The Paranormal: Can New Science Explain Old P

[macqdor]

The Paranormal: Can New Science Explain Old Phenomena?

Quote

But, although I see little hard evidence for paranormal or supernatural phenomena, I also believe that conscientious scientists need to keep an open mind, and be very careful not to label things as “impossible.” 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/long-fuse-big-bang/201901/the-paranormal-can-new-science-explain-old-phenomena

[Golden Duck]

Given that you said this

29 minutes ago, macqdor said:

...

Dam right they were barred away.  I'd turn them away to.  The only thing a skeptic believes in is being a career skeptic.    The fact that they showed up proves they understand NOTHING ABOUT  poltergeist phenomena.    Them showing up with pen and clipboard is like me showing up where a bolt of lightening struck yesterday.

Screw skeptics.

Their approach to the this subject is severely flawed and outdated.

@papageorge1

6

The answer is NO!

[psyche101]

An appeal to authority followed by an argument from ignorance? 

[papageorge1]

I think the government gets too much blame as actually criticizing modern Aboriginal society is taboo and gets you called an uncaring evil racist. So,  I'll expect to read the same things in the next decades that I've been reading the last few decades about how terribly the government aborigine policies are. If you expect the government to fix social problems that a community can better fix itself then you have a perpetual problem

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by papageorge1

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the government gets too much blame as actually criticizing modern Aboriginal society is taboo and gets you called an uncaring evil racist. So,  I'll expect to read the same things in the next decades that I've been reading the last few decades about how terribly the government aborigine policies are. If you expect the government to fix social problems that a community can better fix itself then you have a perpetual problem

 

Which thread was this for?

[macqdor]

Some rational explanations are yet to be figured out therefore they remain a mystery some remain paranormal.  Others remain supernatural.  There are things living in existence that is unknown vs. known.  The Poltergeist is just one of them.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by macqdor

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, macqdor said:

Some rational explanations are yet to be figured out therefore they remain a mystery some remain paranormal.  Others remain supernatural.  There are things living in existence that is unknown vs. known.  The Poltergeist is just one of them.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Which thread was this for?

 

[papageorge1]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the government gets too much blame as actually criticizing modern Aboriginal society is taboo and gets you called an uncaring evil racist. So,  I'll expect to read the same things in the next decades that I've been reading the last few decades about how terribly the government aborigine policies are. If you expect the government to fix social problems that a community can better fix itself then you have a perpetual problem

 

Oops, this reply was meant for a different thread.

[papageorge1]

13 hours ago, macqdor said:

The Paranormal: Can New Science Explain Old Phenomena?

My thought is that there is just one mainstream science and it needs some  major breakthroughs for it to explain the realm of the so-called paranormal. 

I think the key point is that real intelligent things and beings do exist beyond the physical three-dimensional physical realm of our physical senses and instruments. At this point we are seeing human psychic senses going places where physical senses can not. The majority of matter in the universe is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. Even current science is wondering what is going on with this mystery.

I think the key to science understanding paranormal phenomena is the acceptance that there are other planes of reality that are beyond our three-dimensional world. Our minds didn't evolve to work well with dimensions beyond three.

Edited January 22, 2019 by papageorge1

[Golden Duck]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My thought is that there is just one mainstream science and it needs some  major breakthroughs for it to explain the realm of the so-called paranormal. 

I think the key point is that real intelligent things and beings do exist beyond the physical three-dimensional physical realm of our physical senses and instruments. At this point we are seeing human psychic senses going places where physical senses can not. The majority of matter in the universe is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. Even current science is wondering what is going on with this mystery.

I think the key to science understanding paranormal phenomena is the acceptance that there are other planes of reality that are beyond our three-dimensional world. Our minds didn't evolve to work well with dimensions beyond three.

An intriguing post.

Can you give specific examples of what you may be alluding in your second paragraph?

[papageorge1]

28 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

An intriguing post.

Can you give specific examples of what you may be alluding in your second paragraph?

An astral body on the astral plane composed of astral matter (beyond our familiar three-dimensions). 

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My thought is that there is just one mainstream science and it needs some  major breakthroughs for it to explain the realm of the so-called paranormal. 

Your thoughts just show that you are unfamiliar with the sciences and how they support each other. 

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the key point is that real intelligent things and beings do exist beyond the physical three-dimensional physical realm of our physical senses and instruments. At this point we are seeing human psychic senses going places where physical senses can not.

No we are not, we have some unsubstantiated claims driven by superstition. Nothing is seen or revealed by these claims. 

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The majority of matter in the universe is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. Even current science is wondering what is going on with this mystery.

Daek matter is detectable, its not yet identified. Big difference. 

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the key to science understanding paranormal phenomena is the acceptance that there are other planes of reality that are beyond our three-dimensional world. Our minds didn't evolve to work well with dimensions beyond three.

Acceptance? 

That's not how science works either. Evidence is the game changer, not opinion. 

[Golden Duck]

27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

An astral body on the astral plane composed of astral matter (beyond our familiar three-dimensions). 

How would you test Astral Travelling?

How would you demonstrate "we are seeing human psychic senses going places where physical senses can not"?

[papageorge1]

24 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

How would you test Astral Travelling?

How would you demonstrate "we are seeing human psychic senses going places where physical senses can not"?

Now you are asking different questions. Living people astral travelling is a different question than the existence of beings native to the astral plane. And the physical people doing the testing have no way to judge the traveler's experience. 

For physical level testing about the best we could do is check for knowledge of details at a remote location. As for this there are many anecdotal claims and remote viewing controlled testing yielding fantastic odds against chance.

That is about as much as I can say for scientific testing. I am a fan of science myself but not a follower of scientism so my personal beliefs consider sources and wisdom traditions beyond science's current reach.

[Golden Duck]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now you are asking different questions. Living people astral travelling is a different question than the existence of beings native to the astral plane. And the physical people doing the testing have no way to judge the traveler's experience. 

For physical level testing about the best we could do is check for knowledge of details at a remote location. As for this there are many anecdotal claims and remote viewing controlled testing yielding fantastic odds against chance.

That is about as much as I can say for scientific testing. I am a fan of science myself but not a follower of scientism so my personal beliefs consider sources and wisdom traditions beyond science's current reach.

I originally asked you to support a paragraph which including the statement "we are seeing human psychic senses going places where physical senses can not".

You asserted the phenomena of Astral Travelling exists.  I think the subsequent questions where entirely in the spirit of the first request - reducing the size of the goal posts rather than moving them.

Nevertheless, your suggestion of a physical test is appreciated.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Golden Duck

[psyche101]

45 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now you are asking different questions. Living people astral travelling is a different question than the existence of beings native to the astral plane. And the physical people doing the testing have no way to judge the traveler's experience. 

For physical level testing about the best we could do is check for knowledge of details at a remote location. As for this there are many anecdotal claims and remote viewing controlled testing yielding fantastic odds against chance.

That is about as much as I can say for scientific testing. I am a fan of science myself but not a follower of scientism so my personal beliefs consider sources and wisdom traditions beyond science's current reach.

But you say nobody researches this stuff? 

Project Statgate was a 20 million dollar failure that sought to verify remote viewing for defence purposes. 

All it resulted in was a funny movie. 

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell has conducted such experiments from space with no convincing results, and he a strong supporter of nonsense superstitions. 

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But you say nobody researches this stuff? 

Project Statgate was a 20 million dollar failure that sought to verify remote viewing for defence purposes. 

All it resulted in was a funny movie. 

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell has conducted such experiments from space with no convincing results, and he a strong supporter of nonsense superstitions. 

Umm......well I have heard plenty of data with positive results. No sense repeating that debate again with me bringing up people like Dean Radin, Russell Targ, Jessica Utts, etcetra unless there is something new we haven’t done to death on this forum.

[psyche101]

47 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Umm......well I have heard plenty of data with positive results. No sense repeating that debate again with me bringing up people like Dean Radin, Russell Targ, Jessica Utts, etcetra unless there is something new we haven’t done to death on this forum.

Done to death is right. 

Every one of those people have indeed been discussed and not one of them can substantiate squat. Opinions are not data. You have not shown how any single one of them is relevant to the subject, each time you have attempted to do so, @ChrLzs and I have rationalised those opinions and claims if results. To have yet to provide anything more than a biased person's opinion.

So sure, forgot those wannabes. What about project statgate and Edgar Mitchell? 

How can you say science avoids the subject considering that? 

Edited January 23, 2019 by psyche101

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Done to death is right. 

Every one of those people have indeed been discussed and not one of them can substantiate squat. 

Who is the determiner of that? 

[psyche101]

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Who is the determiner of that? 

Their results. 

And

Jessica Utts was one of the failures of the statgate project. You're seriously over reaching to include her credulous opinion. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by psyche101

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Their results. 

And

Jessica Utts was one of the failures of the statgate project. You're seriously over reaching to include her credulous opinion. 

'THEIR" results indicate success. So you didn't answer the question of 'WHO' determined that they can't substantiate squat. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by papageorge1

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

'THEIR" results indicate success.

No they do not, what nonsense, their results illustrate the zealous approach that results in a complete lack of credibility to the entire field. Preconceptions exist because of people like that. 

You believe they indicate results because you want to. It's the Papageorge1 credulity ratio in action. 

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So you didn't answer the question of 'WHO' determined that they can't substantiate squat. 

Well, to be fair it's a dumb question. 

There is no who. Nobody is 'in charge' 

The only judge in such instances are the claims themselves. If they are genuine, then that speaks for itself. 

Repetition upon demand, predictability, that's the judge. 

The zealous opinionated rubbish distributed by the people you mentioned above does not stand to scrutiny. Upon evaluation it is just an overexcited opinion.