A couple hours ago I posted a referenced to the book "Science is a Sacred Cow" which demonstrates that it is a critique of science by a real scientist, and recognized so at its time. The book used an argument regarding the idea that scientists can never prove the existence of ghosts, if in fact, ghosts exist, and part of their nature is to avoid scientists. In fact, an early theory from this following branch of science (which I read their journal for many years) implies that this is so. That there are things in the world which cannot be seen by scientists, due to the way in which the scientific mind must work.
The Association for Transpersonal Psychology promoting a vision of the universe as sacred. I do not know if the theory has been accepted, but I have found it to be true in many years of pastoral work.
Science is a Sacred Cow by Anthony Standen is a satirical opinion piece, but an interesting book to read nonetheless. The woo you posted which allegedly follows on as a branch of science is something that I'll hazard a guess isn't even a considered science, let alone some theory in science, and I'm thankful for it. What people think personally and the practice of the Scientific Method are different arenas. If someone is mixing the two, then it isn't science. Exactly All of the technological innovations and medical breakthroughs we've accomplished as a human race are borne of methodological naturalism. Pointing out that we are human doesn't negate the facts, as your own link on Einstein prove.
2. That is true of some languages. In other cases, the language was absorbed by a later language, which prepared educational materials, and we have learned the first language from the second. Your argument does not apply to calendrical dating, where mathematics comes into play to aid translation. I accept that DNA determines paternity, but not that it can date accurately. I do not believe DNA is viable for more than a few dozen years.
Point stands, we can and have relearnt dead languages. The oldest knownDNA we've found came from an ancient horse bone (~700,000 years ago) - we've been able to recover neanderthal DNA, Mammoth DNA, etc. from more recent organisms - that you don't believe DNA can last that long is demonstrably wrong.
4. It is not a given this has not happen. The Mayan Bible speaks of a time during the flood, when such a thing occurred.
Citation please, I can't seem to find much on the earlier Mayan bibles that weren't influenced by the Christian rulers. Perhaps you could quote it for me? That another book of mythology supports a still unfounded scientific claim doesn't really add any weight, but I'd like to look at it all the same.
5. I thought of your idea, that the theft was reported later. The police said the victim rode the bike hours before he reported it stolen. My belief is that I did not see the marks on the ground, thinking they were caused by compactification of the snow when the barometer went up (this is common in Upstate New York with "lake effect" snow.)
Sure. Suffice to say though, for anyone faced with the same situation, they'd be incorrect to assume supernatural interference or magic/miracles. The statement "How would You explain it then..." is a classic argument from ignorance fallacy.
6. Einstein's theory has been recently challenged, with some experimental evidence.
5 things Albert Einstein got totally wrong Experiment Proves Einstein Wrong I once read in a responsible medical book of a lecturer who began his classes each semester by injecting himself with a quantity of deadly bacteria. His point was to prove the germ theory is not the complete answer, as disease requires a compromised host.
Bacterial Pathogenesis - Medical Microbiology - NCBI Bookshelf I don't want to get into theory of evolution, since I'm trying to keep away from creationists theories, and anyone who writes against it is immediately labeled creationist, as you folks seem to be doing to me. Atomic theory can mean lots of things; there is a viable alternative that everything is a wave, and another that there are orbitals.
I'm not sure if you're even taking the time to read your own links - If you do have a citation on these challenged Einstein's theories, then I'd be interested to see them, so let's have them. The five things listed here that Einstein "got wrong" were his personal opinions on the importance of certain of his scientific predictions, namely gravitational waves (now observed and verified), that black holes wouldn't ever be observed (they have now), that gravitational lensing wouldn't be seen (used to observe very distant galaxies and to see repeats of supernova previously observed), and the field of investigation of quantum mechanics where methodological naturalism revealed the dual particle/wave properties of electrons and entanglement. Where anything in science is challenged, it'll be via the scientific method, as all of science would be. That's how we progress. Positing any number of outlandish & unfounded assumptions just doesn't fly, and I don't understand why you would think that's okay to do in science.
7. Unless there were lot of them.
No, we wouldn't be able to make any observations with the amount of contorted space you're trying to inject here. It's just not rational to say that.
I still have this webpage open. Third time today:
Can Prayer Heal?
This article published in 2004 dealt with a preliminary research pilot for the Mantra study conducted in 2005 - which when run its full course and results gathered, was at best inconclusive. From
Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia :
"A 2005 MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualisation of
Noetic Trainings) II study conducted a three-year clinical trial led by
Duke University comparing intercessory prayer and MIT (Music, Imagery, and Touch) therapies for 748 cardiology patients. The study is regarded as the first time rigorous scientific protocols were applied on a large scale to assess the feasibility of intercessory prayer and other healing practices. The study produced null results and the authors concluded, "Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention."
[38] Neither study specified whether photographs were used or whether belief levels were measured in the agents or those performing the prayers."
Of course there have been other studies you can find detailed on the same page, linked to their relevant research results , again no better than average, and in many cases those being prayed for even fared worse.
You can analyze the past as far back as your original evidence goes, plus a little bit. It is the distant past you cannot analyze.
Nonsense. As has been explained, we do it all the time. Volcanic rock by its very nature leaves tell-tale markers that we can analyse now. They're consistent and correlate to other known good dating methods that lead to the same concordant results. We can see stars as they were billions of years ago fusing atoms in exactly the same way our own sun is doing now. We can make predictions using for example Einstein's Theory of Relativity that gives us a predictive framework for seeing a supernovae recurrence several more times after the first occurrence ,because of gravitational lensing. What you want to do is throw out the most sensible explanation for what we see & have already verified and replace it with some cosmic conspiracy that requires a near infinite level of calibration to look and feel exactly like the very same natural explanation we already have, but then lends you to insert your own dubious belief without evidence. This is why it isn't science in any regard.
