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 -

Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0


Only_

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

It always makes me chuckle to see so many people mistrust science, and our current understanding of it, whilst simultaneously using devices that couldn't possibly exist without science being correct to call it out :lol:.

Chuckle all you want.   I look at what came out a few years ago about the EMdrive and read about all the scientist just dismissing it without ever looking into it. I know it breaks the law of momentum but, dammit look into these things before dismissing it and calling the guy a nut case.  Maybe, just maybe this thing is pulling energy or something from somewhere we don't understand yet. Possible, not probable though.

Just because people question some things does not mean they "mistrust science".  When you say that it makes it sound like you are doing the typical liberal shaming of anyone who questions things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Illyrius said:

It isn't exacty "mistrusting" science in a sense of an absolute denial - nowhere near that, it is a critique of scientism and dogmatism which is abundantly present in science.

Those are just human traits, the scientific method does not work to tell us why, just how.  The problem is that people won't even accept the 'how' sometimes because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions.  I can't for example tell you how many times I've argued the point over ghosts that, if they can be caught on camera, they can be measured with other equipment only to be told 'that's not how the spirit realm works' - yeah? well that's not how camera's work. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

well that's not how camera's work. 

 

Well, why not?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Those are just human traits, the scientific method does not work to tell us why, just how.  The problem is that people won't even accept the 'how' sometimes because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions.  I can't for example tell you how many times I've argued the point over ghosts that, if they can be caught on camera, they can be measured with other equipment only to be told 'that's not how the spirit realm works' - yeah? well that's not how camera's work. 

As i pointed out earlier, we are all subjective to some degree. Subjectiveness in science is also explainable, because with new ideas and horizons some of old theories have to be corrected and some even dismissed, so it is understandable that there is always a vehement oppositon to new ideas which sound radical and shake the foundations of old concepts, because some people dedicated whole lives to research something which they considered as valid and final. But that is not the whole story, there are other things at play too, like money and an entire worldview for example. If that was not the case there wouldn't be any reason to laugh to new ideas because investigation of new ideas should be embraced by science, because it started as something that was sparked by the spirit of wish for gaining knowledge and challenging dogmas, but now as an irony of destiny it became dogmatic and rigid itself.

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Why not said:

Chuckle all you want.   I look at what came out a few years ago about the EMdrive and read about all the scientist just dismissing it without ever looking into it. I know it breaks the law of momentum but, dammit look into these things before dismissing it and calling the guy a nut case.  Maybe, just maybe this thing is pulling energy or something from somewhere we don't understand yet. Possible, not probable though.

Just because people question some things does not mean they "mistrust science".  When you say that it makes it sound like you are doing the typical liberal shaming of anyone who questions things.

Why oh why does everything have to have a political undertone? Stop labeling people based on a political spectrum.

Science is all about questioning and some scientists dismissed the EM Drive with others pursued it.  This is kind of how science should work.  A better example would be an overunity device where science outright denies even the slightest possibility of such a thing existing - they can state this with certainty because if such a thing did exist we would need to re-write the fundamental laws that technology exploits every day.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well, why not?

 

 

Will, a camera works by capturing photons of light as they pass through an aperture.  The process for creating the image varies (digital vs analogue) but they all rely on one thing, the physical interaction of photons with matter.  For a ghost to appear to a normal camera it must be emitting photons.  If a ghost is emitting photons then it is interacting with physical matter and that interaction can be measured, examined and understood.  Cameras do not work on 'spirit energy' and any interaction by 'spirit energy' on the internal workings of the camera could be measured as we have full access to measuring the physical properties of matter (even the stuff we haven't figured out completely yet).  For example this is how we understand dark matter and energy exist, we infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Will, a camera works by capturing photons of light as they pass through an aperture.  The process for creating the image varies (digital vs analogue) but they all rely on one thing, the physical interaction of photons with matter.  For a ghost to appear to a normal camera it must be emitting photons.  If a ghost is emitting photons then it is interacting with physical matter and that interaction can be measured, examined and understood.  Cameras do not work on 'spirit energy' and any interaction by 'spirit energy' on the internal workings of the camera could be measured as we have full access to measuring the physical properties of matter (even the stuff we haven't figured out completely yet).  For example this is how we understand dark matter and energy exist, we infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world.

 

Wow!

That's some amazing inconsistency IC. Are you aware of it?

I don't believe a human being after he dies becomes a ghost, but lots of people do. And what they say sometimes to reinforce that their BELIEF is correct like you just did goes something like this:

"we infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world."

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Wow!

That's some amazing inconsistency IC. Are you aware of it?

I don't believe a human being after he dies becomes a ghost, but lots of people do. And what they say sometimes to reinforce that their BELIEF is correct like you just did goes something like this:

"we infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world."

 

 

It's not inconsistent at all.  Did you fully understand the argument? 

I was essentially saying that Ghosts should be measurable by other equipment if they can be seen on a camera.  The argument people give me is that 'other' equipment doesn't work because Ghosts are made of spirit energy...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Illyrius said:

What is this "peer review" anyway? To me it sounds more like "dogma review."

Once an editor decides your article might be something his journal is interested in, he submits it to experts in the field for review.  There are usually two reviewers, but there may be more.  They advise the editor of technical mistakes and/or omissions in the paper.  They also point out opportunities for improving the paper, both from a scientific and technical writing standpoint.  If the editor agrees (He usually does.), he returns the paper to the author for comments, explanations and if need be, corrections.  Once everybody is in agreement (Sometimes the editor can overrule a reviewer.), the paper is accepted for publication.  The process is useful in catching mistakes and it makes authors explain how they arrived at particular conclusions.

Reviews are supposed to be anonymous so that an editor can get the reviewer's genuine opinion, but in small fields like mine, there aren't that many reviewers, so guessing who reviewed your paper isn't all that difficult.  Besides, next week I might be reviewing a paper by the same guy who is reviewing mine this week.  Wars have started that way.

The process isn't perfect.  Because scientists investigate things that nobody else knows about, even the experts don't always understand what is being said or how a particular idea might work.

Making a discovery is a unique experience.  For a few minutes, you're the only person on earth who knows this thing.

 

I might point out that before the paper gets to peer review, it is usually reviewed by each of the co-authors and maybe by some other people, too.  Peer review is only the last stage in a process that might involve 20 or 30 reviews.

Doug

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

It's not inconsistent at all.  Did you fully understand the argument? 

I was essentially saying that Ghosts should be measurable by other equipment if they can be seen on a camera.  The argument people give me is that 'other' equipment doesn't work because Ghosts are made of spirit energy...

Spirit energy being an extremely vague and often undefined term. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

The weak indulge in resolutions, but the strong act. 

 

 

Will

Speaking from experience it takes a fair bit of strength to stay one's hand at times and resolve through reason for the greater good.

jmccr8

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Spirit energy being an extremely vague and often undefined term. 

Spirit energy not being detectable would be an oxymoron to say the least as energy of any form should be detectable as science has already greatly shown. 

cormac

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Spirit energy being an extremely vague and often undefined term. 

Indeed, this is the way in which people can claim anything is possible without having to explain any of the mechanism.  "Oh science doesn't know all of the energies blah blah" is often parroted back at me by people who haven't taken the time to understand anything at all about particle physics.  I only understand the basics but even that is enough for me to see that there aren't any really large, energetic 'ghost' particles interacting with normal matter.  If ghosts are real and can be filmed then we should be able to locate the particle interactions.  Now they might exist at energy levels way beyond those that we have so far plumbed the depths of but then the mechanism for a WIMP creating an image on a camera needs explanation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

It's not inconsistent at all.  Did you fully understand the argument? 

I was essentially saying that Ghosts should be measurable by other equipment if they can be seen on a camera.  The argument people give me is that 'other' equipment doesn't work because Ghosts are made of spirit energy...

 

No.

The argument is that when you want to support the BELIEF in something science hasn't proven to exist, then you:

"infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world."

I guess you and others do such things because of faith.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus you have to deal with the hit and miss nature of supernatural/paranormal activity. These inconsistencies do nothing to help in any form of validation. Plus there is little to no way of testing such things due to control conditions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

No.

The argument is that when you want to support the BELIEF in something science hasn't proven to exist, then you:

"infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world."

I guess you and others do such things because of faith.

 

 

Will what are you on about?  My argument has nothing to do with belief, it is to do with recording ghosts on a camera and what that means.  I don't have to believe in dark matter, we know it exists because we can see it's interaction and effect in a measurable way.  Ghosts on the other hand seem to have no record-able effect i.e. they can't be measured in a lab for some reason.  So we cannot infer their existence as we have no physical proof that they ever interact with normal matter.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

No.

The argument is that when you want to support the BELIEF in something science hasn't proven to exist, then you:

"infer their existence from their interaction with the physical world."

I guess you and others do such things because of faith.

And you would be wrong. A perfect example of this would be a black hole, while we can’t see one in its entirety we can see the destruction it causes on anything approaching its event horizon. No faith required since radiotelescopes can see it happening. 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Will what are you on about?  My argument has nothing to do with belief, it is to do with recording ghosts on a camera and what that means.  I don't have to believe in dark matter, we know it exists because we can see it's interaction and effect in a measurable way.  Ghosts on the other hand seem to have no record-able effect i.e. they can't be measured in a lab for some reason.  So we cannot infer their existence as we have no physical proof that they ever interact with normal matter.  

My observation:  "ghosts," as caught on electronic devices, are not an intelligence, but merely an electrical field phenomenon.  Ghost hunters are mistaking electrical fields for something animate.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I don't have to believe in dark matter, we know it exists because we can see it's interaction and effect in a measurable way. 

Well this is something that catched my eye now so to speak. I wouldn't like to go to wikipedia, or some other source, but since dark matter and dark energy constitute the vast majority of known universe, could you give me a brief description of this two things, because i heard they are pretty vaguely explained. What are dark matter and dark energy and what is the basic difference between them?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Illyrius said:

This is an analogy i used about 20 times already, but apparently some people just don't get it.

Goes well with this quote too;

“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”
Nikola Tesla

Hi Illyrius

Where I see a problem with this analogy is if you take witness statements from a group of people at a crime scene they will all give different descriptions of events and people. If they were receiving a broadcast signal the the chances of variation would be limited. What happens is each observer processes the information differently because of their environmental conditioning and bias. Even when people read the same material or whach the same movie the see different aspects of what they are exposed to because of their environmental conditioning. Have you ever watched a movie with someone that was there from the beginning just like you were and continuously ask you what's going on because they either can:t grasp the concept or are limited in their ability to focus?

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
Phone is messing with me
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

My observation:  "ghosts," as caught on electronic devices, are not an intelligence, but merely an electrical field phenomenon.  Ghost hunters are mistaking electrical fields for something animate.

Doug

Those same em fields can cause auditory, visual, and tactile hallucinations. Depending on either there intensity or the persons sensitivity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And you would be wrong. A perfect example of this would be a black hole, while we can’t see one in its entirety we can see the destruction it causes on anything approaching its event horizon. No faith required since radiotelescopes can see it happening. 

cormac

 

But how do you know what a black hole is when you can't see it?

What if what you see when you look at a black hole are nothing more than a series of immense orbiting dark spheres that makes it impossible to peer beyond them, to what lies at the center?

That's a possibility isn't it?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

Where I see a problem with this analogy is if you take witness statements from a group of people at a crime scene they will all go either different descriptions of events and people. If they were receiving a broadcast signal the the chances of variation would be limited. What happens is each observer processes the information differently because of their environmental conditioning and bias. Even when people read the same material or whach the same movie the see different aspects of what they are exposed to because of their environmental conditioning. Have you ever watched a movie with someone that was there from the beginning just like you were and continuously ask you what's going on because they either can:t grasp the concept or are limited in their ability to focus?

jmccr8

Hi Jay.

I am not sure you percieved the core meaning of the analogy. The meaning of the analogy is that a human brain is an organ which interprets universal consciousness which is something which permeates the whole cosmos. Our brains are similar just like we are similar but no one is identically the same. Our upbringing and what we experience in life shapes our attitudes, and thinking patterns, what we know and what we believe. The sole point of analogy is basically a proposition that universal consciousness is "filtered" with the physical brain and thus proceeds what we call a human consciousness. Basic difference that is at odds with scientific explanation is practically an inversion which states that brain is a receptor and not an original emitter of cosnsciousness.

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

But how do you know what a black hole is when you can't see it?

What if what you see when you look at a black hole are nothing more than a series of immense orbiting dark spheres that makes it impossible to peer beyond them, to what lies at the center?

That's a possibility isn't it?

 

 

Will

Cormac said that the effects are observable, which is how it is known to exist why are you trying to make more out of it? What he said was clear and understandable.

jmccr8

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.