So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[Mountainmike]

I am not going to bother replying to this blow by blow - its the usual atheist dogma.

The reason there are no "shockwaves" is the community reacts just like you did.

Refusal to consider evidence of things it does not like. In A debate on telepathy with Sheldrake at Royal Society the "nay sayers" had clearly not even read the evidence, before misrepresent it, let alone challenge it scientifically. It was in my view an embarassment to the establishment. Dawkins agreed to a debate with Sheldrake on channel 4 - but used the slot just to insult him, he didnt get the debate. An erstwhile editor of Nature used the magazine for a personal attack on sheldrake (in that case on morphic resonance) to the point a nobel laureate defended his right to propose alternatives.

When it comes to eucharistic miracles - some were validated in a number of forensic labs ( by not revealing the origin of sample, simply asking what it was). When they got wise to teserorieros interest, (and despite the positive tests) university labs refused to deal with him. My question is why? If they thought they could easily debunk religion they should have been all over it. My guess is they didnt want to be seen to verifying something they did not understand. The professor and pathologist at Sokolka was almost hounded out of the university and certainly gagged for just doing her job analysing path samples.

You have a rosy eyed view of how science works in practice.

In practice it works like this forum.
Insults those who look at evidence of the inexplicable.
Then uses 101 unscientific apriori straw men to debunk it.

But nobody is claiming that....
It seems to me that in these types of discussions, the only people who are making claims about "undetectable" things, are theists and their claims about "spirits" and "deities" and other supernatural stuff.


First of all, they aren't posited as true / existing.
Second of all, especially in the case of a multi-verse, that isn't pulled out of thin air. The multi-verse specifically, naturally flows as a prediction from inflation theory. At least, that's what I understood from listening to theoretical physicists on that subject.

Lawrence Krauss once said it like this, which I thought was quite comprehensive, when asked if the multi-verse is science or metaphysics since we can't test for other universes(paraphrasing):

Suppose you have a theory that makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable and 1 which isn't - and that one being the prediction of other universes.
Suppose you test all 99 and they all check out perfectly. At that point, you couldn't really say that the one untestable prediction is metaphysics...

In that sense, the multi-verse is rather well motivated. It is not something that was invented out of thin air. It was rather something that scientists were driven to. It's one of the many predictions flowing from a cosmological theory. Krauss also said in that talk that he doesn't even like the idea of the multi-verse. In his own words: he's being driven to it "kicking and screaming". In science, it's always the evidence that takes the lead, that decides where the models need to go.

The multi-verse isn't a theory / hypothesis by itself. It's a prediction that naturally flows from other theories / hypothesis.

It's a subtle, yet important, difference.



Hmmm.

If something is inexplicable, it seems to me that that just means that you can't explain it. And that's pretty much where the conversation should end: "we don't know". Not "therefor, spiritual realm" or alike.



"unarguable" ey?

A report by Utts claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated.[8] According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."[9] Funding for the project was stopped after these reports were issued.

Jessica Utts - Wikipedia




So how come none of these are sending shockwaves throughout the scientific community? Why isn't this front page news everywhere?



Or maybe, just maybe, their claims of telepathy etc aren't actually scientific and can't actually be demonstrated / replicated?

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you asking or answering your own question with a priori assumptions?
It would clearly make little difference if I did answer! Whatever I wrote!

I have put several examples in these threads. Find them.

Examples please.


So no examples, then, just aspersion casting.

Got it.

 

[Mountainmike]

So it is subjective then: "reputable academics" - good old boys who think as you do? Those good old boys have prejudice that prevents them looking objectively.


As a (once) practicisng postgrad scientist dealing with quantum physics I can tell you there is no rational explanation for quantum phenomena or any real consensus on it. Unless you ditch the idea of unique history. and/or conjecture nothing exists until observed But that also ditches the idea of a deterministic causal objective world. Which is the rock on which physics is built.

I challenged your phrase "for which science has no explanation" in this case it does not if you include the word "rational". Or for eample conjecture there are an infinite number of you with all pasts and futures. Which I dont think is rational do you?.

That is explained by optics - which is classical (more or less). But, 300 years before that you would likely be a warlock.



When you hear "supernatural," you think ghosts, demons, telekinesis and psionic ability (including empathy), astral projections, witchcraft and magick. etc. These are not explanable by so called reputable academics.

However, that doesn't mean people with vast scientific and mathematical ability cannot explain those things. The key thing that separates "woo" from "supernature" or "nature" is the ridiculously subjective line defining what is possible. Most people have a very restricted view of what is possible - which 1) spiritually, 2) psychologically, and 3) mechanically blinds them from true reality - which includes both "supernatural" and "natural."





Quite a few of us have some answers... some of us who are academics even. Those answers aren't exactly well-funded projects, so the more a philosphy depends on experimental verification, the less likely it is to prove (and, therefore, give credibility to) those answers. That is a money issue, not a philosophical one.

However, the "shut up, and calculate" mantra is a psychology taught to undergrads from the beginning. Those undergrads go on to grad school and regurgitate the same things. Then, they become academics or professionals, and continue the process. Part of that psychology is purposeful; the rest is a consequence of personal psychological fears manifesting (e.g. you have been lied to).



I would say it is too. Nothing - observable or not - is "unnatural" in the sense that it is a mystery as to how and why it exists. Everything that exists is supposed to exist. It is up to the individual to/not qualify his or her life.

 

[Kaon]

So it is subjective then: "reputable academics" - good old boys who think as you do? Those good old boys have prejudice that prevents them looking objectively.


As a (once) practicisng postgrad scientist dealing with quantum physics I can tell you there is no rational explanation for quantum phenomena or any real consensus on it. Unless you ditch the idea of unique history. and/or conjecture nothing exists until observed But that also ditches the idea of a deterministic causal objective world. Which is the rock on which physics is built.

I challenged your phrase "for which science has no explanation" in this case it does not if you include the word "rational". Or for eample conjecture there are an infinite number of you with all pasts and futures. Which I dont think is rational do you?.

I would say I am philosopher first, then mathematician. Quantum theory is fine with me; field theory answers some of the problems. I am even doing my own research on some of the more "curious" ideas - mathematically based. With that said, here is my answer:

If you are quantum physicist, then you may also understand that it is the physicists that have a problem with infinity, for example, not mathematicians. The problem/disconnect in logic and reason comes when we try to (re)normalize results that we don't believe fit with nature. Infinite "me's" isn't too far fetched; the fact that we entertain the possibility means it is possible.

Would I expect to receive funding to prove any "secrets of the universe" I may have come up with? Absolutely not. Is the world interested in the truth (answer, truthfully)? Then, you will understand what I meant by being well-funded: for most all people, science defines what nature is, independent of the truth, and what other people (may) know.

 

[Mountainmike]

I would say I am philosopher first, then mathematician. Quantum theory is fine with me; field theory answers some of the problems. I am even doing my own research on some of the more "curious" ideas - mathematically based. With that said, here is my answer:

If you are quantum physicist, then you may also understand that it is the physicists that have a problem with infinity, for example, not mathematicians. The problem/disconnect in logic and reason comes when we try to (re)normalize results that we don't believe fit with nature. Infinite "me's" isn't too far fetched; the fact that we entertain the possibility means it is possible.

Would I expect to receive funding to prove any "secrets of the universe" I may have come up with? Absolutely not. Is the world interested in the truth (answer, truthfully)? Then, you will understand what I meant by being well-funded: for most all people, science defines what nature is, independent of the truth, and what other people (may) know.

You raise a lot of fascinating questions.



One point I would challenge "the fact that we entertain the possibility means it is possible."
Not sure I agree with that! The fact we entertain a possibility, is generally because in one aspect it is deemed plausible (not necessarily possible) often later arguments kill the plausibility and so kill the possibility

Most quantum physicists struggle to rationalize the world of the model, with the world they think they know. I have always thought the multiverse was a bad answer to a non existent question - non existent because in my view, the model does not need to be capable of rationalized explanation, so the paradoxes it seeks to solve are not real, it only needs to work as a model within some limits. It was only a model anyway.

 

[Kaon]

You raise a lot of fascinating questions.



One point I would challenge "the fact that we entertain the possibility means it is possible."
Not sure I agree with that! The fact we entertain a possibility, is generally because in one aspect it is deemed plausible (not necessarily possible) often later arguments kill the plausibility and so kill the possibility

Then take it from a spiritual POV. We are images of the Most High God; His mere will manifests things.

While we don't necessarily have the power to manifest things according to our will, the very fact that we have a will independent of each other (and the usual traits of a spiritual sonship with the Most High God) means our very thoughts have their own potency. Perhaps not now, but [much] later we will be able to show infinite continuum of matter (like we try to do with waves).

That is the meat of the issue of the philosophy: 1) do you believe you have this basal power, 2) do you know where it comes from, and 3) what does it mean for reality?

We are already doing "magical" things with physics and biochemistry. We first need to imagine it, then we can determine its reality according to our limitations. With that in mind, one can be cognizant of boundaries of reality, and open to the unknown.

Most quantum physicists struggle to rationalize the world of the model, with the world they think they know. I have always thought the multiverse was a bad answer to a non existent question - non existent because in my view, the model does not need to be capable of rationalized explanation, so the paradoxes it seeks to solve are not real, it only needs to work as a model within some limits. It was only a model anyway.

Oh, I see what you mean by your disagreement with the "thought produces possibility" idea. I also do not subscribe to multiverse theory at all. I do believe quantum physicists have a hard time trying to juxtaposition theory with practice - and the reason for that is the spoilage of excellent philosophy with loads of money and selective research. It skews possibilities already existent in the domain by focusing on what elected few have defined for the domain of reality and possibility.

We are in a very luxurious position to prove most all of what I think with my own knowledge, but it is psychologically and intellectually harmful for the layperson dependent on academia to define their reality.

 

[tas8831]

Are you asking or answering your own question with a priori assumptions?

I 'answered' premised on the fact that you never replied to my query. That is not a priori

It would clearly make little difference if I did answer! Whatever I wrote!

Probably, given you rather low bar for accepting things as TRUTH!

I have put several examples in these threads. Find them.

Right, I am sure it is the usual...

 

[tas8831]

The closest I was able to find in this thread was this (not going to wade through your walls of unnecessary verbiage in several threads to look for the one example you provided that might have merit):

"Sheldrake has wrongly been blackballed for thinking the unthinkable ( eg there is more to inheritance than only molecular genetics) and experimenting in areas considered unworthy ( like telepathy) . The fact his results say he is on to something, doesn't seem to matter with the conservative gatekeepers."

Why do you think he was "wrongly" blackballed? Is it your position that Sheldrake is correct, and if so, how did YOU make that determination? Because Sheldrake has a 'following'?
Was it due to your extensive background in biology, or was it your a priori tendency to grasp onto anything that seems fringe?

You talk about these forensic labs and their tests, but you ignore the fact that there is no verification that what they were given was the product of wafer miracles. You only refer to books that we must read, but never supply the reports. This is a discussion forum, not a 'read the book I totally believe and then you will agree with me' club.

But in the end, if we accept that these cheesy 'miracles' were real - what of them? Bleeding wafers is supposed to what - make us believe that the earth is 6000 years old? That the Hebrew tribal deity is the one true God? Maybe these miracles are really demons screwing with the fringe faithful to make them look silly?
Maybe it is all a hoax?
Why do we never see any REAL miracles, like a fiery plane crash in which EVERYONE survived without a scratch? Or a missing limb re-appears*?

Why is it always trivial things like water stains on buildings, cool clouds that when viewed from a certain angle look sort of like the profile of a European-rendition of Jesus? Pretty sad.

*Was once told on a forum of just such an event - the person claimed to have observed this himself, and that it was verified by doctors. I asked when and where this happened. He wouldn't say. I asked for documentation, he said the family wanted privacy. IOW, it was 'witnessing', fabrication-style.
Just as I suspect these people with the bloody wafers are engaged in.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your question and answer were in the same post.

I would struggle to answer in between

I 'answered' premised on the fact that you never replied to my query. That is not a priori
Probably, given you rather low bar for accepting things as TRUTH!


Right, I am sure it is the usual...

The reports are in the books.
That's why I refered the book.
Read them.

The royal society and nature editor are not enough as demonstration of bad faith against sheldrake?

The closest I was able to find in this thread was this (not going to wade through your walls of unnecessary verbiage in several threads to look for the one example you provided that might have merit):

"Sheldrake has wrongly been blackballed for thinking the unthinkable ( eg there is more to inheritance than only molecular genetics) and experimenting in areas considered unworthy ( like telepathy) . The fact his results say he is on to something, doesn't seem to matter with the conservative gatekeepers."

Why do you think he was "wrongly" blackballed? Is it your position that Sheldrake is correct, and if so, how did YOU make that determination? Because Sheldrake has a 'following'?
Was it due to your extensive background in biology, or was it your a priori tendency to grasp onto anything that seems fringe?

You talk about these forensic labs and their tests, but you ignore the fact that there is no verification that what they were given was the product of wafer miracles. You only refer to books that we must read, but never supply the reports. This is a discussion forum, not a 'read the book I totally believe and then you will agree with me' club.

But in the end, if we accept that these cheesy 'miracles' were real - what of them? Bleeding wafers is supposed to what - make us believe that the earth is 6000 years old? That the Hebrew tribal deity is the one true God? Maybe these miracles are really demons screwing with the fringe faithful to make them look silly?
Maybe it is all a hoax?
Why do we never see any REAL miracles, like a fiery plane crash in which EVERYONE survived without a scratch? Or a missing limb re-appears*?

Why is it always trivial things like water stains on buildings, cool clods that when viewed from a certain angle look sort of like the profile of a European-rendition of Jesus? Pretty sad.

*Was once told on a forum of just such an event - the person claimed to have observed this himself, and that it was verified by doctors. I asked when and where this happened. He wouldn't say. I asked for documentation, he said the family wanted privacy. IOW, it was 'witnessing', fabrication-style.
Just as I suspect these people with the bloody wafers are engaged in.

 

[Tom 1]

Like what? And why do you believe it? On what grounds?

Personal experience and observation.

Then why do you believe it?
And I didn't specify any specific type of evidence. I just said evidence.

Why wouldn't I? Many people believe the universe came into being for some other reason, with no evidence of this. I don't see a difference, just different arguments. Switch objective for material if that is a better fit for what you meant by your question. I'm happy with subjective evidence, as it is all we have for any kind of view of life, the universe and everything, beyond a few details about how some things work.

Yes. It's what I would expect primitive tribes to come up with who don't understand how brains work etc. Humans, most animals actually, have tendencies of being superstitious and such, so the many many MANY (supernatural) mythologies and deities that humans invented over the years, really isn't that surprising to me. Nore does it require any kind of "special" explanation... It's just basic human psychology, and the exploit of the weaknesses thereof.

These kind of 'just so' notions are ok to a point but what they are usually represented as - something like 'psychology says so' - is a gross oversimplification. Neither are early texts simple creations, the epic of Gilgamesh for example is every bit as complex a reflection of its time and the preoccupations of its time as any good modern work of literature. None of the ideas that surround the origins of belief and ideas of spirituality prove or disprove anything, how you interpret any of it is a matter of perspective.

Which isn't surprising either, for pretty much the same reason as mentioned above....

The reason being that, at the time of writing, material science as we understand it wasn't a 'thing', outside of fairly narrow circles, not as a part of society or everyday life. There were practices we might thing of as involving science, metallurgy etc, but they were practiced within a very different frame of reference.

First of all, the bible doesn't have any exclusivity on "prefered human behaviour" at all. Most, if not all, if the "good ideas" on that matter contained in the bible, pretty much exist in all cultures and isn't original to the bible at all. Not even the golden rule. Christians like to claim exclusive rights on that, but the fact is that this rule, and variations thereof, has been present in as good as all civilisations in one form or another. Including in pre-biblical times.

Not really, some cultures/civilizations have functioned along entirely different systems of thought, and some still do, which only include 'the golden rule' within certain circles of society. Which pre-historic civilizations are you referring to? There's some small carry over from Sumerian society that can be traced in early biblical writings, but spread pretty thinly. Some attitudes and practices are the same, some look similar but aren't.

There's also a lot in that book which doesn't strike me as "favourable behaviour" at all. Au contraire.

Yes, there's a lot that is gruesome in the history of mankind, a fair bit of it recorded in the Bible. There are also a lot of superficial notions about what that means.

The point is, I can find good (and bad) ideas in pretty much EVERY religion that has ever been devised by humans. And they are good (and bad) ideas, regardless of the religion. In fact, I'ld say that those good ideas, don't require any religion at all.

Not any more, to some extent, as they are already part of our culture. If it were possible to somehow remove all historical Judeo-Christian influences from Western Culture, there wouldn't be much left.
Which are the good ideas from other religions you found?

Conversely, the bad ideas frequently in fact ARE exclusive to the religion (or simply require the religion, as in: they don't make any sense outside the context of that religion).

Maybe this for another thread, but examples?

But off course, that's not what is subject to scientific investigation in the natural sciences. Perhaps in social studies or something. But when this book starts to make claims about objective reality (like origins of life, physically impossible floods, etc) then it IS tresspassing on scientific teritorry. And then these claims are fair game to scientific study.

And like you most likely know, these claims don't really stay standing under harsh scientific scrutiny.

You might be able to accuse the bible of trespassing on scientific territory if it was written last week, but at the time of writing there was no concept of science as a separate human activity, particularly in OT times. The only way to understand the Genesis narratives is to place them in their own context.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not going to bother replying to this blow by blow - its the usual atheist dogma.

lol

The reason there are no "shockwaves" is the community reacts just like you did.

Yes. It's a rational response to "studies" of dubious methodology that can't be replicated and exaggerated results.

Refusal to consider evidence of things it does not like. In A debate on telepathy with Sheldrake at Royal Society the "nay sayers" had clearly not even read the evidence, before misrepresent it, let alone challenge it scientifically. It was in my view an embarassment to the establishment. Dawkins agreed to a debate with Sheldrake on channel 4 - but used the slot just to insult him, he didnt get the debate.

Newsflash: science isn't done in debates.

When it comes to eucharistic miracles - some were validated in a number of forensic labs ( by not revealing the origin of sample, simply asking what it was). When they got wise to teserorieros interest, (and despite the positive tests) university labs refused to deal with him. My question is why? If they thought they could easily debunk religion they should have been all over it. My guess is they didnt want to be seen to verifying something they did not understand. The professor and pathologist at Sokolka was almost hounded out of the university and certainly gagged for just doing her job analysing path samples.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You have a rosy eyed view of how science works in practice.

The way science works in practice, is what makes my comfortable life possible. I'm currently in my living room and literally everything I see around me, is a product of science.

The very fact that we are having this conversation, is a result of incredible science. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the amount of scientific research, experimenting, testing, modeling, publishing, re-testing... building countless hypothesis and failing over and over again, yet sticking with it, to end up with these marvelous theories that make things like microprocessors, light speed communication (cabled and wireless), solar panels, data centers, satellites, gps systems,.... ALL of which are used, and mostly required, one way or the other just for me to be able to type this message on this forum.

Yes... I have a pretty high opinion of the scientific methodology...
To accomplish all this in such a short time! For crying out loud, I sat on the lap of a man (great-grandfather) who grew up in a world without cars. Now we live in a world that is at the dawn of commercial space travel.

Science. It works.

In practice it works like this forum.
Insults those who look at evidence of the inexplicable.
Then uses 101 unscientific apriori straw men to debunk it.

If it is inexplicable, that means that you can't explain it.
If that is the case, what are you doing making claims about it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Personal experience and observation.

You mean, "personal" observation, i'm guessing.

Why wouldn't I?

Because you might care if what you believe is actually true?

These kind of 'just so' notions are ok to a point but what they are usually represented as - something like 'psychology says so' - is a gross oversimplification. Neither are early texts simple creations, the epic of Gilgamesh for example is every bit as complex a reflection of its time and the preoccupations of its time as any good modern work of literature. None of the ideas that surround the origins of belief and ideas of spirituality prove or disprove anything, how you interpret any of it is a matter of perspective.

I don't find it surprising either that these mythologies are complex and well written.

Not really, some cultures/civilizations have functioned along entirely different systems of thought, and some still do, which only include 'the golden rule' within certain circles of society.

Yes really.
Cultures that don't apply such a rule at least to a certain extent, do not survive.

Which pre-historic civilizations are you referring to?

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi stele and tablets, 1754-1790 BCE.

According to Greg M. Epstein, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely," but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it.[6] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[7]

Not any more, to some extent, as they are already part of our culture. If it were possible to somehow remove all historical Judeo-Christian influences from Western Culture, there wouldn't be much left.

Then some other tradition would have taken its place. Again, good ideas about how to act in a social environment are not the exclusive property of any religion. Sure, religions have acted like the carrier of sorst, to implement order and such values. Kind of like a catalyst. But religion is not the originator of such ideas. Religions were a means to an end in that respect.

Which are the good ideas from other religions you found?

"If you murder one human, it is as if you murdered human kind. If you save one human, it is like saving human kind" -Mohammed.

I like that.
There's fun and inspirational stuff in most all religions.

Maybe this for another thread, but examples?

The christian idea of original sin. Horrible, horrible idea.

You might be able to accuse the bible of trespassing on scientific territory if it was written last week, but at the time of writing there was no concept of science as a separate human activity, particularly in OT times. The only way to understand the Genesis narratives is to place them in their own context.

Tell that to the creationists.

 

[Mountainmike]

You've no idea how dubious it is, you didn't look at the evidence. You used prejudice! And that's the problem with this forum.
Nobody studies or discusses evidence or method, only their apriori conclusion based on that prejudice.

I prefer the evidence, wherever it points.

Check out the Nolan sisters experiment - see if you can find a flaw. It will be more than Dawkins ever did, indeed the royal society, before Decide it was bunk, because Dawkins doesn't like telepathy: and that disqualifies him as an objective scientist - it shouldn't matter what he likes. It either had statistical significance or not.

And I am talking about the practice of science.

Until you are involved you don't see the reality eg of petty feuds between people , groups and entrenched positions, that hinders peer review and progress. Or of filing cabinet effect, that allows data to be published that never should be. And journals that refuse to publish things they "don't like" - even nature! The impossibility of ever funding or publishing repeats leading to one of the normal myths: The peer reviewed repeat! Etc

So I find it nauseating to hear from some of the posters here idealised and actually misrepresented views of such as evidence and process clearly got from text books, written by people that never did it, not the reality people who have been there and done it. And you don't need an explanation to affirm a pattern in evidence. Indeed explanation itself is an arguable concept, if all you mean is linking to something in the axiomatic model.

I like evidence. And it all should have the same threshold regardless of where it points.

Sure science is a valuable model.
Who disputes that? Some of us spent a life both refining and using it.

But the extent to which it models the universe rather than what it seen to do, is a critical and difficult philosophical question that most here don't seem to be able to grasp or want to grasp.

lol



Yes. It's a rational response to "studies" of dubious methodology that can't be replicated and exaggerated results.



Newsflash: science isn't done in debates.



I have no idea what you are talking about.



The way science works in practice, is what makes my comfortable life possible. I'm currently in my living room and literally everything I see around me, is a product of science.

The very fact that we are having this conversation, is a result of incredible science. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the amount of scientific research, experimenting, testing, modeling, publishing, re-testing... building countless hypothesis and failing over and over again, yet sticking with it, to end up with these marvelous theories that make things like microprocessors, light speed communication (cabled and wireless), solar panels, data centers, satellites, gps systems,.... ALL of which are used, and mostly required, one way or the other just for me to be able to type this message on this forum.

Yes... I have a pretty high opinion of the scientific methodology...
To accomplish all this in such a short time! For crying out loud, I sat on the lap of a man (great-grandfather) who grew up in a world without cars. Now we live in a world that is at the dawn of commercial space travel.

Science. It works.



If it is inexplicable, that means that you can't explain it.
If that is the case, what are you doing making claims about it?

 

[Kaon]

@Mountainmike did you happen to study any field theory, or chromodynamics?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You've no idea how dubious it is, you didn't look at the evidence. You used prejudice!

It's not my job to evaluate this evidence and peer review such studies, because I am not a peer, nore am I a scientist. It is not me you need to convince. It is the scientific community.

Your accusations at their address, as if they are somehow opposed to learning or being honest about evidence, is just ridiculous. If your studies aren't accepted by them, then that tells us something about your studies, not about the community.

I'm sorry, but you really aren't going to convince me that the entire scientific community is so closed mindedly dishonest. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have computers today. If upholding the status quo was all that scientists cared about, then no progress would ever be made in any field.

In reality, I bet that just about any scientist, and their mother, would LOVE to be immortalized in the pages of history as the one who demonstrated the existance of something like telepathy and unlocked the secrets of it in the human brain.

That would be an amazing find, worthy of an nobel prize and it would turn our worldview upside down. Those are the kinds of leaps in knowledge that scientists dream about.

If you are telling me that you can't find a single scientist willing to review and/or conduct such studies.... Then more then likely the problem is not with the scientists.

Nobody studies or discusses evidence or method, only their apriori conclusion based on that prejudice.

That's what creationists say all the time. In reality, it is just an excuse that they use because they are either too lazy to their own homework, or they can't admit that their nonsense isn't worthy of scientific inquiry.

It's just an excuse.
Everybody who thinks about it for a few seconds realises that it is just an excuse. And a very unreasonable one at that.

Check out the Nolan sisters experiment - see if you can find a flaw.

No, I have better things to do with my time. I'm not a scientist. I'm not the one you need to convince. Nore do I actually feel qualified to do such a review.

It will be more than Dawkins ever did, indeed the royal society, before Decide it was bunk, because Dawkins doesn't like telepathy

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologists and a retired one at that.
Dawkins can say whatever he pleases, it doesn't matter. It's not him either that you need to convince. Nore is it him that would need to review this stuff. It's not his field and even if it was, he's no longer an active scientist - he is retired.

it shouldn't matter what he likes

And it doesn't. You seem to be implying that he is some kind of "leader" of the scientific community and that nobody will review these things simply because Dawkins doesn't like it. You give the man way too much credit. Nobody cares.

In fact... I know for a fact that plenty of still active scientists, while respecting the work he's done in his field, thinks of him today as a bitter old man.

Science is done in studies and publications. Whatever some (retired) scientist has to say in a debate, in a lecture, in a book,.... is essentially completely irrelevant to the science itself.

It either had statistical significance or not.

That's not enough. There's also the methods used, the reliability of data, the repeatability thereof, etc. Clearly, the community remains unimpressed thus far.

So I guess you have more work to do to impress them.
Did you think that other scientists who come up with new ideas have it easy????

Think again....
No matter how convinced you are that you are correct, the scrutiny of the community is HARSH, and for good reason.

Today, big bang theory is accepted by consensus. Do you know where the name comes from? It was initially used derogatory to the idea of LeMaitre. When he first formulated the idea, he was laughed at by physicists who called it a "big bang". More work needed to be done before it was acceptable to them. The work was done. And then it was accepted.

The difference between you and them, is that they didn't complain about it and instead rolled up their sleeves and got to work.

While you come to this forum, complaining about it.

The impossibility of ever funding or publishing repeats leading to one of the normal myths: The peer reviewed repeat! Etc

Another pathetic excuse.
If you are going to tell me that you can't find a single rich dude (a "believer") willing to fund a study that might demonstrate the existance of something like telepahty, I'm again simply going to laugh.

Rich people have funded WAY more outlandish studies.

Sure science is a valuable model.
Who disputes that?

You are, in a sense. By pretending that they are closedminded and only interested in upholding the status quo. Which is demonstrably false.

But the extent to which it models the universe rather than what it seen to do, is a critical and difficult philosophical question that most here don't seem to be able to grasp or want to grasp.

Ow, poor you.

Again: no, it's just an excuse.
Just like the complaints about the "community" by creationists.
Claiming that they can't get their papers published because journals "refuse" to do so.
While in reality, creationists aren't even submitting papers for review.

It's just an excuse. An excuse to cover up that the required work hasn't been done, that there is nothing there to publish, that their methods stink, that their results or invalid, ... whatever may be the underlying reasons.


You have given me zero reasons to think that your "telepathy" case isn't exactly the same.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's not my job to evaluate this evidence and peer review such studies, because I am not a peer, nore am I a scientist. It is not me you need to convince. It is the scientific community.

Your accusations at their address, as if they are somehow opposed to learning or being honest about evidence, is just ridiculous. If your studies aren't accepted by them, then that tells us something about your studies, not about the community.

My answer to you is the same. Study the evidence. That debate at the royal society is out there on youtube somewhere - Or it was a couple of years ago.
See if you think the "opposing" speech is based on other than prejudice!

And to the eternal shame of the then editor of Nature at the time Sheldrake published his book - the editors unscientific rant is also out there.

You have given me zero reasons to think that your "telepathy" case isn't exactly the same.

You mean other than the scientific method used and the evidence it produced?
Again it is out there on the web! - All I ask is people study before make up their minds!

Take a look and follow it up. Then YOU Judge. Dont let sceptic sites judge for you.
If nothing else it is interesting

Telephone Telepathy with the Nolan Sisters

And the reality of Dawkins methods ( and intellectual dishonesty ) here:
I saw that series - that Dawkins produced - Sheldrakes assertions are spot on.
Not a shread of evidence discussed, only Dawkins apriori prejudice
Its how the world of science works on things it does not "like"

I have now concluded that it is not possible to have a serious discussion on this forum.

One based on evidence rather than prejudice.

That being so, I will not continue. Which is sad.


By the way I love science.
I owned my first chemistry set age 8
Built my first radios age 9
Bought a telescope age 10
Built my first oscilloscope age 11
Read about quantum theory
Read my first book on black holes in teens.
It was reading quantum theory and bohr vs einstein that first led me to question.
Is this reality? Or just an equation that fits it? At at time before my maths could cope with it! That came later...
So later read books on philosophy of science - what it can tell us and what it cannot.

And so on...

Its why I like talking evidence not prejudice.

 

[tas8831]

Your question and answer were in the same post.

I would struggle to answer in between

You struggle to answer wherever.

The reports are in the books.
That's why I refered the book.
Read them.

Like I wrote...
This is not mountainmike's "read the book I totally believe and then you will also totally believe" club, this is a discussion forum. People have lives (sort of). I will not waste the time or effort to read through some silly book filled with sleight of hand gimmicks and special pleading. If these 'reports' actually exist, then it seems that a single book should not be the only place they are to be found.

The royal society and nature editor are not enough as demonstration of bad faith against sheldrake?

More of the same - 'Oh, my hero can't get his horribly laughable pseudoscience in real journals, must be a conspiracy to suppress the TRUTH!'.

Sure, you might think that dogs have telepathy and that Sheldrake's dopey 'morphic resonance' has merit, but your opinions don't matter when
those with relevant backgrounds have considered his claims and found them lacking.
Like most fringe types, Sheldrake decided to skip the normal routes of science and go for public sympathy and books made for laymen.
For a brief overview of Sheldrake's failings see:

The Problem with Rupert Sheldrake

One correction - Woolfe mentions that Sheldrake's TED talk was 'banned', but this i snot the case - it was moved from their youtube channel to their blog after a number of legitimate scientists debunk several of the things he claimed in it.

As an aside, this is why I no longer bother with TED talks - they were initially pretty good, but they soon became a platform for loonies and conspiracy kooks like Sheldrake and Sheryl Atkisson. No thanks.

As a second aside, creationists love this suppression/martyr complex thing. Walter ReMine made much of the fact that he had written a paper on Haldane's dilemma and it had been rejected by one journal. This, he claimed, was proof that creation science was being suppressed. Problem is, actual scientists understand that there is a very high probability that ALL papers will be rejected on their first submission, or at least rejected pending alterations. He never made alterations and re-submitted, he never tried to submit to another journal, like actual scientists do all the time. And when he finally published it in a creationist journal, the reason it was rejected was obvious - it was filled with his usual self-promotion (for example "I" appeared in the paper many times, whereas you almost never see a real scientist referring to him/herself in this fashion, even if the paper has a single author); he also made false accusations of cover-ups, insulted people, only re-hashed things that had already been published, etc. - THAT is why it was rejected).
Caroline Crocker claims she was censored as an adjunct teaching a biology class, claimed she only mentioned ID as a possibility. Problem was, her powerpoint presentation was leaked and she had multiple slides that contained irrelevant insults re: Darwin (claimed he drank and gambled...) and outright lies about fossils. She deserved her 'censorship' (which it wasn't - she simply did not have her contract renewed, and anyone working in academia knows that adjunct positions are not guaranteed to last more then even one semester).

 

[tas8831]

My answer to you is the same. Study the evidence....
Its why I like talking evidence not prejudice.

So, no biology background, and this odd tendency to side with fringe woo meisters. Interesting.

 

[tas8831]

I am not going to bother replying to this blow by blow - its the usual atheist dogma.

Wow, OK dude...

But you are all about 'science'.... Whatever...

 

[tas8831]

Interesting - do you have a reference or citation?

I've followed these sorts of claims for years, and the best quality work I've seen was the attempted replications of the superficially interesting Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) results (although barely significant), which failed. PEAR closed in February 2007 without having produced replicable scientific evidence for remote perception, psychokinesis, or telepathy.

If you have any more recent 'more or less slamdunk' evidence for (non-electronically aided) telepathy, I'd be interested to see it.

Come on dude - it is a SLAM DUNK! Can't argue with Sheldrake's dogs and a some sisters.