|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 10, 2009 01:11 PM |
|
|
Which is what makes these things so difficult to evaluate, in my opinion. Not in terms of credibility, mind you.
They mostly look like, well, someone turning the frequency dial of a radio and getting random noise, a couple unconnected words. What can you make of it? Is someone talking somewhere, someWHEN? With whom? What's going on?
Not enough data.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 01:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
All the rest is fiction, and fiction is for people who read, and if you read you are a NERD! I for one never learned to read because I'm cool 
Where do you get your facts from?
History is written. 
Duh, I get all my facts from Youtube and the Daily Show with John Stewart.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 02:34 PM |
|
|
No Wikipedia?
You dissapoint me 
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 01:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No Wikipedia?
You dissapoint me
He doesn't read, remember?
He'll need way more than ordinary reading skills to comprehend the crazy non-intuitive sucky descriptions in wikipedia
I've "heard" ghosts though, and no I don't hear voices like a schizophrenic, since I only did twice, plus the words were totally unintelligible to me (it was a weird language, definitely not romanian or english). 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:08 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:11, 11 Jun 2009.
|
@Mytical
Quote:
First, do you believe man has went to the moon?
Yes.
Quote:
If so I have a hypothetical question for you. Assuming a cosmic event makes future moon trips impossible, would you then argue that we never went to the moon in the first place?
I'm afraid I don't really understand the question.
EDIT:
And it's purely absurd posts like this...
Quote:
Currently, Mechanists are winning in the popularity polls due to the Theory of Evolution, which appears, at first glance, to explain all the forms and properties of life. However, under intense scrutiny, Evolution falls apart like a sand castle. Mechanism's advantage is false; eventually it will be exposed and balance will be restored between the two schools.
... that make me avoid threads like this.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 06:39 AM |
|
|
@ Corribus
A lot of people have a 'if it is not reproducable, it is not authentic' mentality when it comes to 'paranormal' activity. You are one of the more intelligent people I know, and I would like your input. The question was a way of getting you involved  . (Or trying).
I believe that there are such things as Free Form Apparitions that might be classified as what is commonly referred to as 'ghosts'. The spirits or 'souls' of once living entities who's physical forms have been left behind for any number of reasons. The problem is, that proof is, while maybe not impossible, very improbable. The reason being that each instance is unique, with elements that a) may not be known, or b) may be so rare as to not be reproducable.
Although I have seen something whose design was contrary to current human design, I do not believe we have yet been visited by beings not native to the planet earth. That is not to say that people have not seen or been in contact by beings that are not human, but that these beings might not be from another planet. (This would take a LOT of explaining).
In the past you have seemed to me a 'Show me' kind of person, and my question is basically if a varified theory suddenly (for whatever reason) became unreproducable would that mean that the theory was never valid at all?
To Father. The problem is, that as much as we might like to show people what we have experienced, it is not currently possible. While we may know that we have had these experieneces, and that we are honest in our relaying of them, others will have a hard time believing this. If the roles were reversed, I would be one of the more skeptical people. So we must keep in mind that no matter how real our experiences are, that others might not believe it, and not take it personal that they do not.
After all if somebody came up to me today and told me that they had just seen say a unicorn, I would be very skeptical of their claim. The question we, who have had these experiences, have to ask ourselves is this. If we are not willing to believe everything (and we really should not be), then how can we ask others to believe us?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 08:57 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 09:11, 11 Jun 2009.
|
The most amusing proof against psychics is the Zener card prediction experiment. One of the conditions of the experiment is the removal of emotion from the setting; emotion is considered to be a wild variable that can interfere with the experiment. To accomplish this, the subject and experimenter sit alone in plain rooms, and the psychic attempts to predict which symbol with no meaning that will show on the next card. When he/she fails, the experimenter declares that the psychic is a fraud.
I find this amusing, because the future-sight phenomenon is a fundamentally emotional ability. It only happens at times of crisis, when the psychic is strongly emotionally tied to the outcome of events. So of course this experiment can't work! If you really want to test for future sight, you need to violently murder someone the psychic is close to. Oops! That's a violation of several regulations.
@ Corribus: There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Evolution. Every single example of one organism evolving into another has been later shown to be an error, coincidence, or gross speculation. Why should I believe in a theory with such a poor track record? Also, I didn't say that Vitalism would win. Mechanism still has arguments on its side even with the loss of Evolution. I just said that scientists would go back to being evenly split on the topic.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 10:18 AM |
|
|
@ Mytical
Quote:
I believe that there are such things as Free Form Apparitions that might be classified as what is commonly referred to as 'ghosts'. The spirits or 'souls' of once living entities who's physical forms have been left behind for any number of reasons. The problem is, that proof is, while maybe not impossible, very improbable. The reason being that each instance is unique, with elements that a) may not be known, or b) may be so rare as to not be reproducable.
See, here is your error: You say there are such things as free form apparitions. That's fine. It's a name for something that seemingly a lot of people witness or have witnessed.
But now you follow with a complete stab into the dark: you EXPLAIN what it is by making use of other unexplained things: "The spirits (?show me one) or souls (? show me one) of once living...."
You explain an unclear thing with another unclear thing: we don't know whether there are souls and spirits or not.
So instead of giving a valid explanation for a certain phenomenon, you say IF there were souls or spirits as well as ghosts, THEN we might say that ghosts are somehow souls being visible...
But explaing ghosts with souls doesn't help. You could just as well say, there are souls that neither god nor satan wants, so they wander round.
To make the problem even more clear: 5000 years back you see lightning. You even see it hit a tree. Repeatedly. Facts are clear: there is some very deadly force at work that has a grudge against trees, especially high trees. Additionlly it's accompanied by a thundering roar most of the time. So lightning is a Force Manifestation (fine so far). Some god has a long-going problem with trees, when they are too big, and smashes them down with his force hammer. (Stab in the dark with some very unclear words.)
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 03:31 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:14, 11 Jun 2009.
|
@Mytical
Quote:
I believe that there are such things as Free Form Apparitions that might be classified as what is commonly referred to as 'ghosts'. The spirits or 'souls' of once living entities who's physical forms have been left behind for any number of reasons. The problem is, that proof is, while maybe not impossible, very improbable. The reason being that each instance is unique, with elements that a) may not be known, or b) may be so rare as to not be reproducable.
An event's rarity or uniqueness does not preclude it from being predicted by scientific theory. The thing is, claims of ghosts or other paranormal phenomena are not rare at all - people are claiming to see them all the time. Don't you think it a bit odd, then, that despite the high frequency of such claims, there's not one bit of real scientific evidence to support them?
Quote:
In the past you have seemed to me a 'Show me' kind of person, and my question is basically if a varified theory suddenly (for whatever reason) became unreproducable would that mean that the theory was never valid at all?
Well that's a fine hypothetical question but I don't really see it being that relevant. Reproducibility is an adjective that applies to observation; we take it as axiomatic that any observation is reproducible if the conditions are the same. Theories are predictive frameworks to explain observations. If a previously reproducible observation is no longer reproducible, that means your conditions have changed. That doesn't invalidate your theory. It means the theory needs to be expanded to include the new conditions/observations.
@Rarensu
Quote:
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Evolution. Every single example of one organism evolving into another has been later shown to be an error, coincidence, or gross speculation.
If you think so.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 20:09, 11 Jun 2009.
|
Again JJ I am not going to argue semantics with you. Feel free to call them however you desire. Souls, spirits, gwekljft, doesn't matter to me. Yes, I believe that human beings have spirits, or souls. That when we pass from this life that sometimes these things can stick around and under very odd circumstances can be visible to those who are still in their mortal coil. Since we, as humans, rely on words having common deffinitions I refer to these things as ghosts (or free form apparitions), as that is what most people associate with such things.
As for not being able to 'show' you a spirit, I can not 'show' you air (though I can show you smoke or other things) under normal circumstances. Does that mean that air does not exsist? Yes we have ways of seeing 'air' and in the future we might have ways of seeing 'spirits'.
My appologies JJ, but the next time you post asking for a 'definition' or clarification, I will have to ignore it. It is an excersise in futility.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 09:03 PM |
|
|
Mytical, I'm pretty sick of reading something about semantics, when the only thing I'm trying to tell you is that you cannot explain a scientifically completely unproven phenomenon with the terms of another scientifically completely unproven phenomenn.
In the terms of RELIGION in which you explain it (soul is a religious term), GHOSTS are very doubtfl things. If I'm not completely wrong Christian dogma calls Ghost superstitious beliefs - but Christian dogma accepts the existance of demons (that can posess humans).
Well, everyone has their religious beliefs - some believe in gods, souls, angels and hell, others believe in ghosts as well or exclusively or whatever - but it's SOLELY a question of belief EXACTLY as religion: there are enough people who claim to have been witnessing miracles as well.
The one thing all believers in something seem to have in common is a lack of interest in finding a mundane explanation for the things they claim to be proof for anything, whether it's god, ghost, angels - or aliens.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 09:05 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:05, 11 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
As for not being able to 'show' you a spirit, I can not 'show' you air (though I can show you smoke or other things) under normal circumstances. Does that mean that air does not exsist? Yes we have ways of seeing 'air' and in the future we might have ways of seeing 'spirits'.
Certainly you can believe in anything you want. Empirical data or theories are not required to simply believe in something.
However, the scientific approach requires you to propose a mechanism to explain an observation. Further it requires that the mechanism be testable. Typically, the former leads naturally to the latter. Until such time as both conditions are satisfied, a proposition is not really scientific. Note that practicality isn't really a matter of concern, at least on a theoretical level. Certainly to lend support to a theory, experimentation must eventually be done. I'm just speaking about the fundamental requirements for an explanation to be scientific.
If you don't care about being scientific, then, of course - believe in whatever you want.
By the way, there are plenty of things we can't see with the unaided eye. That's why we have scientific instruments. Not being able to "see" ghosts is not the only - nay, not even the primary - reason why the concept is not scientific.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 12, 2009 10:06 AM |
|
|
You have to be careful when you use the word scientific!
Back when it was first coined, it was supposed to mean what we think is does: use reason and experiments to draw conclusions. It's not supposed to have anything to so with belief.
Today, a lot of people who call themselves "scientists," believe in things that cannot be proven, such as the Big Bang and Mechanism. There's nothing wrong with believing in these things, but it is a mistake to call this belief "scientific". People who dogmatically hold to these beliefs, while asserting that they are the Truth, are no better than the religious people who used to persecute them.
That's why I avoid using the term Scientific; it's full of hidden misconceptions.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 12, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:45, 12 Jun 2009.
|
Please note, Father, that my sarcasm doesn't have anything to do with my attitudes
I actually don't exclude the existance of the paranormal. If I'm agnostic about religion, I can be agnostic about this, too.
In fact, I know of several strange first-hand experiences on the matter, but they all happened in dreams. Both my grandmothers experienced them, as well as the late grandmother of one of my close friends.
For example, the friend's grandmother's late husband showed up in one of her dreams, in a carriage with a strange man clad in black. He said, "No, it's not that time yet, darling, don't enter the carriage". After a while she had the exact same dream, but her husband said "Come, love, it's time now". She died a few days later.
Still, there was no ectoplasm or ghosts or UFOs. Just dreams. But I'm not among those that claim that science already has an answer to everything, though it helps to have proof.
Again, I don't definitely believe in the paranormal, but I don't exclude its existance either. Corribus please don't look at me like I have an IQ of 18 now 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 12, 2009 03:25 PM |
|
|
@Bak
Quote:
Again, I don't definitely believe in the paranormal, but I don't exclude its existance either. Corribus please don't look at me like I have an IQ of 18 now
You idiot!
No, really, I think you sort of misread my point of view. I don't hold anything against someone who believes in something paranormal. I hold something against someone who believes in something paranormal and therefore nonscientfic, but tries to pass it off as scientific, or uses logic to argue about its validity. (E.g., the Creationist who believes that his viewpoint is a valid scientific theory.)
While I may hold a personal belief as to the existence of God, or whatever, I'm also an agnostic, because I recognize that, being fundamentally nonscientific (and, hence, not capable of being observed, at least in their current formulation), it will never be possible to know whether God (substitute ghosts, or whatever you want) does or does not exist. The infinitive "to know" is pretty much synonymous with the infinitive "to observe", and if something is capable of being observed, it is thus scientific.
The question of whether or not the paranormal (nonphysical, however you want to call it) "exists" (a really nebulous word) is, when you get down to it, not one worth asking. If it's paranormal, you cannot, by definition, know. And if you could know the answer to that question, then it would no longer be paranormal. It's sort of a Catch-22.
@Rarensu
I'm a professional scientist. I think I know what the word "scientific" means.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 12, 2009 08:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have to be careful when you use the word scientific!
Back when it was first coined, it was supposed to mean what we think is does: use reason and experiments to draw conclusions. It's not supposed to have anything to so with belief.
Today, a lot of people who call themselves "scientists," believe in things that cannot be proven, such as the Big Bang and Mechanism. There's nothing wrong with believing in these things, but it is a mistake to call this belief "scientific". People who dogmatically hold to these beliefs, while asserting that they are the Truth, are no better than the religious people who used to persecute them.
That's why I avoid using the term Scientific; it's full of hidden misconceptions.
I think you confuse the terms. I agree about most people using the wrong term, but just because something is scientific does not mean it is proven without doubt (in science there always is doubt, else it wouldn't change at all). And just because something is scientific does not mean that it is fully explained -- actually NOTHING is fully explained, all we have are models.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 13, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
With all due respect, Father, the thread's title is "Supernatural, Paranormal, or..." Not exactly a very well defined title. Besides which, I'm not really sure it's up to you to determine what the "official" breadth of a thread's subject matter is, especially a thread that you didn't initiate. Mytical started the thread, and indeed, the defining question of her first post is: "Does every myth have a grain of truth?" As such, I think the definition of scientific is quite relevant, particularly if your beliefs are shaped by the boundaries of science.
On a more general level, I don't think "on topic" necessarily has to be synonymous with "relating directly to the very first post". After 40 or 50 posts, I think it's natural that the focus of a thread is going to change. To my mind, posting off-topic means discussing a topic which (A) has no relationship to the thread's title topic at all AND (B) has no significant relationship to the context of the current posts in the thread. If a thread started out discussing Descartes and ends up discussing ping-pong balls, that's fine with me, as long as there's a logical if meandering trail connecting the two.
In any case, this isn't Parliament, so who gives a ship whether we're "on topic" or not? If people are enjoying themselves and are being civil, does it matter? What is "on topic" is defined by consensus. If you don't like the direction a thread has gone, post something and steer it in another direction. If what you post is interesting, people will follow.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2009 11:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why do people have such a God **** hard time about keeping a ******* thread on topic? I mean really?? Does your pride and ego not get stroked enough in real life that you have to come here and try to knock others down so that you can step up a rung on your immaginary ladder? And then you do it with little smiles and crap or try to sugar coat it with sarcasim and wit....please people.... (rolls eyes)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 12:36 AM |
|
|
Pretty sure that if I were to post what Corribus did (to Father), I would get a warning, silence, or penalty
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus,
Yeah well with "all do respect" you are wrong IMO. I'm not even going to grace that post with further imput or reply. It just goes to prove further points made in the past. Anyways..
Nice Science thread Mytical.
Fine post. Just the post that is bound to make people just have a good time, respect what they say, listen to the others, yes, open mind, open ears.
Ah, the grace of it..
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
