It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One of the Problems with Science, as I see it

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Parapsychology is a branch of science (or pseudo-science, if you prefer) that endeavors to study "extraordinary" mental functioning, or psychic ability. ESP, remote viewing, psycho-kinesis, precognition, etc.

In the movie Ghostbusters, Bill Murray portrays a parapsychologist - Dr Peter Venkman.



Here we see him using zener cards to perform a parapsychology experiment. Hilarity ensues.

Many, many people report psychic experiences. In my opinion, science must remain open to all possibilities, regardless of skeptical opinions. But what if that's not enough?

"If one believes, as I do, that ESP exists but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing."

-Freeman Dyson

What if psychic ability is real, and yet forever beyond the scope of science?

What if we are unwilling to realize that science is limited?

Science has power and prestige. If a group of famous scientists were to step forward and admit to the public that science is in fact too clumsy and limited to handle aspects of our reality, what would happen to that power and prestige?

Make no mistake about it. Psychic ability is indeed very real. And yet, science has not been able to wrap itself around it. Skeptics would claim that is because psychic ability is bollocks. I claim it's because science can't handle it.

And yet, parapsychology can teach us much about it. Parapsychology experiments often get results that teach us things. Not always, but it's unreasonable to expect otherwise.

We may be caught in a kind of trap. Consciousness might be a fundamental part of reality, and psychic ability might be a universal feature of it. If so, science might not be able to grasp reality.

Ever.


edit on 769WednesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuWednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
So why are you so sure that psychic ability (if it exists) is untestable by science? Scientists were unable to test for quantum physics 100+ years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. If psychic abilities exist, then there should be a scientific test we could perform to test for it. The universe works on rules that once known can be used to predict the results for future events. I see no reason why psychic ability would work any differently. If we currently don't have the tools or knowhow to test for it, then we either need to improve our technology or change the way we test for it. Of course all this is assuming that psychic abilities exist in the first place. You may just be wrong and they don't exist after all. I certainly hope you don't believe people like John Edwards are real psychics.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Heart Bill Murray.

And science has always been limited. Einstein imagined ideas before proving any of them. Krauss is doing the same thing right now. Science is always needing imagination, creativity, and speculation. The idea that science will be permanently limited isn't having imagination I suppose?

Short answer, nothing would happen if we admitted science was limited, because scientists admit this every time they publish a speculative theory and try to work out ways of testing it.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So why are you so sure that psychic ability (if it exists) is untestable by science? Scientists were unable to test for quantum physics 100+ years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. If psychic abilities exist, then there should be a scientific test we could perform to test for it. The universe works on rules that once known can be used to predict the results for future events. I see no reason why psychic ability would work any differently. If we currently don't have the tools or knowhow to test for it, then we either need to improve our technology or change the way we test for it. Of course all this is assuming that psychic abilities exist in the first place. You may just be wrong and they don't exist after all. I certainly hope you don't believe people like John Edwards are real psychics.


I second this motion.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: BlueMule

Heart Bill Murray.

And science has always been limited. Einstein imagined ideas before proving any of them. Krauss is doing the same thing right now. Science is always needing imagination, creativity, and speculation. The idea that science will be permanently limited isn't having imagination I suppose?

How is science limited? The only limitation of science is peoples understanding of it..



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Science and technology are always evolving. What we are able to understand and test now, will be considered child's play within a few decades.

I would say that is the main reason I love real honest science so much. You will never get bored, and can always learn something new.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Science has proven the existence of psy with many experiments mainly conducted at the Stanford research center.

lifestyle.inquirer.net...
www.psychicsuniverse.com...

www.noetic.org...
edit on 25-6-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

What if we are unwilling to realize that science is limited?



I think one of science's shortcomings is that people usually refuse to accept personal observation as data (when it's really just called qualitative data.)

We're entering an age where if it isn't measured with a computer or instrument, we're much more reticent to accept it. People are forgetting that we have observational instruments built into us.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So why are you so sure that psychic ability (if it exists) is untestable by science? Scientists were unable to test for quantum physics 100+ years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. If psychic abilities exist, then there should be a scientific test we could perform to test for it. The universe works on rules that once known can be used to predict the results for future events. I see no reason why psychic ability would work any differently. If we currently don't have the tools or knowhow to test for it, then we either need to improve our technology or change the way we test for it. Of course all this is assuming that psychic abilities exist in the first place. You may just be wrong and they don't exist after all. I certainly hope you don't believe people like John Edwards are real psychics.


Like I said in the OP, parapsychology has shown some interesting things about psi, things that I believe will prevent us from going any further with it.

It has shown us that everyone is psychic. It's just a matter of degree. If you have consciousness, you have psi. Even if you don't believe in it.

It has shown that the conscious mind does not call the shots. The unconscious mind does. As I'm sure you know, the unconscious mind is a very tricky thing. Are we the boss of the unconscious?

Those two things alone might prevent us from ever nailing psi down.

If we do come up with whole new ways of testing for psi, people on both sides of the issue will use them. Replication is a part of science that we just can't do without. Skeptics will want to replicate the tests, and that is a reasonable thing to want to do.

But remember, everyone is psychic. Even skeptics. And the unconscious mind calls the shots. What is to prevent the unconscious mind of skeptics from using psi to skewer the results of their replications, without their knowing? Nothing.

So then what happens is, skeptical scientists are unable to replicate those whole new ways. The stalemate continues.

It has been shown that skeptics unconsciously use their own psychic ability to hide psi from themselves. Believers, on the other hand, unconsciously use psi to show psi to themselves. It's called the sheep-goat effect.


edit on 837WednesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuWednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: BlueMule

Heart Bill Murray.

And science has always been limited. Einstein imagined ideas before proving any of them. Krauss is doing the same thing right now. Science is always needing imagination, creativity, and speculation. The idea that science will be permanently limited isn't having imagination I suppose?

Short answer, nothing would happen if we admitted science was limited, because scientists admit this every time they publish a speculative theory and try to work out ways of testing it.


Agreed, you have to be able to imagine it first. I mean the true basis of science exploring the unexplained, finding the how to what you can only imagine.

The brain is the most powerful unique biological organ in the universe that we know today. We only use two percent of it.

I raise the very real question of what if, like the upcoming movie, Lucy, I think it is called. Where as she starts using the untapped power of our brains she can do amazing things.

For me this is science, thinking, imagining the unthinkable. Going beyond what your your mind your are able to access today can understand. Breaking down walls and barriers.

For example what if in the past we could access more of our brains, say preflood. But then we lost the ability. Seriously, you don't really think our ancestors who did not even have metal tools could really fashion great pyramids and giant structures all over the other. Ah, guess you never worked in a quarry. We can't do it today lol.

Something in science and knowledge has been lost. Now, we are on a journey to find it again....

The Bot



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Science has proven the existence of psy with many experiments mainly conducted at the Stanford research center.

lifestyle.inquirer.net...
www.psychicsuniverse.com...

www.noetic.org...


Science provides evidence, not proof. I believe there is more than enough evidence to convince an open-minded inquirer that psi is real. But there is not enough evidence to prompt the dissemination of parapsychological findings throughout "mainstream" science. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, if science won't invite parapsychology to the party.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: olaru12
Science has proven the existence of psy with many experiments mainly conducted at the Stanford research center.

lifestyle.inquirer.net...
www.psychicsuniverse.com...

www.noetic.org...


Science provides evidence, not proof. I believe there is more than enough evidence to convince an open-minded inquirer that psi is real. But there is not enough evidence to prompt the dissemination of parapsychological findings throughout "mainstream" science. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, if science won't invite parapsychology to the party.



I remember that quantum physics used to walk in those shoes once...



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So why are you so sure that psychic ability (if it exists) is untestable by science? Scientists were unable to test for quantum physics 100+ years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. If psychic abilities exist, then there should be a scientific test we could perform to test for it. The universe works on rules that once known can be used to predict the results for future events. I see no reason why psychic ability would work any differently. If we currently don't have the tools or knowhow to test for it, then we either need to improve our technology or change the way we test for it. Of course all this is assuming that psychic abilities exist in the first place. You may just be wrong and they don't exist after all. I certainly hope you don't believe people like John Edwards are real psychics.


I second this motion.


I don't know.

By the way, that is what a star is for...

OP, I do see psychics as something that could be useful if found out to be real. There are things that could benefit from it, I am just not sure if it is real. Can you elaborate on the statement saying "I claim it is because science can't handle it"? Do you mean because science can't prove it real? I am not sure if there is solid proof of it being real, is there?



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

OP, I do see psychics as something that could be useful if found out to be real. There are things that could benefit from it, I am just not sure if it is real. Can you elaborate on the statement saying "I claim it is because science can't handle it"? Do you mean because science can't prove it real? I am not sure if there is solid proof of it being real, is there?


I don't like to use the word proof. I don't think it has a place in science. Proof is a very tricky concept.

I like to use the word evidence. There is more than enough evidence that psychic ability, or psi for short, is real. Parapsychological experiments have provided so much evidence it's astounding.

Then why isn't the issue settled? Because when a skeptical scientist tries to replicate parapsychological experiments, they don't get the same results as scientists who are believers.

Belief and disbelief are psychological variables that influence psychic abilities.

How are you going to convince a skeptical scientist that before he can replicate a parapsychological experiment, he must become a believer?


edit on 864Wednesday000000America/ChicagoJun000000WednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Sounds like selective bias to me.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Yeah good point. I am not saying I don't believe, I just haven't seen anything that has made me believe in it. I am sure if there is decent evidence to show this is something that is real, even the most skeptical should be able to open their mind to investigate further, I would imagine anyways.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlueMule

Sounds like selective bias to me.


Not necessarily...If you were someone who didn't believe and the OP had a real experience with it, call it luck or something else but maybe they couldn't give you the same "evidence", so you are left still as a skeptic when the OP saw it real first hand...I can kind of see where he was going with that statement and even though the evidence couldn't be duplicated to you, he saw it first hand at least once which made him believe.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


I don't like to use the word proof. I don't think it has a place in science. Proof is a very tricky concept.



1proof noun ˈprüf
: something which shows that something else is true or correct

: an act or process of showing that something is true


I don't see what's so tricky about demonstrating the truth.


How are you going to convince a skeptical scientist that before he can replicate a parapsychological experiment, he must become a believer?


You mean, how do you convince a scientist to formulate a conclusion before he has begun to gather the evidence?

It's simple: you don't.
edit on 25-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whatever you call it, it results in a stalemate. So unless you can change the rules of science, the stalemate will continue.

People will continue to experience things that science can't address. People will see science trying to work it's way around things that are a very important part of being human. And people will continue to lose confidence in science as a result.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Is that kind of like people seeing the weather thousands of years ago and since science couldn't (at the time) explain why tornadoes happen, they chalk it up to god/gods? Because that is all I see with your post.

ETA: The problem is that you are trying to rush science. Science works at its own pace. It does what it can through the limitations of current technology and human thought. You nor I have any idea what the future holds for technology and science. So to say that science is incapable of detecting and measuring psychic abilities is short-sighted in my opinion. I understand that you would like answers to these questions, but if science isn't ready to answer them, there is nothing we can do about it until science can answer them.
edit on 25-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join