what would happen if science could never help prove or disprove the apperance of spirits,paranormal ect, that we as humans already have the foundation of these beliefs embedded into our dna?(i know a long shot) but the debate between science and paranormal has only been there since man started rational thought the need to know why this or that happens. Belief in spirit has been there since the the birth of man.
I've been meaning to post these thoughts for a while now but wasn't sure where - this thread seems a good a place as any.
Supposing tomorrow morning we all wake up into a World where there is undeniable proof that there is absolutely no spirit world - when we die we just die; that all the mediums and spiritualists in the World have been fooling us all this time and the whole World's population accepts this: that there are no UFOs - all the pics. can be explained scientifically (or proved to be fakes); that there are no wierd beasts alive in South America mutilating cattle; that there are no ape/hybrid beasts living in the forests and mountains; that there are no flying humanoids hovering around Mexico in pointed hats; that every single ''ghost'' pic. can be successfully explained rationally as well every ''haunting''; that there is absolutely no such thing as paranormal phenomena of any kind and this fact is accepted by the whole world.
Just supposing that - apart from us on this forum suddenly having a lot more time on our hands! - would the World really be a better, happier and more peaceful place? - I just wonder.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Oct 16, 2007 22:02:19 GMT
Yes it would The world and a universe is a wonderful and magical place, we dont need these fantasies and delusions, the real world is much weirder than anything some psychic could make up
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
Yes, I basically agree with you. But I was just wondering whether all the things I listed would always be there whilst we, the Human Race, had imaginations and a need for fantasy?
I've been meaning to post these thoughts for a while now but wasn't sure where - this thread seems a good a place as any.
Supposing tomorrow morning we all wake up into a World where there is undeniable proof that there is absolutely no spirit world - when we die we just die; that all the mediums and spiritualists in the World have been fooling us all this time and the whole World's population accepts this: that there are no UFOs - all the pics. can be explained scientifically (or proved to be fakes); that there are no wierd beasts alive in South America mutilating cattle; that there are no ape/hybrid beasts living in the forests and mountains; that there are no flying humanoids hovering around Mexico in pointed hats; that every single ''ghost'' pic. can be successfully explained rationally as well every ''haunting''; that there is absolutely no such thing as paranormal phenomena of any kind and this fact is accepted by the whole world.
Just supposing that - apart from us on this forum suddenly having a lot more time on our hands! - would the World really be a better, happier and more peaceful place? - I just wonder.
Feel free to discuss.
I personally feel that if everyone was aware that there is only this life and you only get one shot at it, the world would be a lot better. No more wars about religion, more people concentrating on the living instead of trying to contact the dead and no more 'Holier than Thou' God botherers.
The downside is that we would undoubtably find something else to blow each other up over.
Yes it would The world and a universe is a wonderful and magical place, we dont need these fantasies and delusions, the real world is much weirder than anything some psychic could make up
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams
You call me a heathen and an infidel like it's a bad thing?
I know a place where the temperature is 15 million degrees, and the pressure would crush you to a microscopic dot. That place is the core of the Sun.
I know a place where the magnetic fields would rip you apart, atom by atom: the surface of a neutron star, a magnetar.
I know a place where life began billions of years ago. That place is here, the Earth.
I know these places because I’m a scientist.
So then with a sceptical tone I ask,
Have you visited any of the above to know for yourself ?
Has one of your scentific instrument visited any of the above ?
Are your above statements not but equivocal theory ?
Where is your proof and how do you know ?
THEORY is belief via assumption
FACT is know(ledge) by self experience.
Newton told us the effects of gravity but it is still invisable today as to what gravity is and where it comes from. Einstein told us the effects of relativity but still today we know not what is it and from where it derives.
Have you visited any of the above to know for yourself ?
That would be unnecessary. Science is not personal anecdotal evidence, it is observable and repeatable and self correcting. These things are known because they have been evidenced to be so mathmatically.
Has one of your scentific instrument visited any of the above ?
By instruments you mean probes? or earth and satellite based equipment? Probes no, satellite based equipment as well as large ground based equipment, then yes. It is the data they collect which makes this known.
Are your above statements not but equivocal theory ?
No, they are observable to all and self evidential.
Where is your proof and how do you know ?
Science has taken the time to understand these questions, it has created a mutally supportive system to make it as error free as possible, and whole branches of science to deal with questions exactly like these. You obviously have no understanding of how science works or even what it actually does.
THEORY is belief via assumption
Incorrect. A theory is a series of principles and propositions which attempt to explain certain phenomena. No belief is required although assumption of certain points are required to complete a working model. However it is the evidence that is collected which will confirm if the theory is correct or not. No faith or belief is required.
FACT is know(ledge) by self experience.
Incorrect .You are indoors in a dark room you feel rain on your head. Is it now a fact that it is raining indoors? Your experience would tell you it is. However it could be a sprinkler system in operation. You anaology is incorrect and flawed. A fact is something which can be demonstrated to exist, not what you think exists.
Newton told us the effects of gravity but it is still invisable today as to what gravity is and where it comes from.
Incorrect, I would suggest you take the time to understand what Gravity is instead of incorrectly assuming.
Einstein told us the effects of relativity but still today we know not what is it and from where it derives.
Incorrect, please you are embarrasing yourself with your lack of logic and understanding of basic principles.
Science expects faith in the name of science
Random nonsense statement? Clarrification required.
mysticsl1m, please take the time to educate yourself before making a complete ass of yourself on a sceptical forum. I get the impression that you spend more time browsing the Mind/Body/Spirit shelves of your local bookshop than you do in the Popular Science section.
This is pure plop, and here is why. Science does not 'expect' anything, because science is not a living entity. Science is unemotional, unbiased and constantly updating. Scientists, specific scientists (bad ones), may have bias, expect things and put faith in things. That is because they are human. That is up to them. They still have to put forward a theory for rigorous tests and peer review before it is considered a scientific fact. Some scientists have been found guilty of providing false data and their claims have been discounted. Science is not emotional, does not require faith and feels no need to prove itself right.
And bob, it must be Christmas because I am actually giving you a karma. Later I will have to have a little lie down and a stiff drink.
'All through this short life we give of ourselves, giving and giving and slowly diminishing. Leaving a mark that will gradually fade, ash in the breeze, snowballs in negative.'
These things are known because they have been evidenced to be so mathmatically.
Show me the mathematical equation of a tree?
If there is not one to do so, does that then mean that a tree is not a living organism in the eyes of science ?
self evidential.
please explain what self evidential is ?
However it is the evidence that is collected which will confirm if the theory is correct or not.
Not true. What you may consider self evidential, I may not.
Incorrect .You are indoors in a dark room you feel rain on your head. Is it now a fact that it is raining indoors? Your experience would tell you it is. However it could be a sprinkler system in operation.
You are wrong. A sprinkler system does not produce rain. It produces sprinkled water. If you feel rain on your head, it is rain. If you feel sprinkled water on your head, it is sprinkled water.
Incorrect, I would suggest you take the time to understand what Gravity is instead of incorrectly assuming.
Nobody understands what gravity is, they only understand gravity's affect upon all that they know it affects, to the best of their comprehension.
Incorrect, please you are embarrasing yourself with your lack of logic and understanding of basic principles.
Science expects faith in the name of science
Random nonsense statement? Clarrification required.
[/quote]
Cambridge Dictionary
Science: (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities
No matter how hard scientists "systematically study", they can only develop theories to describe the results. Theories are:
suggested explainations
explaination: the details or reasons that someone gives to make something clear or easy to understand
Scientific theory is wo/mans present state of understanding and comprehension. Until the last piece of the big jigsaw is in place, none of the the other pieces are "known" to be in the correct place because the last piece may not fit, which would render the whole picture incorrect if it does not fit. Therefore nothing within (what You consider to be) Your intelligent comprehension is yet real.
It is all theory
You have no understanding of anything, only theory.
Scientists expect faith in the name of science
Last Edit: Apr 25, 2008 21:24:16 GMT by mysticsl1m
thats the equation of photosynthesis as taught at GCSE science level.
You are wrong. A sprinkler system does not produce rain. It produces sprinkled water. If you feel rain on your head, it is rain. If you feel sprinkled water on your head, it is sprinkled water.
If there is not one to do so, does that then mean that a tree is not a living organism in the eyes of science ?
Science is not a being. It does not have eyes.
We can see that a tree is a living organims because it displays all the characteristics of a living organism - respiration, excretion and circulation, 'birth', growth and death, organic composition, etc. - as observed in other living organisms, resulting in the specific science of Biology.
please explain what self evidential is ?
adj.
Requiring no proof or explanation.
Not true. What you may consider self evidential, I may not.
What is self-evident is by definition self-evident. Unless you are in denial.
Nobody understands what gravity is, they only understand gravity's affect upon all that they know it affects, to the best of their comprehension.
It seems that Wikipedia is the trusted Holder of the Unknowable Knowledge. Phew!
Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other, and is one of the fundamental forces of physics.
It is massively weaker than the other three forces, and the reason why this is the case is the subject of much intense study by Professor Stephen Hawking and his colleagues. I hope he finds out before he dies, but it's very much a race against time now.
Cambridge Dictionary
No matter how hard scientists "systematically study", they can only develop theories to describe the results. Theories are:
Scientific theory is wo/mans present state of understanding and comprehension. Until the last piece of the big jigsaw is in place, none of the the other pieces are "known" to be in the correct place because the last piece may not fit, which would render the whole picture incorrect if it does not fit.
Nuh-uh. When you do a jigsaw puzzle, do you cram the pieces together all higgledy-piggledy, not noticing or caring whether they are actually in the correct place until the end, when you suddenly realise...D'OH! the last piece doesn't fit!!? No, of course not. That's because that would be a totally arse-about-face way to tackle a jigsaw. What science does is to take two pieces, try them to see how well they fit together and then if they fit, they are left together, and if they don't they are separated. In this way, over time, the picture is slowly built up, and at some time in the future the final piece may be put into place. Or it may not. In which case you're left with an almost complete jigsaw, the theme of which can be easily discerned.
Therefore nothing within (what You consider to be) Your intelligent comprehension is yet real.
It is all theory
This isn't the case. There are areas within which no one knows the ultimate answer, eg. 'how was the universe made?' - that's a given. HOWEVER, what science does is look at the evidence and follow where it leads. When the evidece runs out, you have an idea, based on the aforementioned evidence, which turns into a proposition, which is tested, tested and tested again, and only THEN, if it still holds up, moves into the realm of theory, where it remains until such time as more evidence becomes known and added, thereby adjusting the theory, until such time as more evidence is found...and so on. No one is kidding themselves that all theories will remain intact for ever more. What they are saying is that theories are rigorously tested and are the best explanations we have, given the information we have.
You have no understanding of anything, only theory.
You say 'only theory' and I think the problem here is that you don't realise that in science, theory is as good as it gets. There's a big difference between the general use of the word and the scientific use.
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
Scientists expect faith in the name of science
That's still a statement that doesn't really make sense. Individual acientists can expect what they like - however, it's highly unlikely that they would expect 'faith', since this refers to belief without evidence.
'All through this short life we give of ourselves, giving and giving and slowly diminishing. Leaving a mark that will gradually fade, ash in the breeze, snowballs in negative.'
It suprises me just how blinded some people are by teachings. I haven't really got time to be explaining with quotes of quotes of quote.
The jigsaw...... Have you seen the jig saw in america that you can win a million pounds if you complete it ? use this one as a comparison instead of your 2 year old childs. With the jigsaw that I am refering to, there are millions of difference combinations. you can get 3 quarters of it completed in a way that appears totally correct only to discover that all you have done correctly, is wrong
mysticsl1m, please take the time to educate yourself before making a complete ass of yourself on a sceptical forum. I get the impression that you spend more time browsing the Mind/Body/Spirit shelves of your local bookshop than you do in the Popular Science section.
;D Julia, a science book provides you with other peoples theories. Theories are not proof or fact. They are theories
Try and learn for your self because that is what all the clever people do. Sheep follow shepherds
Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other, and is one of the fundamental forces of physics
Oh, thank god for wikipedia.... the saviour of all that needs to be known. All objects with mass do not attract each other because if they did there would be a big blob of mass in the universe surround by a much larger blob of everything that is not mass
