The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Bedlam

My beliefs do not stem from cranky websites my friend they are based on my own experience and mental verification
Yes they are not scientific as such but as I stated science does not know everything

If you can't measure it, then it's anecdotal. How do you know, for instance, that you're not fooling yourself? If you could measure it, you could prove it. No measurement, it's bogus.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: artistpoet

Except Dark Matter and Energy have not been proven at all: They're being looked for. They're a theory that is discussed as if they are facts.

So you are ignorant of the scientific definitions of the words 'theory' and fact'. That explains a lot.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Bedlam

I can personally measure some things but not scientifically prove it to others
As such it is a belief I hold which science can not disprove only by calling me a liar of those things I have experienced

Intuition and prediction I have proven to be true to myself

But I understand your premice for science and that I differ
Perhaps I am a scientist in my own way
By asking an inward question and occasionally getting an answer which manifests in the so called real world

But this thread is about wether the Soul exists
Science says No ... But it does not mean science is correct

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Bedlam
Intuition and prediction I have proven to be true to myself

My intuition tells me you are completely wrong.

See the problem with such nonsense reasoning?

originally posted by: Bedlam
Observed means measureable.

No, it does not.

Observed means scientists notice something occurring.

a reply to: Bedlam

A much more accurate description would be suppressed science. Ridicule is a very common technique used to keep the implications of new findings from scientists that threaten the paradigm needed by those in control unexplored by the mainstream.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

A much more accurate description would be suppressed science. Ridicule is a very common technique used to keep the implications of new findings from scientists that threaten the paradigm needed by those in control unexplored by the mainstream.

Why should someone who insists something is the way it is but doesn't provide a shred of proof not be ridiculed? Should we take EVERYONE seriously? No matter how idiotic their theories are ?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Bedlam
Observed means measureable.

No, it does not.

Observed means scientists notice something occurring.

If you can observe it you can quantify it. "Putative" and "subtle" means "I'd like it to exist but it's totally my imagination"

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

A much more accurate description would be suppressed science.

Another way of saying "bogus"

originally posted by: Bedlam
If you can observe it you can quantify it.

Not necessarily by methods sanctioned by Western mainstream science at the present time.

a reply to: Bedlam

Not if the history of the backlash experienced by some innovators has been investigated.

a reply to: ConnectDots

And yet again you display your scientific illiteracy.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Bedlam
Observed means measureable.

No, it does not.

Observed means scientists notice something occurring.

That's a layman's interpretation. Science is all about measurement - whether you're measuring a unique phenomenon or comparing against another measurement. That's why mathematics is at the core of scientific investigation.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Bedlam
If you can observe it you can quantify it.

Not necessarily by methods sanctioned by Western mainstream science at the present time.

Can you give an example of an "unsanctioned" method not approved by the "Western mainstream science"? Never heard of that. Thanks.

a reply to: GetHyped

No
Explain

a reply to: GetHyped

Do you always choose to insult rather than discuss
No need to answer I understand your mind set

a reply to: Bedlam

No not always bogus
Unfortunatly the world of science is subject to Human Nature

Imagine a scientist life work and belief being shredded by new evidence
This has occurred by those seeking to steal the limelight
Science is flawed and to say any different is ignorance ...

I respect honest scientists but like in every walk of life Human beings are what they are
Subject to their own bias

Jelousy and other Human traits are not exempt from science

a reply to: artistpoet

So you accept the accuracy and validity of my intuitive claim?

a reply to: artistpoet

If you finding pointing out scientific illiteracy insulting then no wonder you shy away from scientific knowledge.

Edit: scientifically illiterate posters making scientifically illiterate attacks on a science forum is nothing to be proud of; it's just ignorant and dare I say it, *rude*. Interesting how you find challenging such rude and ignorant people 'insulting'.

a reply to: GetHyped

I do not shy away from scientific knowledge
I encourage it
But as I keep stating science does hold all the answers

Honest scientists admit they do NOT know all that is
To stick with what science informs us as the be and all and end all is to be stupid

Tell me what do you disagree with regarding what I have posted

Intuition perhaps
Yet you demean such a thing without enquiry as to how I understand such a thing to be so

You my friend are closed minded