Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Response to "no scientific evidence" of ghost


  • Please log in to reply
356 replies to this topic

#196    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:35 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 06 November 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:



You don't get to drop things on the table and then pretend they are irrelevant when they get responded to.  If you had stuck to the interpretation of the bell curve and the relevance of margins, there we would have stayed.  YOU decided to expand into posting about how not agreeing with what you were saying was a sign of how close-minded they were.  Don't expect to define other people incorrectly and have them stay quiet about it.



Then stop repeating the irrelevant and incorrect conclusions you have decided on regarding physical evidence.



What did he call the claim that the other person is not listening by pointing out an example of the person coming to a conclusion that did not follow from what was written?  Kind of like when Sinewave concluded that you had stated evidence for plasma was evidence for ghosts?  Or when you concluded that:



meant:




Just because you like going to extremes doesn't mean that is what I am arguing.  I am arguing, as I have since the very beginning, that there is a reason why margins are margins, and pretending they do not represent an increasingly low probability of an occurrence will get you in just as much trouble as assuming that they do not exist at all.

That is where the argument is.  That is where it started, and that is where it should have stayed.  You began painting anyone who didn't acknowledge science ignores margins as people who believed in fundamentalist materialism, an accusation which is both unsupported and does not follow from the discussion.  If you did not want to discuss the accusation, you should not have made it to begin with, and you cannot refer to it as "arguing for the sake of arguing" if you keep bringing it up time and time again.  As I have said a few times now, you do not get to define how other people think and expect it to go unchallenged.



Well, since you are so adamant about not talking about things which are irrelevant and about arguing for the sake of arguing, I will ignore the rather blatant baiting which has leveled up from material fundamentalism to religious fundamentalism (good gravy, what next?)

In regards to actual scientific methodology, there are a series of pre-requisites that must be met by every single concept prior to being considered scientific.  And that means every single one, from the latest M-theory of physics, all the way down to the most basic Pythagorean Theorum.  These pre-requisites apply universally, and no concept is given a free pass or a grandfather, no matter how wooly some of them are ("dark matter", looking at you now).

Is there room for a new pre-requisite, on which allows for the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal as a scientific subject?  Certainly, there is.  It must, however, just like every other pre-requisite, satisfy not just the reality it moderates, but also the reality that currently exists.  In the same way that science does not reject the reality of something there is no rule demanding the rejection of, neither does science allow the rejection of the reality there are actually rules addressing.

Scientific methodology addresses the known universe, including forces that we can barely dream of, let alone actually define, let alone phenomena that occurred before we had even evolved as a proto-species, let alone phenomena that occurred before we even evolved as a planet, let alone before our galaxy even properly coalesced.  And the claim is that science refuses and rejects the notion of a few paltry human spirits wandering around?  Nonsense.  Science merely expects that proposal to meet the same standards that everything from the most basic junior high math formula to the formation of reality itself, in the most literal terms, the Big Bang, must meet.  Or at least, show why an exception should be made.



No, it isn't an assumption.  It is an answer to a question.  The assumption is that you asked the proper question to begin with.  Don't blame the tool for the user's mistake.



Except, of course, that the probability you calculate (just how would you go about calculating that, anyway?) is greater than that of the heat death of the universe.  Does this mean science ignores that some particles of reality manage to do this?  Of course not.  They do, however, acknowledge that it is extremely tricky stuff, and go out of their way to verify the validity and credibility of their research, knowing that they will have no grounds to complain if someone points out a variable they missed even a smidgen closer (a "smidgen" being a relative measure, but in this case resulting in a dramatic change in probability) to the bell of the curve.  Their entire careers are spent working in the margins; yet your conclusion is that science ignores what they work on all their lives.



Except of course, that no one assumes that all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve, and I would ask you to either stop repeating this fallacy, or stop complaining when you are corrected on it.



No, I am perfectly happy with the dog not barking as evidence as well.  Not all evidence has to be material, as I have said time and time again.



Because we make assumptions about the world (and people) around us?  I agree with you there.



And again, you don't have to produce something physical in order to be scientifically valid.  You just have to produce something measurable.  The entire field of electrical engineering is nothing more than math and logic, with nothing in the way of a physical result till time comes for construction of an energy device.



Do you acknowledge that absolutely no one on this thread has claimed physical evidence is the only measure of scientific credibility (except for you making the accusation)?

And furthermore, that science is not, in fact, built on a physical philosophy, considering the myriad of non-physical branches and fields within it?
This is silly all you are doing is filibustering.

I have not defined anyone incorrectly, I have made a valid comparison. I shave explained why I made it but you seem to think its simply because people disagree with me. I have explained that as well. I think it is you who do not like being disagree with.

Ugggg, again, I compare anyone who SEEMS to only accept physical evidences as a fundamentals. I swear I must have said this like three times.

The problem here is that you are viewing fundamentalism as some sort of insult. It seems That it caries a lot of emotionally energy tied to the word for you. For me it's simply a description.

A simple history of science book or course will show you otherwise.

I think I have already explained for some of these very reasons why he subject matter does not fall within science, good grief... And you can't tell why I use the word "fundamentalism"?  

Oh hell I'm no physicists but for fun, I'm sure it would start with be chance of each subatomic particle in your body  tunneling through the wall, then they would a have to do this in perfect synchronization which would require a horrendous calculation. Machio Kaku has his new physics students do it as their first assignment . Yes longer than the heat death of the universe. I think i mentioned that. But how long is irrelevant to the argument. It CAN happen. In fact it becomes important when theorists start thinking about the quantum fluctuations that might have initiated the Big Bang. Cool stuff actually.

Your kidding right? You said yourself if a spirit was slapping across the face proclaiming its existence, you probably would not believe it to be real. Your assumption would be to lump it in with psychological phenomenon unless by chance you had some way of verifying it with another body of people. How is this not  "no one assumes that all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve". Certainly you PROBABLY would assume that one did. Your own none the less. I will not stop repeating it, any you can't make me :) more "professors huffing" I see.

Then you very well miss the interesting dog that barks in a completely different way only because you refuse to call it a bark.

I'd say you are completely wrong. No theories are taken as serious scientific truths until they have been physically verified. Theoretical branches of science rely on their testability to be valid. Testable means they make predictions that can be physically verified.

As I am saying once again, and its getting close to the last time. I have never claimed that spirits fall within the range of current scientific inquiry. I have merely pointed out that like BL. Other kinds of evidence can make something more probable. To only allow for the existence of something that falls within a specific premise is sort of like...... Are you ready..... Fundamentalism.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#197    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 November 2013 - 08:21 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 07 November 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

This is silly all you are doing is filibustering.  I have not defined anyone incorrectly, I have made a valid comparison. I shave explained why I made it but you seem to think its simply because people disagree with me. I have explained that as well. I think it is you who do not like being disagree with.

You have to proceed everything by referring to it as "irrelevant", or "filibustering", or a "professor's rant"?  You really can't just argue the points?

You have, several times, claimed that scientists ignore marginal data and that it is a inherent property of science to rely solely on physical evidence.  This is wrong, and I have already explained why.  Repeating it doesn't make it any more accurate, particularly when your comparisons progress from ignoring data on a graph, to refusing to believe any evidence except what is in the middle of the curve, to being a physical fundamentalist, to being a religious fundamentalist...

How can you sit there and tell yourself you haven't defined anyone incorrectly?  You don't find it the slightest bit suspicious that your description gets progressively harsher and harsher?  Now you are at the "I know you are, but what am I stage?"  You don't see the difference between yourself stating that scientists only see things one way and only accept one sort of data, and scientists saying "No, we don't"?  One is an accusation, the other a defense.

Quote

Ugggg, again, I compare anyone who SEEMS to only accept physical evidences as a fundamentals. I swear I must have said this like three times.

Feel free to look back on your posts and note how absolute your statement is every time.

Quote

The problem here is that you are viewing fundamentalism as some sort of insult. It seems That it caries a lot of emotionally energy tied to the word for you. For me it's simply a description.

I view religious fundamentalism in science as an insult, and I saw the eventual tie-in from a mile away the moment you began that thread.  And I sincerely doubt that you chose to use that word based solely on its descriptive value.

Quote

A simple history of science book or course will show you otherwise.
I think I have already explained for some of these very reasons why he subject matter does not fall within science, good grief... And you can't tell why I use the word "fundamentalism"?

You haven't, though.  You've stated that it doesn't, and you have given your reason for it as scientists not accepting anything but physical evidence as valid, which is not explanation, but rather a postulate, and one based on on a wrong assumption at that.

Quote

Oh hell I'm no physicists but for fun, I'm sure it would start with be chance of each subatomic particle in your body  tunneling through the wall, then they would a have to do this in perfect synchronization which would require a horrendous calculation. Machio Kaku has his new physics students do it as their first assignment .  Yes longer than the heat death of the universe. I think i mentioned that.

Pretty sure you didn't...

Quote

But how long is irrelevant to the argument. It CAN happen. In fact it becomes important when theorists start thinking about the quantum fluctuations that might have initiated the Big Bang. Cool stuff actually.

Wait...first you say it is irrelevant to the argument, then in the same breath you state that it becomes important to quantum physics...

In all cases, yes, how long is most definitely relevant when you are calculating probability.  If chances are that the universe will implode before your event occurs, you can pretty much consider that event an impossibility.  That said, the world of quantum physics is so utterly different from our own that it may as well be considered its own reality, with its own laws to follow.

Quote

Your kidding right? You said yourself if a spirit was slapping across the face proclaiming its existence, you probably would not believe it to be real.

You posted an example where you claimed that a spirit slapping my face should be something so obvious that to not believe it was a spirit would be unreasonable.  I pointed out that a spirit slapping you in the face wouldn't really be all that obvious as evidence for a spirit, and that your reaction would be pretty much the same, regardless of whether you believed you were being slapped by a spirit or not.

It's the same as your previous example with the ghost girlfriend.  You actions would be the same whether your girlfriend was real, was a ghost, or was imaginary.  If an example is meant to contrast the difference between two phenomena, but the reaction to both is the same, then the example isn't a very good one.  This ties in to what I mentioned in an earlier post about not asking the right question and blaming the graph for it.  If your bell curve is too shallow, it isn't the bell curve's fault.

Quote

Your assumption would be to lump it in with psychological phenomenon unless by chance you had some way of verifying it with another body of people.  How is this not  "no one assumes that all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve". Certainly you PROBABLY would assume that one did.

My assumption would be that psychological phenomena is the most probable cause.  I would make that assumption based both on past experience, on academic knowledge, and on lack of pending evidence.  Should new information arise, I would revisit my initial assumption.

No one (statistically speaking) assumes all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve.  They do, however, assume that, unless there is mitigating evidence to show otherwise, the greatest probability is of something falling into the curve.

In other words, scientists make assumptions based on the information they have available to them, and modify those assumptions as needed.  You are acting as if scientists make assumptions ahead of time, without bothering to look at information, and never change their mind unless physical evidence is presented.  You are describing scientific methodology as religious fundamentalism.

Quote

Your own none the less. I will not stop repeating it, any you can't make me :) more "professors huffing" I see.

That's fine; I did give you two options, after all.  If you refuse to stop describing scientists as material fundamentalists, then at least have the courtesy to stop complaining when people correct you on that incorrect description.

Quote

Then you very well miss the interesting dog that barks in a completely different way only because you refuse to call it a bark.

Wow, you are really going out of your way to refuse to admit that scientists are perfectly willing to accept non-physical information.

Quote

I'd say you are completely wrong. No theories are taken as serious scientific truths until they have been physically verified. Theoretical branches of science rely on their testability to be valid. Testable means they make predictions that can be physically verified.

No theories are taken as scientific truths ever.  All theories in existence exist in a state where they are not "truths", but rather where they are "yet to be proven false".  And no, testable does not mean they can be physically verified.  It just means they can be verified.  There are some things that simply do not have anything physical to verify.

Quote

As I am saying once again, and its getting close to the last time. I have never claimed that spirits fall within the range of current scientific inquiry.

With the exception of Sinewave's misunderstanding, I don't think anyone has claimed you have.

Science is all about looking at all types of evidence.  They just don't assign absolute values to it.  The supporting strength of any given piece of evidence depends entirely on the probability of the phenomena it is being connected to.  The higher the probability of something occurring, the less supporting evidence is needed to validate it.  The farther out you go to the fringes, the greater the supporting evidence you need (i.e. incredible claims require incredible evidence).

Quote

To only allow for the existence of something that falls within a specific premise is sort of like...... Are you ready..... Fundamentalism.

No matter how many times you imply that science only accepts physical data, it will not make it true.  Whether this is a scarecrow or whether you honestly believe it to be so, it simply is not.

Science has absolutely no problem accepting non-physical evidence.  Bear in mind, however, that accepting something as evidence is not the same as giving all evidence equal weight.

Science has no problem with things lying on the margins...as long as their claims do not outreach the evidence they have to support it.  This is not the same as claiming that nothing in the margins exist, and only the stuff in the middle is real.


#198    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:29 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 07 November 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:



Science has absolutely no problem accepting non-physical evidence.  Bear in mind, however, that accepting something as evidence is not the same as giving all evidence equal weight.

Science has no problem with things lying on the margins...as long as their claims do not outreach the evidence they have to support it.  This is not the same as claiming that nothing in the margins exist, and only the stuff in the middle is real.

Yeah A, he seems to have trouble with that concept.   Unfortunately for his argument, all of the psychobabble in the world does not change the fact the existing evidence is virtually insignificant.  Rather than accept it, he insists science should bend to put it in a more favorable light.  Until that happens, he considers science inadequate because it does not validate fringe belief.


#199    Angel1510

Angel1510

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portsmouth, UK

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:31 AM

This topic certainly brings to mind 'bird of a feather, flock together'....although maybe the birds are vultures, lol


#200    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 08 November 2013 - 11:57 AM

View Postsinewave, on 08 November 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:



Yeah A, he seems to have trouble with that concept.   Unfortunately for his argument, all of the psychobabble in the world does not change the fact the existing evidence is virtually insignificant.  Rather than accept it, he insists science should bend to put it in a more favorable light.  Until that happens, he considers science inadequate because it does not validate fringe belief.
It's not insignificant. It's massive.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#201    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 08 November 2013 - 12:23 PM

Auquatus,

You keep trying to defend science. You don't need to. What science is is not the point of contention. As i have mentioned science has nothing to say on the matter, but people defiantly do. Why you cannot see that only accepting "scientific" realities is form of fundamentalism is beyond me. Though I would like to see what science it is that you are talking about that does not require physical validation to be considered valid.

Hell why did we need to build the large hadron collider just to find subatomic particles that the standard model already predicted? We could have just assumed we were right about the higgs boson instead of spending billions of dollars.  Hawking's radiation is nearly certain to exist, why test for it?  They can't seem to create the tiny black holes we need to test the theory anyway.

Now I'm the one defending science.

Anyway, as much as it hurts my ego to not answer and argue with you on every point above, im out of attention span on this particular subject to continue. We will have to agree to disagree. Though do tell me what science doesn't need material verification.

I know spirits. Some are treasured friends and teachers. That's all the evidence I need, and I have seen material verification. I'm certifiably sane, and a functioning member and leader in my community.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 08 November 2013 - 12:27 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#202    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:42 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 08 November 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

It's not insignificant. It's massive.

I've been waiting for compelling evidence for a long time that ghosts exist outside of human imagination and perception. There are stories and tons of pseudo-scientific BS designed more to validate the belief than to enlighten.  Ideas fall into the the margins of science for good reasons.  Yes, that means some infrequent and hard to observe phenomena may go undocumented but that it not a free pass to legitimacy for any belief.  I don't fault you or anyone else for believing but I take exception to the assertion there is any kind of compelling evidence.

Edited by sinewave, 08 November 2013 - 01:43 PM.


#203    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,403 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:47 PM

If there was scientific evidence for ghosts, or any alleged paranormal phenomenon, then they wouldn't be paranormal.

Juxtaposing "paranormal" with "scientific evidence" suggests a misunderstanding of both concepts.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#204    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:00 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 08 November 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Auquatus,

You keep trying to defend science. You don't need to. What science is is not the point of contention. As i have mentioned science has nothing to say on the matter, but people defiantly do. Why you cannot see that only accepting "scientific" realities is form of fundamentalism is beyond me. Though I would like to see what science it is that you are talking about that does not require physical validation to be considered valid.

Hell why did we need to build the large hadron collider just to find subatomic particles that the standard model already predicted? We could have just assumed we were right about the higgs boson instead of spending billions of dollars.  Hawking's radiation is nearly certain to exist, why test for it?  They can't seem to create the tiny black holes we need to test the theory anyway.

Now I'm the one defending science.

Anyway, as much as it hurts my ego to not answer and argue with you on every point above, im out of attention span on this particular subject to continue. We will have to agree to disagree. Though do tell me what science doesn't need material verification.

I know spirits. Some are treasured friends and teachers. That's all the evidence I need, and I have seen material verification. I'm certifiably sane, and a functioning member and leader in my community.

It is not a question of sanity.  We've all lost people close to us.  It's a fact of life and it sometimes really sucks. There are so many people I would like to have back even if just for a moment of conversation.  We all feel that pain and cope with it in our own ways.  I sincerely hope you find peace in believing.


#205    Nenaraz

Nenaraz

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:06 PM

View Postlestatdelioncourt, on 11 September 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

What would you say to those who say there is no scientific proof of paranormal (ghosts)?



*If you believe in them in the first place.

I'd say "To your knowledge" or, rather, to "our knowledge" or "yet". Basically, (dis)approving something which doesn't hold measurable unit is not really following scientific method. While the scientific knowledge isn't complete and is constantly updating there's always a higher chance for (dis)approving the (non(existence of such entities, whatever they might be.

However, belief in "presence" or spirits, ghosts etc predates any science and pretty much every single culture does have "ghost" in a very similar form to that of the other culture, from the early civilisations up to the modern society and even modern science itself. Our existence knows only for two forms of possibilities - action and reaction, as simple as that. There have been some very serious images of ghosts caught on camera which are not something to be taken lightly, such as "The Brown lady", "Freddy Jackson", "Lord Combermere" and such.

So in my experience, keep an open mind and personally investigate when there's a chance, instead to wait things on a silver plate.


#206    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:31 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 08 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

If there was scientific evidence for ghosts, or any alleged paranormal phenomenon, then they wouldn't be paranormal.

Juxtaposing "paranormal" with "scientific evidence" suggests a misunderstanding of both concepts.

Calling something paranormal does not exempt it from proper scrutiny.  No matter how it is presented,  based solely on the evidence, paranormal is synonymous with fantasy.


#207    Avallaine

Avallaine

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:03 AM

View Postsinewave, on 19 November 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

No matter how it is presented,  based solely on the evidence, paranormal is synonymous with fantasy.

Are you trying to troll?  Because if you're not, you certainly are giving the appearance of it.

The words are not remotely synonymous, and I can't imagine any reason you'd say such a thing except to generate outrage in those who take paranormal subjects seriously.


#208    Avallaine

Avallaine

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:11 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 04 November 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

I have to be honest and say I think you have got your priorities mixed up.  Ghosts imply an entire array of metaphysical consequences that ball lightning does not.  The burden of proof for the former, because it is so much more extraordinary, than the latter is much, much greater.

So...you admit that, of two possible phenomena with similar qualities of evidence, you take one more seriously than the other, purely because that one fits within your belief system while the other does not?


#209    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:30 PM

View PostAvallaine, on 25 November 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:



Are you trying to troll?  Because if you're not, you certainly are giving the appearance of it.

The words are not remotely synonymous, and I can't imagine any reason you'd say such a thing except to generate outrage in those who take paranormal subjects seriously.

No, I am looking for someone to produce something that is not an anecdote, fuzzy picture, feeling, or evidence based on pseudoscientific assumptions.  If critical discussions cause outrage there may be some fundamental problems with the hypothesis. This discussion is about scientific evidence so it should not be unreasonable to apply scientific standards to the evidence.

Edited by sinewave, 26 November 2013 - 06:33 PM.


#210    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 26 November 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostAvallaine, on 25 November 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:



So...you admit that, of two possible phenomena with similar qualities of evidence, you take one more seriously than the other, purely because that one fits within your belief system while the other does not?

Ball lightning has a precedent as a form of atmospheric plasma.  We know plasmas exist.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users