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 -
XenoFish

Spiritual Void

2,086 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Nuclear Wessel
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You were implying, however, that all scientific theories are  already proven correct

I implied no such thing. 

Quote

That is not the case  You incorrectly crossed out the fact that the big bang theory is NOT proven.

That's the thing about scientific theories--they are falsifiable. 

Quote

I already said it is the most commonly accepted theory

Yes, but you left out the fact that it was a scientific theory. That's important.

Quote

However there are a number of competing theories  

I wouldn't say there's really a competition as we have large bodies of evidence for the big bang theory and very little (if any) to support the others.

Quote

ive known the big bang theory for 65 years,  and i think it originated a bit before then  :)      

To me CCC is "new,"  like the internet and mobile phones are "new".

Penrose publicised it in a book, around 2010 That makes it newer than most things i own :)  

lol I guess its an age thing.

I'm going to be frank: nobody cares about any of those things that I bolded and underlined. Why do you have to insert yourself into every discussion? You're really not that interesting.

Quote

lastly. yes i agreed that theories are based on observations, data, and current understandings BUT, when knowledge, data, and understandings are incomplete, and observation is limited by our instrumentation, it is impossible to turn a theory into a certainty or scientific law

Nobody said anything about turning a theory into a law except for you

Quote

Heck we dont even know with any certainty if the observable universe constitutes the entirety of the universe. Ie all that which exists  Go through a wormhole and you might end up in a different part of the universe which we don't even know of, because we can't observe it with our current instruments. 

Not with certainty, absolutely. But we do have a pretty good idea thus far. If evidence becomes available that favours a universe that actually extends beyond that which we can actively observe then the data and information will be updated, accordingly.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
Quote

There is no "law of the big bang"  because there is not enough evidence/observational data to prove such a law 

There is no "law of evolution" because there is not enough evidence/observational data to prove such a law. Right?

I feel like you don't really understand what encompasses a scientific law.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i will accept your pov on this  as your honest understanding of the situation. 

It's not just my point of view. It's the view of the vast majority of people using the terms in a scientific manner. 

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The law of gravity is only possible because the theory of gravitational attraction has enough evidence to  make it indisputable 

No. Newton figured out the law of gravitation hundreds of years before Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity. 

It was a law long before and without necessity of the theory. The theory doesn't validate the law. It answers a separate question. The "how" part specifically. 

"There is a law of gravitation and also a theory of gravitation.

Explanation:

In physics a law describes a natural phenomenon, but does not attempt to describe how it works.

Newton's law of gravitation describes the attractive force F between two bodies with masses m1 and m2, which are a distance r apart.

F=Gm1m2r2

Where G is the gravitational constant.
This is a law because it describes the force but makes no attempt to explain how the force works.

A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explains how gravity works by describing gravity as the effect of curvature of four dimensional spacetime.

Einstein also produced an equation which describes gravity. It may look simple, but in reality it is very complex and very hard to solve.

Gμν=8πGc4Tμν

So, we have both a law and a theory of gravity."

https://socratic.org/questions/is-gravity-a-law-or-theory#:~:text=This is a law because,curvature of four dimensional spacetime.

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

There is no "law of the big bang"  because there is not enough evidence/observational data to prove such a law 

Sort of correct. A law isn't proven. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon. Since we cannot directly observe the big bang we cannot postulate a law regarding it.

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus the law really only became a law (using the definitions you give in your chart, ) rather than a theory, when it was tested and proven correct Until then it could have been revised 

Wrong. The Cavendish Experiment did not turn Newton's theory of gravitation into a law. It used an experiment to bolster the theory itself. This did not affect the separate law of Newton's. 

To repeat, they are two separate things. 

Laws are rarely ever revised because they are a description of a phenomenon. Not because they have been proven.

Theories are revised because new information into the why part are taken into consideration. 

34 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As it turns out, it was superseded by einstein's findings  so, in a sense, it never was a law because it turned out to be capable of revision 

Wrong. See above. 

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

YOUR definitions presume that the law is proven and thus irrevisable

No they do not. I've stated several times now that a law is not "proven."

It even says it in the picture above :

Laws are "not typically revised because the are universally observed."

Though I guess one could equate universally observed and proven. I don't really subscribe to this because I don't think science really proves anything in the same way math can.

Take Ohm's Law : I = V/R

That's it. That's the law. And it only works most of the time. It's not universal. There are non-ohmic/non-linear electrical elements such as diodes and batteries.

These do not disprove the law any more than finding something else that follows the law would prove it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 6/25/2020 at 12:57 AM, XenoFish said:

Let's say that you've successfully destroyed another person's belief system. 

Darwin for instance? Surely responsible for the destruction of the most commonly held beliefs of his time. Science has been known to do this, yet scientists (usually) seem ok. 

Quote

So, do you think creating such a spiritual void is/was worth it? 

No such thing as a spiritual void. That infers there was a spiritual non void to begin with. Generally "comforting delusion" would be more accurate. Depends on the circumstance I guess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
23 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

It's not just my point of view. It's the view of the vast majority of people using the terms in a scientific manner. 

No. Newton figured out the law of gravitation hundreds of years before Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity. 

It was a law long before and without necessity of the theory. The theory doesn't validate the law. It answers a separate question. The "how" part specifically. 

"There is a law of gravitation and also a theory of gravitation.

Explanation:

In physics a law describes a natural phenomenon, but does not attempt to describe how it works.

Newton's law of gravitation describes the attractive force F between two bodies with masses m1 and m2, which are a distance r apart.

F=Gm1m2r2

Where G is the gravitational constant.
This is a law because it describes the force but makes no attempt to explain how the force works.

A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explains how gravity works by describing gravity as the effect of curvature of four dimensional spacetime.

Einstein also produced an equation which describes gravity. It may look simple, but in reality it is very complex and very hard to solve.

Gμν=8πGc4Tμν

So, we have both a law and a theory of gravity."

https://socratic.org/questions/is-gravity-a-law-or-theory#:~:text=This is a law because,curvature of four dimensional spacetime.

Sort of correct. A law isn't proven. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon. Since we cannot directly observe the big bang we cannot postulate a law regarding it.

Wrong. The Cavendish Experiment did not turn Newton's theory of gravitation into a law. It used an experiment to bolster the theory itself. This did not affect the separate law of Newton's. 

To repeat, they are two separate things. 

Laws are rarely ever revised because they are a description of a phenomenon. Not because they have been proven.

Theories are revised because new information into the why part are taken into consideration. 

Wrong. See above. 

No they do not. I've stated several times now that a law is not "proven."

It even says it in the picture above :

Laws are "not typically revised because the are universally observed."

Though I guess one could equate universally observed and proven. I don't really subscribe to this because I don't think science really proves anything in the same way math can.

Take Ohm's Law : I = V/R

That's it. That's the law. And it only works most of the time. It's not universal. There are non-ohmic/non-linear electrical elements such as diodes and batteries.

These do not disprove the law any more than finding something else that follows the law would prove it.

So basically My problem is tha t, given your explanation,  laws can be wrong and they CAN be revised and rewritten  A law simply describes an observation, while a theory explains the possible causative or causal links within   a law 

 

I know the scientific definitions. My point is that if a law, is simply a mathematical theory it remains a theory

it sounded as if laws are based on mathematics  and it is this which "proves"an equation  

Thus Newton wrote a "law" which was not proven for 100 years  If cavendish's experiments had disproven Newton's law, would it have remained as a law of science  ? 

Then it was  later proven to be only partially an explanation for what was observable 

NEITHER present a strong argument for why a person  should simply accept scientific theories or laws as true and complete  explanations 

Remember this was the basis of this debate/disagreement.

  ieTha t scientific theories are more than simply  a theoretical model or understanding .

Indeed, often they are. The "theory of evolution "is a pretty well proven model for biological progression  ie it is more than just a nice theory.

But sometimes scientific theories are just like non scientific ones. ie a model constructed to explain observable phenomena, but as yet unproven and untested 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So basically My problem is tha t, given your explanation,  laws can be wrong and they CAN be revised and rewritten  A law simply describes an observation, while a theory explains the possible causative or causal links within   a law 

Why do you have a problem with that? 

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I know the scientific definitions. My point is that if a law, is simply a mathematical theory it remains a theory

it sounded as if laws are based on mathematics  and it is this which "proves"an equation  

No. A law isn't only a mathematical theory. It can be expressed as a set of statements also.

Newton's law, which I posted the equation for can be stated as follows from wikipedia 

"In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

It doesn't seem like you know or understand the scientific definitions of these terms.

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus Newton wrote a "law" which was not proven for 100 years 

Again with the proving. How do you think Newton came up with the law in the first place? He didn't prove it.

Observations, calculations and standing on the shoulders of those before him and some of his contemporaries.

The experiment was simply the first to MEASURE the force of gravity.

And using Newton's law of gravitation was able to determine the specific gravity of Earth which was obviously unknown to Newton. 

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If cavendish's experiments had disproven Newton's law, would it have remained as a law of science  ? 

The experiment was not to prove or disprove the law. It used the law. 

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Then it was  later proven to be only partially an explanation for what was observable

Yes. Because it doesn't work on very large or very small scales.

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

NEITHER present a strong argument for why a person  should simply accept scientific theories or laws as true and complete  explanations 

It presents an extremely strong argument, not to "simply accept" either, but to hopefully understand how much work goes into constituting a SCIENTIFIC law or theory.

Hence the qualifier "scientific."

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Remember this was the basis of this debate/disagreement.

Yes. I took umbrage at yours and others take that "just a theory" is applicable to scientific theories.

It was specifically a poster who wrote, in regards to the big bang theory explaining beginning  of the observable universe :

"Science does not say that, scientists speculate that,  it is a THEORY." 

And :

"NO, a scientific theory is always a theory until it is proven to be based on bodies of repeatable evidence."

Which you agreed with, mistakenly thinking that a theory is only a theory until it is proven and becomes a law.

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ieTha t scientific theories are more than simply  a theoretical model or understanding .

The "theory of evolution "is a pretty well proven model for biological progression  ie it is more than just a nice theory.

I pretty much agree with both these statements. I also contend that they are applicable to the big bang theory.

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

But sometimes scientific theories are just like non scientific ones. ie a model constructed to explain observable phenomena, but as yet unproven and untested

No. No. No.

You claim to know the definitions pertaining to this discussion, yet this is completely wrong.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Why do you have a problem with that? 

No. A law isn't only a mathematical theory. It can be expressed as a set of statements also.

Newton's law, which I posted the equation for can be stated as follows from wikipedia 

"In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

It doesn't seem like you know or understand the scientific definitions of these terms.

Again with the proving. How do you think Newton came up with the law in the first place? He didn't prove it.

Observations, calculations and standing on the shoulders of those before him and some of his contemporaries.

The experiment was simply the first to MEASURE the force of gravity.

And using Newton's law of gravitation was able to determine the specific gravity of Earth which was obviously unknown to Newton. 

The experiment was not to prove or disprove the law. It used the law. 

Yes. Because it doesn't work on very large or very small scales.

It presents an extremely strong argument, not to "simply accept" either, but to hopefully understand how much work goes into constituting a SCIENTIFIC law or theory.

Hence the qualifier "scientific."

Yes. I took umbrage at yours and others take that "just a theory" is applicable to scientific theories.

It was specifically a poster who wrote, in regards to the big bang theory explaining beginning  of the observable universe :

"Science does not say that, scientists speculate that,  it is a THEORY." 

And :

"NO, a scientific theory is always a theory until it is proven to be based on bodies of repeatable evidence."

Which you agreed with, mistakenly thinking that a theory is only a theory until it is proven and becomes a law.

I pretty much agree with both these statements. I also contend that they are applicable to the big bang theory.

No. No. No.

You claim to know the definitions pertaining to this discussion, yet this is completely wrong.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

 

My problem is that a law should be a proven statement while a theory should be unproven  

eg a law could be tha t gravity always attracts  The theory explains why this is so BUT when/if it is found tha t gravity can also repel, the law must be changed to reflect this 

I understand the scientific definitions but either laws CAN be changed as new evidences arise, or the y can not  

Ive already said a number of times tha t i know the scientific  definitions My pint is tha t they are not necessarily anymore "right" or absolute than a law or a theory tha t you or i can comeup with from observations 

You started this debate by saying that  a scientific theory is different to  other peoples theories 

In reality it is not, except that science retains the name theory for things which have basically been proven  such a evolution 

My problem is an education in both in maths /science and the humanities and language.

Idid a double level university entrance maths and physics and several years of chemistry,  but i went onto the language /social sciences at university 

Thus I am conflicted when science uses language/terms that do not apply elsewhere.

it is a form of elitism and use of language to exclude others. 

Scientists seem to think it empowers them, or gives them authority, to use a specialised langue but it actually creates a gulf between scientists and non scientistsleading to a distrust of science by many and a failure to understand science.   

Thus (as one example)  many non scientists who are religious, mistakenly believe tha t evolution is  ONLY a theory and thus can be refuted To a lay person the theory of evolution does not mean the explanation of how evolution works but a general theory that humans are a product of evolution  To them, using theory means it is unproven and thus can be denied 

To be clear i am, and always have been, an evolutionist. A good education in science and history ensured that   Indeed ive never really understood a theory to be anything BUT the scientific form 

ie an hypothesis which is tested until it has enough data to form a theory .

Many scientific theories dont have, or  require,  the level of evidences or proofs your quote suggests  Once an hypothesis accumulates enough evidences to support it, It becomes a theory  This is a lower standard than suggested in your last quote.

  However that quote can also be read to say that, once a scientific theory is developed, it undergoes ongoing rigorous testing in an attempt to validate it, Ie it is a proposition, explanation,  or idea which CAN be tested 

I'd use hunch or intuition to describe what some people might call a theory 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

My problem is that a law should be a proven statement while a theory should be unproven

That is an impossible and asinine objection to the scientific definitions. You are now conflating scientific law with scientific fact.

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I understand the scientific definitions but either laws CAN be changed as new evidences arise, or the y can not 

They can and this shows you truly don't understand the definitions regardless of your objections to them.

""A good scientist is one who always asks the question, 'How can I show myself wrong?'" Coppinger said. "In regards to the Law of Gravity or the Law of Independent Assortment, continual testing and observations have 'tweaked' these laws. Exceptions have been found. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity breaks down when looking at the quantum (sub-atomic) level. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment breaks down when traits are "linked" on the same chromosome." "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

I suggest you read the link to aid in your confusion. 

23 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You started this debate by saying that  a scientific theory is different to  other peoples theories 

In reality it is not,

It absolutely is. You are completely wrong. You admit this with your final sentence :

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I'd use hunch or intuition to describe what some people might call a theory 

This illustrates the necessity for a clarification between theory and scientific theory. 

I may have a theory that you are a delusional, lonely instigator who only challenges people with conflicting viewpoints because lying about your life and getting opposition gives you some kind of ego boost.

So is that just a theory or a scientific theory? Or is it a hunch or an intuition?

It may be completely true or completely wrong. Or partially true and partially wrong. Without any scientific investigation there is no way to tell.

I'd have to qualify it as just a theory or hunch or intuition as opposed to a scientific theory. (If that's what I truly believe and it's not just a hypothetical.)

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

it is a form of elitism and use of language to exclude others.

No it is not. It's used to differentiate the use of theory when applied to a theory that is backed up by science and one that is not.

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Scientists seem to think it empowers them, or gives them authority, to use a specialised langue but it actually creates a gulf between scientists and non scientistsleading to a distrust of science by many and a failure to understand science.   

It does give them more sway over any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes up with a non-scientific theory. They have data to back up their claims as opposed to just pulling a theory out of their ass without sufficient data to back it up.

It kind of like when people on this site claim things like :

"Science thinks they have everything figured out and can explain everything with science."

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any actual scientist in the world who would make such a ridiculous assertion.

Scientists, in general, use the information available to them to draw conclusions from until more or new information arises.

57 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus (as one example)  many non scientists who are religious, mistakenly believe tha t evolution is  ONLY a theory and thus can be refuted To a lay person the theory of evolution does not mean the explanation of how evolution works but a general theory that humans are a product of evolution 

That's not an issue with the terms scientists use. That is ignorance and misunderstanding by religious people or anyone who tries to refute evolution.

58 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

To them, using theory means it is unproven and thus can be denied 

Which is exactly the issue I have with you and others describing the big bang theory as just a theory. 

Do you not see the issue?

The big bang theory has a massive amount of work and evidence behind it.

Is it proven? No.

Technically neither is the theory of evolution. It's possible we live in a simulation and that all the observations and evidence we have are merely illusions. 

They are both the best and most comprehensive models we have to explain what we observe. 

So you consider evolution to be proven. Bravo.

What about the big bang theory? Has that been proven to the same degree as evolution?

Why is evolution a proven fact to you and the big bang theory insufficient to match the same criteria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Why do you have a problem with that? 

No. A law isn't only a mathematical theory. It can be expressed as a set of statements also.

Newton's law, which I posted the equation for can be stated as follows from wikipedia 

"In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

It doesn't seem like you know or understand the scientific definitions of these terms.

Again with the proving. How do you think Newton came up with the law in the first place? He didn't prove it.

Observations, calculations and standing on the shoulders of those before him and some of his contemporaries.

The experiment was simply the first to MEASURE the force of gravity.

And using Newton's law of gravitation was able to determine the specific gravity of Earth which was obviously unknown to Newton. 

The experiment was not to prove or disprove the law. It used the law. 

Yes. Because it doesn't work on very large or very small scales.

It presents an extremely strong argument, not to "simply accept" either, but to hopefully understand how much work goes into constituting a SCIENTIFIC law or theory.

Hence the qualifier "scientific."

Yes. I took umbrage at yours and others take that "just a theory" is applicable to scientific theories.

It was specifically a poster who wrote, in regards to the big bang theory explaining beginning  of the observable universe :

"Science does not say that, scientists speculate that,  it is a THEORY." 

And :

"NO, a scientific theory is always a theory until it is proven to be based on bodies of repeatable evidence."

Which you agreed with, mistakenly thinking that a theory is only a theory until it is proven and becomes a law.

I pretty much agree with both these statements. I also contend that they are applicable to the big bang theory.

No. No. No.

You claim to know the definitions pertaining to this discussion, yet this is completely wrong.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

 

A second point  You claimed tha t theories have to be about explanations of process (and some of the sources you gave confirmed this)  However the last quote above goes wider than this 

So if  a scientist creates  a hypothesis  that there is life on mars, and finds some evidences that this may be so;

CAN this be a scientific theory, and if not, then what is it ?

Would it simply be called a belief?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
32 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

That is an impossible and asinine objection to the scientific definitions. You are now conflating scientific law with scientific fact.

They can and this shows you truly don't understand the definitions regardless of your objections to them.

""A good scientist is one who always asks the question, 'How can I show myself wrong?'" Coppinger said. "In regards to the Law of Gravity or the Law of Independent Assortment, continual testing and observations have 'tweaked' these laws. Exceptions have been found. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity breaks down when looking at the quantum (sub-atomic) level. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment breaks down when traits are "linked" on the same chromosome." "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

I suggest you read the link to aid in your confusion. 

It absolutely is. You are completely wrong. You admit this with your final sentence :

This illustrates the necessity for a clarification between theory and scientific theory. 

I may have a theory that you are a delusional, lonely instigator who only challenges people with conflicting viewpoints because lying about your life and getting opposition gives you some kind of ego boost.

So is that just a theory or a scientific theory? Or is it a hunch or an intuition?

It may be completely true or completely wrong. Or partially true and partially wrong. Without any scientific investigation there is no way to tell.

I'd have to qualify it as just a theory or hunch or intuition as opposed to a scientific theory. (If that's what I truly believe and it's not just a hypothetical.)

No it is not. It's used to differentiate the use of theory when applied to a theory that is backed up by science and one that is not.

It does give them more sway over any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes up with a non-scientific theory. They have data to back up their claims as opposed to just pulling a theory out of their ass without sufficient data to back it up.

It kind of like when people on this site claim things like :

"Science thinks they have everything figured out and can explain everything with science."

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any actual scientist in the world who would make such a ridiculous assertion.

Scientists, in general, use the information available to them to draw conclusions from until more or new information arises.

That's not an issue with the terms scientists use. That is ignorance and misunderstanding by religious people or anyone who tries to refute evolution.

Which is exactly the issue I have with you and others describing the big bang theory as just a theory. 

Do you not see the issue?

The big bang theory has a massive amount of work and evidence behind it.

Is it proven? No.

Technically neither is the theory of evolution. It's possible we live in a simulation and that all the observations and evidence we have are merely illusions. 

They are both the best and most comprehensive models we have to explain what we observe. 

So you consider evolution to be proven. Bravo.

What about the big bang theory? Has that been proven to the same degree as evolution?

Why is evolution a proven fact to you and the big bang theory insufficient to match the same criteria?

Some points i agree with. some i do not

I would say that the origin of the universe is an unproven theory  

I would personally say that the evolution of humankind is a proven theory 

If scientists fail to communicate with non scientists then both sides have a real problem which can lead to   social problems and even tragedies 

If you  create an hypothesis tha t I am delusional etc and then actually find some evidences for it, Is that then  a "scientific"  theory.

It fits the criteria for a scientific theory (evidenced hypothesis)  but  it doesn't EXPLAIN why, or how, I might be delusional .It just suggests that i am  :) 

when 95% plus of the human population  have almost no education in science  then science has  a responsibility to make itself understandable to those people (because  science  holds the power in this relationship)  That includes both using commonly understood terms and also educating people in its own terms.  

When science fails to do this, it results in tragedies like the anti vaxxers 

The more science stands apart from  the populace, the less it will be respected and listened to. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

CAN this be a scientific theory, and if not, then what is it ?

That would entirely depend on what, how much and how compelling the said evidence that was found.

Your hypothetical doesn't have enough information to make a distinction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

That would entirely depend on what, how much and how compelling the said evidence that was found.

Your hypothetical doesn't have enough information to make a distinction. 

I thought you said a theory had to explain the process of somehtng,  I  was asking  if  an hypothesis that there was life on mars   COULD become  a theory IF enough data suggested there was, but before there was proven to be.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Some points i agree with. some i do not

That's a vague and unproductive response to the many points and questions in my post.

You too often and perhaps intentionally skip over my points that show the flaws in your responses. 

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I would say that the origin of the universe is an unproven theory  

I asked you about your thoughts in regards to the big bang theory. That doesn't cover the origin of the universe. You really should know that if you've done any research into the big bang theory. 

It is meant to explain the current observation that the universe is expanding, the abundance of light elements, the CMB, and the structure of the universe.

It makes no statements in regards to the actual origin.

27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

If scientists fail to communicate with non scientists then both sides have a real problem which can lead to   social problems and even tragedies

I'd say it's more of an issue with those who are seemingly incapable of understanding what science is and the information that is available. 

Perhaps more of a flaw in the educational structure that people refuse to properly examine the conclusions science has come to.

In the same way I take issue with your many claims that are not backed by any accepted science, yet as an educator you are unwilling or incapable of demonstrating such things. That's a failure on your end not those whose question the veracity of some of your tales.

You claim science has issues with educating the populace yet you flat out refuse to provide any reasonable evidence of your claims.

I find it extremely hypocritical that you're complaining about science being at fault for individuals that don't understand science. 

You are guilty of the same exact thing in regards to many of your claims.

Do you see the parallels in your failures to convince others as science has in educating "95%" of the population?

You seem to have the same issue. You've failed to educate a large percentage of the posters who engage with you.

Why do you think that is?

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I thought you said a theory had to explain the process of somehtng,  I  was asking  if  an hypothesis that there was life on mars   COULD become  a theory IF enough data suggested there was, but before there was proven to be.  

 

"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage#:~:text=In scientific reasoning%2C a hypothesis,phenomena already supported by data.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
55 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

That's a vague and unproductive response to the many points and questions in my post.

You too often and perhaps intentionally skip over my points that show the flaws in your responses. 

I asked you about your thoughts in regards to the big bang theory. That doesn't cover the origin of the universe. You really should know that if you've done any research into the big bang theory. 

It is meant to explain the current observation that the universe is expanding, the abundance of light elements, the CMB, and the structure of the universe.

It makes no statements in regards to the actual origin.

I'd say it's more of an issue with those who are seemingly incapable of understanding what science is and the information that is available. 

Perhaps more of a flaw in the educational structure that people refuse to properly examine the conclusions science has come to.

In the same way I take issue with your many claims that are not backed by any accepted science, yet as an educator you are unwilling or incapable of demonstrating such things. That's a failure on your end not those whose question the veracity of some of your tales.

You claim science has issues with educating the populace yet you flat out refuse to provide any reasonable evidence of your claims.

I find it extremely hypocritical that you're complaining about science being at fault for individuals that don't understand science. 

You are guilty of the same exact thing in regards to many of your claims.

Do you see the parallels in your failures to convince others as science has in educating "95%" of the population?

You seem to have the same issue. You've failed to educate a large percentage of the posters who engage with you.

Why do you think that is?

 

imo The "big bang" theory uses observation of current events to BOTH explain the nature of the present  universe, and to extrapolate the "origins"  of this universe

quote

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today

https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html#:~:text=The Big Bang Theory is,cosmos that we know today.

quote

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest ... The discovery and confirmation of the CMB in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Weve discussed other theories around the "origin" of the universe. 

My favourite is that "non existence"  is an inherently  unstable condition, and thus existence spontaneously  comes about  

I think the big bang theory is a good, but incomplete, theory for the nature and origin of our universe; but our present technology and science severely limits our understanding.

Ask me again in 500 years

While I appreciate that a formal education isn't everything, do you mind me asking how high a level of formal education you have in mathematics, physics and chemistry.

  What claims do I make that are not backed by science?

(i certainly claim that future science and technology will (given the survival of human civilization) be far more advanced and very difernt from the present  )

History,( especially the history of science and technology) illustres the certainty of this.

Thus i claim that teleportation, as one example, will be in common use before the end of this century.

I confidently predict that the human population of earth will max out this century and be in decline by the end of it  Such predictions are based on  scientific current facts and current extrapolations of change 

The y could prove wrong, but both a re most likely to be true.  The claims i make about current science are correct, or at least one of the academically accepted/argued   pov.  

MY aim is not to educate but to inform.

Ive done that.

 Education requires the consent of the person being educated.

There are MANY reasons why people don't want to face new realities and future probabilities (or indeed, past realities)  Many refuse to be educated because tha t would require them stepping out of their current comfort zone, and engaging in new paradigms.

One good thing about teaching young people is that MOST are more flexible and have not developed rigid beliefs and understandings,   thus allowing them to accept an education .

Plus, as we grow older, our actual brains and minds lose neural  plasticity, and are less able to take in new ideas and knowledge.  

Evidence for the failure of science to educate a modern populace ? :) 

Take America one of the most developed nations on earth with a universal education system 

Then look a t the things Americans believe and their lack of knowledge, not just about science, but about almost everything outside of the US   

quote

What is not debatable, though, is that science education for all students in this country is, in and of itself, mediocre. American students are simply not learning the content and skills that will help them succeed in the 21st century, where technology and science are core to everyday life.

sorry lost the source for tha t one 

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-knowledge-about-science-has-a-limited-tie-to-peoples-beliefs-about-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

 

quote

The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research. 

https://www.livescience.com/57590-why-americans-deny-science.html

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

imo The "big bang" theory uses observation of current events to BOTH explain the nature of the present  universe, and to extrapolate the "origins"  of this universe

Okay. I think the confusion was in regards to your use of origin. 

I took it to mean how and what constituted the material for the big bang.

As far as I can tell, the theory starts with a singularity and doesn't cover how or why it was there to begin with.

14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

While I appreciate that a formal education isn't everything, do you mind me asking how high a level of formal education you have in mathematics, physics and chemistry.

None, if by formal you mean college or university. I've been self taught since I graduated high school. I have read hundreds of college texts books and have had access to the internet my whole adult life.

P.S. I don't mind being asked anything whatsoever. I will answer as honestly and descriptive as possible. 

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

What claims do I make that are not backed by science?

That your mind/conciousness travels faster than light through the universe. That beings of light appear to you and remove your addictions. That disembodied voices warn you of impending calamities. That beings walk out of your hospital room and disappear with no discernible path.

Those are the ones that I can remember off the top of my head. 

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

MY aim is not to educate but to inform.

What exactly is the difference in your opinion?

You were a career educator, correct?

Why does that devolve into simply informant?

To me educating is much more in depth and complex than informing.

Are you incapable or unwilling to educate those that don't have the knowledge that you claim to?

28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Education requires the consent of the person being educated.

Then how exactly do you put the onus on science/scientists to better educate those who don't understand it? 

I know you said both sides are responsible, but that "science holds the power."

If a large portion of the populace doesn't give consent then how is science to overcome that?

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

One good thing about teaching young people is that MOST are more flexible and have not developed rigid beliefs and understandings,   thus allowing them to accept an education .

The negative side to that is young people are very gullible and naive.

A large amount of children will believe anything they are told simply because it comes from an authority figure.

Look how easy it is to convince children about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Okay. I think the confusion was in regards to your use of origin. 

I took it to mean how and what constituted the material for the big bang.

As far as I can tell, the theory starts with a singularity and doesn't cover how or why it was there to begin with.

None, if by formal you mean college or university. I've been self taught since I graduated high school. I have read hundreds of college texts books and have had access to the internet my whole adult life.

P.S. I don't mind being asked anything whatsoever. I will answer as honestly and descriptive as possible. 

That your mind/conciousness travels faster than light through the universe. That beings of light appear to you and remove your addictions. That disembodied voices warn you of impending calamities. That beings walk out of your hospital room and disappear with no discernible path.

Those are the ones that I can remember off the top of my head. 

What exactly is the difference in your opinion?

You were a career educator, correct?

Why does that devolve into simply informant?

To me educating is much more in depth and complex than informing.

Are you incapable or unwilling to educate those that don't have the knowledge that you claim to?

Then how exactly do you put the onus on science/scientists to better educate those who don't understand it? 

I know you said both sides are responsible, but that "science holds the power."

If a large portion of the populace doesn't give consent then how is science to overcome that?

The negative side to that is young people are very gullible and naive.

A large amount of children will believe anything they are told simply because it comes from an authority figure.

Look how easy it is to convince children about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc.

A couple of fair comments

my response to them would be tha t current science does not say those things are impossible, and a future science even of a few hundred years might make them not just possible but used everyday  Historically our science told us that the human body would die if subjected to speeds greater than a horses gallop It also said that escape from the earths gravitational pull was impossible

Quantum entanglement offers one possible explanation for the abilty of a mind/consciousness  to traverse the galaxy in a second.

Forms  of wormholes designed and built for communication between minds is another.

Current science has enabled the transfer of thoughts both in words and images between minds  over a distance.    

What happens is not impossible by definition Those stories i tell are true experiences especially from  my younger years Many have been verified over time  I continue to locate lost objects for people in a way i cant explain but  which works 

I cant explain the science behind them but I KNOW humans are capable of them, using advanced alien technology 

I was paid to educate and  i had to meet certain criteria of assessments in my students to prove tha t i had.

These ranged from state wide exams and moderated assignments for pre university entrance to  national testing for reading etc in younger students, plus of course all the in house tests and assignments i set and marked. This it was my paid job, to be a successful educator

Now its my hobby to inform.

i dont have a duty or responsibility to educate adults like i did for young people But i feel a duty to inform   
to see how educators and govts could better educate young people ( especially in science) read some of thise sources i gave or look at some of the curricula and methodology used in european schools  

https://www.livescience.com/57590-why-americans-deny-science.html

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/02/the-decline-of-american-science-and-engineering/

 

quote

Some researchers have suggested that rejection of evolution is produced by inadequate understanding of the nature of science. For instance, many seem to think a scientific “theory” is little more than a guess, which if true would justify skepticism (Johnson & Peeples, 1987). School districts in Cobb County, GA, and Dover, PA, sought to put stickers on their biology textbooks saying that evolution was a mere theory and therefore lacked the full legitimacy of a “scientific fact” (Pennock, 2004), encouraging this confusion between colloquial and scientific uses of “theory.”

In support of this explanation, Johnson and Peeples (1987) found a correlation of r = .45 between scores on a nature of science questionnaire and acceptance of evolution among 1,812 undergraduates. Among American adults, Lombrozo, Weisberg, and Thanukos (2008) found a correlation of r = .40 (p < .01). This was as strong as the negative correlation of acceptance with religiosity. Moreover, the link persisted even when controlling for education and attitude toward science (r = .31, p < .01), indicating it was not driven by differences in general scientific knowledge or trust in scientists. Lack of acceptance may thus be partially driven by lack of appreciation for the self‐correcting and evidence‐based processes of science.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12584

Humans are predisposed by evolution to believe. It is ironic really :) 

it is more serious than father christmas. While evolution is becoming more accepted by young people  a considerable percentage of americans believe in creationism and NOT evolution Many others believe in "god guided" evolution 

 

statistics vary, but this is one.

quote (2019 poll) 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%

The latest findings, from a June 3-16 Gallup poll, have not changed significantly from the last reading in 2017. However, the 22% of Americans today who do not believe God had any role in human evolution marks a record high dating back to 1982. This figure has changed more than the other two have over the years and coincides with an increasing number of Americans saying they have no religious identification.

As many as 47% and as few as 38% of Americans have taken a creationist view of human origins throughout Gallup's 37-year trend. Likewise, between 31% and 40% of U.S. adults have attributed humans' development to a combination of evolution and divine intervention over the same period.

so in 2019, according to this poll, 73% of adult americans either believed in creationism or god guided evolution. Only  22% believed in scientific evolution

 https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
35 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

my response to them would be tha t current science does not say those things are impossible, and a future science even of a few hundred years might make them not just possible but used everyday 

I didn't claim they were impossible. 

I said they have no backing scientifically. Currently. At this moment. As far as anyone can demonstrate. 

37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Historically our science told us that the human body would die if subjected to speeds greater than a horses gallop It also said that escape from the earths gravitational pull was impossible

I've heard both of these examples before. Science, in general, was nowhere near as complex and supported in an interdisciplinary manner then it currently is when these claims were made.

I'm not sure how many people were making an educated decision by saying that either was impossible. 

They had never been demonstrated so individuals definitely had a reason to think they were impossible. But having to reach back to such old examples of the scientific majority proclaiming something impossible is telling.

You and a lot of other people reiterate the point often :

Paraphrasing -

"Science hasn't proved it impossible, therefore it's possible."

I totally disagree.

Yes. Something is either possible or impossible. Those are the only possibilities. 

My issue is that I don't think science should have to prove something impossible. To me science works off of things that are testable, repeatable, measurable and demonstrable.

Personally as far as I believe there are definitely things that are impossible.

For example :

I believe it's impossible for any human being to hang out at the bottom of my pool for a few hours without artificial breathing assistance.

But I usually don't ascribe to pronouncing possible scientific futures as impossible. Unless it's with the caveat that something fundamental about our current understandings would have to be found drastically wrong or somehow change. 

It's possible in the future that someone will evolve in such a way that enables them to do so.

So I consider it impossible without and until a demonstration that it is.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Quantum entanglement offers one possible explanation for the abilty of a mind/consciousness  to traverse the galaxy in a second.

Forms  of wormholes designed and built for communication between minds is another.

Yes. Possibility. Not probability or demonstrably at this time.

How many scientists have the goal of trying to prove it impossible? Few if any. They are taking our current knowledge and observations to see whether it IS possible. I find a distinct difference in the goal of investigative science. 

In science it's always part of the process to consider the ways in which you may be wrong. I don't consider that a goal of it. It aides in eliminating possibilities.

I'm alive and observing the world right now.

I, for one, don't believe stories such as some of yours because they go against all current demonstrable knowledge. 

I don't accept them just because of an extrapolation that they MIGHT be possible in the future.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Current science has enabled the transfer of thoughts both in words and images between minds  over a distance.

That is somewhat true, but a bit vague. 

The information I can find on such experiments include transferring the word hello from person to person through computer aided flashes of light that have to be coded and decoded at each end. 

I couldn't find anything about transferring images person to person, but an experiment that used a computer to generate an image an individual was thinking about. 

When making statements such as yours, there is a lot of supporting details that are imperative to understanding the current limitations on what is actually being demonstrated. 

I'm not opposed to extrapolating what may happen in the future as we gain more knowledge and technical ability.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

What happens is not impossible by definition Those stories i tell are true experiences especially from  my younger years Many have been verified over time  I continue to locate lost objects for people in a way i cant explain but  which works 

Not to me. They are claims by you with no supporting evidence. 

You can repeat the claims a thousand times. That doesn't change the fact that you feel no need to demonstrate any of your abilities. 

And that is your prerogative. I can't change that. But it doesn't help your case in getting anyone to believe you. While you say it's not your objective to "prove" any of your supposed abilities or get people to believe them I find that difficult to believe. 

You must want people to believe you or you wouldn't be here repeating the same dozen claims for a decade.

You give no good reasons to convince anyone of such things.

You must rely on people taking your word that things happen accurately as you describe them. 

That's the opposite of a scientific approach. 

I think you are well aware that the most logical conclusion for a scientific minded person is to not believe you.

It's kind of like the whole god debate.

I don't believe any gods exist.

This is not the same as actively believing no god exists.

Same as your stories. I'm not going to proclaim you're lying, delusional, trolling or anything of the sort.

I don't know.

But I know I don't believe you.

You fall back on "future science."

That's a stretch when it comes to a convincing argument. 

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I cant explain the science behind them but I KNOW humans are capable of them, using advanced alien technology

This is a giant, earth shattering claim.

If it were true it would open a door to myriad of possibilities and a lynchpin to advance the entire species. 

It's truly a shame you've wasted the opportunity to help investigate and understand such a thing.

It would literally be the greatest discovery in the history of humanity.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Now its my hobby to inform.

That's a pity. Demoting yourself from educator to informant is a tragedy. 

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i dont have a duty or responsibility to educate adults like i did for young people But i feel a duty to inform 

I don't understand what age has to do with anything. 

Most people are capable of learning new information until the day they die. 

It seems unreasonable to have a lifelong career educating people only in the first twenty percent of their lives and upon retirement forgo the educative method and merely inform adults with unevidenced anecdotes. 

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Humans are predisposed by evolution to believe. It is ironic really :) 

I agree. But for the majority of evolutionary history all people had was their own beliefs which consisted of a tiny fraction of the shared knowledge available today.

In my own experience, the usual argument against evolution is from bible believing individuals that refuse to even look at the science because the bible is the final say in their worldview. 

The bible says god created man in his own image, fully formed as we are now.

No amount of information, evidence or proof would convince them otherwise. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
On 6/24/2020 at 8:41 PM, lightly said:

I'd say NO ... Actually destroying someone's harmless belief ,and causing them harm or unhappiness, serves no good purpose whatsoever. Imo,  It would be the purely selfish act of an egotistical , cruel P ick.

Good point Lightly.

If an individuals beliefs are harmless, then instead of trying to destroy them, how about building upon them? 

From  harmless, to positive, and helpful seems like a more reasonable way forward!

If someone is actively trying to destroy a harmless ideal, then that says more about that person, than anything else..

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I didn't claim they were impossible. 

I said they have no backing scientifically. Currently. At this moment. As far as anyone can demonstrate. 

I've heard both of these examples before. Science, in general, was nowhere near as complex and supported in an interdisciplinary manner then it currently is when these claims were made.

I'm not sure how many people were making an educated decision by saying that either was impossible. 

They had never been demonstrated so individuals definitely had a reason to think they were impossible. But having to reach back to such old examples of the scientific majority proclaiming something impossible is telling.

You and a lot of other people reiterate the point often :

Paraphrasing -

"Science hasn't proved it impossible, therefore it's possible."

I totally disagree.

Yes. Something is either possible or impossible. Those are the only possibilities. 

My issue is that I don't think science should have to prove something impossible. To me science works off of things that are testable, repeatable, measurable and demonstrable.

Personally as far as I believe there are definitely things that are impossible.

For example :

I believe it's impossible for any human being to hang out at the bottom of my pool for a few hours without artificial breathing assistance.

But I usually don't ascribe to pronouncing possible scientific futures as impossible. Unless it's with the caveat that something fundamental about our current understandings would have to be found drastically wrong or somehow change. 

It's possible in the future that someone will evolve in such a way that enables them to do so.

So I consider it impossible without and until a demonstration that it is.

Yes. Possibility. Not probability or demonstrably at this time.

How many scientists have the goal of trying to prove it impossible? Few if any. They are taking our current knowledge and observations to see whether it IS possible. I find a distinct difference in the goal of investigative science. 

In science it's always part of the process to consider the ways in which you may be wrong. I don't consider that a goal of it. It aides in eliminating possibilities.

I'm alive and observing the world right now.

I, for one, don't believe stories such as some of yours because they go against all current demonstrable knowledge. 

I don't accept them just because of an extrapolation that they MIGHT be possible in the future.

That is somewhat true, but a bit vague. 

The information I can find on such experiments include transferring the word hello from person to person through computer aided flashes of light that have to be coded and decoded at each end. 

I couldn't find anything about transferring images person to person, but an experiment that used a computer to generate an image an individual was thinking about. 

When making statements such as yours, there is a lot of supporting details that are imperative to understanding the current limitations on what is actually being demonstrated. 

I'm not opposed to extrapolating what may happen in the future as we gain more knowledge and technical ability.

Not to me. They are claims by you with no supporting evidence. 

You can repeat the claims a thousand times. That doesn't change the fact that you feel no need to demonstrate any of your abilities. 

And that is your prerogative. I can't change that. But it doesn't help your case in getting anyone to believe you. While you say it's not your objective to "prove" any of your supposed abilities or get people to believe them I find that difficult to believe. 

You must want people to believe you or you wouldn't be here repeating the same dozen claims for a decade.

You give no good reasons to convince anyone of such things.

You must rely on people taking your word that things happen accurately as you describe them. 

That's the opposite of a scientific approach. 

I think you are well aware that the most logical conclusion for a scientific minded person is to not believe you.

It's kind of like the whole god debate.

I don't believe any gods exist.

This is not the same as actively believing no god exists.

Same as your stories. I'm not going to proclaim you're lying, delusional, trolling or anything of the sort.

I don't know.

But I know I don't believe you.

You fall back on "future science."

That's a stretch when it comes to a convincing argument. 

This is a giant, earth shattering claim.

If it were true it would open a door to myriad of possibilities and a lynchpin to advance the entire species. 

It's truly a shame you've wasted the opportunity to help investigate and understand such a thing.

It would literally be the greatest discovery in the history of humanity.

That's a pity. Demoting yourself from educator to informant is a tragedy. 

I don't understand what age has to do with anything. 

Most people are capable of learning new information until the day they die. 

It seems unreasonable to have a lifelong career educating people only in the first twenty percent of their lives and upon retirement forgo the educative method and merely inform adults with unevidenced anecdotes. 

I agree. But for the majority of evolutionary history all people had was their own beliefs which consisted of a tiny fraction of the shared knowledge available today.

In my own experience, the usual argument against evolution is from bible believing individuals that refuse to even look at the science because the bible is the final say in their worldview. 

The bible says god created man in his own image, fully formed as we are now.

No amount of information, evidence or proof would convince them otherwise. 

Basically, like most people who don't study history, you believe tha t we are at some pinnacle or special point in human advancement. 

That's not true Unless we destroy ourselves /our civilization, science and technology in the near future will advance faster than ever before, especially if we develop really fast powerful artificial intelligences/computers

   People from  2200 will look back on our science technology and ethical moralities as we look back on those from  1800 I just do what scientists, futurists, and social scientists do, Ie use current science and trends to extrapolate the likely  advances in science 

However, as i said, there is more to it than that. When we experience something  real, ie not a delusion or hallucination, we KNOW it is possible, despite what our current science tells us. So if i actually did travel the galaxy ina seconds then it is technically possible/feasible  If it happened then it i possible.

I am not reaching back very far in history Only to the 1800s for the speed thing and the 1900s for the escaping from  earth's gravity Heck my grandmother was alive when both the latter was  the most current scientific understanding  Both words ( including short sentences )  and images have been transmitted wirelessly.

yes a computer is used to decode the brain's signals but the point is that it proves that transference of human thoughts is possible given advanced technology,  Recording of dreams for scientific and entertainment purposes is not far away.

You are wrong about the surviving underwater A number of humans have survived that long and possibly longer. It helps if the water is very cold and if you are an nfant The body/brain has a response mechanism which shuts the body down and preserve the brain for quite long periods under water.  

quote

A teenager in Italy recently beat some incredible odds when he survived for 42 minutes underwater, according to news reports.

The 14-year-old boy, identified only as "Michael" by the Italian newspaper Milan Chronicle, reportedly dove off a bridge into a canal with some friends last month and never resurfaced. His foot became caught on something underwater and it took firefighters and other first responders nearly an hour to free him from the depths. Though Michael remained on life support for an entire month, he recently woke up and seems to be doing fine, Time reported.

https://www.livescience.com/51046-how-boy-survived-near-drowning.html

 

Last Wednesday evening, a 22-month-old child tripped and fell into an icy tributary of Buffalo Creek, outside Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania. The boy was quickly swept downstream for about a quarter of a mile before being washed up on a grassy knoll, which was where a neighbor later found him. The infant had no pulse and was not breathing at the time of discovery and may have been in the 1oC (34oF) water for as long as 30 minutes.

According to PennLive, emergency services were immediately called and as soon as they arrived they began to perform CPR on him, which continued uninterrupted as they made their way to Evangelical Community Hospital before boarding a helicopter destined for Geisinger.

Upon arrival, the child still had no pulse and his body temperature was a mere 25oC (77oF), which is substantially lower than the normal body temperature of 37oC (98.6oF), so attempts to resuscitate him were continued alongside administering fluids to warm him. The medical team was ready to admit him into surgery in order to place him on a heart bypass machine, but a pulse was finally detected after 20 minutes so doctors decided to carry on with resuscitation and warming efforts. Amazingly, CPR was carried out for a total of one hour and 41 minutes, which required the hands of many as it is such a tiring procedure.

Once he reached a more reasonable body temperature, the boy was given blood pressure medicine and placed on a ventilator. Amazingly, he woke up at 2am Thursday and, despite everything, he suffered no neurological damage. Five days on, he returned home with his parents, who said that he is healthy, smiling and talking again.

its not surprising you don't believe me.

 Given your own lack of evidences t hat is a highly rational position I appreciate you arent accusing me of lying etc

IHAVE shared some of my abilities and used them to help people 

This sometimes is rewarding but sometimes leads to more trouble than its worth Eg police were involved one time and ive had a few people physically run away from  me after demonstrating the most basic of those  abilities.  I was banned from local raffles and lotteries because i won so many of them. 

Some  people are intrigued and grateful . 

This started when i was very young in the 1950s.

I lived in a small town in south Australia There was no way for me to contribute to science of the time   Even today, while i would like to,   i am not able to contribute to thngs like dream research run by an Adelaide university because i cant spend that much time away from  home 

by the time i was a preeteen i had been put off any contact with authorities by the many novels  of the time which described what happened to peole who demonstrated unusual skills  I had also had enough run ins with people and authority over these ability to cause me to not advertise them although ddnt actively hide them  My first recollection was aged about 5 in the junior primary playground (sandpit)  i described my controlled lucid dreaming, and abilty to travel around the neighbourhood a t night in my dreams.

I was promptly bashed up for being a liar and because the idea that someone could do this , scared  the other kids  .so i stopped talking about it for many years The next time i disclosed an abilty publicly, aged about 13, the police became involved, so i shut up even more 

I use it to help people, for learning, and for fun 

gotta go and do some things in the real world (including some yabby fishing ) :)  so i will probably need to complete this  response in a new post. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
On 6/24/2020 at 12:40 PM, XenoFish said:

A lot of time it truly appears that beliefs are purposefully stomped put rather than discussed. Even the believers are guilt of this. 

My thoughts are more focused on the effect of having an innocent (harmless) belief intentionally crush. A person who,believes in god because it gives meaning to their life, then getting that ripped away leaving an emotional void. 

Pretty much I'm tired of evangelical atheism. 

Like destroying your 15 years old son Santa belief with a santa strip girl ?

The Jet Strip on Twitter: "Merry Christmas from The Jet Girls & Jet Staff!  Thank you to all of our loyal and new customers! Holiday Hours: -Closed  Christmas Eve -Open Christmas Day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
15 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

Like destroying your 15 years old son Santa belief with a santa strip girl ?

The Jet Strip on Twitter: "Merry Christmas from The Jet Girls & Jet Staff!  Thank you to all of our loyal and new customers! Holiday Hours: -Closed  Christmas Eve -Open Christmas Day

ah You see what believing in santa, as an adult, can bring you ? :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
22 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage#:~:text=In scientific reasoning%2C a hypothesis,phenomena already supported by data.

so. One cannot form an hypothesis that there is life on mars, nor a theory of the same, once some evidences become available ?  Because its not an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Basically, like most people who don't study history, you believe tha t we are at some pinnacle or special point in human advancement. 

This statement is beyond ignorant and couldn't possibly be further from the truth. 

Don't tell me what I believe. 

I said absolutely nothing whatsoever even remotely similar to what you are claiming. 

You have no clue how much history I have studied or my views on how advanced humans are and you are completely out of line making such a statement. 

I don't mind discussing things, but I will not accept your totally uninformed assertions regarding my beliefs. 

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are wrong about the surviving underwater A number of humans have survived that long and possibly longer.

How am I wrong? I specifically said hours and your examples are of 42 minutes and 30 minutes. 

You have no reason to claim it's possible for HOURS if 42 minutes is your longest example.

You also say it helps if the water is extremely cold. 

Right now my pool is 63 degrees.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

This statement is beyond ignorant and couldn't possibly be further from the truth. 

Don't tell me what I believe. 

I said absolutely nothing whatsoever even remotely similar to what you are claiming. 

You have no clue how much history I have studied or my views on how advanced humans are and you are completely out of line making such a statement. 

I don't mind discussing things, but I will not accept your totally uninformed assertions regarding my beliefs. 

How am I wrong? I specifically said hours and your examples are of 42 minutes and 30 minutes. 

You have no reason to claim it's possible for HOURS if 42 minutes is your longest example.

You also say it helps if the water is extremely cold. 

Right now my pool is 63 degrees.

 

 

You said i shouldn't /couldn't use future directions in science and technology in an argument Well, history shows us tha t ican 

What is your reason for arguing that i cant, if  i have read you wrongly.   I am the first to admit the  limitations of debating a person online where it takes a long time to establish their background and beliefs So rather  than  get your back up explain why you think as you do, and why you  believe it is wrong to use future science to explore possibilities and explanations for events.

Ill give one example It IS possible for a human being to read the mind of another.

IMO this is due to the nature of human  neurology.   Future developments in neuroscience, and engineering around it, will enable humans to actually be connected mind to mind and use an internet of the mind. We will watch other peoples dreams for our entertainment 

There are many examples of humans immersed in water One of the studies i quoted said that age and water temp made no difference Other scientific opinions differ 

There have been infants recovered from  immersion in cold water for over an hour  who have recovered.

  quote

Research into similar incidents in the last three decades has shown that children can survive submersion in cold water for up to 66 minutes in one extreme case. One reason may be their tendency to respond to such submersion with what amounts to a form of mini-hibernation

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-04-22-0804210706-story.html

One of the examples given had  the person not breathing for over an hour although it was only immersed for less than an hour 

quote

Last Wednesday evening, a 22-month-old child tripped and fell into an icy tributary of Buffalo Creek, outside Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania. The boy was quickly swept downstream for about a quarter of a mile before being washed up on a grassy knoll, which was where a neighbor later found him. The infant had no pulse and was not breathing at the time of discovery and may have been in the 1oC (34oF) water for as long as 30 minutes.

Amazingly, CPR was carried out for a total of one hour and 41 minutes, which required the hands of many as it is such a tiring procedure.

Once he reached a more reasonable body temperature, the boy was given blood pressure medicine and placed on a ventilator. Amazingly, he woke up at 2am Thursday and, despite everything, he suffered no neurological damage. Five days on, he returned home with his parents, who said that he is healthy, smiling and talking again.

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/child-survived-almost-2-hours-cpr-after-falling-icy-stream-how/

You are quibbling, which is what a lot of peole do.

The y say something is impossible, and then when i show it is possible (if rare)  the y nit pick, rather than accept tha t really inexplicable and unusual things can, and do, happen  

 

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.