if you like.

That doesn't make sense.

If something is unknown at time point A, it is discovered at time point B, at time point C it is known. That does not mean that what happened at time point A suddenly changes, and what was unknown at time point A is suddenly now known.

If at time point A something is paranormal, in that its mechanics lies outside of our current understanding of the universe. At point B is identified as being as such. At point C we discover the mechanisms behind the event and adapt what we know about the universe to encompass the event. It was still paranormal at point A, that doesn't change.

The classification "paranormal" is dependent on our current understanding of the universe.

psi wrote:

The paranromal encompasses that which is truely without explanation.

No, the paranormal encompasses that which is currently beyond our explanation or understanding.

psi wrote:

No, the point is it was never paranormal.

It is at the point in time when it is beyond our current understanding or explanation.

psi wrote:

Like the Panda Bear was long thought to be a Bear for so long, until someone actually looked and argued that it was a Racoon (thi sis still disputed mind you). If it is a Racoon, it was never a bear.

The classification "bear" is based on the properties of the subject. The classificaiton "paranormal" is based on the current understanding of those studying the subject, similar to a classification such as "unknown", or "werid".

As I said before, if a animal is classifed as "unknown" at one point in time that classification is not a property of the animal, it is a characteristic of our current understanding of the animal. If the animal is discovered to be a racoon then it is no longer unknown. That does not mean it was never unknown, at the point in time that it was first observed, it was unknown.

psi wrote:

No, because "unknown" is not outside the scope of scientific understanding.

Thats not true. What is outside the universe? Thats pretty unknown and way way outside the scope of current scientific understanding.

psi wrote:

"not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and phenomena "

This doesn't have a tense. There is no currently.

The "known" in the sentence is the "currently", they are interchangable, it means the same thing. The "known" means what we have so far discovered, what we so far know.

psi wrote:

To be paranormal you are outside the understanding of science period.

Our understanding of scientific law and phenomena is constantly changing and improving. It is silly to say that because we don't know something now we can never know it.

psi wrote:

It still doesn't mean that even if we did find them, they would explain everything. Its quite possible that having found all laws, there would still be phenomenon that science cannot explain. You cannot prove this either way.

As I said it is alogical tautology that if something exist there is also a law to govern how it interacts with the universe, even if that law exists only for that one thing.

psi wrote:

Poor arguement. The point is not that science can find thing, its that you have no waying of proving that it can find EVERYTHING. Its pure belief and assumption on your part, no more real or valid than belief in the bogeyman.

Its not belief its logic.

psi wrote:

Please define the logic that leads you to this conclusion.

Is there much point when you have basically said you won't accept my response?

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

It is a logical tautology. Something cannot exist that follows no scientific law, even if the scientific law applies only to itself. The fact that it exists means it follows a law.

A very famous scientist (can't remember who, natch) said that "if God exists he is a law of nature, A follows B unless C [God]", which is why he thought it unlikely God existed.

So the answer is no then? You cannot prove it and it is merely your belief?
"A very famous scientist said" is not exactly proof, nor does it make it so.

That doesn't make sense.

If something is unknown at time point A, it is discovered at time point B, at time point C it is known. That does not mean that what happened at time point A suddenly changes, and what was unknown at time point A is suddenly now known.

If at time point A something is paranormal, in that its mechanics lies outside of our current understanding of the universe. At point B is identified as being as such. At point C we discover the mechanisms behind the event and adapt what we know about the universe to encompass the event. It was still paranormal at point A, that doesn't change.

No, the definition of paranormal changes to encompass the change in the rules of nature. Meaning that it was never paranormal, people merely (mistakenly) thought that it was.

Its a simple concept that others such as Zillah seem to get (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe your trouble with all this is that your lack of ability to understand this simple concept. Zillah can you explain it better for him?

The classification "paranormal" is dependent on our current understanding of the universe.

Yes and if our current understanding changes, reciprocally, so does the classification of paranormal.

No, the paranormal encompasses that which is currently beyond our explanation or understanding.

Nowhere in the two definitions that you statedthat you accepted does the word "currently" appear.

You have added that to suit your purposes.

Are you capable of making a point without manipulating words and meaninsg to suit yourself?

It is at the point in time when it is beyond our current understanding or explanation.

No, we merely thought that it was. Mistakenly so.

The classification "bear" is based on the properties of the subject. The classificaiton "paranormal" is based on the current understanding of those studying the subject, similar to a classification such as "unknown", or "werid".

As I said before, if a animal is classifed as "unknown" at one point in time that classification is not a property of the animal, it is a characteristic of our current understanding of the animal. If the animal is discovered to be a racoon then it is no longer unknown. That does not mean it was never unknown, at the point in time that it was first observed, it was unknown.

Again, the word current is a word that you have chosen to suit yourself.

It is absent from at least 3 of 4 definitions sourced in the course of this arguement.

Thats not true. What is outside the universe? Thats pretty unknown and way way outside the scope of current scientific understanding.

Interesting point, I hadn't considered that - I'll withdraw that statement so.

The "known" in the sentence is the "currently", they are interchangable, it means the same thing. The "known" means what we have so far discovered, what we so far know.

Ah so you've added another word to make definition suit you,

Can you make an arguement without loading meanings and definitions to suit yourself?

Its quite simple. I don't accept the American Heritiage Dictionary definition of "paranormal".

Our understanding of scientific law and phenomena is constantly changing and improving. It is silly to say that because we don't know something now we can never know it.

It is equally silly to say we will definitely know everything or that we definitely can.
You can't prove either.
I asked yo to back the staement up with facts, your response is to say "well its just silly".

You have made a statement that your WHOLE POINT RESTS ON. Now please, back up your statement.

As I said it is alogical tautology that if something exist there is also a law to govern how it interacts with the universe, even if that law exists only for that one thing.

logical tautology is not emperical evidence.

I asked for such. Please give us a work through to show that this is anything more than just a "belief" on yor part.

Its not belief its logic.

Its a belief. You have no evidence to support it yet you hold it true, thus you "believe" it.

Its a belief, just like leprachauns and spiderbabies.

You believe something that you cannot prove and expect to base a case on it. Thats no better than a creationist arguement.

Is there much point when you have basically said you won't accept my response?

I never said that. I repeat the request. Avoiding questions seems a trend here.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

So the answer is no then? You cannot prove it and it is merely your belief?

A logical tautology is proof. Maybe you should look up the concept.

"Everything that exists does exist" is a famous example of a logical tautology, but you would be hard pressed to find someone able to prove that using empirical evidence. Or even bothered to try since you don't need to.

psi wrote:

No, the definition of paranormal changes to encompass the change in the rules of nature. Meaning that it was never paranormal, people merely (mistakenly) thought that it was.

As I've explained to you about 5 times the clasification "paranormal" is not a characteristic of the subject, it is a classification of our understanding of the subject.

The definition of paranormal stays the same. What changes is our understanding of the universe. If something is clasified as paranormal at point A it can clasified as anything at point B and it would still have been pararnomal at point A

psi wrote:

Yes and if our current understanding changes, reciprocally, so does the classification of paranormal.

No it doesn't. The classification of the subject changes, "paranoraml" always means the same thing. Just like the word "unknown". Unknown always means unknown, but something can be unknown and then known.

psi wrote:

Nowhere in the two definitions that you statedthat you accepted does the word "currently" appear.

This is getting ridiculous, you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I very much doubt you even understand why or what you are agruing.

As I explained the "known" bit means current scientific understanding. If you don't think it does please explain what it means to you. Does it mean "all possible and future scientific understanding?". Does it mean "past scientific understanding?" ,.... whats left? Current scientific understanding maybe

psi wrote:

Are you capable of making a point without manipulating words and meaninsg to suit yourself?

Are you capable of understanding English?

psi wrote:

No, we merely thought that it was. Mistakenly so.

What?

I think you will find what we think our current understanding of science is and what are current understanding of science is are pretty much the same thing. I have never heard of someone who understood something but was unware of this fact :rolleyes:

psi wrote:

Ah so you've added another word to make definition suit you

Please read the definitions again, slowly this time.

psi wrote:

Can you make an arguement without loading meanings and definitions to suit yourself?

Can you pick an objection and stop dancing around to everything I've said in a aimless and erratic fashion. As soon as I've explained or justified one statement you've dropped that and moved on to the next. I notice you hardly ever seem to actually disagree, rather you just argue.

psi wrote:

Its quite simple. I don't accept the American Heritiage Dictionary definition of "paranormal".

I'm sure the American Heritiage Dictionary company are quaking in their boots. Do you care to explain why, or is it just that it gets in the way of you arguing with me.

psi wrote:

It is equally silly to say we will definitely know everything or that we definitely can.

I didn't say we can. In fact I clearly said we most likely can't.

psi wrote:

You have made a statement that your WHOLE POINT RESTS ON. Now please, back up your statement.

How about you go back and actually read properly what I said before you persume (incorrectly) to explain to me what my WHOLE POINT RESTS ON

Zombrex

psi wrote:

I never said that. I repeat the request. Avoiding questions seems a trend here.

I've clarfied my point (the same original point) about 20 times already, each time you show that you either A- things its wrong but won't explain why, or B-Failed to understand the point in the first place. You ignore any attempt at clarification, and simply dismiss anything I say, most likely because I "just don't get it", what ever "it" is ..

so I ask again, is there any point to responding to you. How exactly would you like to be explain the same point again for the 21st time?

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

A logical tautology is proof. Maybe you should look up the concept.

"Everything that exists does exist" is a famous example of a logical tautology, but you would be hard pressed to find someone able to prove that using empirical evidence. Or even bothered to try since you don't need to.

Very different from the tautology that everything must follow a scientific law. Please back this up.
Again its your belief. A belief much in line with creationism or god or easter bunnies.

As I've explained to you about 5 times the clasification "paranormal" is not a characteristic of the subject, it is a classification of our understanding of the subject.

I don't believe I said it was.

The definition of paranormal stays the same. What changes is our understanding of the universe. If something is clasified as paranormal at point A it can clasified as anything at point B and it would still have been pararnomal at point A

No it wouldn't. We would have perceived it as paranormal, but it isn't outside the scope of science. As you have proved by scientifically observing it.

No it doesn't. The classification of the subject changes, "paranoraml" always means the same thing. Just like the word "unknown". Unknown always means unknown, but something can be unknown and then known.

In the context of any advanced scientific finding it does. You see you feel that parnormal is just aconvenient shelf for things that haven't been scientifically verified yet. That is just a belief you hold. It doesn't mean thast what paranormal is.
So in this case, it is my belief that pranormal is actually that which cannot and never will have scientific laws applicable to it.

This is getting ridiculous, you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I very much doubt you even understand why or what you are agruing.

Ok, so now you question intelligence as a means to further your arguement. At least I am actually making points, you're just being insulting. Lets see how many more times you do it in a post.

As I explained the "known" bit means current scientific understanding. If you don't think it does please explain what it means to you. Does it mean "all possible and future scientific understanding?". Does it mean "past scientific understanding?" ,.... whats left? Current scientific understanding maybe

"not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and phenomena"

As soon as a phenomenon is understanable in terms of scientific law (when the law becomes knwon) the phenomenon is no longer paranormal.

the context of known doesn't matter.

Look at it from the point of someone in the future. It will not be paranormal to them, because the scientific law is known. It will never have been paranormal, because even when the law was unknown, it still fit into the law. So the actof the discovery of the scientific law invalidates the paranormalityof the phenomenon. Meaning it never was paranormal, we (in the past) just perceived it to be.

However, we cannot say that this applies to all things. It is possible, even probable that it does, but we cannot definitively say so, we can never prove it, so any statement that says that this does apply to all things, is merely a belief.
Just like creationism, the easter bunny and leprechauns, and sure you don't believe in those, do you?

Are you capable of understanding English?

Ahh another insult. Well done wicknight, you're really showing your debating skills. I'm sure if you question my parentage soon everyone will see hwo great you are....

What?

ah do you just get narky now or can you hold a grown up debate?

I think you will find what we think our current understanding of science is and what are current understanding of science is are pretty much the same thing. I have never heard of someone who understood something but was unware of this fact :rolleyes:

Oh dear, more jiggery pokeryto try discredit rather than actually debate.

Again, think of it as future boy's view versus ours. We see something as outside scientific knowledge, but futureboy doesn't.

Please read the definitions again, slowly this time.

Three insults. Wow wicknight can youactually argue without being insulting or is your own point of view so weak that being rude, insulting and demaning the only way you can score points.

You're doing yourself no good by insulting people.

Can you pick an objection and stop dancing around to everything I've said in a aimless and erratic fashion. As soon as I've explained or justified one statement you've dropped that and moved on to the next. I notice you hardly ever seem to actually disagree, rather you just argue.

I've done what now. I've basically repeated myself in every post and you have no once provided a back up to any of your claims of fact nor have you constructed any hypothetical experiments to prove your position.

Probably because you know you can do neither. Intead you resort to insulting me slying and THEN you say I'm the one dancing.

You have't actually argued more than one point in your over long post.

I'm sure the American Heritiage Dictionary company are quaking in their boots. Do you care to explain why, or is it just that it gets in the way of you arguing with me.

Because it is a very simplistic definition. Its incidently the one you chose only because it suits you best.

I didn't say we can. In fact I clearly said we most likely can't.

Excellent, then you accept that we cannot know for certain that everything is under the governance of scientifc law.

This is not an axiom, it is merely an assumption, on which we have no supporting evidence.

Is this correct?

How about you go back and actually read properly what I said before you persume (incorrectly) to explain to me what my WHOLE POINT RESTS ON

Is this another way of you avoiding backing up the statement.

This is at least the third time you have refused to back up yoru wild statement with anything resembling fact.

so again I say it is merely yoru belief.

Come on wicknight, can you do it or are you just trying to insult me again so you can avoid answering the hard questions?

I've clarfied my point (the same original point) about 20 times already, each time you show that you either A- things its wrong but won't explain why, or B-Failed to understand the point in the first place. You ignore any attempt at clarification, and simply dismiss anything I say, most likely because I "just don't get it", what ever "it" is ..

so I ask again, is there any point to responding to you. How exactly would you like to be explain the same point again for the 21st time?

I think I have, but you dance around it with insults and obtusity. Again you fail to back up your statements and then tellme what I should do for you.

Poor show Wicknight, I hope everyone can see that.

Zillah

psi wrote:

Its a simple concept that others such as Zillah seem to get (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe your trouble with all this is that your lack of ability to understand this simple concept. Zillah can you explain it better for him?

Oh I just think the whole thing has gotten ridiculously inane. Frankly we need new words here. One for your take on paranormal, and one that means "Weird shit we don't understand, but might later."

I'm quite happy with my understanding of the situation, thats enough for me. This was never my fight in the first place.

davros

Yes, it's time to draw a line under this discussion. There is not going to be any meeting of minds and the argument is a little more personal than is healthy. So let's close this thread but feel free to refocus the discussion by opening a new one on, say, definitions of the word 'paranormal' in various dictionaries or whatever.