Psychic abilities and phenomena: the scientific/skeptic analysis
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, August 26, 2006 22:49
VIEWED: 10059
PAGE 2 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
There's a difference between saying somebody's mistaken or wrong and saying they're lying.
Yes there is. Theres also a difference between saying someones mistaken or wrong and saying they're a fraud or a hoaxer.
Quote:
That's how it is. Jews don't see Christians in the street and sneer "Ha, you guys got had by a false prophet." They act like respectful adults to each other, even though they disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the other.
Been my point all along.
Quote:
This thread asked what I believed, I stated it. This doesn't mean I consider those who do believe to be liars or fools. Simply that we have different beliefs.
Thank You.
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Science says:
The Earth is flat
The Earth is round.
Butter is bad for you.
Butter is good for you.
So-called psychic abilities have no grounds for a basis in actual fact.
So-called psychic ability is all around us all the time to different degrees. (this last one is yet to come....)
ChrisisallMuldar
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I don’t think science, in general, ever really said this. The flat-earth thing was a parochial concept even during the Middle-ages, held almost solely by the uneducated masses, if at all. There certainly was no concerted mainstream belief that the earth was flat, going back as far as at least Aristotle. There were a few crackpots, but they were very rare and widely discredited. The whole flat earth concept actually emerged during the 19th century as an attack by Intellectuals on the Christian church, which means that it is really nothing more then anti-Christian propaganda. The fact that so many people unquestioningly accept that medieval Christians believed the earth to be flat is a testament to just how successful propaganda within academia can be. This is why people like Ward Churchill are so dangerous. Fruitcake academics who teach classes full of young impressionable people are capable of doing untold damage to society by melding their fruitcakey often viciously bigoted political issues into the popular belief that may propagate for centuries.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Science says:
The Earth is flat
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Skirt the point, why don't you, that was passes for truth in science today just might be disproven or radically adjusted tomorrow. In that way, science is like spirituality; once you stop and say "There. I've got it, I'm done now.", you destroy the process in favour of a belief, which leads to a belief-system, and then, my friend, you're lost.
Science (like logic) is the beginning of wisdom, and it's always in motion.
Did I sound profound there?
What do you expect, Sartre? Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not really.
You're confusing "science" with "popular belief". There really was no science before the scientific method came in over the last two hundred years. There was way too much blindly following the words of previous generations.
Nowadays for science to stand up, it has to be based on repeatable experiments. You say that what "passes for truth in science today just might be disproven or radically adjusted tomorrow." Can you point to any major scientific standpoint that has required such an adjustment over the last fifty years, say?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. In a way that was my point. Ideas can become mired and dogmatic, even within academia, and new ideas emerge to replace old ideas. Science is always alive and changing, which is why it is generally very questionable to speak in terms of a “scientific consensus” on anything but the most widely accepted ideas, and even those can be replaced with newer better ideas. Science should always be open to change and new ideas. That does not mean that science should necessarily embrace unfounded and inconclusive concepts, because new ideas and open-minded practices can be just as dogmatic. Science should be guided by the evidence.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Skirt the point, why don't you, that was passes for truth in science today just might be disproven or radically adjusted tomorrow. In that way, science is like spirituality; once you stop and say "There. I've got it, I'm done now.", you destroy the process in favour of a belief, which leads to a belief-system, and then, my friend, you're lost.
Quote:Very Spockish. Late Spock, not early Spock.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Science (like logic) is the beginning of wisdom, and it's always in motion.
Did I sound profound there?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Did I sound profound there? Very Spockish. Late Spock, not early Spock.
I am honoured, sir.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ack! The dreaded double-post!!!!
Hobbes, get my eraser!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:T-Rex was thought to stand more upright until relativly recently...
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Can you point to any major scientific standpoint that has required such an adjustment over the last fifty years, say?
HEY! That's MAJOR!!! If we hadn't readjusted our understanding of that...JURASSIC PARK would have looked silly!!!!
Chrisisall, who may as well be a T-Rex; he has a mighty roar
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I don't think science ever says anything.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Actually, I don’t think science, in general, ever really said this.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Science says:
The Earth is flat.
Scientists say a lot. They blabber all the time. Science, not so much.
I reiterate that science is not a body of knowledge. It is a method, a system, a tool. The people who use this tool interpret, hypothesize, theorize, and conclude. The tool itself? Very quiet.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME