U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 01:31 AM
 
Location: PRC
2,848 posts, read 3,151,035 times
Reputation: 2612

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by c charlie View Post
...Proofs must stand on their own merit.
Yeah, yeah. Except when it suits science. There is more 'proof' of ghosts than there is of anything coming from space which comes from only about 5 different original sources - NASA being one. Across history many many people have studied ghosts and the paranormal. Just because something cannot be replicated reliably does not mean it is invalid and does not constitute 'proof'. We just need another definition of 'proof' thats all.

Data about ghosts etc exists but it is unacceptable to most scientists like yourself because it does not fit in with your beliefs and it triggers your fears. Unfortunately, proof appears to mean different things to different people in the scientific community.

As an example: How do we investigate "sciences" which have events which cannot be replicated? Can we call the people who do the investigating "scientists" and if so, then how do they apply the scientific method to their science? What is 'proof' to them? Is it good enough for other scientists who investigate the harder, more physical sciences?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 07:10 AM
 
643 posts, read 358,668 times
Reputation: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
There is more 'proof' of ghosts than there is of anything coming from space which comes from only about 5 different original sources - NASA being one.
In my case, I've seen more evidence of the supernatural than
of about 90% of the stuff 'the news' says is allegedly going on.

Yet, it usually plays out like this:

News Headline: "XYZ is happening in Timbuktu!"
General response: "Must be true!"
Neighbor: "I saw a shadow-figure in my room."
General response: "Prove it!"




-
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:20 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,373 posts, read 22,830,137 times
Reputation: 48003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerania View Post
There's no need to prove anything. You've either seen or experienced something out of the ordinary, or you haven't.

I have no need to convince anyone of anything. I don't try to.
This. ^^^^. Plus
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:08 PM
 
11,790 posts, read 20,120,976 times
Reputation: 18916
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Yeah, yeah. Except when it suits science. There is more 'proof' of ghosts than there is of anything coming from space which comes from only about 5 different original sources - NASA being one. Across history many many people have studied ghosts and the paranormal. Just because something cannot be replicated reliably does not mean it is invalid and does not constitute 'proof'. We just need another definition of 'proof' thats all.

Data about ghosts etc exists but it is unacceptable to most scientists like yourself because it does not fit in with your beliefs and it triggers your fears. Unfortunately, proof appears to mean different things to different people in the scientific community.

As an example: How do we investigate "sciences" which have events which cannot be replicated? Can we call the people who do the investigating "scientists" and if so, then how do they apply the scientific method to their science? What is 'proof' to them? Is it good enough for other scientists who investigate the harder, more physical sciences?
Actually, when science has an event that canít be replicated, they figure out why and how.

Look up cold fusion.

They somehow did it once, and no one, including them, could make it happen again, and cold fusion is now considered dead.
__________________
Solly says ó Be nice!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:13 AM
 
Location: PRC
2,848 posts, read 3,151,035 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Actually, when science has an event that canít be replicated, they figure out why and how.
Really? Just because you can point to one example, does not help science figure out why and how they can make paranormal events repeatable.

Consciousness is not predictable as far as I know, but maybe it has become so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top