Why believe in the supernatural?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
Fear..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
Living with unanswered, and sometimes unanswerable questions is simply too difficult for some.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2014 04:59 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thanks for the total non sequitur, because my country's run-away intelligence agencies have fuck all to do with your subjective interpretation of your 'empirical' experiences... Facepalm
Your country's scienctific institutions share funding sources with the intelligence agencies, both are funded by the same government. And money rarely go with no strings attached. Science funded by political money is not a free, objective science, especially today when politics is part Orwellian, part Huxleyan.
http://theunboundedspirit.com/nonconform...illnesses/
Even at best, bureaus that provide funding or degrees always have agenda or leaning. Government is not Kickstarter, government is mafia that prints its own money.

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Science is a method. Funny that for some who claims to have studied it so much, you don't seem to get that. Dodgy

It's 'woo' if it doesn't follow the method and lacks evidence.

And the way you fix bad science is with more good science. Trying to throw doubt and discredit onto the whole system still does nothing to bolster your own beliefs; they either stand or fall on their own merits. Once again, that you don't seem to get this is alarming to say the least.
I don't like when science is used interchangeably for the method (which is derived from philosophy of noetics) but it is also used for the institution (people, money, buildings) and also for very technical methods and instruments specific to each scientific field.
Shit can happen on any of these levels of science, but only the first one has a problem with woo. The second level has a problem with funding, agenda, scope of competences, market demand and personal interests. The third level faces the problems of research in laboratory - not trying the right thing at right time, voltage, acidity, magnetic field intensity and so on, that have little to do with coherent methodology that the first level is concerned with.

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Just because his work is scientific, doesn't mean that you are not misapplying his work to your own subjective experience. This strikes me as no more reasonable than than someone attributing the 'quantum mechanics' of their 'healing crystals' for their reduced migraines.

So do you have any objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable, peer reviewed evidence that doesn't break the know laws of physics or make unwarranted jumps in logic for convenient conclusions; insofar as it applies to your personal experience?

I didn't think so.
I have as much evidence as I have funding Drinking Beverage But seriously, it's not just me who made the connection. The woo community seems to agree, look at this page in Cyndi Dale's An Encyclopedia of Your Energetic Anatomy. I am just a practitioner, I know my energy system, I use the hell of it and I know with reasonable certainty when I see a match in standard scientific menagerie. You could treat people who agree with such books and articles as a part of the woo community as an alternative and under-funded scientific paradigm, which has a consensus of its own and looks for parallels in big science.

http://books.google.cz/books?id=aTW13vNN...om&f=false

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Really? The agreed upon assignment of proper nouns is unscientific, therefore the whole field of science should be questions for it's use of said proper noun? Facepalm

Do the proponents of the new theories have better evidence? Because that's all I care about. Evolution and natural selection simply have better evidence than creationism, and the fact that Sir Richard Owen never capitulated is not evidence in support of your own bullshit.

Everything you've pointed out about society and funding play parts in the community, but it's still doesn't change the evidence. Either you have good evidence or you do not, regardless of the consensus. Once an idea, however unpopular, gains enough evidence then the consensus will change. You're ideas have yet to gain consensus because they lack evidence; that doesn't mean the rest of scientific community is wrong.

From what I remember about my lessons in sociology of science... It's more complex than that. We had a lesson about Louis Pasteur. Consensus did not change when Pasteur got evidence that vaccine can prevent antrax. Because all he had at the moment were dead chickens, smelly test tubes and papers of badly scribbled jargon. That is not convincing to anyone who was not in lab with him. Even if he got some scientist to agree, what really matters is whether farmers believe that he can save their cows, whether journalists write about it, economists compute how much savings is it and that the local pastor doesn't denounce anthrax vaccination as some kind of devilry. That is what it means to make science succeed, create an unbroken link of success from laboratory to scientists, to journalists, to producers, to customers...

The way I see it, the only way that science can be produced and consumed smoothly is, that science is conformist, because the society is conformist. Why is it so difficult to consider that there might be multiple research communities and sub-cultures in the world, with varying degrees of honesty and accuracy? The business world learned long ago through sociology, that there are people in factories. When given attention as a part of research, workers worked better, glad for the human attention, regardless of the actual content of research. When do we acknowledge, that there are people in science, government, market and skeptical community?


(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But we're not debating philosophy here. Either you have good evidence for your claims or you do not, and as of yet you simply do not. End of story, no philosophy needed. Your claims simply lack sufficient evidence. Facepalm
Of course we are debating philosophy here! What do you think skepticism is? Don't you know that evidence can be given only from within a paradigm? Paradigm is not the same thing as reality and there are successive and alternate paradigms in various scientific fields. More so in sociology of course, but even in natural sciences there are some. If you think science is synonymous with reality and there is just one science, then you don't understand science. There is one method, but that method is applied logic and logic is only accessible from within a paradigm. I specialize in anomalies that fall outside of your paradigm. All paradigms have anomalies and they usually deal with them by ignoring them or considering them random side-effects of known causes. Other paradigms can just as easily treat these "anomalies" as starting points.


(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I trust in my senses, but I limit that trust with knowledge that compels me to doubt their accuracy. This is not a zero sum proposition that you're try to force into a false dichotomy of either complete trustworthiness or absolute skepticism. You're sample size of one (yourself) is both unscientific and statistically unsound.
I'm not forcing a false dichotomy. Our senses never lie, only we can lie to ourselves by wrongly interpreting what are they telling us. Of course we have to interpret, because there is no understanding without interpretation. Without interpretation, we would be overwhelmed by several thousand times of sensory input than we consciously feel now.

But I am not a statistical sample of one. Each day of my life in which my perception keeps doing the same anomalous thing is a sample or an observation. I am an independent case that confirms millenia of traditions and practices. Traditions are always suspect, because they spill over centuries without examination. But I got to these traditions from a completely independent beginning, from my own sensory experience.
If I didn't encounter the things in reality, I'd have no idea what to look for. I'd fall prey to various New Age crap like chemtrails, orgonite, crystals, spirals, tin foil hats and so on. I have never felt any energy from crystals, so I give them a pass, that's my method.

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, smaller sample sizes lead to fewer mistakes and more accurate data. Dodgy

When was the last time you saw a living, breathing, walking, dinosaur that you were able to walk up to and touch and verify with all of your sense that it was real, yet disappeared without a trace before you could get equipment to empirically record the experience for others? Anomalies indeed... Weeping
I don't know about dinosaurs, but I am able to do so with what could be called biologically closed electric circuits, bio fields, bio plasma and so on. Sample size? A lifetime of consistent observations. Scope of the phenomenon? A few thousand years of human history, perhaps. Used instrument? People's own nerve system, a few obscure devices, research you have never heard of... Unfortunate, but not hopeless unless you think that science is monolithic and people don't play a role in it.

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They are unreliable (insofar as the standards demanded by science), and the moment you denied that you lost what little credibility I thought you had. Facepalm
Which standards? What science do you mean? Scientific method, scientific institution or scientific instruments? If you equivocate these, you lose what little credibility you think you have have. Facepalm
Sure, Eyeball MK I is no good instrument for quantum physics or astronomy or microbiology. But that's not the point here! Scientific fields are formulated as the need arises. There may be formulated a scientific fields in which human senses are legitimate instruments, objects of study, or sources of data for further processing. There is no principle that excludes human senses from science per se. A new scientific field in a new paradigm may very well require human senses to be used, simply for the unique properties that they can detect the biologically closed electric circuits better than the present machines.

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This image is not moving, but it appears to be moving; because our senses are unreliable and can be fooled. Every time you watch a movie and do not see each of the individual 24 frames per second, but rather just enjoy the illusion of motion? You're senses are not as reliable as you'd like them to be, get over it.
You falsely equivocate sensory illusion with non-causality. The only thing that science principally needs is causality. Human senses are causal. Yes, they can be fooled by illusions, but any illusion that is consistent can be compensated for! Eyeball MK I is flawed by evolution, it turns the picture around, but it inevitably turns ALL the incoming visual images around with 100 % reliability, so all the brain had to do was to turn ALL the data around and get back the accurate image, thus we are able to see straight and navigate.

(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hallucinations, color blindness, optical illusions, sea/altitude/motion sickness, our perception of pain, pressure, or time, etc. Even our short term memories, for example what was the first word I started this post with? Neither of us can remember, and either of us would have to scroll back up to double check what it was.

If you already believed in bullshit, and now you think you've found evidence that support your conclusion, then that is the exact opposite of the scientific method; rather it's a textbook case of confirmation bias.
I can not be accused from confirmation bias, because firstly, my perception is sensory, I don't get to choose it. Secondly, our senses provide data and we can not believe or disbelieve data. Data stand for themselves, nothing more, nothing less, I can not deny their existence. All I do is just go around and say which information does or doesn't fit my data. There is no way my data can not be confirmed or rejected. I can't have confirmation bias about them, there is no wiggle room to accept or reject. I can make a mistake in choosing or interpreting the information, so far there's so little information out there, that I'm glad for every consistent source of information. I have rejected a plenty of inconsistent ones, though.

Hallucinations are inconsistent, thus easily excluded. Illusions are consistent, thus easily compensated. Sickness is pathological, thus easily detected. Memory is unreliable, that's why we write things down on computers. And that image isn't moving, it's changing hue gradient, that's what I saw first. It only seemed to skip when I moved my gaze.

You seem to be in favor of cherry-picking our senses, what to trust and what to delegate to external authorities, who use their senses too. Yes, these external authorities do have more time, money and better equipment to tell the truth. But all the equipment is purpose-specific, designed to detect only a particular aspect of reality, at the exclusion of all other reality in a controlled environment. Thus their truth can be trusted only in what their equipment is designed for. If they have no equipment to detect biologically closed electric circuits or their related phenomena, then I am better equipped than them at the moment and thus only I can judge my perception. I'll be glad when someone develops some other method to get the same or better results.

What obligation does that mean to you? No positive obligation, just broaden your categories and learn when to give benefit of the doubt. Any idiot can check the claims against authorities, but idiots choose authorities arbitrarily. If you are wise enough to choose the right authorities, you are wise enough to know why - because they have specialized instruments. Then you should be wise enough to know when a claim does not fall into design of these instruments and thus benefit of the doubt is appropriate. Not all areas of science are equally deeply developed. Some kinds of research was never done in the beginnings of science, because the measuring instruments weren't good enough for the task. When Alice Bailey wrote about the endocrine system, she had to leave blank spaces for hormones that were not discovered yet.
If you want to decide if you are interested in this, feel free to pick a book like Alice Bailey's The Soul and its Mechanism (starts with the endocrine system study). If you are a skeptical expert, pick Nordenström's Biologically closed electric circuits.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(08-03-2014 04:43 PM)davidh Wrote:  I sometimes find myself wondering why on earth anyone would believe in the supernatural. If you don't understanding something about the world, so what? All that means is that you don't understand; it's a mystery. Why, because you don't understand something, or can't imagine how something might work, would you conclude that supernatural forces must be at work?

I see people making that connection all the time and I just shake my head. How does saying there must be a supernatural explanation help? What's the difference between that and just making stuff up?

Of course, I know why people have supernatural beliefs. It's how you're raised, your culture, it's how the brain works, it can make you feel better, etc.. Also, I think in our society, having supernatural beliefs, particularly religious ones, is accepted as normal, even encouraged.

I guess I just think that having supernatural beliefs is so intellectually dishonest, that I just can't get past how silly they sound when uttered in public.

I also find that supernatural beliefs are intellectually dishonest. No supernatural belief has offered me any comfort, but I am aware now that to other people, these things are very real to them. It is hard for me to find a way to explain to someone why I have no reason to believe in something I can't see.

My current project is explaining why many things in this world are irrelevant to me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2014, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2014 05:22 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Thanks for the total non sequitur, because my country's run-away intelligence agencies have fuck all to do with your subjective interpretation of your 'empirical' experiences... Facepalm
Your country's scienctific institutions share funding sources with the intelligence agencies, both are funded by the same government. And money rarely go with no strings attached. Science funded by political money is not a free, objective science, especially today when politics is part Orwellian, part Huxleyan.
http://theunboundedspirit.com/nonconform...illnesses/
Even at best, bureaus that provide funding or degrees always have agenda or leaning. Government is not Kickstarter, government is mafia that prints its own money.

Still does not excuse your non sequiter. Your link is more indicative of corruption caused by Big Pharma and it's ability to buy politicians. That doesn't make it good science, nor does their bias and corruption at all validate your bullshit.


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Science is a method. Funny that for some who claims to have studied it so much, you don't seem to get that. Dodgy

It's 'woo' if it doesn't follow the method and lacks evidence.

And the way you fix bad science is with more good science. Trying to throw doubt and discredit onto the whole system still does nothing to bolster your own beliefs; they either stand or fall on their own merits. Once again, that you don't seem to get this is alarming to say the least.
I don't like when science is used interchangeably for the method (which is derived from philosophy of noetics) but it is also used for the institution (people, money, buildings) and also for very technical methods and instruments specific to each scientific field.
Shit can happen on any of these levels of science, but only the first one has a problem with woo. The second level has a problem with funding, agenda, scope of competences, market demand and personal interests. The third level faces the problems of research in laboratory - not trying the right thing at right time, voltage, acidity, magnetic field intensity and so on, that have little to do with coherent methodology that the first level is concerned with.

If you don't like it, then stop equating things that are not the scientific method.


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Just because his work is scientific, doesn't mean that you are not misapplying his work to your own subjective experience. This strikes me as no more reasonable than than someone attributing the 'quantum mechanics' of their 'healing crystals' for their reduced migraines.

So do you have any objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable, peer reviewed evidence that doesn't break the know laws of physics or make unwarranted jumps in logic for convenient conclusions; insofar as it applies to your personal experience?

I didn't think so.
I have as much evidence as I have funding Drinking Beverage But seriously, it's not just me who made the connection. The woo community seems to agree, look at this page in Cyndi Dale's An Encyclopedia of Your Energetic Anatomy. I am just a practitioner, I know my energy system, I use the hell of it and I know with reasonable certainty when I see a match in standard scientific menagerie. You could treat people who agree with such books and articles as a part of the woo community as an alternative and under-funded scientific paradigm, which has a consensus of its own and looks for parallels in big science.

http://books.google.cz/books?id=aTW13vNN...om&f=false

I can't read Czech. Dodgy

One has to wonder that if they were based by good science, why they get globed onto by the woo community. If I was a legitimate scientist working within the scientific method, I'd do everything to validate and peer review my work while keeping the homeopaths as far away as humanly possible. One has to wonder why most of the links you've posted are plastered in advertisements for things that have been proven to be bunk and the very antithesis of science.


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Really? The agreed upon assignment of proper nouns is unscientific, therefore the whole field of science should be questions for it's use of said proper noun? Facepalm

Do the proponents of the new theories have better evidence? Because that's all I care about. Evolution and natural selection simply have better evidence than creationism, and the fact that Sir Richard Owen never capitulated is not evidence in support of your own bullshit.

Everything you've pointed out about society and funding play parts in the community, but it's still doesn't change the evidence. Either you have good evidence or you do not, regardless of the consensus. Once an idea, however unpopular, gains enough evidence then the consensus will change. You're ideas have yet to gain consensus because they lack evidence; that doesn't mean the rest of scientific community is wrong.

From what I remember about my lessons in sociology of science... It's more complex than that. We had a lesson about Louis Pasteur. Consensus did not change when Pasteur got evidence that vaccine can prevent antrax. Because all he had at the moment were dead chickens, smelly test tubes and papers of badly scribbled jargon. That is not convincing to anyone who was not in lab with him. Even if he got some scientist to agree, what really matters is whether farmers believe that he can save their cows, whether journalists write about it, economists compute how much savings is it and that the local pastor doesn't denounce anthrax vaccination as some kind of devilry. That is what it means to make science succeed, create an unbroken link of success from laboratory to scientists, to journalists, to producers, to customers...

The way I see it, the only way that science can be produced and consumed smoothly is, that science is conformist, because the society is conformist. Why is it so difficult to consider that there might be multiple research communities and sub-cultures in the world, with varying degrees of honesty and accuracy? The business world learned long ago through sociology, that there are people in factories. When given attention as a part of research, workers worked better, glad for the human attention, regardless of the actual content of research. When do we acknowledge, that there are people in science, government, market and skeptical community?

Just because people didn't immediately pull 180's at the publication of Pasteur's or Darwin's work doesn't mean they were any less correct. They had the evidence and they were vindicated.

You cry 'non-conformist' and I say 'evidence or GTFO'. You may be right, but I still have no compelling reason to think you are; simple as that. "I'm right and the bullshit I believe in is being suppressed by the majority that fears it!" is not an argument, it's an excuse.


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But we're not debating philosophy here. Either you have good evidence for your claims or you do not, and as of yet you simply do not. End of story, no philosophy needed. Your claims simply lack sufficient evidence. Facepalm
Of course we are debating philosophy here! What do you think skepticism is? Don't you know that evidence can be given only from within a paradigm? Paradigm is not the same thing as reality and there are successive and alternate paradigms in various scientific fields. More so in sociology of course, but even in natural sciences there are some. If you think science is synonymous with reality and there is just one science, then you don't understand science. There is one method, but that method is applied logic and logic is only accessible from within a paradigm. I specialize in anomalies that fall outside of your paradigm. All paradigms have anomalies and they usually deal with them by ignoring them or considering them random side-effects of known causes. Other paradigms can just as easily treat these "anomalies" as starting points.

So what you're saying is that your paradigm has no evidence? Fuck that... Dodgy


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I trust in my senses, but I limit that trust with knowledge that compels me to doubt their accuracy. This is not a zero sum proposition that you're try to force into a false dichotomy of either complete trustworthiness or absolute skepticism. You're sample size of one (yourself) is both unscientific and statistically unsound.

I'm not forcing a false dichotomy. Our senses never lie, only we can lie to ourselves by wrongly interpreting what are they telling us. Of course we have to interpret, because there is no understanding without interpretation. Without interpretation, we would be overwhelmed by several thousand times of sensory input than we consciously feel now.

But I am not a statistical sample of one. Each day of my life in which my perception keeps doing the same anomalous thing is a sample or an observation. I am an independent case that confirms millenia of traditions and practices. Traditions are always suspect, because they spill over centuries without examination. But I got to these traditions from a completely independent beginning, from my own sensory experience.
If I didn't encounter the things in reality, I'd have no idea what to look for. I'd fall prey to various New Age crap like chemtrails, orgonite, crystals, spirals, tin foil hats and so on. I have never felt any energy from crystals, so I give them a pass, that's my method.

Nope, you are a sample size of one; and that you don't seem to understand that belies your abject ignorance of statistics and probability. FAIL. Facepalm


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, smaller sample sizes lead to fewer mistakes and more accurate data. Dodgy

When was the last time you saw a living, breathing, walking, dinosaur that you were able to walk up to and touch and verify with all of your sense that it was real, yet disappeared without a trace before you could get equipment to empirically record the experience for others? Anomalies indeed... Weeping
I don't know about dinosaurs, but I am able to do so with what could be called biologically closed electric circuits, bio fields, bio plasma and so on. Sample size? A lifetime of consistent observations. Scope of the phenomenon? A few thousand years of human history, perhaps. Used instrument? People's own nerve system, a few obscure devices, research you have never heard of... Unfortunate, but not hopeless unless you think that science is monolithic and people don't play a role in it.

So still no verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence or consensus. Thanks but no thanks, you remains as uncompelling as ever.


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They are unreliable (insofar as the standards demanded by science), and the moment you denied that you lost what little credibility I thought you had. Facepalm

Which standards? What science do you mean? Scientific method, scientific institution or scientific instruments? If you equivocate these, you lose what little credibility you think you have have. Facepalm
Sure, Eyeball MK I is no good instrument for quantum physics or astronomy or microbiology. But that's not the point here! Scientific fields are formulated as the need arises. There may be formulated a scientific fields in which human senses are legitimate instruments, objects of study, or sources of data for further processing. There is no principle that excludes human senses from science per se. A new scientific field in a new paradigm may very well require human senses to be used, simply for the unique properties that they can detect the biologically closed electric circuits better than the present machines.

You can place your hand inside a liquid to gauge it's temperature, or you can use a thermometer. One will be significantly more accurate and give objectively better results. I've yet to see where you've been able to come close to that level of accuracy in anything you've said, which instead amounts to "No really, I'm just fine using my hand, I don't need a thermometer because I've been doing this by myself forever; so just trust me!" Sorry, no dice.


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This image is not moving, but it appears to be moving; because our senses are unreliable and can be fooled. Every time you watch a movie and do not see each of the individual 24 frames per second, but rather just enjoy the illusion of motion? You're senses are not as reliable as you'd like them to be, get over it.
You falsely equivocate sensory illusion with non-causality. The only thing that science principally needs is causality. Human senses are causal. Yes, they can be fooled by illusions, but any illusion that is consistent can be compensated for! Eyeball MK I is flawed by evolution, it turns the picture around, but it inevitably turns ALL the incoming visual images around with 100 % reliability, so all the brain had to do was to turn ALL the data around and get back the accurate image, thus we are able to see straight and navigate.

But that illusion is not a problem with your eye flipping the photon pattern, it'a a problem with the pattern recognition and interpretation 'software' in the brain itself! The problem is not just the sense receptors, it's our own brains! For fuck's sake... Facepalm


(28-03-2014 09:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 11:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hallucinations, color blindness, optical illusions, sea/altitude/motion sickness, our perception of pain, pressure, or time, etc. Even our short term memories, for example what was the first word I started this post with? Neither of us can remember, and either of us would have to scroll back up to double check what it was.

If you already believed in bullshit, and now you think you've found evidence that support your conclusion, then that is the exact opposite of the scientific method; rather it's a textbook case of confirmation bias.
I can not be accused from confirmation bias, because firstly, my perception is sensory, I don't get to choose it. Secondly, our senses provide data and we can not believe or disbelieve data. Data stand for themselves, nothing more, nothing less, I can not deny their existence. All I do is just go around and say which information does or doesn't fit my data. There is no way my data can not be confirmed or rejected. I can't have confirmation bias about them, there is no wiggle room to accept or reject. I can make a mistake in choosing or interpreting the information, so far there's so little information out there, that I'm glad for every consistent source of information. I have rejected a plenty of inconsistent ones, though.

Hallucinations are inconsistent, thus easily excluded. Illusions are consistent, thus easily compensated. Sickness is pathological, thus easily detected. Memory is unreliable, that's why we write things down on computers. And that image isn't moving, it's changing hue gradient, that's what I saw first. It only seemed to skip when I moved my gaze.

You seem to be in favor of cherry-picking our senses, what to trust and what to delegate to external authorities, who use their senses too. Yes, these external authorities do have more time, money and better equipment to tell the truth. But all the equipment is purpose-specific, designed to detect only a particular aspect of reality, at the exclusion of all other reality in a controlled environment. Thus their truth can be trusted only in what their equipment is designed for. If they have no equipment to detect biologically closed electric circuits or their related phenomena, then I am better equipped than them at the moment and thus only I can judge my perception. I'll be glad when someone develops some other method to get the same or better results.

What obligation does that mean to you? No positive obligation, just broaden your categories and learn when to give benefit of the doubt. Any idiot can check the claims against authorities, but idiots choose authorities arbitrarily. If you are wise enough to choose the right authorities, you are wise enough to know why - because they have specialized instruments. Then you should be wise enough to know when a claim does not fall into design of these instruments and thus benefit of the doubt is appropriate. Not all areas of science are equally deeply developed. Some kinds of research was never done in the beginnings of science, because the measuring instruments weren't good enough for the task. When Alice Bailey wrote about the endocrine system, she had to leave blank spaces for hormones that were not discovered yet.
If you want to decide if you are interested in this, feel free to pick a book like Alice Bailey's The Soul and its Mechanism (starts with the endocrine system study). If you are a skeptical expert, pick Nordenström's Biologically closed electric circuits.

Nothing you've said is any better than someone who claims that they can feel Jesus when they pray. They too trust their own senses over anything else that could be empirically measured, blood tests and CAT scans be damned. You're basically saying that science cannot yet measure your personal subjective experience, and therefor I should not be skeptical of your personal experience, but rather give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, FUCK THAT. I doubt your personal subjective experience until it can be verified, demonstrated, objectively measured, and otherwise has substantial evidence (outside of your own perceived experience) to support it. Even then, that still won't mean I have to take you seriously when you claim "and therefor I have a soul" or some other nonsense. Simple as that, you don't have compelling evidence and you make terrible arguments.

That is a one-two combination of why I don't buy into your particular flavor of bullshit; and it will remain bullshit until I'm convinced otherwise. So far you are doing a terrible job of making a compelling argument in your favor.

Also, everyone has confirmation biases. The fact that you claim you do not, means that you'll never be able to adequately compensate for them. Science is meant to challenge our biases, that's why it's built around falsifiability; you don't go around trying to prove your hypothesis correct, you try your damndest to prove yourself wrong. If you fail to do so given sufficient time and effort, then you might be on to something. Once again, for someone who studies 'science', I am appalled at just how little you seem to know about it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-04-2014, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 01:13 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You can place your hand inside a liquid to gauge it's temperature, or you can use a thermometer. One will be significantly more accurate and give objectively better results. I've yet to see where you've been able to come close to that level of accuracy in anything you've said, which instead amounts to "No really, I'm just fine using my hand, I don't need a thermometer because I've been doing this by myself forever; so just trust me!" Sorry, no dice.
I am not concerned with degree of anything, but with a principle. Human senses are sufficient to detect a real phenomenon, for example, that such a thing as temperature exists. They can not compete in level of accuracy with mechanical instruments, but every mechanical instrument has a human at its end. Most mechanical instruments are just extensions of something that was humanly observed. In many cases, if people did not observe something first, they would never think of developing an instrument to do that better. Thus we are principally able to observe reality.
My point is, there are aspects of reality which are so anomalous and alien to the modern science, that it has not even conceived the instruments that would measure up to the standard that you are used to. There are aspects of reality, where human senses (and not even anyone's!) are better than nothing and better than non-specialized instruments. The problem with specialized instruments is, the better they are at detecting something, the worse they are at detecting everything else - this is anyway the point of all measurement, not measuring what we don't want. Nothing is what we get if non-specialized instruments are used on something that they are not designed for. Once we acknowledge this and use the human senses to get the very basic of basics, the science will develop with its usual facility the instruments that will far overcome in precision the human senses. But these specialized instruments will not come out of nowhere.
And there is only slim chance that they would be developed by accident by overlap from some other scientific field. I would love to see that, but so far I'd say it happened a few times and such people were rejected as bullshitters or didn't make the connections that they should. That is a problem of paradigm.

(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nothing you've said is any better than someone who claims that they can feel Jesus when they pray. They too trust their own senses over anything else that could be empirically measured, blood tests and CAT scans be damned.
Not really. People who say "I feel Jesus when I pray" are liars, because they do not perceive a bearded Palestinian carpenter guy. They slap lots of cultural labels and interpretations on top of what the senses tell them - and then trust these interpretations.
People who report their sensory input accurately without too much cultural bias can be of use in neurological research, such as Buddhist monks. People who mix cultural bias into their observations are Pentecostal crazies. I am very worried that you did not immediately see the difference. I don't see any excuse why you shouldn't. You help me explore and formulate a "no-nonsense" bias typical for the skeptical or perhaps even scientific community. My problem is, that this bias against human factor is principal. I reject cultural interpretations on top of real observations, you reject even the real observations. You may do so because they are not worthy of study, but firstly, you can not know that in advance, and secondly you should just say so, instead of attacking the principle of human perception of reality, which you use yourself.

(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're basically saying that science cannot yet measure your personal subjective experience, and therefor I should not be skeptical of your personal experience, but rather give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, FUCK THAT. I doubt your personal subjective experience until it can be verified, demonstrated, objectively measured, and otherwise has substantial evidence (outside of your own perceived experience) to support it. Even then, that still won't mean I have to take you seriously when you claim "and therefor I have a soul" or some other nonsense. Simple as that, you don't have compelling evidence and you make terrible arguments.
That is a one-two combination of why I don't buy into your particular flavor of bullshit; and it will remain bullshit until I'm convinced otherwise. So far you are doing a terrible job of making a compelling argument in your favor.
I am not trying to convince you about facts of nature. I am aware that I don't have the form of evidence needed to convince you. I am trying something different, I am trying to broaden your definitions of knowledge, so that certain preparatory work becomes possible, which is necessary to development of the evidence that you want. I am trying to teach you about science from an angle you never considered in all your life.
Science is all good and well when it processes material evidence. However, it has quite a problem to process material evidence that requires to re-define the concept of materiality, to be recognized as material and objective. Of course, extra work and equipment is required to show some classically material demonstration of such a new material phenomenon. You know such challenges from the 20th century. However, I tell you about phenomena, that require not only these two steps (scientific research and re-definition of materiality), but a third one, a revision of judgement on some past aspects of culture, religion, superstition and so on. Why? Because the new phenomena involve human neurology and thus influence the culture and thus their past manifestations may be hinted at in notoriously known cultural symbols. The modern science rejects all such symbols, so there is a great deal of purism and prejudice involved.

In that case, you can not call yourself a skeptic. Skepticism in classical sense means neither acceptance, nor refusal. Skeptics refuse to refuse anything, because any proposition may contain truth, but they refuse to accept, because they don't know which proposition is true.
You should rather call yourself a positivist at best, or perhaps even nihilist or denialist at worst.
Ultimately, this position is untenable. What you call objective is material in the old sense, which does not include the future definitions of what is material and demonstrable.
However, nothing is truly separate in the universe, least of all the human being. We are not only chemical machines that the narrow definitions of outdated science define us into. We are that, but there is more, there always was more and no matter what science does, it will only uncover deeper aspects of human nature and demonstrate them more clearly, than human beings can do unaided. Obviously, this work requires to broaden our definitions and suspend our prejudices, to become true skeptics and not positivists, who say that nothing exists unless demonstrated by instruments of the present technological level. What I say boils down to anticipation of a new, empty Mendeleyev's table of phenomena to be filled in, a new paradigm. I am a philosopher, not a scientist. I can not demonstrate things physically, but I can formulate a paradigm which will allow integration and eventual physical demonstration of new phenomena.

(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, everyone has confirmation biases. The fact that you claim you do not, means that you'll never be able to adequately compensate for them. Science is meant to challenge our biases, that's why it's built around falsifiability; you don't go around trying to prove your hypothesis correct, you try your damndest to prove yourself wrong. If you fail to do so given sufficient time and effort, then you might be on to something. Once again, for someone who studies 'science', I am appalled at just how little you seem to know about it.
I am a philosopher, philosophy defines science. A philosopher is the kind of person least liable to bias. Compared to me, scientists are just artisans. I am not an artisan who is concerned with state of the art and instruments to achieve it, I must keep my definitions sufficiently broad to cover even that which is not discovered yet and which science expands into. My other instruments besides thinking are not impressive or overt, all I need is to detect the mere existence of anomalies, not their exact degree or nature. I'd say I have advantage over other philosophers, because I started out as an esoteric philosopher capable of perceiving consistent sensory anomalies, thus I am naturally inclined and equipped to pursue metaphysics. All other philosophers out there are... well, some are pretty good, but they can't criticize science on the grounds that it lacks the categories to do anything but pretty much ignore sensory anomalies that shaped most of human cultures. A far-stretched point, I admit. But that's my specialty, my stance is sensory-based (empirical, I choose to say) so I can go out on a limb and still return sane.

Facts can not be falsified, only theories as to why do the facts exist. Falsification of theories is possible only when there is some control over the facts. I do not have the level of control required by you. As far as you are concerned, I am only a passive recipient of facts of perception. With the equipment I have, I was only able to ascertain that my perception is consistent, anomalous to the present science and yet reflected in some cultural forms. My knowledge is not useful in practice, but it is useful before the practice, in the creative phase of formulating new theories and experiments. It is said that the science is 5 % inspiration, 95 % perspiration. I am concerned with getting the inspiration part right and then judging the result of the 95 %, if that leads closer or further from the hidden facts.

My "job" (perhaps at some point in my life, if other duties permit) is to become logically compelling and a source of inspiration for those who seek a new way to think about reality, a new way to formulate theories and design experiments. The standard of testing will ever remain the same, what will change is the initial creative phase, this is what I seek to influence. If I had no anomalous observations, I would have no reason to develop a new philosophical approach to natural sciences. But whatever physical, empirical evidence I have is pretty much powerless if dismissed by the old positivist bias like an inconsequential anomaly or hallucination. It needs a new, more unified worldview to be taken as a physical phenomenon yet comparable with cultural forms. The present worldview principially biased against human perception (as you so well demonstrated above) is not optimal for that. Such worldview is inherently self-contradictory and it limits our intellect.

You might however "win", if you stick with what you can do within given scientific fields as an artisan of science. Ask me to demonstrate such and such voltage in such and such place or some other specific bullshit, and you win, because I have no equipment, knowledge or money to do that. But if you claim that humans are by principle unable to perceive reality, you will fail. This discussion does not fall into any specific scientific field and therefore it is philosophical. By debating me you are debating philosophy. Science (such as physics) is only one special application of philosophy and we here touch upon physics-to-be, the metaphysics and the shared properties that it has to be principally possible to discover by human effort.

I suspect you're not honest with me, you do not oppose me for scientific reasons, but because you are ever worried of organized religion and woo. You see the incoherent notion of positivist science as the only way to oppose random religious made-up bullshit. Sorry to disappoint you, but bullshitters can just bribe politicians and go right over your head. Science is pretty much a tool of political funding. It can not lie, but it is not good at opposing bullshit, it's too specific for that. It takes a whole team of scientists and two hours of lecturing to disprove one creationist's 10 minutes Gish gallop rant. Science is not made for that. What you need is philosophy to oppose the bullshit on the basis of first principles. Science is derived from them, so you have some vague idea of philosophy, but your opinion of philosophy is likely very low. Yet philosophy is exactly what we need, as the broadest possible instrument to deal with the broadest forms of both reality and irrationality. All my other offers pretty much suck, I am pretty much poor science-wise, but this you should be interested in. This is something you want very much, otherwise you would only talk technical stuff specific to your research. Philosophy is not science, it's the thing that created science and it can defend it and re-make it if need be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(28-03-2014 09:50 AM)mknight Wrote:  Living with unanswered, and sometimes unanswerable questions is simply too difficult for some.

But this is sad, isn't it?

Living with unanswered questions becomes so uncomfortable that we have to make up BS to cover for what we don't know? It's sad. People do that and miss out on the real answers. The amazing complexity of the incredible universe around us.

Isn't this anathema to the Christian concept of wonder at the intricacy God's creation?

But no. Instead, we see scientific knowledge being shot down as "too complex" or "not making enough sense" as a 6000 year old rock with a bunch of life plopped on it in its current form.

What the...

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 11:44 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2014 02:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(04-04-2014 05:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You can place your hand inside a liquid to gauge it's temperature, or you can use a thermometer. One will be significantly more accurate and give objectively better results. I've yet to see where you've been able to come close to that level of accuracy in anything you've said, which instead amounts to "No really, I'm just fine using my hand, I don't need a thermometer because I've been doing this by myself forever; so just trust me!" Sorry, no dice.
I am not concerned with degree of anything, but with a principle. Human senses are sufficient to detect a real phenomenon, for example, that such a thing as temperature exists. They can not compete in level of accuracy with mechanical instruments, but every mechanical instrument has a human at its end. Most mechanical instruments are just extensions of something that was humanly observed. In many cases, if people did not observe something first, they would never think of developing an instrument to do that better. Thus we are principally able to observe reality.
My point is, there are aspects of reality which are so anomalous and alien to the modern science, that it has not even conceived the instruments that would measure up to the standard that you are used to. There are aspects of reality, where human senses (and not even anyone's!) are better than nothing and better than non-specialized instruments. The problem with specialized instruments is, the better they are at detecting something, the worse they are at detecting everything else - this is anyway the point of all measurement, not measuring what we don't want. Nothing is what we get if non-specialized instruments are used on something that they are not designed for. Once we acknowledge this and use the human senses to get the very basic of basics, the science will develop with its usual facility the instruments that will far overcome in precision the human senses. But these specialized instruments will not come out of nowhere.
And there is only slim chance that they would be developed by accident by overlap from some other scientific field. I would love to see that, but so far I'd say it happened a few times and such people were rejected as bullshitters or didn't make the connections that they should. That is a problem of paradigm.

Facepalm

You have no evidence, no instrumentation, nothing that can be objectively demonstrated. In light of this, you take your selective, supposedly unique, personal experience as evidence for an aspect of reality that we've yet to detect. Human sense weren't enough to detect any electromagnetic radiation outside of visible light, nor dark energy and matter, nor anything microscopic (let alone subatomic).

Well, good luck with that. It reeks of your confirmation bias, and I still have no reason to take anything you say seriously. At this point it is far more probable that your perception is a misfire in your brain or your own cognitive bias run amok, than it is that you are uniquely able to perceive some aspect of reality that we've yet to either detect or infer (such as dark matter and energy) with physics and science.

You're no better than WLC or any other 'god of the gaps' salesman. Your argument is 'we don't know, therefore my unverifiable personal experience and biased interpretation of it'. It sounds no better than when someone says 'therefor god', even if 'in principle' it could be a god... Dodgy



(04-04-2014 05:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nothing you've said is any better than someone who claims that they can feel Jesus when they pray. They too trust their own senses over anything else that could be empirically measured, blood tests and CAT scans be damned.
Not really. People who say "I feel Jesus when I pray" are liars, because they do not perceive a bearded Palestinian carpenter guy. They slap lots of cultural labels and interpretations on top of what the senses tell them - and then trust these interpretations.
People who report their sensory input accurately without too much cultural bias can be of use in neurological research, such as Buddhist monks. People who mix cultural bias into their observations are Pentecostal crazies. I am very worried that you did not immediately see the difference. I don't see any excuse why you shouldn't. You help me explore and formulate a "no-nonsense" bias typical for the skeptical or perhaps even scientific community. My problem is, that this bias against human factor is principal. I reject cultural interpretations on top of real observations, you reject even the real observations. You may do so because they are not worthy of study, but firstly, you can not know that in advance, and secondly you should just say so, instead of attacking the principle of human perception of reality, which you use yourself.

Everyone has bias, the problem is you don't seem to notice your own... Facepalm



(04-04-2014 05:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're basically saying that science cannot yet measure your personal subjective experience, and therefor I should not be skeptical of your personal experience, but rather give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, FUCK THAT. I doubt your personal subjective experience until it can be verified, demonstrated, objectively measured, and otherwise has substantial evidence (outside of your own perceived experience) to support it. Even then, that still won't mean I have to take you seriously when you claim "and therefor I have a soul" or some other nonsense. Simple as that, you don't have compelling evidence and you make terrible arguments.
That is a one-two combination of why I don't buy into your particular flavor of bullshit; and it will remain bullshit until I'm convinced otherwise. So far you are doing a terrible job of making a compelling argument in your favor.
I am not trying to convince you about facts of nature. I am aware that I don't have the form of evidence needed to convince you. I am trying something different, I am trying to broaden your definitions of knowledge, so that certain preparatory work becomes possible, which is necessary to development of the evidence that you want. I am trying to teach you about science from an angle you never considered in all your life.
Science is all good and well when it processes material evidence. However, it has quite a problem to process material evidence that requires to re-define the concept of materiality, to be recognized as material and objective. Of course, extra work and equipment is required to show some classically material demonstration of such a new material phenomenon. You know such challenges from the 20th century. However, I tell you about phenomena, that require not only these two steps (scientific research and re-definition of materiality), but a third one, a revision of judgement on some past aspects of culture, religion, superstition and so on. Why? Because the new phenomena involve human neurology and thus influence the culture and thus their past manifestations may be hinted at in notoriously known cultural symbols. The modern science rejects all such symbols, so there is a great deal of purism and prejudice involved.

In that case, you can not call yourself a skeptic. Skepticism in classical sense means neither acceptance, nor refusal. Skeptics refuse to refuse anything, because any proposition may contain truth, but they refuse to accept, because they don't know which proposition is true.
You should rather call yourself a positivist at best, or perhaps even nihilist or denialist at worst.
Ultimately, this position is untenable. What you call objective is material in the old sense, which does not include the future definitions of what is material and demonstrable.
However, nothing is truly separate in the universe, least of all the human being. We are not only chemical machines that the narrow definitions of outdated science define us into. We are that, but there is more, there always was more and no matter what science does, it will only uncover deeper aspects of human nature and demonstrate them more clearly, than human beings can do unaided. Obviously, this work requires to broaden our definitions and suspend our prejudices, to become true skeptics and not positivists, who say that nothing exists unless demonstrated by instruments of the present technological level. What I say boils down to anticipation of a new, empty Mendeleyev's table of phenomena to be filled in, a new paradigm. I am a philosopher, not a scientist. I can not demonstrate things physically, but I can formulate a paradigm which will allow integration and eventual physical demonstration of new phenomena.

So instead of providing evidence, you're trying to broaden it's definition to let your bullshit in; unfortunately I've seen this before in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. When Michael Behe was put on the stand and asked to justify his modified take on scientific evidence that would allow him to count ID arguments as 'science', he was forced to acknowledge in court that his definition was so broad as to allows astrology to be considered a science!

I am no more impressed when I see you doing the same.

Also, go fuck yourself. I'm skeptical because you have utterly failed to meet your burden of proof, and trying to relabel my position as anything but is a poor attempt at misrepresentation. Dodgy



(04-04-2014 05:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, everyone has confirmation biases. The fact that you claim you do not, means that you'll never be able to adequately compensate for them. Science is meant to challenge our biases, that's why it's built around falsifiability; you don't go around trying to prove your hypothesis correct, you try your damndest to prove yourself wrong. If you fail to do so given sufficient time and effort, then you might be on to something. Once again, for someone who studies 'science', I am appalled at just how little you seem to know about it.
I am a philosopher, philosophy defines science. A philosopher is the kind of person least liable to bias. Compared to me, scientists are just artisans. I am not an artisan who is concerned with state of the art and instruments to achieve it, I must keep my definitions sufficiently broad to cover even that which is not discovered yet and which science expands into. My other instruments besides thinking are not impressive or overt, all I need is to detect the mere existence of anomalies, not their exact degree or nature. I'd say I have advantage over other philosophers, because I started out as an esoteric philosopher capable of perceiving consistent sensory anomalies, thus I am naturally inclined and equipped to pursue metaphysics. All other philosophers out there are... well, some are pretty good, but they can't criticize science on the grounds that it lacks the categories to do anything but pretty much ignore sensory anomalies that shaped most of human cultures. A far-stretched point, I admit. But that's my specialty, my stance is sensory-based (empirical, I choose to say) so I can go out on a limb and still return sane.

Facts can not be falsified, only theories as to why do the facts exist. Falsification of theories is possible only when there is some control over the facts. I do not have the level of control required by you. As far as you are concerned, I am only a passive recipient of facts of perception. With the equipment I have, I was only able to ascertain that my perception is consistent, anomalous to the present science and yet reflected in some cultural forms. My knowledge is not useful in practice, but it is useful before the practice, in the creative phase of formulating new theories and experiments. It is said that the science is 5 % inspiration, 95 % perspiration. I am concerned with getting the inspiration part right and then judging the result of the 95 %, if that leads closer or further from the hidden facts.

My "job" (perhaps at some point in my life, if other duties permit) is to become logically compelling and a source of inspiration for those who seek a new way to think about reality, a new way to formulate theories and design experiments. The standard of testing will ever remain the same, what will change is the initial creative phase, this is what I seek to influence. If I had no anomalous observations, I would have no reason to develop a new philosophical approach to natural sciences. But whatever physical, empirical evidence I have is pretty much powerless if dismissed by the old positivist bias like an inconsequential anomaly or hallucination. It needs a new, more unified worldview to be taken as a physical phenomenon yet comparable with cultural forms. The present worldview principially biased against human perception (as you so well demonstrated above) is not optimal for that. Such worldview is inherently self-contradictory and it limits our intellect.

You might however "win", if you stick with what you can do within given scientific fields as an artisan of science. Ask me to demonstrate such and such voltage in such and such place or some other specific bullshit, and you win, because I have no equipment, knowledge or money to do that. But if you claim that humans are by principle unable to perceive reality, you will fail. This discussion does not fall into any specific scientific field and therefore it is philosophical. By debating me you are debating philosophy. Science (such as physics) is only one special application of philosophy and we here touch upon physics-to-be, the metaphysics and the shared properties that it has to be principally possible to discover by human effort.

I suspect you're not honest with me, you do not oppose me for scientific reasons, but because you are ever worried of organized religion and woo. You see the incoherent notion of positivist science as the only way to oppose random religious made-up bullshit. Sorry to disappoint you, but bullshitters can just bribe politicians and go right over your head. Science is pretty much a tool of political funding. It can not lie, but it is not good at opposing bullshit, it's too specific for that. It takes a whole team of scientists and two hours of lecturing to disprove one creationist's 10 minutes Gish gallop rant. Science is not made for that. What you need is philosophy to oppose the bullshit on the basis of first principles. Science is derived from them, so you have some vague idea of philosophy, but your opinion of philosophy is likely very low. Yet philosophy is exactly what we need, as the broadest possible instrument to deal with the broadest forms of both reality and irrationality. All my other offers pretty much suck, I am pretty much poor science-wise, but this you should be interested in. This is something you want very much, otherwise you would only talk technical stuff specific to your research. Philosophy is not science, it's the thing that created science and it can defend it and re-make it if need be.

'Look at me, I'm so great and unbiased!' is still not evidence.

"Facts can not be falsified, only theories as to why do the facts exist." Are you shitting me? Yep, you really are that stupid. Facts are pieces of data that are independently objectively verifiable, but something cannot be a fact if it is NOT falsifiable! So when you use the word 'fact' vis-a-vis your personal, subjective, unverified experience; you are fundamentally misusing the word 'fact'. Basically you are complaining that science is too restrictive (because of a reliance on falsifiability and evidence, the two most fundamental basics of the scientific method) to allow your a priori conclusions; therefore science is fundamentally flawed. What you are doing, or want to do, is not science; simple as that. Thanks for playing, I award you zero points. Facepalm

I'm sorry, but I'm not wasting my time with the last three paragraphs, as I got a migraine form the massive facepalm your second one caused... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-04-2014, 03:16 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
TLDNR

"" The problem with specialized instruments is, the better they are at detecting something, the worse they are at detecting everything else ""

Who wrote this ?

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 03:19 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
In order to prove some medium undetectable to our instruments exists, you must show you can pass messages across it. You must show that two people can independently experience this other reality and can interact with that reality in a way that another can perceive. If you can send messages through the medium at a successful transmission rate better than chance, it's real. If you can't, it's a fiction.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: