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.
Eliminating all other possible explanations is not enough. The simply tells you what it isn't. Moreover, when do you know that you've eliminated "all" other possible explanations? And how much does that cost? You must also have positive physical evidence, and frankly, I don't think anyone has any idea what would be.
So what exactly is on this 'list' of paranormal phenomenae are we talking about?
Ghosts, yes?
Psychic ability?
Remote viewing?
What exactly is being 'dumped' here, because some things have been tested and discoveries made or left as inconclusive.
As for the measuring equipment debate. We most certainly have a plethora of devices for measuring all kinds of things, but there is a possibility that there is a type of 'energy' out there that we are unaware of, so how could we have something to test/measure it?
To say we have all the equipment we need to verify the cause of a locked door that opens 'by itself' is questionable.
And while there are those who claim to be scientists that are not, there was no introduction of claims made by a psudo-scientist so why even bring the word 'real' into it?
I still don't understand why the need to make the distinction.
Eliminating all other possible explanations is not enough. The simply tells you what it isn't. Moreover, when do you know that you've eliminated "all" other possible explanations? And how much does that cost? You must also have positive physical evidence, and frankly, I don't think anyone has any idea what would be.
I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make. My point was that I know there are a lot of people out there that instantly jump to the idea that something is a ghost without eliminating all rational possibilities. We know there are things in nature and the universe that we cannot explain. And I know there is almost no way to say for certain that supernatural beings exist unless you see them with your own eyes. I'm sure you could see a phone on a flat surface suddenly fly across the room and think there had to be some natural explanation for why that happened. I understand that and I'd probably be the same way if it happened to me. That's why I said while I have an open mind about the possibility of ghosts, seeing an apparition is about the only way I will likely ever believe. I've seen a door slam shut and latch in my old apartment without any wind. Throwing it closed as hard as I could couldn't get the door to latch. It would get stuck and stop before it would latch. I had friends try with no success. Even though I tried many different things to recreate it without success, do I think it was a ghost? No. Was I able to ever explain how it happened? Nope, but I figure there likely is some kind of natural explanation.
But often things that we may perceive as paranormal can't be replicated in experiments so science can't repeat it to study it.
Doesn't mean it isn't real, though.
Doesn't mean it is real either. That kind of argument seems pretty pointless if a subject can neither be proven nor disproven. It's just circular reasoning. At best, all that can really be said about such paranormal phenomena is that it remains inconclusive and undetermined. In that there are other explanations which are more mundane to the advocates, and not as sensational, puts the claims of validity in support in doubt.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,448,062 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Our measuring devices, in most cases, are orders of magnitude more sensitive than our own natural bodily senses, with a broader range than our own bodies can detect. Our bodies cannot detect ionizing radiation, for example. But we have devices that can detect ionizing radiation down to the parts per trillion. So I am not buying the notion that there is a measurement bias.
Scientists are the first to admit that there is a lot that we don't know. But it is also very surprising how much we DO know. They are also the first to tell you that the unexplained is not inexplicable, and that just because we have no current explanation for some phenomenon doesn't mean that we default to some supernatural explanation, because those types of explanations don't actually get us anywhere, don't actually mean anything. There is no shame in declaring "we don't know", but that is a far cry from simply waving our hands in the air and declaring it a "paranormal phenomenon". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I am a scientist and I clearly understand the power and limitations of our measuring devices. Just because we can't measure an observable phenomenon does not mean that phenomenon is hocus pocus BS.
What if you all just ask him politely to leave? You won't get anywhere, ever, with someone like this, who thinks what they do and will never change their mind.
Orogenicman is wrong. There. Done. And I'm not interested in hashing it out with him. Ta ta!
Last edited by rainroosty; 11-06-2013 at 02:07 PM..
So what exactly is on this 'list' of paranormal phenomenae are we talking about?
Ghosts, yes?
Psychic ability?
Remote viewing?
What exactly is being 'dumped' here, because some things have been tested and discoveries made or left as inconclusive.
As for the measuring equipment debate. We most certainly have a plethora of devices for measuring all kinds of things, but there is a possibility that there is a type of 'energy' out there that we are unaware of, so how could we have something to test/measure it?
To say we have all the equipment we need to verify the cause of a locked door that opens 'by itself' is questionable.
And while there are those who claim to be scientists that are not, there was no introduction of claims made by a psudo-scientist so why even bring the word 'real' into it?
I still don't understand why the need to make the distinction.
Exactly what 'discoveries' have been made in this field? I have yet to see any that were unambiguous.
Yes it is true, that there is a possibility (however remote) that there is some type of energy about which we are unaware. But there is none I am aware of that our bodies can detect that our instruments cannot while there is plenty that our bodies cannot detect that our instruments can. If you know of any of the former, please tell us what it is.
As for the issue of pseudoscience as opposed to real science, it is critically important that people understand the difference. Otherwise, all we have is people talking past one another with unsupported claims and nothing gets accomplished.
I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make. My point was that I know there are a lot of people out there that instantly jump to the idea that something is a ghost without eliminating all rational possibilities. We know there are things in nature and the universe that we cannot explain. And I know there is almost no way to say for certain that supernatural beings exist unless you see them with your own eyes. I'm sure you could see a phone on a flat surface suddenly fly across the room and think there had to be some natural explanation for why that happened. I understand that and I'd probably be the same way if it happened to me. That's why I said while I have an open mind about the possibility of ghosts, seeing an apparition is about the only way I will likely ever believe. I've seen a door slam shut and latch in my old apartment without any wind. Throwing it closed as hard as I could couldn't get the door to latch. It would get stuck and stop before it would latch. I had friends try with no success. Even though I tried many different things to recreate it without success, do I think it was a ghost? No. Was I able to ever explain how it happened? Nope, but I figure there likely is some kind of natural explanation.
How do you know we cannot explain whatever it is you are suggesting that we cannot explain? Again, just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it is inexplicable. As for supernatural beings, you are making the assumptions in your argument that supernatural beings exist in the first place, but that we simply cannot see them when there is simply no unambiguous evidence that either assumption is the correct one. For me, it isn't enough to "see" a ghost. The human sensory apparatus is much too easily deceived by what it perceives to be of much use in this endeavor. Which is why we need independent confirmation in the form of repeatable precision measurements and experimentation.
I am a scientist and I clearly understand the power and limitations of our measuring devices. Just because we can't measure an observable phenomenon does not mean that phenomenon is hocus pocus BS.
It doesn't mean that it is not, either. You use a qualifier - observable phenomenon. And I would ask observable "by whom"? Is it like a rainbow that everyone can readily observe? Or are we talking about individuals? The issue of bias is very important in any scientific investigation. If you cannot bring it into the laboratory and repeatedly observe and test the phenomenon, and have others do the same in order to root out the bias, or even do the same in the field, one has to question the value of the observations from a scientific perspective.
What if you all just ask him politely to leave? You won't get anywhere, ever, with someone like this, who thinks what they do and will never change their mind.
Orogenicman is wrong. There. Done. And I'm not interested in hashing it out with him. Ta ta!
I find it amusing that you suggest that I will never change my mind and then say that I am "wrong. There, Done. And I'm not interested in hashing it out with him". How ironic is that?
Bring us unambiguous, scientifically testable evidence that paranormal phenomenon exist, and you will no doubt be surprised to find not only me, but a lot of other scientists questioning what is and isn't possible. That's how the scientific process works. 20 years ago, I would have said it is not possible for amateur astronomers to take images on the ground with limited equipment that compares to what the great observatories were cranking out photographically back then. And yet amateurs do it today with relative ease. That is why you have not seen me say that it is NOT possible that paranormal phenomenon exist. What I am saying is that is that based on what we know about the world in which we live, it is unlikely, but if it does exist, we need unambiguous, testable, repeatable physical evidence, and today, we don't have anything remotely like that in any of the data. So my skepticism remains until such time that we see degrees of freedom or sigma levels that warrant making significant affirmative announcements.
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.
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.
Ta ta!