I disagree with most people, and usually get fun comments from other "believers" that I don't really believe, or know, or whatever; but I
Oh yeah - I disagree we can't eventually provide proof or, in reference to your other thread which is remarkably similar to this, provide answers to
the questions we face in paranormal subjects.
There are several problems, however, with us getting there. One of the biggest is the lack of consistent, repeatable evidence to apply our current
methods of science to. Paranormal experiences, especially the ghostly ones, are almost always anecdotal. Even when captured video there is a lot of
room for falsehood, and even if not without being able to test and get similar results we really can't make much headway.
In addition we, as I've said before, are hampered by a lack of consensus among experiencers. I dare you to post something asking "What are ghosts"
right now and you'll get a dozen, earnest answers. From spirits to interdimensional visitors, to time slips or demons, few people agree on what we
are experiencing. Worst yet some people not only disagree, but are adamant their interpretation is correct because...
...they are special in some way. I'm not pointing fingers, and I'm not judging. I'm stating this as a matter of fact: There are a lot of people who
view their experiences as proof they are special, enlightened, chosen, cursed, take your pick. The point is there are people who not only have set
their views as to what things are but insist they are right because of their special senses, or abilities, or that they commune with them; anyone who
disagrees is simply just not aware like them.
Then there are the ones who say science can't explain everything, and utter its very name like an epitaph when it's brought up. I tend to think they
know that it might indeed be a answer questions but the answers aren't what people want to hear, and therefore dismiss all possibility.
So how can you provide proof or answers when no one is even willing to agree on a basis to test? How can you test when we already know the
experiences are not easy to replicate?
I'd say if people were willing to really come together, and start hammering out a few starting hypothesis to go from. Testing that wouldn't be
conclusive in our current manner, so we'd have to widen our margins of error and start really collecting every datapoint we can until we have a better
idea of what our testing result range should be. Put real focus on developing new tools to test the hypothesis. Much as we've gone from just video
cameras and audio recorders to various custom EMF readers and full-spectrum cameras we should continue to develop tech to help support testing.
And people that have that special insight should be welcomed without mockery, but in turn accepting of challenging questioning, about their insight,
because it may also be something that can be shared and developed. It would have to be people willing to accept that there is even the possibility,
as they improve their testing, that it might just not be what we hoped. It could still be something amazing and new to science, but it might turn out
it's not what we thought it was, and not let that fear taint their efforts.
That's my take on it, anyways. I absolutely believe with the right effort, positivity and willingness to set aside their personal disagreements to
develop testable hypothesis.
edit on 17-3-2015 by UnmitigatedDisaster because: (no reason given)