[Chad_Johnson]

well science has a lot of theories Like string and m theory. It is still not fact, science hasn't proved everything yet. Just like technology, science needs more time to develop. Until science proves 100% that something does not exit with evidence why it can't, than it is still possible.

your limited by your human senses same with technology and the same goes for science.

[Chad_Johnson]

How particles acts.
With no observer you get one result. With an observer you get different results.

the double slit experiment
My link

[The Silver Thong]

Science does not have all the answers that is forsure but name something that even comes close to science in explaining to us how things work. It's not right to say science can't explain it so that whisp of fog I saw was the ghost of my grandma paying me a visit, or a saw something move in the bush's it has to be bigfoot. That doesn't fly and niether does the mothman lol.

[sinewave]

maximaldecimal, on 09 November 2009 - 04:26 PM, said:

I think a camera with electromagnetic sensitivity would be great to fool around with. Would such technology being of easy access be a null hypothesis? How about the rest of the light spectrum on both ends, as well as thermal and audio on one small data disc. Now picture it affordable in the form of a monacle. Bam, all the worlds a stage. Sonar could become precise enough to see whats in the shadows of Loch Ness. Heck I think sound and light in general could both be explored with much more provalone and cheddar.

A null hypothesis is one that is used to explain away the lack of evidence. UFO buffs say the government is covering up the evidence. That is a null hypothesis. Ghost busters insist that ghost pick and choose when they are active - also a null hypothesis. Every area of the great unknown has its believers and they their null hypotheses. EM imaging would be interesting but there too ghost busters would seize upon the slightest ambiguity and call it evidence.

[sinewave]

Chad_Johnson, on 09 November 2009 - 06:30 PM, said:

well science has a lot of theories Like string and m theory. It is still not fact, science hasn't proved everything yet. Just like technology, science needs more time to develop. Until science proves 100% that something does not exit with evidence why it can't, than it is still possible.

your limited by your human senses same with technology and the same goes for science.

No one is saying the paranormal is not possible. The argument here is whether there is enough real evidence to consider it probable. So far it is a bust. No there isn't any reason to take any of it seriously at this time.

[kiddglock]

sinewave, on 08 November 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

Again with the belief stuff! Sheesh. The best way to convince anyone of anything is to have solid proof. Anecdotes and gut feelings don't cut it in the realm of science. My unwillingness to accept your beliefs is not predicated on an existing belief system of my own but rather the absence of science on your part.

If that's what you believe, you are free to do so.

This post has been edited by kiddglock: 11 November 2009 - 04:03 AM

[kiddglock]

sinewave, on 08 November 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

Again with the belief stuff! Sheesh. The best way to convince anyone of anything is to have solid proof. Anecdotes and gut feelings don't cut it in the realm of science. My unwillingness to accept your beliefs is not predicated on an existing belief system of my own but rather the absence of science on your part.

I mean no offense to you Sine, but you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of basic science here. There is no "proof" in science, only probability.

[sinewave]

kiddglock, on 10 November 2009 - 10:03 PM, said:

If that's what you believe, you are free to do so.

Well, I believe there is not enough evidence to believe any of the claims as presented so yes, I suppose I believe something regarding the paranormal.

[Bunny Munro]

I really do think that it's all in the mind and I will continue to believe this until I see any proof that satisfies me to the contrary.

[Paul Noise]

kiddglock, on 10 November 2009 - 11:08 PM, said:

I mean no offense to you Sine, but you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of basic science here. There is no "proof" in science, only probability.

No, science is based on facts. A fact is defined as

Fact: Data or conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement.

Through the scientific method we aim for objectivity: the basing of conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: the basing of conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation.
No type of mysticism or paranormal hypothesis has ever met this criteria.

[maximaldecimal]

Chad_Johnson, on 09 November 2009 - 06:46 PM, said:

How particles acts.
With no observer you get one result. With an observer you get different results.

the double slit experiment
My link

Brilliant link I have long wondered what kind of effect observation could have on an event. It is ironic that merly observing a thing can cause it to act different.

[Bunny Munro]

It's really not ironic at all. (Sorry! Pet Peeve.)

I'm on a solo mission to politely encourage a more correct use of the English language on this site, it gets pretty awful at times, which makes me sad.

This post has been edited by Starbelly...: 12 November 2009 - 12:31 AM

[maximaldecimal]

Starbelly..., on 11 November 2009 - 06:28 PM, said:

It's really not ironic at all. (Sorry! Pet Peeve.)

I'm on a solo mission to politely encourage a more correct use of the English language on this site, it gets pretty awful at times, which makes me sad.

I found it because it acts differently when observed. Thus it its actions when unobserved are unobsevable in the context of the assesment. Thats hilariously ironic.

[Bunny Munro]

I guess you're right in that context, but I don't think what you're saying is strictly true (I could be very wrong though, I'm not exactly an expert on all of this). Surely we can still measure things without observing the actual event? Or am I making an incorrect assumption by thinking that an 'observer has to be a living thing with consciousness? If it were not then wouldn't an event always be 'observed' by something?

[maximaldecimal]

Starbelly..., on 11 November 2009 - 09:18 PM, said:

I guess you're right in that context, but I don't think what you're saying is strictly true (I could be very wrong though, I'm not exactly an expert on all of this). Surely we can still measure things without observing the actual event? Or am I making an incorrect assumption by thinking that an 'observer has to be a living thing with consciousness? If it were not then wouldn't an event always be 'observed' by something?

I think the observations in the link I was referring to were greatly simplified. In one method of observation it acted one way. In another, closer, observation it acted differently. The method of observation obviously altered it and an alternative is not present. There is surely an explaination. I have wondered for a long time what truely empty space would look like. It is not empty space as we know it because the space we know has forces acting upon it. So not empty. What if the night sky just looks dark because the stars and planets eat up the light with gravity
maybe the sky is really grey.