What can science not explain?

Arkady

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A lot of people think that alright, but there seems to be no truth to it and it does not affect oxygen levels in the body much at all. In fact a single deep breath is unlikely to do that.

One of the main reasons we think we yawn now is actually to cool down your brain. It causes both an increase of blood to the brain AND a cooling of that blood. And in experiments where they got two groups of people and warmed up the heads of the people in one group.... those people yawned a LOT more than the control group.

And when they then COOLED the heads of a group, the hardly yawned at all.

The experiments were also repliated in mice where yawning came when their head temperatures increased, and after the yawning a drop in temperature was observed.

So yeah, it seems like a natural heat sinking method and nothing to do with oxygen at all.

yawn

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

The few I read showed significant results for telephone telepathy,dog telepathy and telepathy between two people in a trance. Don't know or care if any of it is true or not,but there it is.

Then as I said try and be more specific because nothing I read shows anything of the sort. But you could do with reading some of it yourself as the stuff I clicked on talked about distortions and fraud in this kind of research. And the issue in meta analysis of missing negative results, something we suffer from in the world of medicine too.

I am logging off now but by all means pick the most convincing study you have read and I will review it for you later. But giving me a huge list of links and when I pick 7 randomly and find nothing in them to support this stuff, and quite a lot against it, it is hardly useful to me.

12Phase

mark_jmc wrote: »

Donald trump's hair

It's a dead cat.

Capt'n Midnight

222233 wrote: »

Science can not explain or dispute if people can genuinely be psychic or if they just genuinely think they are psychic

Science can provide many mechanisms for ESP. But none have been detected.

Things like electric eels can produce electricity and from that it's a short step to electro magnetic antennae. Some animals can detect magnetic fields. Moths have antenna that work in the infrared. So there are plausible mechanisms for ESP in the sense that senses exist that can detect things most humans can't. And there's a whole world so sensitivity to hormones we don't fully understand yet.

But the thing is that no evidence has been found for direct telepathy or similar and it's unlikely that some humans would have senses that the rest of us don't, excluding individual variations like better hearing or eyesight or extra colours.

And the Randi million dollar prize wasn't claimed.



The reason you don't see psychics winning the lotto is the same as how you don't see faith healers in hospitals.

endacl

Depp wrote: »

Didn't realize they'd scientifically disproven the existence of a higher power?Must've missed that now! nice try though

Happily though, the onus is not on anybody to disprove anything. That responsibility lies with those making the absurd claim.

kneemos

endacl wrote: »

Happily though, the onus is not on anybody to disprove anything. That responsibility lies with those making the absurd claim.

Depends which side you claim to be absurd.
This has been done,but the philosophy of a God is very real and has an influence on many people's lives.Something that has a measurable cause and effect is for all intensive porpoises real.

endacl

What's an intensive porpoise?!?

questionmark?

Why does the kettle take longer to boil when your watching it? Sneaky ****er!

Ronald Wilson Reagan

All I wanted from science was lasers that could shoot down ICBM's.

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

Depends which side you claim to be absurd.
This has been done,but the philosophy of a God is very real and has an influence on many people's lives.Something that has a measurable cause and effect is for all intensive porpoises real.

You are conflating belief in a god (which is real and has a real effect) with the actual existence of a god. No one here appears to be doubting the former. The people you are replying to were doubting the latter, and as such you are simply talking past them a bit.

endacl wrote: »

What's an intensive porpoise?!?

Turtles on a serious mission?

questionmark? wrote: »

Why does the kettle take longer to boil when your watching it? Sneaky ****er!

It is also down to the speed of life

Steve012

The one hundred monkey syndrome, science can't explain that one

Steve012

endacl wrote: »

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

Fairy tales maybe, the idea spans over all of human history and cultures, that part could indeed be fairy tales.

Give humans a little bit more credit though.

This is where science comes in. First, string theory, then "M" theory, after that followed (from science point of view) multiple infinite universes. That didn't fit into their model at all. It didn't make mathematical sense.

Then they came to the conclusion, bugger me there's design everywhere in the universe. Everything has a design, .... hmmm So if there is a design there must of been a designer. That's from science itself.

Whatever that designer is ........ who knows..

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

Then they came to the conclusion, bugger me there's design everywhere in the universe. Everything has a design, .... hmmm So if there is a design there must of been a designer. That's from science itself.

Whatever that designer is ........ who knows..

I don't see how science would point to God though? Unless you think God is a mathematical equation.

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

I don't see how science would point to God though? Unless you think God is a mathematical equation.

Agreed,
I never said God. who knows what kicked off design, But they did state it really looks like it was designed.

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

Agreed,
I never said God. who knows what kicked off design, But they did state it really looks like it was designed.

But sure isn't that the Paley argument just applied to the universe instead?

In the way that science doesn't point to God don't see how it takes from it either. Just irrelevant.

nozzferrahhtoo

Looks designed and was designed are two different things however. Many scientists openly say things LOOK designed. Even Richard Dawkins who is about as anti theism as it gets, happily says things like the human eye LOOK designed. But I would not make the mistake of reading too much into them saying that because not many of the people who say it looks designed are saying that they actually suspect it was.

Remember design implies intent. A goal. We have literally no arguments, evidence data or reasoning on offer that suggest intentional agency behind anything we observe in "creation".

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

But sure isn't that the Paley argument just applied to the universe instead?

In the way that science doesn't point to God don't see how it takes from it either. Just irrelevant.

I wouldn't say irrelevant, since 15 years ago science was all about M theory as an theoretical explanation, then moving too design and designer, it takes the "random" out of their equation. I think that's a big leap tbh.

kneemos

The existance of a God to me doesn't sound any crazier than the existance of the universe.

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

I wouldn't say irrelevant, since 15 years ago science was all about M theory as an theoretical explanation, then moving too design and designer, it takes the "random" out of their equation. I think that's a big leap tbh.

Regardless of what's in the equation it's irrelevant in my view. Science is ultra vires when it comes spiritual beings, because science only studies material beings.

Steve012

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Looks designed and was designed are two different things however. Many scientists openly say things LOOK designed. Even Richard Dawkins who is about as anti theism as it gets, happily says things like the human eye LOOK designed. But I would not make the mistake of reading too much into them saying that because not many of the people who say it looks designed are saying that they actually suspect it was.

Remember design implies intent. A goal. We have literally no arguments, evidence data or reasoning on offer that suggest intentional agency behind anything we observe in "creation".

Certainly, we don't, that's why they are theories.
Interesting all the same.

Dughorm

kneemos wrote: »

The existance of a God to me doesn't sound any crazier than the existance of the universe.

It's debatable whether science can even answer the question "is there a universe"? It can certainly study material stuff assuming a universe exists.

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

The existance of a God to me doesn't sound any crazier than the existance of the universe.

Agreed. It is all pretty crazy. I would not see existence itself as any crazier than a god. It is all bizarre and awesome and mysterious.

But while they are both similarly crazy, they are not similarly substantiated. We can evidence the existence of the universe to some degree. We however have absolutely no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is a god.

So yes, equally crazy stuff, but not equally substantiated by any means.

Steve012 wrote: »

Certainly, we don't, that's why they are theories.
Interesting all the same.

Pedantically given this is a thread on science, I would prefer to call them hypotheses not theories. Given theory has a specific meaning in science quite different to the vernacular.

But as I said, just some pedantry to lighten the mood

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

Regardless of what's in the equation it's irrelevant in my view. Science is ultra vires when it comes spiritual beings, because science only studies material beings.

Not necessarily, Physics branches out into the unknown all the time. Take CERN for an example.

Eugene Norman

Steve012 wrote: »

I wouldn't say irrelevant, since 15 years ago science was all about M theory as an theoretical explanation, then moving too design and designer, it takes the "random" out of their equation. I think that's a big leap tbh.

You've been reading different science books to me for sure.

Steve012

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You've been reading different science books to me for sure.

Tis all there to be googled, plenty of info on those theories out there.

Eugene Norman

Steve012 wrote: »

Tis all there to be googled, plenty of info on those theories out there.

Why should we google it. You say it so link it.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs. And I bet that any link you provide, if any, won't be mainstream physics.

Steve012

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why should we google it. You say it so link it.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs. And I bet that any link you provide, if any, won't be mainstream physics.

How did I know you'd say that
Check out the books then, string theory, m theory, theory of everything.

Steve012

Look at a massive spiral coming out of a black hole they saw recently. They can't explain that, because of course of the nature of black holes.

That's main stream science.

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

Not necessarily, Physics branches out into the unknown all the time. Take CERN for an example.

So has CERN branched out beyond the material world? News to me

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

So has CERN branched out beyond the material world? News to me

That's news to you then