Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Parallel universes are real, claim scientists

232 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

badeskov
11 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

No need. Metaphysics and Science are not separate. Still, you insist on making the difference.

Oh yes, they are indeed *very* different. Science relies on something tangible, something that can be observed and measured, independently verified. In another word, objective reality. Metaphysics does not. From Merriam-Webster:

Quote

Definition of metaphysics:

a :  a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology  
b :  abstract philosophical studies :  a study of what is outside objective experience

But before you get your arms up when you see cosmology mentioned, please note the next paragraph:

Quote

Did You Know?

Just as physics deals with the laws that govern the physical world (such as those of gravity or the properties of waves), metaphysics describes what is beyond physics—the nature and origin of reality itself, the immortal soul, and the existence of a supreme being. Opinions about these metaphysical topics vary widely, since what's being discussed can't be observed or measured or even truly known to exist. So most metaphysical questions are still as far from a final answer as they were when Plato and Aristotle were asking them.

I have bolded the pertinent parts for you (as a real scientist would). Also from Merriam-Webster we get the definition of science:

Quote

Definition of science
1  :  the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a :  a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
   b :  something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a :  knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
   b :  such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :  natural science
4    :  a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized :  christian science

See the difference now? Or will you continue to ignore the definition and peddle mysticism, Chakras and whatever else you have as scientific endeavors? 

Quote

"BASELESS CLAIMS"? Either you don't see the evidence,

No, you are correct, I do indeed not see the evidence, which is why I am asking that you specifically point it out to this ignoramus.

Quote

or you don't think it is something you would like to involve yourself with. Fine, but don't disturb others. I'm replying only because you replied. Your reply shows that you have interest, but not to do anything good. Only to say it is not real...

I will get myself involved when I see it fit, thank you. When I see a complete misrepresentation of science, a misuse to shoehorn in mysticism I will indeed comment.

Quote

I said it: You are trying to SEE with your eyes closed.

My eyes are wide open, which is why I can easily see why this is futile.

Quote

You are insisting, 'I see the rose, there. I KNOW it is only the rose.' And you are making this claim with your eyes closed.

I am just saying that you do not understand science. Which was essentially concluded by Emma on page 3 of this thread.

Quote

Tell me, can you see the rose with your eyes closed? Can you even be sure that it is really the rose you are seeing?

As I said, my eyes are wide open.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Typos and clarifications.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
badeskov
23 minutes ago, Sahir said:

Not true. Publishing your scientific work in a book is quite frankly, frowned upon. As it has not been through a scientific peer-review process before being published. 

Any sincere scientist would supply their summarized work to a journal which then begins its peer-reviewing, before accepting it and finally publishing it.

if you cannot even make it through the peer-review of the more, let's say "alternative" journals, then the quality of the context must be bad. 

Indeed. Scientific books are a summary of a scientific field based on peer reviewed journal papers with the proper citations included. And when referencing a book, one should always be able to point to the pertinent parts supporting one's claim.

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
12 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

The analogy is good. But if you don't understand whether the foundation is good?

If you think that the foundation is good, though it is bad?

Confidently, you build on the bad foundation, believing it is good all the time. Then the house falls down. Then?

That is indeed how science works. I science one typically does not know for sure if one's premise/hypothesis (foundation) is sound, so one does one's work and at the end, test the conclusion reached either experimentally or against data sets that one knows should correlate. If the house falls apart, one goes back to the premise (foundation), tweaks it and start over. 

12 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Oh, someone said it is not a good foundation, but you were too stubborn to listen...

Yes, that is the case here. The foundation is rotten. No true scientist would start from an obvious rotten foundation. Science does work like that. 

Cheers,
Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sahir
42 minutes ago, badeskov said:

Indeed. Scientific books are a summary of a scientific field based on peer reviewed journal papers with the proper citations included. And when referencing a book, one should always be able to point to the pertinent parts supporting one's claim.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Books are often written due to  financial reasons or due to an interest, sometimes both. However any "sincere" scientist would first have their idea or work published in a credible journal before attempting to write a book. 

If you indeed wish to use a book as a reference, then you must be able to supply the page and the paragraph as a reference. 

If you further want to discuss it on an online forum, then you must also be able to provide the actual text. One cannot be expected to buy a book, to validate its source. 

This TED Talk by Dr Goldarce is quite informative, if you are inexperienced in how science works. I do not believe you are badeskov however i do suspect Avinash Suresh might be. 

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science

 

Edited by Sahir
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
6 minutes ago, Sahir said:

Books are often written due to a financial reasons or due to an interest, sometimes both. However any "sincere" scientist would first have their idea or work published in a credible journal before attempting to write a book. 

If you indeed wish to use a book as a reference, then you must be able to supply the page and the paragraph as a reference. 

Indeed. I personally always do that if I reference a book in a scientific setting.

6 minutes ago, Sahir said:

If you further want to discuss it on an online forum, then you must also be able to provide the actual text. One cannot be expected to buy a book, to validate its source. 

This TED Talk by Dr Goldarce is quite informative, if you are inexperienced in how science works. I do not believe you are badeskov however i do suspect Avinash Suresh might be.

I am sadly experienced enough to make this thread hurt my eyes.

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sahir
5 minutes ago, badeskov said:

I am sadly experienced enough to make this thread hurt my eyes.

Cheers,
Badeskov

This caught me off guard. I nearly choked on my coffee laughing. 

Edited by Sahir
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
11 minutes ago, Sahir said:

This caught me off guard. I nearly choked on my coffee laughing. 

My sincere apologies, Sahir! :lol:

Cheers,
Badeskov

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.