Why do none of you want to be rich?

[ChrLzs]

You are confusing conrete evidences with transferrable evidences

No, I'm just asking for acceptable evidence. It doesn't even have to be acceptable to me personally, I'll accept a valid, credible, unbiased authority on the topic. In science there is this concept of 'peer review' that takes care of that to a reasonable extent. It's not infallible, but mostly it works pretty well ... and no-one has come up with a better model.

if i talk about the time a dolphin jumped right over my boat when i was out fishing

Dolphins are well known for jumping quite high - I even have relevant video footage (see below) and it's in the scientific literature.. So I happily accept that story.

Can you not spot the difference?

It is impossible for me to transfer those evidences to you and they are not the sort of events which can be reproduced in a laboratory

And that is a strawman argument. The sort of thing you are claiming could be reproduced in a laboratory, or could be properly tested and documented by following some very basic rules, often loosely called the Scientific Method...

One online test I had to do was view the contents of a room that was on the other side of the world. I had to describe it as acurately as i could, knowing nothing about it. If i believ the response form the test site, I was over 85% accurate

Now, here you are trying to 'transfer some evidence' right? You're on the right track now, but if you want that evidence to be accepted, you have to be specific and a bit more comprehensive. In particular, how did you get the 85% rating? Was the abitrator an unbiased observer, or were they the site owner (and what sort of site was it, exactly....)? Did an unbiased person set up the test and did they have any experience in doing so? You say you didn't know which room, but *how* was the room chosen? Had you ever encountered the room owner before? Given that rooms generally have a set of fairly predictable items in them, how did they define 100% and 0% accuracy? Were there set questions about the room, or did you just describe stuff that was later interpreted/checked (and how exactly was it checked/evaluated?). Did you get any feedback at all as you gave the description? And what were the 'controls' - how did they eliminate confirmation bias? How could you/they run a falsifiability test on the outcome? Do you know why I am asking these questions?

Frankly, guessing room contents sounds pretty easy to me! I know that sounds flippant, but I've run into this sort of thing before, and when the 'tests' are given even a cursory examination, they fail completely. Please do prove me wrong by giving details (and preferably a link to the forum conversation or whatever other form it took)..

Ps i cant speak for others but i know my stories are true because i use the same evidence and logic in decihering them as i do for alll reality.

So for example I KNOW I am having chicken shaslicks for tea tonight. They are under the griller as I speak.

Apples and oranges.. That is nothing like what we are discussing.

But i couldnt satisfactoriy prove to you that, right now, I am cooking and about to eat chicken shaslicks.

Actually, you could, quite easily, but why would you want to? This is not comparable to the extraordinary claim about other abilities. You *could* prove those too, but telling stories is not the best way.

Its simply daft to suggest that things are only real or true if ,and when, they can be scientifically verifiable.

That sounds quite reasonable, when we are discussing occurrences like seeing a dolphin leap or cooking a shaslick - such things are relatively mundane and not up for debate.

Having said that, while I don't have any video footage of a dolphin actually leaping over my boat, I've got plenty showing them riding my bow wave, and frolicking and leaping nearby. During that footage, you can hear my voice, even see me as the camera is panned around - and then later you can see the same boat parked in my driveway, including its registration number - so all in all, I can provide reasonable evidence of any dolphin frolicking claims I may wish to make, quite easily. Just ask if you think it's not believeable, and I'll load some of it on Youtube...

But if you make a claim about stuff that isn't quite that mundane, in fact stuff that has never been shown to happen anywhere except perhaps tv shows, and where the nature of that claim involves interpretations and potential biases.. why are you surprised that the quality of evidence required goes up a little?

None of us could accept the validity of the majority of our own lives if we applied that test.

The majority of our lives do not include paranormal powers... so such tests are not required..

[Mr Walker]

No, I'm just asking for acceptable evidence. It doesn't even have to be acceptable to me personally, I'll accept a valid, credible, unbiased authority on the topic. In science there is this concept of 'peer review' that takes care of that to a reasonable extent. It's not infallible, but mostly it works pretty well ... and no-one has come up with a better model.

Dolphins are well known for jumping quite high - I even have relevant video footage (see below) and it's in the scientific literature.. So I happily accept that story.

Can you not spot the difference?

And that is a strawman argument. The sort of thing you are claiming could be reproduced in a laboratory, or could be properly tested and documented by following some very basic rules, often loosely called the Scientific Method...

Now, here you are trying to 'transfer some evidence' right? You're on the right track now, but if you want that evidence to be accepted, you have to be specific and a bit more comprehensive. In particular, how did you get the 85% rating? Was the abitrator an unbiased observer, or were they the site owner (and what sort of site was it, exactly....)? Did an unbiased person set up the test and did they have any experience in doing so? You say you didn't know which room, but *how* was the room chosen? Had you ever encountered the room owner before? Given that rooms generally have a set of fairly predictable items in them, how did they define 100% and 0% accuracy? Were there set questions about the room, or did you just describe stuff that was later interpreted/checked (and how exactly was it checked/evaluated?). Did you get any feedback at all as you gave the description? And what were the 'controls' - how did they eliminate confirmation bias? How could you/they run a falsifiability test on the outcome? Do you know why I am asking these questions?

Frankly, guessing room contents sounds pretty easy to me! I know that sounds flippant, but I've run into this sort of thing before, and when the 'tests' are given even a cursory examination, they fail completely. Please do prove me wrong by giving details (and preferably a link to the forum conversation or whatever other form it took)..

Apples and oranges.. That is nothing like what we are discussing.

Actually, you could, quite easily, but why would you want to? This is not comparable to the extraordinary claim about other abilities. You *could* prove those too, but telling stories is not the best way.

That sounds quite reasonable, when we are discussing occurrences like seeing a dolphin leap or cooking a shaslick - such things are relatively mundane and not up for debate.

Having said that, while I don't have any video footage of a dolphin actually leaping over my boat, I've got plenty showing them riding my bow wave, and frolicking and leaping nearby. During that footage, you can hear my voice, even see me as the camera is panned around - and then later you can see the same boat parked in my driveway, including its registration number - so all in all, I can provide reasonable evidence of any dolphin frolicking claims I may wish to make, quite easily. Just ask if you think it's not believeable, and I'll load some of it on Youtube...

But if you make a claim about stuff that isn't quite that mundane, in fact stuff that has never been shown to happen anywhere except perhaps tv shows, and where the nature of that claim involves interpretations and potential biases.. why are you surprised that the quality of evidence required goes up a little?

The majority of our lives do not include paranormal powers... so such tests are not required..

Unfortunately, like most others without experience your mindset makes it impossible to help you to understand That is not a criticism just a natural part of human thought.

For example you say you accept my story about the dolphin because it is common place. So are stories of ghosts or angel sightings. Comonality is not proof of validity.Nor is lack of commonality proof of invalidity.

You have no scientific evidence for my story of the dolphins and neither did I yet you chose to believe it. Why, when you do not accepet stories of precognitive expernces.?

And just how do i reproduce a dolphin jumping over my boat to establish "scientific" validity of that event. I dont believ your story nor your "documentaion " You faked it.

Finally you say eating chicken shasliks is different to an obe experince Why? If you truly doubted that last night i ate chicken shasliks, it would be impossible to prove it to you. What undeniable proofs could i even offer of who I" am. Even a date stamped photo of someone eating a shaslik would not prove it was me, or that the shaslik was not pork, or that the photo was not doctored. Finally MY life and that of many others is a mix of 'normal" and "paranormal" on a daily basis. Since i learned to recognise my self my inner intelligences and the nature of extenal realities, i have had to constantlty test for concrete realities in everything, and to be very careful in my personal relationships with others. I stil do.

Ps as ive said many times I am well educated and well read. i am a fan of science modern medicine and technologies, and i know and use scientific method on a daily basis, if not in a laboratory. None the less, it is very clear to me on the physial evidences available that many things not yet recognised/understood by science are quite real and common place. The world is not quite the mundane, ordinary, and predictable place some people find comfort in believing it is. As to the test I added IF you accet the site managers truthfulness I did wonder if it was some sort of advertising gimmick BUt i described a room I knew nothing about not whether it was a bathroom living room bedroom mans or womans etc I just "saw" it and described it including the age colour and nature of thigs like furnishings lamps etc.

How would you expalin the abilty to see into a persons mind and describe a nineteen fifty's cadillac, under a tarpaulin in a shingle roofed barn on a farm in outback canada when no one elese in Australia even knew the barn or the car existed? I described the surrounding countryside, her house etc taken from her memory, years before google earth was heard of.

[ChrLzs]

I'm afraid we are not even on the same page. If you wish to convince anyone of these abilities (in you or others), the please post your best available evidence (NOT anecdotes) for perusal. If it's evidence of your abilities, then fine - even a link to that website where you predicted the room contents would be a start. If it's in any way peer-reviewed or -examined, that would be better.

To be precise, here's the problem in your own words:

Unfortunately, like most others without experience your mindset makes it impossible to help you to understand That is not a criticism

Well it sure sounds like one, your mindset being so much more able to 'understand'..

For example you say you accept my story about the dolphin because it is common place.

It is not just common place. Dolphins are a known and documented species. Their behaviours are also known and documented by reams of unquestionable evidence.

So are stories of ghosts or angel sightings.

Commonplace? Yes, indeed, and so are stories about pink unicorns, easter bunnies.... But commonplace (commonality) by itself means pretty much nothing. It's just like saying MacDonalds has the best food in the world (more people eat there than anywhere else), or that because you get ~300,000 hits on a Google search for "uri geller bends forks with his mind" that statement must be true.. It isn't.

The difference between ghosts/angels/pink unicorns/easter bunnies and dolphins is that for the former we only have anecdotes, cartoons and fake or inconclusive footage, plus there is NO location at which you can take anyone and point them to the ghosts/angels, nor can they be produced in a lab (to date..). But for the latter, ie dolphins or (shaslicks..) we ALSO have innumerable videos that are absolutely conclusive, I can point at a multitude of places like gee, pretty much every part of the Ocean, harbours, estuaries, SeaWorld, aquaria - and in all of those places they can be found and viewed doing exactly what has been documented and claimed. THAT's why the anecdote is 'accepted'.

If your mindset can't spot the very distinct difference there is nothing further to discuss, it seems - unless you wish to elaborate and substantiate your 'tests'.

[Simatong]

I must admit Chrlzs, you are very good at making and backing up your arguments. I actually enjoyed reading your exchanges

[ChrLzs]

I must admit Chrlzs, you are very good at making and backing up your arguments. I actually enjoyed reading your exchanges

Thanks, Simatong - I try! And in return, what I've seen you post has been well worth reading too.

What I simply cannot fathom is why (IF the abilities are genuine) people who have them do not wish to have them tested, exposed, analysed and 'brought into the mainstream'. Because (IF they exist) these abilities could be a huge, almost unimaginable boon and benefit to humankind. By bringing them into the mainstream and studying how they work and thence developing and encouraging them from an early age... well, surely a new and better era would begin - who wouldn't want that?

But nope. It's all so personal, needs to be hidden, needs to be shyly nurtured, only one's friends are allowed to know or benefit, no details about the testing, just take their word... in fact the reasons/excuses for not proving what would probably be the biggest news in scientific history, keep flowing like wine .. or vinegar.

So, I keep coming back to those rather big IFs.

And IF I had any of these abilities, I'd be into the surgical gown in a shot . Yep, I'd be off to the lab and asking the best scientists to do whatever they wished (short of dissection..) to test me out and find out why I was so special...

[Mr Walker]

I'm afraid we are not even on the same page. If you wish to convince anyone of these abilities (in you or others), the please post your best available evidence (NOT anecdotes) for perusal. If it's evidence of your abilities, then fine - even a link to that website where you predicted the room contents would be a start. If it's in any way peer-reviewed or -examined, that would be better.

To be precise, here's the problem in your own words:

Well it sure sounds like one, your mindset being so much more able to 'understand'..

It is not just common place. Dolphins are a known and documented species. Their behaviours are also known and documented by reams of unquestionable evidence.

Commonplace? Yes, indeed, and so are stories about pink unicorns, easter bunnies.... But commonplace (commonality) by itself means pretty much nothing. It's just like saying MacDonalds has the best food in the world (more people eat there than anywhere else), or that because you get ~300,000 hits on a Google search for "uri geller bends forks with his mind" that statement must be true.. It isn't.

The difference between ghosts/angels/pink unicorns/easter bunnies and dolphins is that for the former we only have anecdotes, cartoons and fake or inconclusive footage, plus there is NO location at which you can take anyone and point them to the ghosts/angels, nor can they be produced in a lab (to date..). But for the latter, ie dolphins or (shaslicks..) we ALSO have innumerable videos that are absolutely conclusive, I can point at a multitude of places like gee, pretty much every part of the Ocean, harbours, estuaries, SeaWorld, aquaria - and in all of those places they can be found and viewed doing exactly what has been documented and claimed. THAT's why the anecdote is 'accepted'.

If your mindset can't spot the very distinct difference there is nothing further to discuss, it seems - unless you wish to elaborate and substantiate your 'tests'.

This discussion is not about me convincing anyone else. I have no need for validation nor any desire to preach. It is about how I know what is real, concrete and has independent existence, and what does not.

You need to show me why /how what i experience cannot be, and is not real, if you wish to prove it is not..

I have no need to dempnstrate its reality to you. And it is very difficult to transfer conclusive evidences between third parties.. You are basically arguing that, if i cannot establish its validity with you then my reality is not valid. Which is silly. And yes unless you experience some things first hand your mindset will ten to be a denial of their existence That is logical but not in itself correct. All human's primary knowledge comes from first hand experience. We all tend to disregard that which we do not know to be true from experience unles we acept other peoles word for it or take it on faith

. I am not talking about the proof of dolphins existence. I asked why you believed a story about a dolphin jumping over my boat with absolutley no evidences for it yet would not belive a story about poltergeists or obes or clair voyance or mind reading Why do you not expect identical proofs before you accpet either account?

You do realise that most second hand evidence is anectodal? Again it comes back to commonality. Common anecdotes are accepted, uncommon ones are not.

My anecdotes are true ,be they about dolphins or ghosts. It is my job to ascertain the validity of each experience, because i am there to experience them, and I am the only one who can validate them, using evidence and logic.. You, not being there for any of them, have to take my word for them (or not)

I tell my stories on Um for several reasons. One is to ensure that they are "out there" for people to read and think about. The other, originally, was in the hope of finding a lot more people with a life like mine. That didn't happen, but there have been a few adult and sober writers whom i have enjoyed listening to, and whom I have learned from.

I know from experience at least one house which was haunted by an active ghost for 100 years or more. Dozens of people saw and heard her and independently described her appearance, and she was so common that the house was abandoned and no one would live in It.

I know of a bed which was haunted, also for a hundred years. It was researched and at least a dozen couples (including our neighbours ) had experienced the same development of haunting over the entire twentieth century and several thousand square miles of territory; without any connection or knowledge of the other people's experiences, until it was researched in the late twentieth century. When twenty people from half a dozen towns/cities, and over a hundred years of time, describe exactly the same process of haunting of an object, without any of them having prior knowledge of the bed's nature or history, or background, you KNOW something very real is happening.

I might logically suggest that a lot more people have seen ghosts than say, platypi. Why then deny the validity/reality of ghosts, but not of platypi, just because the latter have a "solid state" existence while the former seem to exist in a form of "phase state"

As i said earlier, commonality does not mean anything. Only one person has to truly see or experience a ghost, or an alien, or a platypi, for its reality to be validated. On the other hand even if a million people have seen a dolphin, and there are pictures of them; until i meet one I have to chose to believe in their existence by accepting, on faith, the words and evidences of other people.

[Mr Walker]

Thanks, Simatong - I try! And in return, what I've seen you post has been well worth reading too.

What I simply cannot fathom is why (IF the abilities are genuine) people who have them do not wish to have them tested, exposed, analysed and 'brought into the mainstream'. Because (IF they exist) these abilities could be a huge, almost unimaginable boon and benefit to humankind. By bringing them into the mainstream and studying how they work and thence developing and encouraging them from an early age... well, surely a new and better era would begin - who wouldn't want that?

But nope. It's all so personal, needs to be hidden, needs to be shyly nurtured, only one's friends are allowed to know or benefit, no details about the testing, just take their word... in fact the reasons/excuses for not proving what would probably be the biggest news in scientific history, keep flowing like wine .. or vinegar.

So, I keep coming back to those rather big IFs.

And IF I had any of these abilities, I'd be into the surgical gown in a shot . Yep, I'd be off to the lab and asking the best scientists to do whatever they wished (short of dissection..) to test me out and find out why I was so special...

I dont think you would, because from birth, or whenever you discovered your differences you would live in a different reality to that you lived in in your present life, and you woud learn to react and respond differently You would learn how people react to real demonstrations of difference How they feel/react when they realise you can read their mind. How they look at you run away from you or lash out at you You would learn this in childhood and you would adapt to keep yourself safe first, as all children do.

Ii remember as far back as primary school in the play ground (the sandpit actually) when i was a bit over 5, how other children reacted. In high school aged about 13/14 the police were called in because of one incident where i knew stuff i shouldnt /couldnt have known. I learned to shut myself off and especially as a govt employed teacher of children/adolescents i had to be careful how i helped others. Despite this, i got a reputation (mostly positive) in my school and neighbourhood especaiily for helping people. As i get older i am less afraid, but i am still careful, in real life, what I do and what I say with people.

I walked into a happy hour one night at school and every body laughed. A colleague had just explained how i had obed into her bedroom and observed the boxer shorts she was wearing, then asked her about them. She said she never went to bed at night after that without checking the ceiling to see if i was hovering up there.

I explained that, as a gentleman i would never deliberately intrude on a lady's boudoir, and it was passed off as a joke. But it could have gone the other way, because the event really happened a year or two earlier.

I asked her why she was wearing these particular men's boxer shorts that i had observed one night while obeing, and she explained her partner was away barramundi fishing for a few months and she wore his shorts to feel closer to him.

I felt safe talking to her because she has a sense of humour and also some experience with the paranormal, but i NEVER thought she would tell anyone else about it, or i wouldnt have said a thing

Ps I am also aware that my own attitudes are influenced by the cuture of my child hood. I grew up in the fifties and sixties i read thousands of science fiction books from the nineteen twenties until the nineteen seventies, along with everything else i could lay my hands on to read.

In those days a common theme was how people with differnces were treated by govt agencies and by communities. I am sure this also made me more reluctant to demonstrate any difference to others but the main influence was the reatcion of real people to me, and to any demonstration of unusual abilities..

Edited January 27, 2013 by Mr Walker

[White Crane Feather]

I'm afraid we are not even on the same page. If you wish to convince anyone of these abilities (in you or others), the please post your best available evidence (NOT anecdotes) for perusal. If it's evidence of your abilities, then fine - even a link to that website where you predicted the room contents would be a start. If it's in any way peer-reviewed or -examined, that would be better.

To be precise, here's the problem in your own words:

Well it sure sounds like one, your mindset being so much more able to 'understand'..

It is not just common place. Dolphins are a known and documented species. Their behaviours are also known and documented by reams of unquestionable evidence.

Commonplace? Yes, indeed, and so are stories about pink unicorns, easter bunnies.... But commonplace (commonality) by itself means pretty much nothing. It's just like saying MacDonalds has the best food in the world (more people eat there than anywhere else), or that because you get ~300,000 hits on a Google search for "uri geller bends forks with his mind" that statement must be true.. It isn't.

The difference between ghosts/angels/pink unicorns/easter bunnies and dolphins is that for the former we only have anecdotes, cartoons and fake or inconclusive footage, plus there is NO location at which you can take anyone and point them to the ghosts/angels, nor can they be produced in a lab (to date..). But for the latter, ie dolphins or (shaslicks..) we ALSO have innumerable videos that are absolutely conclusive, I can point at a multitude of places like gee, pretty much every part of the Ocean, harbours, estuaries, SeaWorld, aquaria - and in all of those places they can be found and viewed doing exactly what has been documented and claimed. THAT's why the anecdote is 'accepted'.

If your mindset can't spot the very distinct difference there is nothing further to discuss, it seems - unless you wish to elaborate and substantiate your 'tests'.

Let me ask you something chrlz. If you lived A few billionyears from now,10s or 100s, when all the galaxies are moveing faster than the speed of light away from each other on some random galaxy. Then someone came to you and told you that there are other galaxies, things called quasars, and that the nature of the universe is one of expansion, and that it had all started in a thing coined as the big bang, would you aply the same analytical bias?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Seeker79

[ChrLzs]

Let me ask you something chrlz. If you lived A few billionyears from now,10s or 100s, when all the galaxies are moveing faster than the speed of light away from each other on some random galaxy. Then someone came to you and told you that there are other galaxies, things called quasars, and that the nature of the universe is one of expansion, and that it had all started in a thing coined as the big bang, would you aply the same analytical bias?

Yes. Let's be specific - allow me to call this hypothetical claim a 'theory' - I'd then ask that person:

- what evidence do you have for this theory? Show me.

- does your theory in some way explain something you have observed, or have collected data on? Show me.

- does your theory in some way better explain some phenomena than any current theories we might have? Show me.

- how can we test its usefulness and repeatability? If they can do that, then we're well on the way..

- how could we falsify this theory? The final check - throw everything at the theory to see if it falls down.

Now, if you like, I can explain exactly why I would ask all those questions (that last one might seem a bit strange to someone who doesn't understand how science works, but it's probably the most important test of all...) and in what way the answers would be useful not only to me, but also to the person making the claim and the general public.

But I suspect you may rather just keep adding more reasons why these claims shouldn't be backed up or questioned...

BTW, how about you answer your own question? What would you do?

[Simatong]

Chrlzs,

Strictly out of curiosity (and nothing more, really). How long do you think these tests should last? Do you think a couple of days would suffice? A couple of weeks? Months? Maybe a year? I ask this simply because to me, in order to get a satisfactory answer, I personally wouldn't be satisfied until there was at least a couple of weeks or months worth of testing. Then again, you are talking to a guy who spent nearly his entire high school years and about half of his college years testing himself rigorously. (I just got done taking a zener card test online, made by a parapsychologist who seems legit, and I didn't stop until after more than 2500 guesses and had calculated everything).

[White Crane Feather]

Yes. Let's be specific - allow me to call this hypothetical claim a 'theory' - I'd then ask that person:

- what evidence do you have for this theory? Show me.

- does your theory in some way explain something you have observed, or have collected data on? Show me.

- does your theory in some way better explain some phenomena than any current theories we might have? Show me.

- how can we test its usefulness and repeatability? If they can do that, then we're well on the way..

- how could we falsify this theory? The final check - throw everything at the theory to see if it falls down.

Now, if you like, I can explain exactly why I would ask all those questions (that last one might seem a bit strange to someone who doesn't understand how science works, but it's probably the most important test of all...) and in what way the answers would be useful not only to me, but also to the person making the claim and the general public.

But I suspect you may rather just keep adding more reasons why these claims shouldn't be backed up or questioned...

BTW, how about you answer your own question? What would you do?

yes, I would probably ask those very questions ( please oh please do not resort to the "you don't understand science argument you have far to much potential for good debate than that old cop out) , probably, but then we would both be wrong wouldn't we? do you understand what I'm trying to get you to see?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Seeker79

[Simatong]

Seeker79, with all due respect, I don't see anything wrong with Chrlzs's line of questioning; it's logical to ask questions like this. If we didn't, we'd probably still be stuck with the philosophy of the Medieval Times. If you are going to make a claim about an existence of any kind, whether it be about the origins of those "falling rocks" known as comets or the extraordinary powers of clairvoyance and telekinesis, you must be prepared to be questioned. It is a part of human nature. Plain and simple. If you don't want to answer him, that's all well and good, but please don't imply that his questioning is wrong.

[White Crane Feather]

oh, what if that smoneone told you that there is another method of inquiry that with a measure of discipline not unlike the discipline that you trust, ccould give you the " show me" that you asked for. and then could you be intellectually honest if you dId not have the discipline?

[Simatong]

Seeker79, it doesn't matter if that discipline was different from my own or similar to it. As long as the methods it used were verifiable and methodically sound, I would have no problem with that. I would have no need to be "intellectually dishonest" about something I didn't have. Quite frankly, that would be stupid.

[Mr Walker]

Part of the problem is the division between scientific thought processes, and non scientific, but very human, thought processes.

Scientific thought processes and procedures work fine within the confines of science They are also helpful in everday life, but they are self limiting. If a scientific minded person saw a unicorn, his/her mind would run through a different set of thougths to a non scientist, starting from a different point. For example they might think, "Science says unicorns cant/dont exist, therefore I am hallucinating or misperceiving what i see."

My own mind would tend to say. "Oh that looks like a unicorn. Lets apply scientific observation and thought to ascertain its independent existence and biological classification, or lack thereof."

Another person might say. "Oh a unicorn. How nice." and just accept it at face value.

We dont get a chance to do lab tests and peer reviews on many natural occurences BUT, many independent sightings and experiences are, in a way, the same as peer tested reviews of scientific observations. And they can be used create theories, to modify and even challenge or test existing perceptions(theories) about things like precogniton or obes or ghosts.

For example if there are 10,000 recorded sightings of angels over history form all human cultures and ALL of them are basically consistent in description one could write up a scientific theory about the nature of angels Then one could look at all current and new sightings and check the descritors in them to verify how closley they approximate classical descriptions And so on.

Now if those 10000 sightings were clearlry divided into 3 separate categories of angelic form, then the theory would be different, and would have to explain or fit around those 3 categories. Then observation could be used, again, to confirm this categorisation.

One might begin to test if certain forms appeared to serve different purposes etc. One could test for language used by different forms of angel and variations in manifestaion methods of different angels. How many events happened in broad daylight were witnessed compared with those unwitnessed and unverified.

These things ARE amenable to scientific method, they just arent really within the domain of science in the western world.

[White Crane Feather]

Seeker79, with all due respect, I don't see anything wrong with Chrlzs's line of questioning; it's logical to ask questions like this. If we didn't, we'd probably still be stuck with the philosophy of the Medieval Times. If you are going to make a claim about an existence of any kind, whether it be about the origins of those "falling rocks" known as comets or the extraordinary powers of clairvoyance and telekinesis, you must be prepared to be questioned. It is a part of human nature. Plain and simple. If you don't want to answer him, that's all well and good, but please don't imply that his questioning is wrong.

I did not imply that his questioning is wrong I think I made it quit clear that I would indeed ask the same questions; however, I think... no... I know that in a few short sentences I have proven the method is a miserable failure in at least SOME circumstances. but of course I would never pull the...."you don't know enough about science" card. indeed, everything I have stated is rooted in cold logic and modern cosmology. unfortunately many stop logic when they feel satisfied. it's a little thing called confirmation bias

[White Crane Feather]

Seeker79, it doesn't matter if that discipline was different from my own or similar to it. As long as the methods it used were verifiable and methodically sound, I would have no problem with that. I would have no need to be "intellectually dishonest" about something I didn't have. Quite frankly, that would be stupid.

and here in is the problem ..... you cannot put a stipulation like "as long as" and not claim anything other than a severely bias frame of reference. I don't mean to sound condescending, but can you at least sort of get where I'm coming from?

[Simatong]

Part of the problem is the division between scientific thought processes, and non scientific, but very human, thought processes.

There really isn't a division between scientific and non-scientific processes when it comes to this case. Whether or not one is of a "scientific" mindset, if you claim extraordinary abilities, expect to hear a request for extraordinary evidence, regardless of whether or not one is of a scientific mindset.

i can speak and read Chinese, Japanese (seriously, I can)..A scientist will doubt me, a lay person will (and implicitly) has doubted me. This has nothing to do with scientific processes. It has everything to with people desiring to see evidence of something they may consider "extraordinary".

Scientific thought processes and procedures work fine within the confines of science They are also helpful in everday life, but they are self limiting. If a scientific minded person saw a unicorn, his/her mind would run through a different set of thougths to a non scientist, starting from a different point. For example they might think, "Science says unicorns cant/dont exist, therefore I am hallucinating or misperceiving what i see."

My own mind would tend to say. "Oh that looks like a unicorn. Lets apply scientific observation and thought to ascertain its independent existence and biological classification, or lack thereof."

First of all, a scientific mind may not necessarily assume on the spot that the aforementioned creature is a unicorn. Many a scientific mind might say it look like a unicorn, but would be hesitant to jump to that conclusion. Jumping to an unfounded conclusion is not a part of the scientific process. Many people assumed that the sun was made of fire. Science tells us it is not. Just because something looks like something, it doesn't necessarily make it what you think it is make it what you

Another person might say. "Oh a unicorn. How nice." and just accept it at face value.

We dont get a chance to do lab tests and peer reviews on many natural occurences BUT, many independent sightings and experiences are, in a way, the same as peer tested reviews of scientific observations. And they can be used create theories, to modify and even challenge or test existing perceptions(theories) about things like precogniton or obes or ghosts.

Theories can be made about what the people saw, but if what they saw cannot be independently verified, their claims cannot necessarily be used to modify or challenge existing perceptions; in order for something to be challenged, there oftentimes needs to be evidence of something that can challenge said thing. You cannot challenge something with virtually nothing. While anecdotal evidence can be argued to have its uses, anecdotal evidence is prone to such things as confirmation bias, selective memory and an unconscious modification of memory. So, while it can be seen as valuable to a degree, its reliability is oftentimes quite limited

For example if there are 10,000 recorded sightings of angels over history form all human cultures and ALL of them are basically consistent in description one could write up a scientific theory about the nature of angels Then one could look at all current and new sightings and check the descritors in them to verify how closley they approximate classical descriptions And so on.

How are we to know that these cultures ALL saw angels? There are some people who say that certain depictions of certain creatures in one culture seem similar to another, like gnomes in the UK having similar counterparts in Mexico, but these are projections made by certain people that are psychologically superimposed on the myths/legends of another. As I said before, just because you assume it is one thing, it doesn't necessarily make it so; just because you hear about beings in one area that seem similar to the angels as are described in your area, it doesn't mean they are actually angels, it only means that, at least to you, an angel is the most similar thing you can think of.

These things ARE amenable to scientific method, they just arent really within the domain of science in the western world.

The are only amenable to scientific methods when and ONLY when they can be independently verified. How can something be amenable to a scientific method if there is nothing to test; you can't test anecdotes

[Simatong]

and here in is the problem ..... you cannot put a stipulation like "as long as" and not claim anything other than a severely bias frame of reference. I don't mean to sound condescending, but can you at least sort of get where I'm coming from?

There is no bias; ANY worthy line of inquiry questions the methodology and falsifiability of any and all circumstances regarding the thing being questioned, otherwise it is meaningless. Any kind of "show me"-like inquire explicitly requires that the claims you make be verifiable in one form or another,and one needs to see if they are falsifiable; if you are going to show someone something, you must have evidence and sound data of what your're showing, otherwise it is pointless

[Simatong]

yes, I would probably ask those very questions ( please oh please do not resort to the "you don't understand science argument you have far to much potential for good debate than that old cop out) , probably, but then we would both be wrong wouldn't we? do you understand what I'm trying to get you to see?

Your statement implies that even though you would ask such questions, it would be wrong doing so.

[White Crane Feather]

There is no bias; ANY worthy line of inquiry questions the methodology and falsifiability of any and all circumstances regarding the thing being questioned, otherwise it is meaningless. Any kind of "show me"-like inquire explicitly requires that the claims you make be verifiable in one form or another,and one needs to see if they are falsifiable; if you are going to show someone something, you must have evidence and sound data of what your're showing, otherwise it is pointless

it's not meaningless. somethings falseifiability has no effect what so ever on its reality only your acceptance of it.

[White Crane Feather]

Your statement implies that even though you would ask such questions, it would be wrong doing so.

no not wrong in asking, only wring in assuming . The criteria for discovery would fail to yield the truth. indeed some other leading theory would b considered ' truth' and it would be wholly categorically wrong.

[ChrLzs]

Chrlzs,

Strictly out of curiosity (and nothing more, really). How long do you think these tests should last? Do you think a couple of days would suffice? A couple of weeks? Months? Maybe a year? I ask this simply because to me, in order to get a satisfactory answer, I personally wouldn't be satisfied until there was at least a couple of weeks or months worth of testing. Then again, you are talking to a guy who spent nearly his entire high school years and about half of his college years testing himself rigorously. (I just got done taking a zener card test online, made by a parapsychologist who seems legit, and I didn't stop until after more than 2500 guesses and had calculated everything).

It could be as quick as an hour or two..! especially if there has been a new discovery, or perhaps an application of new technology that suddenly reveals something we were unable to perceive previously. Eg, a telescope being invented that suddenly revealed Jupiter's Moons..

It really depends on the answers to those questions - and if it needs to get right down to the extensive testing, then one would simply look for what might be termed statistically *compelling* results.. A lot depends on the quality of the tests/experiments - they need to be carefully designed to be fair, but also unequivocal (as any scientist, statistician or even pollster, educator or interviewer will tell you..).

In particular, the evaluation and testing would most definitely NOT involve any subjective assessments, like the sort of dreck you often see when someone (for example) remotely views a room, and then says vague stuff like: "I sense a wetness, maybe dampness.." and the evaluator says OMG, there's a glass of water over on the sink. 1 CORRECT!!

And I'd repeat & combine two aphorisms:

The plural of anecdote isn't data, and data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge isn't.. WISDOM.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Chrlzs

[ChrLzs]

yes, I would probably ask those very questions

Good-oh! So what is the logical progression from that...?

( please oh please do not resort to the "you don't understand science argument..

Well, I may have to, especially if you seem to be unaware of what falsifiability actually is... But let's leave that for later - please cut to the chase..

do you understand what I'm trying to get you to see?

Nope. I genuinely don't. And the fact that you would ask the same questions hardly provides an obvious differentiation, you'd have to concede, surely...?

As this is public discussion forum, I think you should just explain exactly what you mean and where you are heading. Treat me as if I didn't have a clue.. I'd rather we worked this through from very basic principles anyway..

[Mr Walker]

There really isn't a division between scientific and non-scientific processes when it comes to this case. Whether or not one is of a "scientific" mindset, if you claim extraordinary abilities, expect to hear a request for extraordinary evidence, regardless of whether or not one is of a scientific mindset.

i can speak and read Chinese, Japanese (seriously, I can)..A scientist will doubt me, a lay person will (and implicitly) has doubted me. This has nothing to do with scientific processes. It has everything to with people desiring to see evidence of something they may consider "extraordinary".

First of all, a scientific mind may not necessarily assume on the spot that the aforementioned creature is a unicorn. Many a scientific mind might say it look like a unicorn, but would be hesitant to jump to that conclusion. Jumping to an unfounded conclusion is not a part of the scientific process. Many people assumed that the sun was made of fire. Science tells us it is not. Just because something looks like something, it doesn't necessarily make it what you think it is make it what you

Theories can be made about what the people saw, but if what they saw cannot be independently verified, their claims cannot necessarily be used to modify or challenge existing perceptions; in order for something to be challenged, there oftentimes needs to be evidence of something that can challenge said thing. You cannot challenge something with virtually nothing. While anecdotal evidence can be argued to have its uses, anecdotal evidence is prone to such things as confirmation bias, selective memory and an unconscious modification of memory. So, while it can be seen as valuable to a degree, its reliability is oftentimes quite limited

How are we to know that these cultures ALL saw angels? There are some people who say that certain depictions of certain creatures in one culture seem similar to another, like gnomes in the UK having similar counterparts in Mexico, but these are projections made by certain people that are psychologically superimposed on the myths/legends of another. As I said before, just because you assume it is one thing, it doesn't necessarily make it so; just because you hear about beings in one area that seem similar to the angels as are described in your area, it doesn't mean they are actually angels, it only means that, at least to you, an angel is the most similar thing you can think of.

The are only amenable to scientific methods when and ONLY when they can be independently verified. How can something be amenable to a scientific method if there is nothing to test; you can't test anecdotes

Again I am not talking about transferrable proofs/ There is no such thing as "extraordinary" merely "uncommon" And it is foolish and dare i say unscientific to accept common experiences without the same proofs as uncommon ones. Eg how do YOU know you cant walk through a wall ? Because science tells you you can't, because you believed someone else who told you, you could not, or because you have tried to and found it painful?

In life we do NOT use scientific method and verificaiton to liveby. Heck thats only been invented for a few thousand years and only refined in the last few hundred, We live by what we know and learn through personal experience An uncommon experience needs no more verifications for an individual, than a common one.

Wwhy on earth should i doubt you speak chinese. I sent last year teaching basic chinese to 25, 13 year olds via open access. I still can hardly speak a word of it but they are doing great guns and moving into year 9 chinese. (We had a chinese speaking tutor online using interactive whiteboards and web cams to actually impart the language skills.)

"Ni hao. Wo shi Adalyaren." is about my limit. (pinyin)

As you point out, the way a person is taught to think predicates their response to a situation. A scientist WILL be more dubious about the uniicorn because he/she is taught to be. But I also would make no assumptions.

However, if something looked like a uncorn acted like a unicorn and fitted the biological parameters of a unicorn, then perhaps it is a unicorn whehter peole believe unicorns exist or not. The next step is to ask how it got here and what it is doing which might alos explain its true nature. But some people get so hung up in doubt and disbelief they cant accept the evidence of their own eyes and senses. Others unquestioningly accept what they sense. Neither will help them get to the truth.

Independent verification includes another independent witness or observer When tens of thousands of humans have see ghosts then something we define as ghosts has an existence. When tens of thousands of people have seen angels, then something which we define as angels exist. This is no difernt to a rare animla or plant seen only by a few people If science does not or can not accept this, then science is failing in a significant part of human experience.

Angel is only a christian and modern linguistic label, but stories and descriptions of beings of light and other visitors coming to help and bring messages go back as early as human history and cross all human cultures.

It intrigues me that i had never read the bible, yet i saw an being which later on i realised matched one biblical description of an angel ie a tall, extremely bright pillar or column of light, which contained within it a sapient presence which spoke to me, altered the environment around me, and changed my own chemical balance as it said it would do.

I did not label it an angel until after a year or more of research when i realised tha this was what it best fit. My first thought was of a transmat beam and i honestly expected a being to step out of it next to me. Humans label and cateforise everything using certain parameters. I call these beings angels because they fit the paramenters of the label angel.

I have seen a beautiful young man in an expensive suit bring me a bible and be observed by a dozen nurses in a ward. I then observed him go out onto a balcony, isolated five floors above the ground. Within a few seconds he had simply vanished. I was going out the only door to speak to him and he was gone. The bible he brought to me and the memories of him stayed with me and with the nurses, who kept asking who he was..

If someone sees a dog in france and another person sees a dog in australia they are probably both dogs. if i look at a picture of a dog in a book my brain can tell me it is a dog because of the way our memories of images and labels attach to individual neurons.. Of course in some places they might be foxes hyenas or coyotes. For me, thats close enough to a dog .

The point is they are real, even if slightly different .And people will describe a dog differently, depending on their own powers of observation and knowledge of dogs Our new neighbour has two bernese mountain dogs We knew they were dogs but had to look up a couple of dog books to find their exact classification. But i do not need scientific verification to know they are real and that they are dogs.

And if you cant test anecdotes or individual experinces, science will never know a lot of humanity's experinces. In fact of course you can. A scientific report is nothing more than an anecdotal record from the observer. If another observer sees the same thing the two anecdotes confirm each other. If a hundred observers confirm, anecdotally, the same results, you have science in the making.

"psychologically superimposed' LOL what sort of wollies do you think humans are? Why psychologically superimpose an angel any more than dog or a cat. You know the saying.

"If it looks like an angel, walks like an angel, and talks like an angel, then invite her out on a date."

Edited January 30, 2013 by Mr Walker