Science Vs Paranormality

Lucas10101

Well, if anyone here believes that there is No God surely cannot believe in the Paranormal which I would actually call Supernatural. Paranormal sort of means it's in line with normality which it obviously isn't.

I say that because you need *evidence* for supernatural claims. Ghosts for example are non-biological entities, that seem to have a *consciousness* or maybe some would call it a *soul* or whatever. Nevertheless, whatever it may be called, it's not biological which means it's outside the realms of science, without the realms of science, it cannot be analysed, and can only be treated with the same respect as the Toothfairy. These Ghosts seem to be outside the *Laws of Physics* because they contradict the normality that exist in normal living beings. You see what your eyes want you to see.

Regardless, the Laws of Physics cannot be spared under any given circumstance, it's just not happening. Based on this assumption, Ghopsts therefore do not exist as their existence or their means of supposed existence contradict the Laws of Physics. And anyone that says the come from an alternate Universe are just stupid, as Universe means "Everything", therefore inaccessible from other Universes in the proposed Multi-Verse theory.

People then start talking about Orbs, I hate that word. People see a moving flash of light on a tape or a certain projection of light creates the illusion of a face, and the funny thing is, a lot (not all) of the cases found are from people searching for the supernatural, in other words, there so acutely in tune with the image, any given shape of a face will satisfy their paranormal idiocy.

Again, before anyone says creaking doors and that type of thing is realistic is true, is just delusional. My argument rests with the Biological Laws of Physics which have to satisfy that a non-physical being can have strength to open a door or move a rocking chair or whatever, it's just not happening, you can't really believe this bull****. This non-entity would have to be so strong as their body is non-existent to somehow close a door or even walk, it would require a force unknown to physics and biological or chemical laws, as remember the famous phrase:

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one source to another"

So energy MUST be transferred from the non-entity to the door, however the energy must have come from somewhere, not biologically anyhow, where could it have came from? It just didn't happen, the energy could have been recoil from pressure on a door, a breeze or a loosely hung door. There are many reasons all DEPENDING on the given door in question, I'd need to analyse each individual case in particular to see what explanation I could give. But the burden of proof does not rest with me, it depends on the paranormal believer who has to answer my question as to where that energy came from that was transferred from the non-physical entity to the door?

iamhunted

i so disagree with your first line. paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

I dont see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the paranormal is in some way religious based and therefore not something those who dont believe in god would be interested in.

iamhunted

plus - to answer your question we'd need to completely understand the world and how it works - which we dont. If we did then by all means we could say things like "Regardless, the Laws of Physics cannot be spared under any given circumstance" - but since we dont, then frankly we cant. we understand what we currently understand but science evolves and Im sure we havent just discovered everything yet.


""Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one source to another"
.... you could build and argument for the existance of the soul if you keep going that direction. life force, or whatever the hell it is that keeps people alive is an energy so where does it go when people die? (please dont try and answer that as Im just pointing out the rocky road that lies ahead)

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

plus - to answer your question we'd need to completely understand the world and how it works - which we dont. If we did then by all means we could say things like "Regardless, the Laws of Physics cannot be spared under any given circumstance" - but since we dont, then frankly we cant. we understand what we currently understand but science evolves and Im sure we havent just discovered everything yet.
Well I wouldn't entirely agree here, because I'm talking about the current Laws with which we do know about, and that is more than enough to debunk the idea that a ghost or whatever it may be can exist. Science will only provide more Laws in the future which will back up what's already known and is enough to be known to make the claims that I do.

""Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one source to another"
.... you could build and argument for the existance of the soul if you keep going that direction. life force, or whatever the hell it is that keeps people alive is an energy so where does it go when people die? (please dont try and answer that as Im just pointing out the rocky road that lies ahead)

Your second paragraph is the interior of tripe. Cells are dying in our bodies constantly, and in a constant way. Where does that energy go? It's transferred to some source whatever that may be, but to say it MOVES to another form of existence is completely ludicrous to suggest. For example, twhen we are in the ocffin dead, worms come and eat up cells in our body and so energy moves to them, there's thousands of different ways we could suggest that all build up the cycle of energy in nature, whether it be Carbon, Nitrogen or Oxygen. There is no "Rocky Road" as you suggest, this is fact and should be accepted. Your claims are wrong. The idea of a Soul is a metaphorical and poetic expression for our existence, and that's all it will ever remain. So rather than attack Videos and Images whikch some will do, I'll attack the base fundamental ideas of what these things are, and based on my science, it cannot be disputed.

The classic retaliation to this will be the Non-Argument expression(s),
"But what is these things are outside of the Laws of Physics?"
This would be similar to religious claims about God as some claim that God is outside the Laws of Physics. This was created as a cop-out excuse as more knowledge was founded over the previous centuries. It even moved to the idea of deism, where God created the Universe but doesn't meddle with it, how much of a cop-out can you get, asnd this always results when a question cannot be disputed when science blocks the path of non-reasonable and illogical bull****.

SkepticOne

iamhunted wrote: »

i so disagree with your first line. paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

What I find interesting is the almost total lack of interest from paranormal believers in ways of disginguising what is purely subjective imagination and what has an objective component. I would go so far as to suggest that this lack of interest is their defining characteristic.

ChocolateSauce

You can't imagine where the energy to move doors comes from probably because you don't understand energy (the scientific kind).

iamhunted

SkepticOne wrote: »

What I find interesting is the almost total lack of interest from paranormal believers in ways of disginguising what is purely subjective imagination and what has an objective component. I would go so far as to suggest that this lack of interest is their defining characteristic.

do me a favour and explain that as I really dont see what your point is. first up, just what is a 'paranormal believer'? (considering the paranormal is such a catchall word). secondly, what are you talking about? An objective component of what and are you saying those with paranormal beliefs cant tell the difference between real life and imagination? Surely that would be an extremely simplistic view?

Lucas10101 - you still seem to be claiming you can disprove whats classed as the paranormal. that itself is a feat considering nobody can actually prove the paranormal in the first place.

I'll attack the base fundamental ideas of what these things are, and based on my science, it cannot be disputed.

what are the base fundimentals and how exactly are you going to disprove them considering theres nothing having being proved in the first place?

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

Lucas10101 - you still seem to be claiming you can disprove whats classed as the paranormal. that itself is a feat considering nobody can actually prove the paranormal in the first place.



what are the base fundimentals and how exactly are you going to disprove them considering theres nothing having being proved in the first place?

I can't disprove fairies, or the flying teapot either, but that doesn't make them true, does it ( But what I can do, is use logic, reason and scientific fact to show they wouldn't exist or would seem ludicrous to exist because of this )? Nobody can prove the existence of paranormal activity, but you can make factual realistic scientific claims that can disprove any such idea that people may have that they might exist. Regardless of whether it can be proven or not, you need a backup there to show that it can't be proven, therefore disproving anything people may wish to believe.

Here's a real example of what I mean: Nobody can really know what happened before the Big Bang when there was apparently Nothingness. However, we can use our laws today to disprove any idea other people may have even though we'll never know. Thus without ever knowing, we can disprove something that never existed. Rather than use the word Disprove, maybe eradicate the idea would be better.

Second Comment you made --> Virtually the same as the first.

iamhunted

lets be honest here, we dont *actually* know if the big bang theory is correct - we'll have to wait and see if the LHC can shed more light on it first.

Im amazed at how many just believe everything they're told about science and take it as irifutable . as far as this planet, its surroundings and how we got here - we know very little.

iamhunted

please do though explain to me just what the paranormal is that you can disprove? what is it and what does it entail and how do you disprove it? (I want an detailed answer now, not a glib one liner)

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

lets be honest here, we dont *actually* know if the big bang theory is correct - we'll have to wait and see if the LHC can shed more light on it first.

Im amazed at how many just believe everything they're told about science and take it as irifutable . as far as this planet, its surroundings and how we got here - we know very little.
please do though explain to me just what the paranormal is that you can disprove? what is it and what does it entail and how do you disprove it? (I want an detailed answer now, not a glib one liner)

Well, I would disagree just slightly with that first comment. Yes, we don't know the Big Bang happened, just the same as we don't know that it came from the bottom of a greater ocean either, but from the evidence gained today, for example the ever expanding Universe, this implies at one point, it was infinitely dense at some point. At this point called the Singularity, there was an expansion of space, unknown how it triggered or how it may have happened. However the Theory stands up to scrutiny and hopefully the LHC will shed light as you suggest. So yes, we don't know, but we are pretty much certain about the singularity...before that or why it happened is really what we don't know. Anyhow, I might get accused of going off topic

"We know very little" - You claim. However considering how "Little" we knew when starting civilisation began, we've come a long way and thus compared to our starting ancestors, we know "A Lot". And I don't know, nor do you how much there is to know, so we can't count up how much we know and get it as a % of how little or much we don't know, get me? But as far as Science is concerned, things such as Electricity, Magnetism, and from 16th Century onwards, I'd be pretty certain, the vast majority of what we take it acceptable, however the advantage of science is that we can go back and correct, modify and improve any current theories we currently hold. So the question of irrefutability is meaningless, we just accept the current theory as it stands and comply with whatever modifications and improvements that science can provide. But it's not a question of irrefutability, but general acceptance based on the evidence we can manage and take definitive conclusions from.

Like I previously said, I cant disprove anything paranormal for exactly the same reason as I can't disprove fairies. But we can certainly say fairies don't exist and yet we don't disprove their existence? Get my point?
But what I can do instead, is provide scientific reason and logic to prevent any theories that somehow a paranormal being can exist which would otherwise contradict the scientific laws as my first post suggests. Thus as I'll repeat, I can't disprove anything, but I can supply a list of Laws which *must* be complied with in the natural world (or supernatural world), and use them as a guide for thinking out what could possibly exist or what may not exist. This logic and reason amalgamated with fact from science can deliver for you, a disturbing conclusion and in the most probable case, paranormal activity of any kind does not exist. However the probability cannot be nor 0 or 1, but you know what I'm saying, it's closer to null than anything at all.

Hope that clarifies any issues you have.

iamhunted

ah now, youve went and confused me. You say you'll disprove the paranormal, then you say you wont disprove the paranormal then you say you'll disprove it if something paranormal decides it isnt scientific. I'm missing just what it is you are actually saying .....

You cant say that ifisomething doesnt fit your understanding of science then it just cant be .. that isnt very scientific. PLus the points you;re proving about learning are just proving the point im making - we're STILL learning.

Lucas10101

If you look at my previous quotes I've never actually said that I would "Disprove" the paranormal...you implied that from my original post, so no, I'm not going to defend a point I didn't make. Plus, I've already dealt with that argument assuming I did hold that stance. My position is as follows, from what I know about science and the laws of nature as they stand currently, I can give many assumptions. Based on these assumptions (which are assumed to be true because of scientific rigour and methodology that was used to collect them), any assumption that goes against these i.e Paranormal, can automatically be assumed to be untrue because of the factual information which today, we hold to be true. The argument against this is "Paranormal activity require a new form of science and thus cannot be explained", that is contradictory to my point a few lines ago for the following reason:

Any new form of science will not contradict todays science or make it wrong, only support it and provide more understanding. So you won't have a science that shows that paranormal activity is untrue, and another that says it's true. That is a cop-out excuse that people will use when backed against a wall like a rat. It's the last ditch excuse. Hopefully this is enough to clarify any possible misunderstandings you have.

In relation to your second comment, It isn't very scientific to say something exists without proof either. That's the entire point of science. Yes, we're still learning, and from what we've learned, we can disregard any notion of paranormal activity. Case closed as far as I see.

oeb

I don't think the skeptics are in a position to disprove anything. If I lie to you, and you tell me you do not believe me. Is the onus on me to prove it to you? Or would you expect the response 'I'm not lying, if you can not prove I am lying then I must not be lying'.

People have been claiming the supernatural for as long as humans have been around, but if something can not be proved, then it is a hypothesis, a guess. This 'faith' based approach is the same as the religious take, and it's just as much bunk.

The study of the paranormal is just a way of personifying your fears, people personify things all the time.

For the record, if energy can not be lost .... what is enthropy?

i so disagree with your first line. paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

Because of course religion and belief in a divine being has been proved? Personally I rank religion right up there with ghosts and psychics.

iamhunted

nope - i dont think i said anywhere that religion has been proved. i was saying that you cant just assume that because someone has an interest in the paranormal that they're religious.

iamhunted

oeb wrote: »

For the record, if energy can not be lost .... what is

Is entropy the degree of un-orderliness of a chemical or physical system? Chaos? whats that got to do with losing energy?

Personally I rank religion right up there with ghosts and psychics.

i wish I could look at the word 'ghost' in such a small way. the term 'ghost' can mean a million things to a million different people.

oeb

iamhunted wrote: »

Is entropy the degree of un-orderliness of a chemical or physical system? Chaos? whats that got to do with losing energy?

Enthropy is the unavailability of the energy in a system to preform further useful work.

iamhunted wrote: »

i wish I could look at the word 'ghost' in such a small way. the term 'ghost' can mean a million things to a million different people.

So can the word 'green'. That does not say much though. I was using ghost in the commonly used form, to indicate a 'spirit from beyond the grave' some visable remain of our consciousness that can be experienced through one of our senses.

Sorry about the religion thing, I misunderstood your context. I was mearly stating that belief in religion is much the same as belief in the paranormal, I was not suggesting that just because you think that some cold reader can actually see your future that you say your prayers at night. (Although it seems strange to reject one while accecpting the other)

iamhunted

to be honest i dont really go for the 'spirit from beyond the grave' stuff myself

Lucas10101

Any more believers willing to argue against my point, I'm yet to defend it to a genuine excuse thus far?

towel401

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Your second paragraph is the interior of tripe. Cells are dying in our bodies constantly, and in a constant way. Where does that energy go? It's transferred to some source whatever that may be, but to say it MOVES to another form of existence is completely ludicrous to suggest. For example, twhen we are in the ocffin dead, worms come and eat up cells in our body and so energy moves to them, there's thousands of different ways we could suggest that all build up the cycle of energy in nature, whether it be Carbon, Nitrogen or Oxygen. There is no "Rocky Road" as you suggest, this is fact and should be accepted. Your claims are wrong. The idea of a Soul is a metaphorical and poetic expression for our existence, and that's all it will ever remain. So rather than attack Videos and Images whikch some will do, I'll attack the base fundamental ideas of what these things are, and based on my science, it cannot be disputed.

The classic retaliation to this will be the Non-Argument expression(s),
"But what is these things are outside of the Laws of Physics?"
This would be similar to religious claims about God as some claim that God is outside the Laws of Physics. This was created as a cop-out excuse as more knowledge was founded over the previous centuries. It even moved to the idea of deism, where God created the Universe but doesn't meddle with it, how much of a cop-out can you get, asnd this always results when a question cannot be disputed when science blocks the path of non-reasonable and illogical bull****.

So you like writing in bold?

stevenmu

Towel401 if the best you have to offer is to drag up a thread to complain about a 3 month old post being in bold, please find somewhere else to post.

fokker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

You see what your eyes want you to see.

That is simply not true.
The eye is not a neutral camera.
The eye and human vision as a whole is a complex system of pattern recognition. It makes it possible to see trees in clouds and such.
The older you get, that is, the more developped you get, the more you loose the ability to see things which arent part of a previously defined pattern.
Gestalt Pyschology is based on this.

So, 'you see what you have learned to see' is much more true than 'you see what your eyes want you to see'.

Lucas10101

I see what you mean.

I suppose the best way to describe what I said would be this: If you were in a dark room, and because our vision is not superb at night...we see things not as good as they should. We would only go into these haunted places with the hypersensitivity of -really wanting- to see something, or just vigilant to what were expected to find.

This means when we see something, it can obviously take a few seconds for our eyes to adjust and we'll make out ghost shapes in our head or whatever. If we want to see the shape of a person, we will find it. So yes, we will see what we want to see, especially when we're searching for it.

I'd love to know also, why these events always take place in the dark. (Or nearly always)

fokker

The human perception is capable of seeing trees in clouds. The shape of these particular clouds at that particular moment matches a pattern, known to our brain as 'tree'.
This matching takes place automatically.
Tests like Rorschach see in this a gate to the subconscious. By offering patterns with no particular shape it is believed that the way these meaningless shapes are interpreted says something about the subconsious of that person: a random pattern has no meaning, so when an interpretation is given, it is completely generated by subconsious processes in that person, not by the shape itself.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is some kind of spiritual information, whatever that may be. It is not material, in that case it would obey the laws of physics, and would be measurable. And as such be at best a not yet understood physical phenomenon. (Freuds easy way out: het said that dreams, the subconsious and all that, were just signs of a not yet onderstood physiology of the brain. That way anybody can 'explain' everything of course...).
So, we assume some kind of spiritual information, maybe from ghosts, maybe from dead ppl, whatever, give it a name.

Now how would this non-material information ever be seen by our senses, which all are physical devices, 'seeing' variations and changes in physical reality?
It cant be seen directly. Therefore i also diont believge in pictures of ghosts and such.

But, maybe it can influence the way our brain sunconsciously interprets random shapes, which are so much random they cant be simply seen as trees, chairs, whatever?
Maybe that could explain the fact that trhough the centuries clairvoynts, witches, shamans etc could see all kinds of thinsg in smoke, in ashes, in clouds, in the numerous lights and shadows in a crystal bowl?

Of course we simpkly dont know anything about subconsious processes. And we absolutely also dont have any proof that any kind of strange external information coud influence this process of subconscious pattern-recognition and pattern-interpretation.

But, it could be a model to explain things. Science itself absolutely has no jurisdiction here. Since scientific knowledges is knowledge, built on the reduced reality of ONLY reporducable events, ONLY events that are witnessed by more than one person, double blind procedures, etc.
That is a reduced reality.
Science can claim that there is no truth outside their own procedures and paradigmas, but that would be a religious statement rather than a scientific statement.

So a lot can be said and theorized about strange visions of strange things in the night.

Daylight can make things clear, but it also can make thinghs invisble. Do you see the stars during the day? They really are there though. Daylight forces our interpretation to known pattersn and structures and processes. It is interpretation, based on recognition, rather than a real and objective perception.

Lucas10101

I've replied through bold below.

fokker wrote: »

This matching takes place automatically.
A random pattern has no meaning, so when an interpretation is given, it is completely generated by subconsious processes in that person, not by the shape itself.

Yes, thanks for re-enforcing my point. When we see something disorganized or random, we seek patterns from what out subconscious already recognizes. This is precisely my point, we look for the evidence...and then claim it to be true, when there was no evidence to begin with.

Now, for the sake of argument, lets assume that there is some kind of spiritual information, whatever that may be. It is not material, in that case it would obey the laws of physics, and would be measurable.

Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist. To assume something that does, is meaningless. We can assume many things...doesn't make any of them true. There is not a shred of evidence for Paranormal Activity.

Now how would this non-material information ever be seen by our senses, which all are physical devices, 'seeing' variations and changes in physical reality?
It cant be seen directly. Therefore i also diont believge in pictures of ghosts and such.

We only have a materialistic world. Nothing can exist outside of this, partly because the Laws of Physics cannot be contradicted, or else they couldn't exist. (Read my posts above to get an idea of what I mean)

But, maybe it can influence the way our brain sunconsciously interprets random shapes, which are so much random they cant be simply seen as trees, chairs, whatever?
Maybe that could explain the fact that trhough the centuries clairvoynts, witches, shamans etc could see all kinds of thinsg in smoke, in ashes, in clouds, in the numerous lights and shadows in a crystal bowl?

Again, we search so hard for these patterns. People who claim a profession in this area search even more, and claim many things...and they make money out of it. Assuming there's one who genuinely believes his cause, he's simply fooled himself. We seek patterns subconsciously and we find them. You're using the word "Maybe". I could give an infinite amount of "Maybe's" to describe paranormal, and none of them would be true, yours is simply an addition, and falsified by the veracity of the Laws of Physics which cannot be violated as they wouldn't exist if they could be. Simple.

Of course we simpkly dont know anything about subconsious processes. And we absolutely also dont have any proof that any kind of strange external information coud influence this process of subconscious pattern-recognition and pattern-interpretation.

We know that they can't violate the Laws of Physics and are simply a biological problem. There is no extra-sensory development going on, we are a product of our senses and the evolution of them over the millions of years. I don't see your problem. We look for the patterns, they are not provided for us by anything.

But, it could be a model to explain things. Science itself absolutely has no jurisdiction here. Since scientific knowledges is knowledge, built on the reduced reality of ONLY reporducable events, ONLY events that are witnessed by more than one person, double blind procedures, etc.
That is a reduced reality.
Science can claim that there is no truth outside their own procedures and paradigmas, but that would be a religious statement rather than a scientific statement.

Scientific Knowledge is the only truth here, there is no other forms of truth. If you knew enough about science, you would understand that these Laws just cannot be violated, do your research please. I can claim exactly the same truth that there is no truth outside science in the same way I can claim that an elephant doesn't eat Bananas on Uranus. Both are equally as stupid and equally as disprovable, but because the latter can't be proven right now, you would still claim it to be ridiculous.

Assume no-one ever saw paranormal activity. If one person claimed it, they would be seen as a lunatic. However if a large amount of people suddenly through hearsay and an insightful mind do, it's seen as possibly normal eg. Paranormal and Religion.
So a lot can be said and theorized about strange visions of strange things in the night.

Daylight can make things clear, but it also can make thinghs invisble. Do you see the stars during the day? They really are there though. Daylight forces our interpretation to known pattersn and structures and processes. It is interpretation, based on recognition, rather than a real and objective perception.

You just said above that these things are "Immaterial", now you're saying that light can affect it...you've just contradicted yourself.

Stars are material, again...view your pathetic argument above and you'll realize how contradicted you've just been.

Dark & Light shouldn't affect "Immaterial" as you claim, because you assume that The Laws of Physics are one layer of truth...when you stop contradicting yourself, please come back with an alternative answer, some definitive proof for paranormal activities, and physiological evidence for your "Maybe" claims above.

Thanks.

fokker

I know some things of science, i went to gymnasium, after that university, so the scientific procedures are clear to me.
And they are very useful, and necesary.
But, i say that again, they are build on a reduced reality. The reality of objectivity, of empirical science, with its procedures and methodology.
Of course from the viewpoint of science there is nothing else. There cant be anything else. Because everything that would be different wouldnt be included.

Mind you, i dont say, and never said, that spirits etc really exist. But i do say that it is impossible to deduce from science that things outside science cant exist.

Unless you would define the word 'exist' as 'everything on which the rules of scientific truth apply'. Many ppl think like that indeed. But then science becomse a religion, with blind followers, who are getting very emotional during confrontations with ppl who dont agree with the absolute supremacy of science.

Seen from the angle of evolution this science-worshipping is even more bizarre. Humans evolved from lower life forms. Life became more and more complex, and with the complexity of the organism the need for a notion of unity of that organism also increases. This notion is called 'consciousness'.

Then these humans are getting smarter en smarter, they learn about causality, and they expand this causality to a methodoly and a science. Still this whole science is a product of man. I suppose you dont assume external intelligence from mars or sth like that flew on, and rational hardliner as you seem to be, any divine influcences also can be ruled out. Right? So, we have a brain, which learsn some tricks, recognizes patterns. Visual patterns, as well as patterns in processes.

And then, all of sudden, this tool, this part of life, suddenly starts to think they can say what reality is and what not?
The history of science is full of 'now we know everything' moments. Newton for instance: everything was supposed to be ruled by the laws of mechanics and gravity. If enough details are knowns, everything can be calculated.
At the end of the 19th century it was stated by many scientific societies that there would not be any major discoveries anymore - the basic laws were knowwn, and from these everything could be deduced.
Then relativity came in, and creepy things like uncertainty as a principal property of matter in certain situations.
And now again many ppl say we know it all - cuz only science is the truth, we only need to explore that path a bit further to know more, but there are no paths other than that.

Yeah. Orf course. Science says: nothing is true, before it is proven. And you cab prove it only by using scientific methodology.
Sad things is that this mission-statement cant be proven itself

Childish despair-leaps like elephants on uranus have nothing to do with this discussion, i dont know you but that seems beneath you.

Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist.

This is simply not true. Your proof goes like 'laws exist, because if there are situations or moments when they dont exist, they are no laws anymore. and because they excist, there cant be anything outside them'.

People who are cheating, earning money with it - ofcourse thats not good. And besides, again, i never said ghosts and paranormality etc exist - i only say that it is fundamentally impossible to say based on science that it does not exist.

You just said above that these things are "Immaterial", now you're saying that light can affect it...you've just contradicted yourself.

In this one you completely misunderstood me, or i expressed myself wrongly. Doesnt matter, forget it, it has no besring on this discussion anyway.

One more thing: ppl who believe in such things are often automatically discarded as dumb, uneducated, primitive, etc.
Is that so? Everybody who does not agree with rationality to the extreme, is stupid?
And why do you write 'scientific knowledge' with capitals? does it need that extra accent?

Lucas10101

I've just responded there below, enjoy.

fokker wrote: »

1. But i do say that it is impossible to deduce from science that things outside science cant exist.

No, that's actually not true from my perspective. Our Universe is governed from the very small...particle physics. It's a complex area. But Physicists have managed to comprehend them and use them to our advantage with medical care etc. So they are of value and are true. These laws are so fundamental that they govern every action, and where energy goes. There is and can be nothing beyond this. The total amount of energy remains the same and any form of existence MUST use some form of particle with some form of energy or else it wouldn't "exist" in the material sense, which is the only sense you can have. Therefore if I were to claim a ghost appeared, I have a few questions to ask myself...along the lines of "Where did the energy originally come from?", "What allows for movement and existence?". Using my knowledge of Laws, I can deduce what cannot exist. I cannot deduce something that does not exist if I don't have the Law, however with my current laws, I can disprove paranormality which is what we're debating now. I can't speak for Laws that haven't been discovered but I know enough to disprove claims today.

2. But then science becomse a religion, with blind followers.

Believers of Paranormality are the blind followers. I have Laws. Laws = Evidence and a method for evidence. Paranormal "believers" take the leap of faith saying that there is something beyond rationality and don't require proof, therefore trying to make my job impossible. But using my laws as mentioned above, I can rationally think it through logically, and without superstition. It's too easy to say "There's something beyond..."...when you don't require proof, that's why it's so attractive to believe in. But it doesn't make it true and it doesn't hold true.

3. Seen from the angle of evolution this science-worshipping is even more bizarre. Humans evolved from lower life forms. Life became more and more complex, and with the complexity of the organism the need for a notion of unity of that organism also increases. This notion is called 'consciousness'.

I wouldn't call it "worshiping", it's accepting the truth and trying to provide it to the public to allow them to make a conscious decision with all ideas in mind, logical and illogical ones. Yes- Darwins Theory of Evolution is chance advantage based growth, and is indisputable. Marvelous piece of work from Charles...

4. And then, all of sudden, this tool, this part of life, suddenly starts to think they can say what reality is and what not?
The history of science is full of 'now we know everything' moments.

Scientists don't claim to "know it all". We are humble and say there's a lot left to explain, but by simply saying "There's something else..." doesn't do a thing.

It doesn't "suddenly" start to think. Evolution by natural selection occurs over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. These timescales are very difficult for our minds to comprehend, but that doesn't make them false just because we cannot imagine it.

5. Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist.

This is simply not true. Your proof goes like 'laws exist, because if there are situations or moments when they dont exist, they are no laws anymore. and because they excist, there cant be anything outside them'.

As explained above, and through my initial postings, I won't reiterate what I said previously. I stated it clearly in my previous postings. If you have any more specific questions regarding this quote, I'll gladly refute your point.

6. One more thing: ppl who believe in such things are often automatically discarded as dumb, uneducated, primitive, etc.
Is that so?

Who's statistics or proof are you going along? Are you assuming this yourself or from a biased reporter or believer?

However I regard Creationists as dumb, uneducated and primitive. This description fits the bill for a Miss Sarah Palin.

fokker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I've just responded there below, enjoy.
Originally Posted by fokker
These laws are so fundamental that they govern every action, and where energy goes. There is and can be nothing beyond this.

Hmm, laws govern..?
Laws are conclusions of experiments and theoretical analysis, formulated in the language of mathematics.
Laws are abstracts from the reality. Sometimes laws prove to be wrong, then they are adapted.
Laws are valid, until proven wrong. Every physicist will agree with this.
So these laws dont rule out the possibility that there are situations or phenomena which are not 'governed' by these laws.
Laws are abstract, laws dont exist anywhere but in our heads.

The total amount of energy remains the same and any form of existence MUST use some form of particle with some form of energy or else it wouldn't "exist" in the material sense, which is the only sense you can have. Therefore if I were to claim a ghost appeared, I have a few questions to ask myself...along the lines of "Where did the energy originally come from?", "What allows for movement and existence?". Using my knowledge of Laws, I can deduce what cannot exist. I cannot deduce something that does not exist if I don't have the Law, however with my current laws, I can disprove paranormality which is what we're debating now. I can't speak for Laws that haven't been discovered but I know enough to disprove claims today.

According to your laws, that is. And as stated, i dont agree with the axioma that the laws as we know them now are all there is.

Believers of Paranormality are the blind followers. I have Laws. Laws = Evidence and a method for evidence. Paranormal "believers" take the leap of faith saying that there is something beyond rationality and don't require proof, therefore trying to make my job impossible. But using my laws as mentioned above, I can rationally think it through logically, and without superstition. It's too easy to say "There's something beyond..."...when you don't require proof, that's why it's so attractive to believe in. But it doesn't make it true and it doesn't hold true.

I must admit i dont believe much of most ghosts etc. But i cant say it must be nonsense. I simply dont know it, I cant know it. But i do know that there is no scientific basis to say 'it can not exist'. Other than a chosen axioma.
What you call 'proof' is a technique of verification inside a defined formal system. And therefore only valid inside this system or paradigma.
Which means that when a system which is unfit to explain paranormal phenomena, or which even excludes them from reality can not proof these things, or can disprove tyhem, i am not impressed at all. In fact, that is so by definition of that system.

I wouldn't call it "worshiping", it's accepting the truth and trying to provide it to the public to allow them to make a conscious decision with all ideas in mind, logical and illogical ones. Yes- Darwins Theory of Evolution is chance advantage based growth, and is indisputable. Marvelous piece of work from Charles...

'the truth' - many philosophers are not so sure about the possibility to know the truth at all. They see physics as a model, to describe reality in a objective way.

Scientists don't claim to "know it all". We are humble and say there's a lot left to explain, but by simply saying "There's something else..." doesn't do a thing.

Humble? 'There is no truth outside me'. I wouldnt regard that as humble.

It doesn't "suddenly" start to think. Evolution by natural selection occurs over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. These timescales are very difficult for our minds to comprehend, but that doesn't make them false just because we cannot imagine it.

With 'suddenly' i mean that on a certain moment in human cultural history mankind decided to have the way to the truth. That is not so special, all religions say the same and religions are quite old. But at a certain moment religion was replaced by ratio, and then mankind told itself that the way to truth is ratyionality.

5. Only things can exist within the Laws of Physics. Nothing outside can contradict them, or else they wouldn't exist.

This is simply not true. Your proof goes like 'laws exist, because if there are situations or moments when they dont exist, they are no laws anymore. and because they excist, there cant be anything outside them'.

As explained above, and through my initial postings, I won't reiterate what I said previously. I stated it clearly in my previous postings. If you have any more specific questions regarding this quote, I'll gladly refute your point.

For me goes the same: i gave my arguments above why i dont agree with this. Tell me where you think i am wrong.

However I regard Creationists as dumb, uneducated and primitive. This description fits the bill for a Miss Sarah Palin.

Ha, we agree on this one
Once i had a discussion with a creationist. I asked him how he dealt with fossils of many million years old. His final trick: '14.000 years ago (or whatever number, i keep forgetting that) Gofd created all, and also time, and also the million years of the past'. Why dont we say that the universe was formed 3 seconds ago, including all memories, years, events etc before these 3 seconds? He told me i was only trying to sabotage his believe and therefore wouldnt talk with me on that subject anymore. He was an American guy.

Lucas10101

Replies in bold below...

fokker wrote: »

[/I][/I]
laws dont exist anywhere but in our heads. [/I]

That is a little narrow minded. We, through evolution have enough cognitive ability to comprehend complex phenomena in reality. In a sense, you are correct in that a Law is simply "Words"...which describe a meaning of reality in a general sense. Nonetheless these words hold true. Just because we concluded the meaning from our head, doesn't mean there's anything beyond this. We are intelligent enough beings to know in the 21st Century what holds true and what doesn't. These "Laws" are simply a precise description of nature, and by the way, Laws are always mathematical models (Thus the Theory of Evolution can never become a Law), therefore regardless of experiments, the maths adds up, and complex maths as well. Computers can now generate such calculations at phenomenal speeds using these laws. So yes, the laws are what we generated from our intellect through natural selection, but that doesn't demean them in the slightest, what they stand for holds true.


According to your laws, that is. And as stated, i dont agree with the axioma that the laws as we know them now are all there is.

There not my laws, their the knowledge of intense investigation and thorough mathematical models. There may be new laws or variations of our laws outside our Universe as postulated by some cosmologists, but I can't speak for them. All I can conclude is that if these "New Laws" or something "Beyond Science" existed, then it would simply contradict everything we learned in Science which makes absolutely no logical sense, believe me. You saying "I don't believe it", is the same conclusion for me and "I don't believe in God", we are simply just stating something, which probably means nothing, but at least on my side I can't be contradictory.


I must admit i dont believe much of most ghosts etc. But i cant say it must be nonsense. I simply dont know it, I cant know it. But i do know that there is no scientific basis to say 'it can not exist'. Other than a chosen axioma.

You're correct. I can't say indefinitely that "Ghosts don't exist" for the same reason I can't say "Toothfairies don't exist"...but I can assure there is a very high probability (close to 0) that they don't through the Laws I have knowledge of today.


'the truth' - many philosophers are not so sure about the possibility to know the truth at all. They see physics as a model, to describe reality in a objective way.

Philosophers make a big deal out of every question. I don't take them seriously. The only truth in reality is Science based. The truths outside of this are what you could call "Moral Truths".

[/B]
Humble? 'There is no truth outside me'. I wouldnt regard that as humble.

I mean that I'm humble in relation to reality and what we know about it, not paranormal idiocy.


He was an American
guy. Such a simple sentence, yet so much meaning.

iamhunted

I must admit i dont believe much of most ghosts etc. But i cant say it must be nonsense. I simply dont know it, I cant know it. But i do know that there is no scientific basis to say 'it can not exist'. Other than a chosen axioma.

thats probably the most open minded and true skeptic statement Ive read so far in the Skeptics Corner. And I agree with you totally.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

.but I can assure there is a very high probability (close to 0) that they don't through the Laws I have knowledge of today..

two things -

1) do you any of your own research to back up that assurance? as in have you gone looking?

2) We all agree that no-one knows for sure if the 'paranormal' is unknown science or genuinely something otherwise so you;re really just assuring me of something i already know, though you go a bit further and seem certain that the paranormal doesnt exist.

paranormal activity, call it what you will, is at best very very very rare but people have had some experiences (including myself) that are just too complex to put down to seeing something in the dark. doesnt mean those experiences are 'ghosts' (again, insert suitable descriptive word) but they do point to areas of environment v human brain that we dont know much of yet.

persoonally Im trying to find any links between infrasound and evps to see if such things can be caused by infrasound itself. Very clear EVPs of voices that werent heard at the time are the only clues I have to anything paranormal in all the places ive looked.

Are you doing anything to try and find out info to help look deeper into these 'paranormal' claims or is it just something you like to have heated debates about? (And i mean that in the best possible way)