40 replies to this topic

[karmakazi]

Emma_Acid, on 01 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

To be blunt - this is a problem that lies with you, not with science.

Firstly, how many people have access to such equipment? Lots. There are such a vast amount of people working in an area like physics that if something wasn't true, we'd know about it. Unless you're suggesting that every single person who works in physics today is in on some form of conspiracy?

Science is not a fascistic monolithic institution. Dissent is scrutinised, not crushed. You cannot be seriously entertaining the idea that every single physicist it either lying or ignorant about wave-particle duality. There's are tens of thousands of people working in the field of particle physics. If it wasn't a true reflection of reality, this would simply not be possible.

How do we know that physicists aren't lying or deluded? Because we see evidence of it in every day technology. If quantum physics didn't work, neither would your computer. Or your strip lighting. Or your hospital equipment.

Name one piece of technology built on fringe or pseudo science that actually works?

(Clue: there isn't one)




Nope, sorry, this is called special pleading, and is a logical fallacy. It isn't accepted as a valid argument. If something exists, science can measure it. We can accurately describe particles so small that we would never be able to actually know they existed, and yet much of today's technology relies on what we know about the electron.

Saying "science can't measure this", is a cop out. Pure and simple.




That's not true at all. Science is about learning the mysteries of the universe. Nothing would change the world more than discovering something like psi actually exists.

The problem is, at a very very basic level - and I can't stress this enough - there is no evidence for psi - there is nothing to investigate.


You really, really need to put some time in learning about how science as an industry works.

By misunderstanding my point you've illustrated it beautifully.

[encouraged]

In the OP is a paragraph that I feel is paramount, if we are going to find proof of the paranormal:

encouraged, on 29 February 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.

One OBE researcher has been known to put geometric symbols in the corner of heart surgical units. I would suspect him to get the same statistical deviation of the random number generator ESP experiments. In other words, have to accumulate tens of thousands of events to find a significant statistical deviation. However, if those were put on the top of the hair bonnets or caps of the surgical staff, I suspect the deviation would increase. And better yet, if a name tag of some other individual were fastened to the bonnet or cap, a higher figure even yet would be obtained. And best of all, also a projection of a real-time, live video image of his family in the waiting room, awaiting the surgical outcome and to see him again. Have in the image a real time, live background of some place, and the activities of people or animals in that location (via blue screen), to be described by the patient in event of an OBE.

Thus the experiment has been transformed from a purely inanimate object, meaningless relationship to an extremely meaningful relationship experiment.

[And while I have some one's attention, also have a "yoked sleep" experiment in which the person yoked to the patient is to dream what is available from the mind of the patient during that surgical prep-to-awakening time. Have that person relate his dreams regardless of an OBE having happened.]

The principal I am trying to relate is an outcome of Dr. Ken Pike and my discussions, during a time when he was considering thoughts concerning the possibilities of a "Meaning Based Philosophical System" (SIL Norman, Summer, 1986.) Having set me on that path of thought, coupled with my own interpretations of my own unique experiences, I came to realize that my paranormal experiences were coupled to meaningful relationships, and meaningful relationships are a result of the association living creatures have with one another, be they friends or unknown previously to them.

Such a discussion obviously precludes a discussion on if the paranormal exists, and has as an assumption, that kinds of paranormal activities backed by huge numbers of anecdotal descriptions do indeed exist. Thus the discussion would continue but not on the basis of if or not the paranormal exists but rather the improvement, possible results, opinions , etc. of such an experiment.

[aquatus1]

Seeker79, on 01 March 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Certainly that effort will never be put in will it? Once someone has placed their faith in a particular axiom ( I think that's the right word... Maby paradime would be better) , reguardless  ... There is no point in persuing evidence of another unless it fits within that paradime.

Only if you insist on believing that scientists believe scientific methodology is complete and infallible.  Real scientists, of course, know better.

The simple fact of the matter (and yes, it is a simple fact, non-negotiable, and a matter of historical record) is that the axioms and paradigms of science were not dictated by either whim or fancy.  Every single one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology exists solely because science encountered something in reality which did not fit into its previous rules, and so it did the intelligent thing and changed its rules to fit reality.  

Every single axiom and rule of scientific methodology applies to every single theory in existence.  No exceptions.  Everything from the most cutting edge theories of quantum physics to the most ancient and utterly over-proven Pythagorean Theorem, every single one keeps to the same pre-requisites prior to being considered scientific.  There is no special pleading.  There is no grandfathering.

Nor are the paradigms written in stone.  Indeed, the latest of these pre-requisites was put into place in the 1940's.  And, like all the others, the rule had to apply to every single theory out there.

Quote

The realm of spirituality is immaterial and personal. Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective.

No, it does not.  This has been explained to you.  Examples have been show to you.  At this point, if you continue insisting on it, you are either intentionally denying it or simply do not understand it.  Either way, it is your issue, not that of science.

Science does not focus exclusively on materialism and objectivity.  If it is shown that a logical argument will support a theory, and the logical argument meets all the prerequisites of scientific methodology, it will be accepted as valid (whether it is accepted as correct is a different matter altogether).

Quote

It's clear.... So clear... that if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist.

Possibly, though not at all necessarily, as far as logic goes.

Misleading, if not downright deceptive, as far as actual accuracy goes.

"Materialists" and "scientists" are not interchangeable.  To pretend they are is to either be ignorant of their definitions or intentionally attempting to take advantage of the ignorance of others to convince them you are correct by misleading them.  

Personally, I don't believe you are ignorant.


When all is said and done, if people wish for the paranormal or the supernatural to be considered scientific, they need to do either one of two things:

1)  They can meet all the currently existing pre-requisites of scientific methodology, just like every single other theory in existence does, or...

2)  They can create a new pre-requisite, which universally defines the new data, and which applies both to present, future, and past, theories.  Just like all the other pre-requisites do.  Just like Karl Popper did in the 1940's.

Referring to others as "copping out" because they are following rules that have been proven and shown to apply to every existing theory, past and present, while not showing an alternative method of either applying a rule, or a new rule altogether, has a name, but I tend to simplify it to two simple terms, depending on the general attitude of the people using that argument.

The first is "Whining".  The second is "Sour Grapes"

[Seeker79]

aquatus1, on 02 March 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Only if you insist on believing that scientists believe scientific methodology is complete and infallible.  

The simple fact of the matter (and yes, it is a simple fact, non-negotiable, and a matter of historical record) is that the axioms and paradigms of science were not dictated by either whim or fancy.  Every single one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology exists solely because science encountered something in reality which did not fit into its previous rules, and so it did the intelligent thing and changed its rules to fit reality.  

Every single axiom and rule of scientific methodology applies to every single theory in existence.  No exceptions.  Everything from the most cutting edge theories of quantum physics to the most ancient and utterly over-proven Pythagorean Theorem, every single one keeps to the same pre-requisites prior to being considered scientific.  There is no special pleading.  There is no grandfathering.

Nor are the paradigms written in stone.  Indeed, the latest of these pre-requisites was put into place in the 1940's.  And, like all the others, the rule had to apply to every single theory out there.

  

No, it does not.  This has been explained to you.  Examples have been show to you.  At this point, if you continue insisting on it, you are either intentionally denying it or simply do not understand it.  Either way, it is your issue, not that of science.

Science does not focus exclusively on materialism and objectivity.  If it is shown that a logical argument will support a theory, and the logical argument meets all the prerequisites of scientific methodology, it will be accepted as valid (whether it is accepted as correct is a different matter altogether).



Possibly, though not at all necessarily, as far as logic goes.

Misleading, if not downright deceptive, as far as actual accuracy goes.

"Materialists" and "scientists" are not interchangeable.  To pretend they are is to either be ignorant of their definitions or intentionally attempting to take advantage of the ignorance of others to convince them you are correct by misleading them.  

Personally, I don't believe you are ignorant.


When all is said and done, if people wish for the paranormal or the supernatural to be considered scientific, they need to do either one of two things:

1)  They can meet all the currently existing pre-requisites of scientific methodology, just like every single other theory in existence does, or...

2)  They can create a new pre-requisite, which universally defines the new data, and which applies both to present, future, and past, theories.  Just like all the other pre-requisites do.  Just like Karl Popper did in the 1940's.

Referring to others as "copping out" because they are following rules that have been proven and shown to apply to every existing theory, past and present, while not showing an alternative method of either applying a rule, or a new rule altogether, has a name, but I tend to simplify it to two simple terms, depending on the general attitude of the people using that argument.

The first is "Whining".  The second is "Sour Grapes"

You still think I'm talking about science itself... Im not never have been. People, politics, dogma, rederik. I guess scientists are so enlightened that the are immune to these things?

"Real scientists, of course, know better."

See. That is 80% of what I have been getting at.

The proof is in your statements aswell. You assume and keep saying I don't understand science or the methodology. I understand it just fine. I have a degree in economics ( also uses the scientific method) I used to tutor statistics and econometrics... A dozen years ago.

Just because I dont agree or have the faith in it that you do... You keep saying it's been explained to me and in just being stubborn to the truth,,, it's sounds horrendously like my arguments with Christians and the their literal view of the bible. Certainly more sophisticated but very similar,

Edited by Seeker79, 02 March 2012 - 01:58 AM.

[aquatus1]

karmakazi, on 01 March 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

How many people can afford or have access to equipment that can test whether photons really exhibit wave-particle duality?  How many people get to actually see the structure of DNA for themselves?  How many people can be there when the LHC is in operation and see the results for themselves?

A surprising amount, actually.  In fact, you have to reserve time on the equipment often months in advance, just because of the demand.

Let's face it: The problem is not that people cannot repeat the experiments.  The problem is that you have difficulty trusting the people who have.

Quote

The rest of us who do not have direct access to such equipment in order to test theories for ourselves are left with two choices.  We can either believe what is claimed as evidence by such testing or we can consider that those results are being relayed to us by human beings.  Human beings, a species whose members have proven time and time again to be after their own individual agendas whether those agendas drive them to be honest or dishonest.

And here is where the perceptual error begins to crop up.  Here is where we slowly move away from the relevance of scientific methodology, to the relevance of personal confidence.

So, let's focus on this for a bit:  For starters, you (and I mean the "general" you, not "you" specifically, Karma) you know damn well that you do not have the academic or technical knowledge to even identify atoms, quarks, and bosons, let alone test the theories that use these just as the basic vocabulary of the field.  So, right off the bat, let's discard the ridiculous notion that we cannot believe in something unless we ourselves actually do it.  Really, think about it: Most people don't even apply this sort of thinking to their own cars or AC equipment.  Could you earn the academic and technical knowledge to fix your own car and your own AC?  Of course.  Do you?  No.  You get a person who has the knowledge and experience to do it for you.  You hire a professional.

And, just to forestall any nit-picky arguments, I reiterate, I am speaking generally.  I am not referring to people who actually are car mechanics or AC repairmen.  

You don't hire a professional intending to trust them without question.  Nor do you hire a professional intending to run the same test that he did and confirm for yourself that what they claim is actually true.  You are perfectly willing to recognize that they know more and have more experience than you do on that particular subject.  That is not the problem.

The problem is, simply put, that you are simply uncomfortable in placing your trust on them.  Most people would absolutely love to know everything about a bunch of different topics, but the reality of the matter is that we don't, we can't, and we have to trust that experts do, at least, in their own fields.  What we do not have to do is trust blindly.  We check into the credibility of our experts.  We check into their past jobs.  We check into their current status.  We check into who has validated their work.  In other words, even though we do not have the ability to check their work ourselves, we do have the ability to check the likelihood that they are either lying or telling the truth.

It is of utmost importance to be able to understand our true reasons for our actions, rather than the logical reasons we habitually impose over what are really emotionally based decisions.  Behaviour tends to be the truest indicator of when we are caught up in our own hypocrisy.  If we, regardless of whether we are believers, skeptics, materialists, scientists, or even psychics, tend to use different behaviours, different standards, for what is essentially the same problem, then it may well be a sign that we have, at some point, made an assumption that we should not have made.  

We can't claim that a lack of knowledge of car repair can be resolved through "trust, but verify" of an expert, but then turn around and claim the same does not apply to lack of knowledge regarding particle physics.  The problem is, essentially the same in terms of data, and in terms of significance, I would argue that the car is likely of more immediate impact to one's life than current research in quantum physics.  And it is almost nonsensical to claim that no one is going to research something that has no material evidence of its existence while using examples of quantum science.  We do try to be logical, but we keep getting caught in logical fallacies;  If we assume all scientists are materialistic, of course it is going to make sense that scientists would rather have a reliable paycheck, as opposed to scientific immortality.  But we cannot assume that, and then state that humans have egos, and occasionally act irrationally.  We cannot use two standards for the same behaviour, and still expect things to make sense.  Behaviour tends to remain constant; where we confused is with the reasons we tend to give for our behaviours.  I have found a handy rule of thumb to be the following:  "Your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality".

If you find yourself confused, perhaps, somewhere along the line, something that you believe is fiction.

When all is said and done, scientists do research the paranormal.  Grants are given for that research, provided the scientists have shown themselves to be credible.  Scientists, on a fairly regular basis, do theoretical research, which means observation and material results are not the primary means of gathering data.

When all is said and done, new phenomena is discovered.  If the prerequisites of scientific methodology cannot account for it, the prerequisites are either changed or added on to.  Every single scientific theory in existence meets these prerequisites.  In other words, the prerequisites are not what human research demands from nature;  The prerequisites are what nature itself has shown us to apply to reality.  And, yes, we are still discovering them.

When all is said and done...it is conceit to think that we need to personally verify everything prior to believing.  Not only that, but if we truly do believe it, yet our behaviour shows otherwise, it is also self-deception, and that is a fault of Ego.  The conflict between science and belief rarely has to do with intelligence or data.  More often than not, the problem is communication between people.  And most tellingly, the debate most often centers around trust.  Those that declare that too much of it is demanded, and those who declare that none is needed at all.

The simple fact that we are human would indicate that the true answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

[aquatus1]

Seeker79, on 02 March 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

You still think I'm talking about science itself...

No, I do not.  I think that you are using a strawman argument by creating a false definition of science as materialistic and then using that to support your claims that we should not use scientific standards for the spiritual because the paranormal is not materialistic.

Basically, I believe you are intentionally wrong in defining science, I believe you are conceptually wrong in equating spirituality with the paranormal, and I believe that your primary tactic is not even to use your strawman to logically show the opposing thought to be wrong, but simply to give you something to ridicule in your opponent, in the hopes that no one actually notices you haven't really shown why it is actually wrong.

Quote

Im not never have been. People, politics, dogma, rederik. I guess scientists are so enlightened that the are immune to these things?

Case in point.

Quote

"Real scientists, of course, know better."

See. That is 80% of what I have been getting at.

I'm sure it is.  I have no doubt whatsoever that you want people to see this as nothing more than scientific arrogance.

It is, after all, much better then having people stop, think about it, and consider:

"Y'know...maybe it does make sense that a real scientist actually does know better at how science works.  Kinda like a car mechanic does actually know better how a car works.  Maybe the guy who apparently has some thing about science, judging by his personal comments, is wrong when he implies that scientists are so confident in their infallibility that they won't ever bother to look for other phenomena or explanations"

Quote

The proof is in your statements aswell. You assume and keep saying I don't understand science or the methodology. I understand it just fine. I have a degree in economics ( also uses the scientific method) I used to tutor statistics and econometrics... A dozen years ago.

Like I said, I don't believe you are ignorant.

Quote

Just because I dont agree or have the faith in it that you do...

And this after I wrote that entire thing about the role of faith vs. trust when coming to a conclusion...

Quote

You keep saying it's been explained to me and in just being stubborn to the truth,,,

Not at all.  This has nothing to do with truth.  It has to do with accuracy.  That you agree, disagree, whatever, I don't really care, however, that you continue to define science incorrectly, after it has been pointed out to you numerous times that the definition is incorrect, and then, whats more, go on to base your entire position on that incorrect definition, and on top of that, ridicule science for holding to a false definition that you created, that has been refuted, both by fact, by explanation, and by example, and which you continue, even now, to try an draw attention away from, by pretending that I am trying to talk about science, as opposed to highlighting the fundamental flaw on which your entire argument hinges...

Quote

it's sounds horrendously like my arguments with Christians and the their literal view of the bible. Certainly more sophisticated but very similar,

Nope.  Didn't work.  Attention is still on target.

"It's clear.... So clear..."

Yes.  It really, really, is.

-Every reason you give in claiming that scientific standards should not apply to the paranormal is based on the false premise that science is materialistic.

-Every rebuttal is actually nothing more than an Appeal to Ridicule.

-Even if we accept as true, just as a "given" assumption, the concept that science is materialistic, there is still no argument which shows it to actually be wrong.  The basic implication is that because it is materialistic, it is wrong.  No explanation is given as to why this conclusion should be accepted.

But even beyond that it the general thrust of the conversation which revolves around the concept of trust.  In all the efforts made to show why science should not be trusted to make conclusions regarding the subject of the paranormal, because of people are putting their blind faith in the words of scientist (which, in and of itself is a false assumption), and that all the safeguards and rules specifically created by science to verify and validate knowledgeable are not infallible, a pretty important point is somewhat glossed over:


What, exactly, is the alternative, and how does it require less faith, let alone blind faith, to believe in?  What other method of validating a given claim is being proposed here?

Edited by aquatus1, 02 March 2012 - 04:03 AM.

[Seeker79]

Aquatus... Brother  ... Listen. I do not have a problem with science, and I do apologize. many times when makeing a generalization I remember to put (. "not all" ) before I make it. Many times I forget. Not all scientists are materialists. But I keep telling you the problem lies not in science the problem lies in people... Then I gave you examples. I'm not trying to draw attention away from anything. I'm only speaking the truth of my perceptions. I don't have the agenda you might think I do.

Don't you get it yet.. I can tell you are smart and passionate, so listen for a second. The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias.... Still listening? Most "real" scientists understand this. That is why there are spiritual scientists more educated than you or I. Those scientists understand That the two occupy different places. One is philosophy, one is verifiable science, still another is personal experience. They understand the meams of certain environments.  Many ( spiritual or not) understand that politics, bias, dogma, charismatic leaders, and guruship that have to be overcome... Still others understand that some are passionatly oposed to certain concepts and creative genuses at tearing it down ( we are talking about scientists here.., very smart people that can be just as misdirected as others). Dont Deni it aquatus. I have read the personal accounts of those in volved in COBE. ( discovered the cosmic background radiation). I have read the  personal struggles of  how the the first guy that understood how string theory should have eleven dimensions. How he was rudiculed. Could not get grad students to help him in the tremendous work load.., only to one day be validated because Somone higher up the chain started thinking the same way. You might want to pay attention to the trials, struggles, and red tape that our celebrated scientists went through in their own words. Then you will see why I mistrust. It's from the horses mouth.

Seriously have you read explanations for NDEs, OBEs.,, that are neither verified, backed up with evidence, predictable, or even plausable. ( see my earlier favorite). Is this science? Really?

Have you read the "scientific" explanations behind the quantum eraser? Some if the involving electrons bouncing back In tine.

Have you read the final rebuttal and story behind the ganzfield experiments. Repeating the experiment until finally Somobify makes a change that "fixes" it. How one very noteworthy scientist had to keep his name off  the paper validating it because everything he did gets pushed through a little easier to be published.

It goes on and on. Read my blogs ... Going back 4 months. am I crazy. If I am delusional, why? Watch out when I point out materialist assumptions.

Edited by Seeker79, 02 March 2012 - 06:20 AM.

[aquatus1]

Seeker79, on 02 March 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Aquatus... Brother  ... Listen. I do not have a problem with science, and I do apologize. many times when makeing a generalization I remember to put (. "not all" ) before I make it. Many times I forget. Not all scientists are materialists.

Yeah, you're batting pretty close to 100 on forgetting that.

Quote

But I keep telling you the problem lies not in science the problem lies in people... Then I gave you examples. I'm not trying to draw attention away from anything. I'm only speaking the truth of my perceptions. I don't have the agenda you might think I do.

Then you are doing a pretty bad job both explaining it and giving examples.  When you say things like:

"Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective."
"...if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist. "
"Even if methodology is presteine it will always be labeled psudoscience.  No matter how acurate the data, no matter what the integrity of the  scientist, no matter how many repeatable trials. "
"Fundamentalism is pretty easy to identify sophisticated or not,"

It is pretty hard not to notice a certain trend.  In my previous response to Karmakazi, I pointed out how behaviour tends to be a bit more honest than our words.  You can claim that you are talking about people, not scientists, but when all of your examples are about scientists, and you specifically address science in a derogatory or dismissive manner:

Quote

"Saying "science can't measure this", is a cop out. Pure and simple"
There are strikingly similar statements in the bible. Fundis are fundies no matter where they reside.
My point made.

It is pretty difficult to not see your continuous emphasis on science.  

Quote

Don't you get it yet..

I do.  I even posted my own comments regarding the human aspect of perception in my response to KarmaKazi.  I am a little surprised that you haven't commented on that, although, to be fair, it was a post directed at another member.

Quote

I can tell you are smart and passionate, so listen for a second. The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias.... Still listening? Most "real" scientists understand this.

Yes, Seeker, they do.  Now, do you understand when I tell you that science does actually account for that?  That what you are talking about has been known for quite some time?

Quote

That is why there are spiritual scientists more educated than you or I. Those scientists understand That the two occupy different places. One is philosophy, one is verifiable science, still another is personal experience. They understand the meams of certain environments.  Many ( spiritual or not) understand that politics, bias, dogma, charismatic leaders, and guruship that have to be overcome... Still others understand that some are passionatly oposed to certain concepts and creative genuses at tearing it down ( we are talking about scientists here.., very smart people that can be just as misdirected as others). Dont Deni it aquatus.

Whose denying it?  I am telling you that not only is it not denied, it is an acknowledge and accepted part of academia.  It is one of the most common truisms in science:  The strength of a theory is its ability to outlive its detractors.

Quote

I have read the personal accounts of those in volved in COBE. ( discovered the cosmic background radiation). I have read the  personal struggles of  how the the first guy that understood how string theory should have eleven dimensions. How he was rudiculed. Could not get grad students to help him in the tremendous work load.., only to one day be validated because Somone higher up the chain started thinking the same way. You might want to pay attention to the trials, struggles, and red tape that our celebrated scientists went through in their own words. Then you will see why I mistrust. It's from the horses mouth.

Do you really think this is an unknown?  Has anything anyone on this site ever said even implied that getting a theory accepted was anything other than hard, unforgiving, often unrewarding, labor?

It is pretty much a given for everyone else.  If you want to change the world, don't expect to go unchallenged.  You learned as a child that life wasn't fair.

Quote

Seriously have you read explanations for NDEs, OBEs.,, that are neither verified, backed up with evidence, predictable, or even plausable. ( see my earlier favorite). Is this science? Really?

Yes, I have read quite a few in my time.  Being that I made sure to read ones from credible sources, it is of little surprise that I found them to be quite plausible.  That is why I spend time making sure the sources are credible; so I don't waste my time reading an explanation only to find out there is no way to determine its plausibility.

It would be good if you take a look at my response to Karma.  I talked about most of this already.

Quote

Have you read the "scientific" explanations behind the quantum eraser? Some if the involving electrons bouncing back In tine.
Have you read the final rebuttal and story behind the ganzfield experiments. Repeating the experiment until finally Somobify makes a change that "fixes" it. How one very noteworthy scientist had to keep his name off  the paper validating it because everything he did gets pushed through a little easier to be published.

Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science?  

Quote

It goes on and on. Read my blogs ... Going back 4 months. am I crazy. If I am delusional, why? Watch out when I point out materialist assumptions.

People actively and aggressively rebutting your efforts is part and parcel of the human experience.  It is not, in any way, limited to to science or materialism.  Why haven't you talked about the times when religions have exhibited this exact same behaviour to keep outsiders from gaining power?  Why haven't you mentioned that two of Porter's Five Forces specifically requires one to deeply analyze and determine the threats from this exact behaviour in the business world?  Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason why you haven't even considered giving examples other than scientific examples is because you don't really care about the behaviour as a behaviour, but rather as an excuse to dismiss the incredibly rigorous standards of science?

You don't find it ironic that your first post on this thread is a dismissal of dismissal?  This didn't twig any red flags in your logic circuits that perhaps a fallacy might be lurking in your reasoning somewhere?  Have you noticed that, in the three times (or four?) that you tried to equate responses to your points to religious responses (the implication being that religious responses are inherently invalid or unreasonable), you yourself have not actually offered an alternative method of validation or verification?  If I were to use your tactic of equating this to religious responses, I would point out the similarities with the Creationist habit of focusing on a Strawman argument of evolution, without offering a better explanation of their own.

But far be it from me to propose an untestable hypothesis.  Forget science.  Forget scientists.  Forget the Prerequisites of scientific methodology.  Let's take it as a given for this argument that they don't exist.

Please, tell me:  How would you go about validating the existence of psi?  Earlier, you mentioned:  "The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias."  Feel free to expand on that.  How would you distinguish it from the explanations that you currently consider unverified, unsupported, unpredictable, and even outright implausible?  How would your alternative decrease the influence of the human behaviour we have been talking about?

[karmakazi]

aquatus1, on 02 March 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

A surprising amount, actually.  In fact, you have to reserve time on the equipment often months in advance, just because of the demand.

It's not really a surprising amount.  I'm going on older census figures but 4% was the amount of science and engineering workforce in the US in 1999 (sources: S&E Workforce  Census Data and obviously it would have increased since then)

Compare that to the number of people believing in the paranormal which is about 3 in 4 people in the US.  Sources (Increase in Paranormal Belief    3 in 4 Believe Paranormal)

There is a huge difference in the amount of those who work in the scientific profession and the general population, and there is a higher percentage that believe in the paranormal than the percentage of scientific profession.  

I appologize because my original post did not at all get the point across that I was trying to make.  I have the habit of occasionally explaining my point without actually stating it... urgh.

Anyway, I was trying to speak to the psychology of people as to why they (in general) either have to believe scientific findings or choose not to.  It's more philosophical than anything.  The problem itself is generalizations.  We say the terms here : atheists, scientists, christians, believers, and in doing so we are generalizing and marginalizing each other.  Not you and I specifically, I mean in the forums... in society.

Quote

Let's face it: The problem is not that people cannot repeat the experiments.  The problem is that you have difficulty trusting the people who have.

It's not that I don't trust scientists unilaterally.  I do in general trust the findings.  A lot of people aren't reading the scientist's own paper about their findings... they're hearing or reading a news story about it that summarizes or worse yet from a friend who saw the news story.  For the most part that's fine, but occasionally it can skew the understanding of what the findings were in the first place.  When I spoke of human falliability I meant the entire chain... the way that the information disseminates out to the "every man" involves a lot of people along the way and everyone puts their own spin on it.  A lot of what people are walking around thinking is accepted science is nothing that was actually reported by any scientist.

Then there are those occasional little bits.... like lemmings.  I was taught several things in school that weren't true to begin with, but were accepted.  I wasn't saying I believe nothing but I was saying that I don't just believe everything I hear either.

Quote

The problem is, simply put, that you are simply uncomfortable in placing your trust on them.  Most people would absolutely love to know everything about a bunch of different topics, but the reality of the matter is that we don't, we can't, and we have to trust that experts do, at least, in their own fields.  What we do not have to do is trust blindly.  We check into the credibility of our experts.  We check into their past jobs.  We check into their current status.  We check into who has validated their work.  In other words, even though we do not have the ability to check their work ourselves, we do have the ability to check the likelihood that they are either lying or telling the truth.

You may do so, but you cannot say the same for the general populace.  Then again, most of the general populace may find the findings interesting when they hear about them but probably don't give them the attention you or I would...

But I'm generalizing and that's where misunderstanding comes in again.

Quote

When all is said and done...it is conceit to think that we need to personally verify everything prior to believing.  Not only that, but if we truly do believe it, yet our behaviour shows otherwise, it is also self-deception, and that is a fault of Ego.  The conflict between science and belief rarely has to do with intelligence or data. More often than not, the problem is communication between people.  And most tellingly, the debate most often centers around trust.  Those that declare that too much of it is demanded, and those who declare that none is needed at all.

The simple fact that we are human would indicate that the true answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

I couldn't agree more.

[Seeker79]

aquatus1, on 02 March 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Yeah, you're batting pretty close to 100 on forgetting that.



Then you are doing a pretty bad job both explaining it and giving examples.  When you say things like:

"Scientific thought focuses on the material and objective."
"...if Something dosnt fit into the materialist paradime then it cannot be taken serious by a materialist. "
"Even if methodology is presteine it will always be labeled psudoscience.  No matter how acurate the data, no matter what the integrity of the  scientist, no matter how many repeatable trials. "
"Fundamentalism is pretty easy to identify sophisticated or not,"

It is pretty hard not to notice a certain trend.  In my previous response to Karmakazi, I pointed out how behaviour tends to be a bit more honest than our words.  You can claim that you are talking about people, not scientists, but when all of your examples are about scientists, and you specifically address science in a derogatory or dismissive manner:



It is pretty difficult to not see your continuous emphasis on science.  



I do.  I even posted my own comments regarding the human aspect of perception in my response to KarmaKazi.  I am a little surprised that you haven't commented on that, although, to be fair, it was a post directed at another member.



Yes, Seeker, they do.  Now, do you understand when I tell you that science does actually account for that?  That what you are talking about has been known for quite some time?



Whose denying it?  I am telling you that not only is it not denied, it is an acknowledge and accepted part of academia.  It is one of the most common truisms in science:  The strength of a theory is its ability to outlive its detractors.



Do you really think this is an unknown?  Has anything anyone on this site ever said even implied that getting a theory accepted was anything other than hard, unforgiving, often unrewarding, labor?

It is pretty much a given for everyone else.  If you want to change the world, don't expect to go unchallenged.  You learned as a child that life wasn't fair.



Yes, I have read quite a few in my time.  Being that I made sure to read ones from credible sources, it is of little surprise that I found them to be quite plausible.  That is why I spend time making sure the sources are credible; so I don't waste my time reading an explanation only to find out there is no way to determine its plausibility.

It would be good if you take a look at my response to Karma.  I talked about most of this already.



Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science?  



People actively and aggressively rebutting your efforts is part and parcel of the human experience.  It is not, in any way, limited to to science or materialism.  Why haven't you talked about the times when religions have exhibited this exact same behaviour to keep outsiders from gaining power?  Why haven't you mentioned that two of Porter's Five Forces specifically requires one to deeply analyze and determine the threats from this exact behaviour in the business world?  Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason why you haven't even considered giving examples other than scientific examples is because you don't really care about the behaviour as a behaviour, but rather as an excuse to dismiss the incredibly rigorous standards of science?

You don't find it ironic that your first post on this thread is a dismissal of dismissal?  This didn't twig any red flags in your logic circuits that perhaps a fallacy might be lurking in your reasoning somewhere?  Have you noticed that, in the three times (or four?) that you tried to equate responses to your points to religious responses (the implication being that religious responses are inherently invalid or unreasonable), you yourself have not actually offered an alternative method of validation or verification?  If I were to use your tactic of equating this to religious responses, I would point out the similarities with the Creationist habit of focusing on a Strawman argument of evolution, without offering a better explanation of their own.

But far be it from me to propose an untestable hypothesis.  Forget science.  Forget scientists.  Forget the Prerequisites of scientific methodology.  Let's take it as a given for this argument that they don't exist.

Please, tell me:  How would you go about validating the existence of psi?  Earlier, you mentioned:  "The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias."  Feel free to expand on that.  How would you distinguish it from the explanations that you currently consider unverified, unsupported, unpredictable, and even outright implausible?  How would your alternative decrease the influence of the human behaviour we have been talking about?

"Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science"

I have, I have , I have . The underlying theme in all of it is sophisticated creativity.

About me not mentioning religions, I have. Look back carefully. if you were religious attempting to proove how your thinking was superior I would be just the same. I'm not religious in the traditional sense.

See now you have moved from Arguing the subject material to arguing about arguing. I don't have a problem  with science, I have said it over and over again. My wife just purchased a hawking book from amazon for my birthday..., ( i didfnt tell her I already have it) hmmm now why would she do that. Possibly because she sees me reading it all the time.

It is a straw man on your part to keep representing me that way. I have made it clear that it's people that cause dogma, politics, rederick, guru ship. I am well aware that the method ATTEMPTS to correct for this. In fact... That's partially what I think is going on. The people trying to bring this material to light are slowly starting to gain ground and are starting to jump through the hoops, get around the bias and red tape and cull the necessary minds. Alchemy today chemistry tomorrow. in tge end the "skeptics" may be remembered as "world is flat" people. Time will tell.

I do have a method aquatus... I can proove it to YOU.... I can also proove it to anyone willing to put in the time and energy... Just as karmajazi was discussing with Emma. The problem lies with the individual. I have to take the quantum esraser on faith because at this moment I am incapable of performing and  experiencing the experiments myself. The same things apply.  to get there  It can take a long time.. Or it can happen right away. But I am certain with the right effort anyone can understand. Buy few do. One skeptic.. Was brave enough to at least try. But like I warned him it takes a little more effort than a passing intrest. Just as it would to get a degree in physics.

What do you say aquatus are you willing to put your time and energy where your mouth is. I will be your personal tutor. I have explored and understand ( for the most part) science aswell the otherside of the coin. I understand your perspective, I was you once. But cannot begin to understand unless you have both perspectives. I'm not talking about telekinesis and teenage super powers I'm talking about things much more interested.

What do you say? Do you want to experience it for yourself? Are you willing to give honest effort? Do you really want to see? Or are you content with your bias and jargon that is simply regurgitation of your indoctrination? Yes I said it. You are indoctrinated into specific way of thinking that has it's own built in self defense mechanisms to hold you here. Not unlike christanity or Islam.

[ai_guardian]

Seeker79, on 02 March 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

I do have a method aquatus... I can proove it to YOU.... I can also proove it to anyone willing to put in the time and energy... Just as karmajazi was discussing with Emma. The problem lies with the individual. I have to take the quantum esraser on faith because at this moment I am incapable of performing and  experiencing the experiments myself. The same things apply.  to get there  It can take a long time.. Or it can happen right away. But I am certain with the right effort anyone can understand. Buy few do. One skeptic.. Was brave enough to at least try. But like I warned him it takes a little more effort than a passing intrest. Just as it would to get a degree in physics.

I know what you are referring to and we have had discussions about that in the past. What do you think you can prove with it to anyone? That there exists an altered state other than the standard 'awake' or dream? Yes, but that is all. There also exists the meditative state, sleep paralysis, nde etc... Read any more into it and you are introducing a bias, you're leading yourself up the garden path so-to-speak and anything you experience with that bias in place will only lead you to confirm your bias and not look at situations/experiences without it. An OBE (much less AP) and its something outside the physical body aspect has never been proven, outside of personal anecdotal accounts, anything else but an altered state to the experience is yet to be determined - and it seems to me that it never will be. It has been decades now with more and more people professing and being able to do these at will (myself included for more than 15 years) and nothing by way of experimental evidence. It took me some 15 years to stop kidding myself, I was on your bandwagon for those 15 years, but I have realised that confirmation bias is the real culprit in these experiences and twisting the truth (or more often embelishing just a tiny bit) often unwittingly to tie the experience in with reality (ie. that the body is really outside the body as opposed to the experience being all internal) makes for a very convincing "story"/'evidence' - to oneself and others.

But, you see, even after Aquatus1 has pointed out to you (in a sense) that the evidence of something existing and with regards to what you're proposing he'd experience, what that something really is, you're under the impression that helping someone have a subjective experience will somehow change the global status quo of evidence (in scientific understanding) for that experience being anything but an altered state. At most you'd stop him from trying to bring you back down to earth & reality, but I'd doubt that. The evidence status will only change once we obtain more than just anecdotal accounts - and as mentioned earlier above - such is not forthcoming even after decades of trying and more and more people being able to reproduce the experiences. Note that I am referring specifically to OBE/AP experiences here.

Seeker79, on 02 March 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

What do you say aquatus are you willing to put your time and energy where your mouth is. I will be your personal tutor. I have explored and understand ( for the most part) science aswell the otherside of the coin. I understand your perspective, I was you once. But cannot begin to understand unless you have both perspectives. I'm not talking about telekinesis and teenage super powers I'm talking about things much more interested.

What do you say? Do you want to experience it for yourself? Are you willing to give honest effort? Do you really want to see? Or are you content with your bias and jargon that is simply regurgitation of your indoctrination? Yes I said it. You are indoctrinated into specific way of thinking that has it's own built in self defense mechanisms to hold you here. Not unlike christanity or Islam.

The very same, in the least but most likely more so, can be said about you and your bias.     And it seems that you have indoctrinated yourself into a specific way of thinking.

[Seeker79]

ai_guardian, on 04 March 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

I know what you are referring to and we have had discussions about that in the past. What do you think you can prove with it to anyone? That there exists an altered state other than the standard 'awake' or dream? Yes, but that is all. There also exists the meditative state, sleep paralysis, nde etc... Read any more into it and you are introducing a bias, you're leading yourself up the garden path so-to-speak and anything you experience with that bias in place will only lead you to confirm your bias and not look at situations/experiences without it. An OBE (much less AP) and its something outside the physical body aspect has never been proven, outside of personal anecdotal accounts, anything else but an altered state to the experience is yet to be determined - and it seems to me that it never will be. It has been decades now with more and more people professing and being able to do these at will (myself included for more than 15 years) and nothing by way of experimental evidence. It took me some 15 years to stop kidding myself, I was on your bandwagon for those 15 years, but I have realised that confirmation bias is the real culprit in these experiences and twisting the truth (or more often embelishing just a tiny bit) often unwittingly to tie the experience in with reality (ie. that the body is really outside the body as opposed to the experience being all internal) makes for a very convincing "story"/'evidence' - to oneself and others.

But, you see, even after Aquatus1 has pointed out to you (in a sense) that the evidence of something existing and with regards to what you're proposing he'd experience, what that something really is, you're under the impression that helping someone have a subjective experience will somehow change the global status quo of evidence (in scientific understanding) for that experience being anything but an altered state. At most you'd stop him from trying to bring you back down to earth & reality, but I'd doubt that. The evidence status will only change once we obtain more than just anecdotal accounts - and as mentioned earlier above - such is not forthcoming even after decades of trying and more and more people being able to reproduce the experiences. Note that I am referring specifically to OBE/AP experiences here.


The very same, in the least but most likely more so, can be said about you and your bias.     And it seems that you have indoctrinated yourself into a specific way of thinking.

Well... It actually wasn't you that I was talking about... It was Sakari... But I have nothing to say to you because I know that you know my world and I will respect your analysis. I can never say that I a agree at this time. But the others don't really even know what im talking about... How can they make any kind of truelly informed decision with knowing what we know? They are stuck in regurgitation while we make our decisions based on experiences and realities albeit you consider mine delusional ones and I might yours, but at least we have both sides of the coin to choose from. How long did you last before you gave up on the mystery?

Edited by Seeker79, 04 March 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[Seeker79]

Furthermore. Without getting into the discussions we have had previously... Why do you assume my experiences are purely altered states---- annecdode comeing--- I have been brought into a trance in the middle of the desert while takeing a piss alongside a road where I stumbled out like a transfixed zombie 100 yards from the car... (Driven by my hard core red neck friend who could care less about spirituality) --- I was going with him to drive him home from a wedding in Vegas--- wind kicking up desert dust devils sweeping all around me... Only to drop to my knees in front of a fully formed Paiute spear point. Picking it up and in tears clutching it to my chest---- he followed me out into the desert yelling at me to come back ( I don't remember that part). When he saw me collapse and ran out.. He saw what I was holding..... His exact words "  I don't beleive that just happened". He pulled me up at walked me back to the car. There was nothing to say for hundreds of miles. All he could say was " I don't beleive that just happened."  when the subject comes up now and then he still says it.

What am to do with that AI? Oooooo just confirmation bias and I might be embellishing like you did,...Bla Bla Bla. O wait, my friend was with me and witnessed the whole event subjective???? Not by my standards. But I realize others cannot take things like that at face value.,, I certainly don't.

Point being it's not always altered states, and at least in one instance I had a wittneess to the bizarre crap that happens to ne..

[aquatus1]

Seeker79, on 02 March 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

"Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science"
I have, I have , I have . The underlying theme in all of it is sophisticated creativity.

Wait...how does that answer relate to the question?

Quote

About me not mentioning religions, I have. Look back carefully. if you were religious attempting to proove how your thinking was superior I would be just the same. I'm not religious in the traditional sense.

I didn't say you didn't mention religion.  I asked why you didn't use any examples other than scientific ones, such as religion or business ones.  I think you made a passing mention somewhere about religious people doing the same thing, but even then, all we see as far as actual emphasis is science.

Why react so much to "religion"?  It was nothing more than one of two non-scientific fields I thought of off the top of my head where this behaviour was also present.  Why do you feel the need to re-state to everyone that you are not religious?  I wonder if it is related to the implied use of negatives I have pointed out to you; when you are saying something negative, you relate it to religion.

Again, you may say you are talking about behaviour, you may even believe you are talking about behaviour, but from the outside looking in, in my personal opinion, I am seeing an influence on the conclusion.

Quote

See now you have moved from Arguing the subject material to arguing about arguing.

So, when you make generalities such as:

"...people  will continue to only accept explanations within their world view based  on their own axioms. "
"No matter how well the science is done Somone is  always going to come up with a creative rebuttal... "
"I can give a wonderful creative explanation of why  the sun actually rotates around the earth and if somone already  believed it then it's truth."
"People, politics, dogma, rederik.
"But I keep telling you the problem lies not in science the problem lies in people..."

--you are talking about "behaviour".  But when I point out specific, known, fallacies, and show where they occurred, and their effect is, I am "arguing about arguing"?

You're objecting because I am supplying a higher level of detail and using field-appropriate terminology?  Incidentally, the OP, is actually about science being used to research the paranormal.

Quote

I don't have a problem  with science, I have said it over and over again. My wife just purchased a hawking book from amazon for my birthday..., ( i didfnt tell her I already have it) hmmm now why would she do that. Possibly because she sees me reading it all the time.

Well, other than repeating what I previous said about being very bad at showing it, there isn't much else to bother add.  I can't help but wonder why you chose to keep talking about this when I made it very clear that I am willing, for the purposes of discussion, to completely waive the concept of scientific methodology in order to hear your method of validation.

Quote

It is a straw man on your part to keep representing me that way.

Hmm...So you are saying that I created a strawman to make people think you are focusing only on science...and then made it completely redundant by actively proposing we ignore science altogether to hear your method...

Either you or I are terribly misinformed as to the purpose of a strawman argument.

Quote

I have made it clear that it's people that cause dogma, politics, rederick, guru ship.

My mistake.  I must have thought you were just arguing about arguing.  Or perhaps I dismissed your arguments as rhetoric.

Quote

I am well aware that the method ATTEMPTS to correct for this. In fact... That's partially what I think is going on. The people trying to bring this material to light are slowly starting to gain ground and are starting to jump through the hoops, get around the bias and red tape and cull the necessary minds. Alchemy today chemistry tomorrow. in tge end the "skeptics" may be remembered as "world is flat" people. Time will tell.

Hmm...not exactly what I was getting at...

See, I am not talking about the methodology of science either (other than to correct some mistaken assumptions that you imply, either because you were not aware of them, or were aware and were simply ignorant as to their overall purpose).  Rather I, just as you, am talking about behaviour.  I am talking about the behaviour of the scientific community.  Yes, in the actual scientific method, there are procedures to correct for bias, but that isn't really relevant to this discussion.  We aren't talking about science so much as the actual scientists.  Scientists, as a community, know full well that scientists have their biases (perhaps even more than most, following the "Physician, heal thyself" maxim).  Because of this, the scientific community accepts that there will be detractors, and it even accepts that the detractors are not always going to be logical.  Which is why, even though rhetoric and politics exist and exert an obvious influence, dogma and guruship (really, what is it with you and using religious references as negatives?) really do not.  Rhetoric and politics have their own persuasive ability, albeit temporary; dogma and guruship have only very limited influence, although very powerful where it does reign.  However, as mentioned before, the power of a theory is that it outlives its detractors.  That is why, even though controversial theories are shouted down, no one worries too much about it in the scientific community.  A theory which is strong enough to stand on its merits and is only held back by people will get its time to shine when those people are dead and gone.  The time that people worry is when people attempt to bury the theories.  It is one thing to criticize and demean a theory; that is expected human behaviour.  Attempting to deny the existence of a theory culturally draws a lot of attention to itself.  This sort of thing, to the scientific community, is the equivalent to slapping your wife in public.  While it may be our normal behaviour to ignore certain suspicious bumps and bruises, no one is going to ignore a blatant act directly in front of them.

It doesn't even have anything to do with the theory being correct or incorrect.  It doesn't even have anything to do with any sort of "lost knowledge" (scientists are acutely aware that many "discoveries" are really "re-discoveries").  Simply put, it is a matter of social behaviour:  In the scientific community, arguing is normal, hard-headedness and/or close-mindedness is not necessarily expected, but not surprising when it occurs, but trying to deny, hide, or bury a theory...that is the ultimate in uncouth behaviour, and it is not tolerated.

Quote

I do have a method aquatus... I can proove it to YOU.... I can also proove it to anyone willing to put in the time and energy...

I'm not interested in your method of proving it to ME.  Me believing it isn't going to change anything other than my personal opinion.  What I want to know is how you determined that this is a valid method.

Quote

Just as karmajazi was discussing with Emma. The problem lies with the individual. I have to take the quantum esraser on faith because at this moment I am incapable of performing and  experiencing the experiments myself. The same things apply.  to get there  It can take a long time.. Or it can happen right away. But I am certain with the right effort anyone can understand. Buy few do. One skeptic.. Was brave enough to at least try. But like I warned him it takes a little more effort than a passing intrest. Just as it would to get a degree in physics.

Yeah...again, I am no more interested in your methodology than you are interested in scientific methodology.  I want to know about how you determine validity or credibility.  Basically, how can you tell if people may be lying to you?

Quote

What do you say aquatus are you willing to put your time and energy where your mouth is. I will be your personal tutor. I have explored and understand ( for the most part) science aswell the otherside of the coin. I understand your perspective, I was you once. But cannot begin to understand unless you have both perspectives. I'm not talking about telekinesis and teenage super powers I'm talking about things much more interested.

"I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart."

Quote

What do you say? Do you want to experience it for yourself? Are you willing to give honest effort? Do you really want to see?

Been there.  Done that.  Got a few keepsakes.

As Ai-guardian mentioned, you aren't the only person who has believed these things.

Quote

Or are you content with your bias and jargon that is simply regurgitation of your indoctrination?

My...indoctrination?

Quote

Yes I said it.

Oh, wait...actually, you've been implying that pretty much all along...shoot, it sounded so dramatic for a second there...you know, like good rhetoric should.  

Quote

You are indoctrinated into specific way of thinking that has it's own built in self defense mechanisms to hold you here. Not unlike christanity or Islam.

Yes, I am.  And I willingly set them all aside in order to hear your specific way of thinking.  Which...you have not actually presented, after I clearly and specifically requested it.

And, strangely, for a person who claims they are not talking about science itself, or about the methods, but rather about the people...you seem kind of dead set on accusing me of talking about science and methods, and of accusing me of using my "indoctrination" to...do what, exactly?  See, being that this thread is only two pages long, it really isn't that difficult to look over my posts and realize that, well, you seem to be implying that I have denied something, but I haven't denied anything at all.  You are implying that I don't believe in psi, but I haven't remarked on it one way or another.  Amusingly, you even use the schoolyard stand-by "Ya scared?  Dare ya!" tactic that, honestly, doesn't really work as well on intellectuals as it does toward the more physically oriented crowd.

No, rather, the entire time, as can be seen by the posts here, I have been talking about behaviour.  The behaviour of scientists, the behaviour of people in general, and your behaviour, specifically.  I pointed out several fallacies as well, including factual ones, such as the references to science as materialistic, and the logical ones, such as how proof given to any one individual doesn't actually affect the actual existing evidence.  In other words, it doesn't matter how scientists prove something, and it doesn't matter how you prove something; neither is going to affect the actual thing we are talking about. It either exists or doesn't exist on its own.

Which means that, really, the best we can do is reduce our need for trust.  In my personal opinion, science has a pretty damn good system in place for reducing the amount of trust needed, and replaces it with a strong probability either for or against.  But, even though the OP of this thread is specifically about a recognized scientific organization dedicated to researching the paranormal (you can just taste the irony), I was perfectly willing to start with a clean board and simply assume the non-existence of science in order to understand the alternative method of validation and credibility.  Just to be exact, I posted the following:

Quote

Please, tell me:  How would you go about validating the existence of psi?  Earlier, you mentioned:  "The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias."   Feel free to expand on that.  How would you distinguish it from the  explanations that you currently consider unverified, unsupported,  unpredictable, and even outright implausible?  How would your  alternative decrease the influence of the human behaviour we have been  talking about?

I freely admit I don't understand how "It's bias" helps validate it.  Your last post also mentioned that you do, indeed, have a method, which...well, I can't really know, but its hardly a long shot, so great, you have a method, but what is it and how does it distinguish between what is happening and what is not?  And then you gave an example about you and a buddy driving out in the desert, you getting out of the car, wandering away from the road, finding a spear tip, and your friend seeming utterly bewildered by that for some reason.  Not really seeing how that is an example of how your method works, or how it can be used to distinguish between something paranormal and something medical (not even sure why your friend not being spiritual is relevant, even though it flies in the face of my experience with my red-neck friends, who consider themselves pretty damn spiritual, thank you very much, and please have a seat, I'll tell you why and in detail why you should go with me to church next Sunday...).

So, can you please tell, why we should trust your method?  How does your method show that any given claim is true or false?  How does it account for human behaviour?  We are, for the sake of the argument (and in utter derailment of the OP) assuming the non-existence of scientific methodology for the purposes of this argument.  

So please, tell us about this method of yours.

Edited by aquatus1, 04 March 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[ai_guardian]

Seeker79 said:

Well... It actually wasn't you that I was talking about... It was Sakari

Yes, I was well aware of that, that's why I wrote "I know what you are referring to", meaning exactly your attempt at getting Sakari to experience an OBE/AP, the second part of the sentence "having discussions about it" I was meaning the OBE/AP we had discussions about. Not always as clear as I'd like to be, sorry about that.

Seeker79, on 04 March 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Furthermore. Without getting into the discussions we have had previously... Why do you assume my experiences are purely altered states---- annecdode comeing---
...<anecdote snipped>...

What am to do with that AI? Oooooo just confirmation bias and I might be embellishing like you did,...Bla Bla Bla. O wait, my friend was with me and witnessed the whole event subjective???? Not by my standards. But I realize others cannot take things like that at face value.,, I certainly don't.

Point being it's not always altered states, and at least in one instance I had a wittneess to the bizarre crap that happens to ne..

How do you deduce that I assume all your experiences are altered states? I know there is finding 'treasure', certain beach, rum, etc. hawaii etc etc but when it comes to what I was replying to then I hope you will certainly appreciate why I'm talking about altered states, no?

But since you brought your anecdote up, so what??? People have had strange yet found-to-be-normal things happen to them. Some have had more 'weird' things than others. When you consider > 6 bill people someone's bound to be on the fringe. You and I seem to be on the fringe - I've had my share of bizarre stuff - the only difference is that I account for the human condition, whereas, to me it seems, you've glossed over it. When you ask "what am I to do with that AI?", my answer is, only as much as the experience on its own warrants. Now ask yourself why you brought it up in response to my post. It seems a little strange of an experience but nothing that could not happen, right?, that is if it is told with infallible memory - I don't know if you're aware but every memory that is stored after an experience that has some relation to a prior experience CHANGES the PREVIOUS experience memory. Now, since you are relating these experiences by being 'bizarre', 'weird', 'coincidence' etc etc ALL of them, ALL of your previous memories are being REWRITTEN based on your new state of mind as a result of an accumulating bias. Certain details that do not match your "new state" are lost, this is the human condition! And in the end you tell an anecdote that only includes parts of an experience (also severely skewed) that confirm a certain "indoctrinated" belief that you have incubated. As much as you'd like to think, the brain & its senses are not infallible, yours included! Oh great though, you have a witness that can remember saying "I don't believe that just happened.", great. Something that POSSIBLY may have been something like..."I tripped, fell whilst walking back after taking a leak, bumped my head, opened my eyes, saw and felt a stone pushing in my sternum that resembled a "Paiute spear point"" turns into your anecdote immensely helped by memory twisted most likely due to your bias. There are 1001 explanations for your anecdote that are not other worldly, none of which would really mean anything to "evidence for psi" yet you choose to parade it as if it is. Think man, think. This is exactly why anecdotes DO NOT count as evidence if one wants to be taken seriously. Anyone can have a story, where do we draw a line? How much someone PLEADS? How MANY stories one has? pffft, a story is a dime a dozen! As aquatus1 has already requested, WHAT IS YOUR METHOD, that is better???

I urge you, think deeply about the next part...
Another question remains that is somewhat related, why do you tell people in the "Ghosts, Hauntings & The Paranormal" section of this forum that demonic possession, hauntings etc. are caused by fears that the person has? Why doesn't their interpretation of their experience culminating in the belief that a demon posses or haunts them count as good anecdotal evidence that they have? Why do you try to convince them that their anecdotal evidence is wrong and it is only fear and in this instance YOUR anecdotal evidence should be taken as gospel so-to-speak to what YOU SAY? WHY??? Why employ two different behaviors to very similar situations? Now go back and read what Aquatus1 said about different behaviors to similar situations, and maybe, just maybe you may learn something new about yourself

Edited by ai_guardian, 04 March 2012 - 01:29 PM.