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.

 

Science is a conspiracy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
was watching "The Girl With X-Ray Eyes" on, I think it was, the Documentary Channel. It was the 2nd time I'd heard about her, but this time I watched the whole thing.

She is a young girl, 17 at the time of the documentary, who says she can see what is wrong with people physically just by sitting in front of them and talking to them. She had already been doing this for 6 years before the documentary. Her mother claimed in the show that she'd "never been wrong". Various of her past 'patients' were interviewed in Russia and confirmed that she'd indeed been correct in her assessments and in one particular case had diagnosed cancer which was then confirmed by doctors, treated, and when the patient again saw the girl, was gone.

Somehow, the film makers got word of her ability and, I guess, approached her to see if she'd let them "test" her in NYC. She was very forthcoming (the testers said in the film) and agreed.

I won't go into the rest of it, but wanted to make a couple of points about the film and what it says about "scientific tests".

Firstly, they never once asked her if she could physically "see" inside the person being looked at, nor did she ever speak about the method in which she could 'see' the problem. She claimed no 'psychic' ability, but the testers spoke of it in those terms often. The film showed her to be deeply religious, visiting a local church often and performing what looked like Catholic rituals, yet the film makers did not once ask, either, if her "seeings" were spiritually related.

More than likely she didn't mention whether the 'seeings' were done with her physical eyes or as an inner 'knowing' due to her inability to speak English and the testers inability to communicate in Russian.

She had a translator who, it was said, was a "friend"of hers from Russia. How much English the translator understood and could communicate is questionable. I thought from the often dismayed expression on the translator's face that the amount would be short of sufficient for the situation. (Anyone who's ever tried to translate from one language to another knows how difficult it can be, and doubly so when the subject being translated is not understood well by the translator).

The girl carried on all through the ins and outs with aplomb and a certain amount of growing puzzlement and annoyance as the testers began to insist that she do the tests in certain ways they devised and not as she was accustomed to do the "seeings".

This basic lack of clarity on both sides was very annoying, how could such "professionals" as the testers claimed to be overlook so basic an element of the test?

Throughout the showing, I waited to hear one or the other sides say, "OH, wow, we forgot to ask" or "you know you are assuming I see these things physically, but actually.....". But NO.

YET, the pros decided after a particularly strenuous testing that the girl didn't match their definition of whatever it was they were looking for her to be. That her ability was very real was supposedly debunked because on the last test she scored 4 of 7 rather than 5 of 7 correct, which is the criteria the testers devised.

Two of the symptoms she missed were a "steel plate in the head" and "staples in the chest". The testers harped on those two in particular because "if she had x-ray eyes" (their term for her and never mentioned by her herself) "she surely would have picked up on metal."

How scientific is that?

If she were an x-ray machine, maybe, but since they never asked her if she could physically see why would she be anymore likely to have seen metal than anything else?

On that test the testers further had covered the people's dark glasses with tape that made the glasses look bulgy and blue, a disconcerting enough effect for anyone much less a girl who'd never been out of her city in Russia up until then.

The conclusion was, for this test, and now making clear how the "scientific" outlook is not scientific, in the classic sense of studying and making sense of things, so much as it is skepticism gone amok. That is, the basic position is the thing studied is not 'real', and then the tests prove it. End of story.

Well, end of story for the testers, but for the girl returning to Russia and her hopes of attending medical school after graduation from high school, the end of the tests was not an ending for her. Her 'patients' continued to line the hallway of her apartment building, and they continued to have great faith in her abilities.

Bias is supposedly not scientific, yet the basic premise that every thought and every belief is suspect until the scientists, and so called scientific proof say otherwise is rampant in the entire thinking of this culture, and it is called practicality when in reality it is only a biased view of everything.

More, it puts the "proof" of everything in a few men's hands, and by now we all know how wise that makes the 'results'.

And why is the basis of science skepticism? Why is it that the view of skeptical thinking is considered more intelligent and informed than say, the view that proof is in the pudding, so to speak, that is if something works, why not start with the view that it is "real" and work from there with the tests?

This skeptical view of life in general is so engrained in the thinking of mankind, at least as it is represented in America, that it will take an extraordinary event to uproot it and show it for the prideful nonsense it truly is. Who knows how many discoveries have yet to be made because some scientist with an ego the size of Mt Everest decided it was too etheral to be studied?




posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
i agree with you that science isnt all what it is cracked up to be. scientist choose what they want to debunk and what they want the people to believe.
i think that if it is anything to do with spirituality, or god, or anything that doesnt go along with their " we came from monkeys' ", or " we came from micro organisms" then its definately fake.
i think that the whole scientific stuff ( well , most of it ) is put here to confuse people and question their faith.
that girl might have lost some faith in her self or is second guessing her self now, just because those people said that what she does is fake. even though there is other facts that back up what she does to prove her.

im out
-mindtrip02



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindtrip02
i agree with you that science isnt all what it is cracked up to be. scientist choose what they want to debunk and what they want the people to believe.
i think that if it is anything to do with spirituality, or god, or anything that doesnt go along with their " we came from monkeys' ", or " we came from micro organisms" then its definately fake.
i think that the whole scientific stuff ( well , most of it ) is put here to confuse people and question their faith.
that girl might have lost some faith in her self or is second guessing her self now, just because those people said that what she does is fake. even though there is other facts that back up what she does to prove her.

im out
-mindtrip02


It is heartwarming in the best possible sense to see that someone else sees through the "scientific" view, mindtrip02, and thanks for posting before the debunkers hit this thread.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
And why is the basis of science skepticism?

Skeptics are needed so they dont go into projects with a pre-conceived ideology, therefore making them more believable in the end.

Take MUFON for instance. If you want to investigate for them YOU MUST BE A SKEPTIC. That is a requirement- and it is for the reason i stated above.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Firstly, I'd like to say, not all scientists are as sketic as others, and you are right to a point, mainstream science does tend to be to skeptic.


I have seen this documentary as well, I believe it was on TLC, and I honestly am not sure if she could do it or not, completely in the middle, however, the term
X-ray eyes is not a term created purely by the testers, at one point she did say, or atleast the translator did, it was like X-rays, or something to that degree.

As for them not asking her how she saw it, they probably should have, but they probably figured she would'nty be able to describe it accurately, especially with it having to be translated.
As for them not asking her if it had to do with her spiritual beliefs/religiom, well it just would'nt be a very scientific thing to ask, since religion and science don't go well together, and IMO, science generally kicks religions butt.

Now, just because this certain group who did the testing, which happens to be a very skeptic and de-bunky group, who are'nt really manistream science, did'nt do the greatest job testing her, it does'nt mean science is wrong or is a conspiracy, it just means this group did'nt fdo a good job.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I agree. The "scientific method" is held up as the be-all and end-all of the advancement of knowledge, yet assumptions and prejudices affect what questions get asked and hence what answers come out. It sounds as if this girl responded in some way to illness, and so would not pick out things (like staples) that are the result of treatment.

Whether the debunkers like it or not, there is a whole bunch of unexplained phenomena out there that they don't have the analytical tools to do any useful work on. Wilhelm Reich was someone who was attacked by his peers and died in jail in the US in the 'fifties, and yet his experiments can be replicated.

I wouldn't necessarily say, though, that in this instance the scientists concerned were acting conspiratorially. Unless James Randi was involved, of course...

On a broader point, there are occasions when scientists DO act conspiratorially. I'm thinking in particular of a British scientist who fed rats GM food and noted brain lesions developing. Monsanto found out, called Clinton, who called Blair, who called the Royal Society, who formed a kangaroo court to discredit the guy's findings.

Meanwhile some schoolgirls were doing a science project and got the same results which were posted on the net, which is "one up" for the standard scientific method...



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindtrip02
i agree with you that science isnt all what it is cracked up to be. scientist choose what they want to debunk and what they want the people to believe.
i think that if it is anything to do with spirituality, or god, or anything that doesnt go along with their " we came from monkeys' ", or " we came from micro organisms" then its definately fake.
i think that the whole scientific stuff ( well , most of it ) is put here to confuse people and question their faith.
that girl might have lost some faith in her self or is second guessing her self now, just because those people said that what she does is fake. even though there is other facts that back up what she does to prove her.

im out
-mindtrip02

Ok, I'm purposely putting responses to this in a seperate one than my response to the initial pot/er so theres no confusion.

Science does'nt "choose anything, scientists choose what projects they want to work on.
And scientists choose things they wish to prove untrue based on physical testable evidence and scientific possibility.

As for not testing anything to do with spirituality, well I recently saw a program on the Discovery channel in which they hgad several people claiming to have near death experiences describe there experiences, than they explained them scientifically based on the evidence, and at the end they did admit with one woman they had no explanation for it, so scientists do explore more spiritual related things sometimes.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Skeptics are needed so they dont go into projects with a pre-conceived ideology, therefore making them more believable in the end.



Skepticism is a pre-conceived ideology. Disbelief vs belief...which do you find less preconceived?

There are other reasons "skepticism" is more easily accepted, and some of those are:

It is believed it "proves" that one is less susceptible to being 'tricked' (ie, pride).

It is thought to show a certain attitude of "hard-nosed" intelligent practicality (pride of intellect).

It is believed to give the skeptic the advantage over what they view as the 'gullible'. (arrogant pride)

Pride comes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall. . (Proverbs 16:18--Holman Christian Standard Bible)



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Science does'nt "choose anything, scientists choose what projects they want to work on.
And scientists choose things they wish to prove untrue based on physical testable evidence and scientific possibility.....


Exactly. Point well put. "they wish to prove untrue"....how much more biased can it get?

As for what you say the choices made are based on, what does that mean? That they test with physical means? That is a confusing statement to me.

edited to correct error

[edit on 28-7-2006 by curiousity]

[edit on 28-7-2006 by curiousity]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I agree. The "scientific method" is held up as the be-all and end-all of the advancement of knowledge, yet assumptions and prejudices affect what questions get asked and hence what answers come out. It sounds as if this girl responded in some way to illness, and so would not pick out things (like staples) that are the result of treatment.


Excellent point, thanks for bringing it out. I'd not thought of that view, and it seems quite likely, that is based on the logic of the statement and the context in which it was posted, it seems the most likely of several possibilities now that you brought it up. It would also explain why she didn't pick up on the other wrong answer, that is of a "shortened esophagus", since that was a past surgery performed and not a current illness.

And, "assumptions and prejudices" certainly do affect what questions are asked and what answers are forthcoming, whether by scientists or posters. Any honest observer would have to agree with that.

edited to add: You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


[edit on 28-7-2006 by curiousity]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
It doesn't mean science is wrong or a conspiracy, it just means it isn't 100% correct. In the coming years, we may find parallel universes, that the universe was never created, proving the theory of relativity wrong. It doesn't mean science is a conspiracy and it is here to confuse people. Science is always advancing and it sheds off old skin like a snake all the time. Humans are primitive compared to the universe, so we will make mistakes and faulty predictions and theories occasionally.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity

Originally posted by iori_komei
Science does'nt "choose anything, scientists choose what projects they want to work on.
And scientists choose things they wish to prove untrue based on physical testable evidence and scientific possibility.....


Exactly. Point well put. "they wish to prove untrue"....how much more biased can it get?

As for what you say the choices made are based on, what does that mean? That they test with physical means? That is a confusing statement to me.

It's not biased, it's just trying to get people to see the truth, or atleast what the current scientific proof is, I don't think it's biased, 99% of scientists who disprove things do it to try and help enlighten people to the scientific facts, since non-scientific beliefs, though not always, can sometimes be damaging or dangerous.

What I mean is they test things that are, well I can't think of a suitable term, but say for some reason a small kingdom in the Andes consisiting of people who still beleived in concepts like the early churches dogma said, like the Earth is flat, everything orbits the earth eytc., well science would than prove that to be disproven, to educate people to the truth.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by curiousity

Originally posted by iori_komei
Science does'nt "choose anything, scientists choose what projects they want to work on.
And scientists choose things they wish to prove untrue based on physical testable evidence and scientific possibility.....


Exactly. Point well put. "they wish to prove untrue"....how much more biased can it get?

As for what you say the choices made are based on, what does that mean? That they test with physical means? That is a confusing statement to me.

, I don't think it's biased, 99% of scientists who disprove things do it to try and help enlighten people to the scientific facts, since non-scientific beliefs, though not always, can sometimes be damaging or dangerous.

What I mean is they test things that are, well I can't think of a suitable term, but say for some reason a small kingdom in the Andes consisiting of people who still beleived in concepts like the early churches dogma said, like the Earth is flat, everything orbits the earth eytc., well science would than prove that to be disproven, to educate people to the truth.


I'm sorry but the logic in this post is not hardly impeccable. "It's not biased, it's just trying to get people to see the truth, or at least what the current scientific proof is...", yes, and that truth changes every so often, which means it was not TRUTH, doesn't it? Take the 4 food groups as an example. I can't remember now how it went when I was a kid, but since then it has changed at least 2-3 times, yet you say "non-scientific beliefs, though not always, can sometimes be damaging or dangerous". Non-scientific beliefs? How about scientific beliefs?

Used to be it was drink milk or don't have strong bones, now it's drink milk and get allergy reactions, how is that not "damaging or dangerous"?

Let's say, according to your post, that isolated community exists and "consisiting of people who still beleived in concepts like the early churches dogma said, like the Earth is flat, everything orbits the earth eytc., well science would than prove that to be disproven, to educate people to the truth. "

And exactly how did such beliefs damage or become dangerous to anyone? And how did it help this community to have the scientists prove their beliefs to be stupidly wrong?

Again, why is it that whenever science is mentioned, church dogma, whether rightly or wrongly stated, is also brought into the discussion? Could it be that both are BELIEF SYSTEMS?



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
then the 'testers' were not scientists, but in fact propagandists simply out to disprove this woman's abilities.

I see that a lot... Particularly if the subject is somehow medically related.

The tests are structured to get an already predetermined result.

The scientific method is quite specific about how the process is supposed to work. Apparently that's not what occurred here.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by curiousity

Originally posted by iori_komei
Science does'nt "choose anything, scientists choose what projects they want to work on.
And scientists choose things they wish to prove untrue based on physical testable evidence and scientific possibility.....


Exactly. Point well put. "they wish to prove untrue"....how much more biased can it get?

As for what you say the choices made are based on, what does that mean? That they test with physical means? That is a confusing statement to me.

, I don't think it's biased, 99% of scientists who disprove things do it to try and help enlighten people to the scientific facts, since non-scientific beliefs, though not always, can sometimes be damaging or dangerous.

What I mean is they test things that are, well I can't think of a suitable term, but say for some reason a small kingdom in the Andes consisiting of people who still beleived in concepts like the early churches dogma said, like the Earth is flat, everything orbits the earth eytc., well science would than prove that to be disproven, to educate people to the truth.


I'm sorry but the logic in this post is not hardly impeccable. "It's not biased, it's just trying to get people to see the truth, or at least what the current scientific proof is...", yes, and that truth changes every so often, which means it was not TRUTH, doesn't it? Take the 4 food groups as an example. I can't remember now how it went when I was a kid, but since then it has changed at least 2-3 times, yet you say "non-scientific beliefs, though not always, can sometimes be damaging or dangerous". Non-scientific beliefs? How about scientific beliefs?

Used to be it was drink milk or don't have strong bones, now it's drink milk and get allergy reactions, how is that not "damaging or dangerous"?

Let's say, according to your post, that isolated community exists and "consisiting of people who still beleived in concepts like the early churches dogma said, like the Earth is flat, everything orbits the earth eytc., well science would than prove that to be disproven, to educate people to the truth. "

And exactly how did such beliefs damage or become dangerous to anyone? And how did it help this community to have the scientists prove their beliefs to be stupidly wrong?

Again, why is it that whenever science is mentioned, church dogma, whether rightly or wrongly stated, is also brought into the discussion? Could it be that both are BELIEF SYSTEMS?


Ok, since I not only confused myself with my own last post, but that was alot to read, I'm just gonna answer the last question.

Why does church dogma get brought up?
Because for nearly a millenia the chucrch taught that science was evil, and disallowed it for the most part, and it's a kind of way at getting back at the church, atleast that's a part of it, probably to because the church tends to teach very unscientific things, and I don't mean the existance of god, since physically it can't be proven or disproven, but things like Adam and Eve, which subsequently I will give a nod to the UK church since they've essentially said it's just a myth, and untrue.


EDIT:
Fixed spelling and moved words around to fit better.

[edit on 7/28/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
Exactly. Point well put. "they wish to prove untrue"....how much more biased can it get?


Bias can be found on anything that human intentions are involved, just like scientist choose what to study so religous minds like to chose what to preach that will be in their best interest. . .

At least the scientifict comunity role is to find the answers and to use scientific method to prove it.

While religion only uses faith.



As for what you say the choices made are based on, what does that mean? That they test with physical means? That is a confusing statement to me.


No really, Choices are taking after test are made, a true scientist will follow a theory and then will proced withto prove it false of true, then from the results that can have variants depeding on the different test use they can come to a conclusion.

A true scientist will be failing himself if they are to alter results for personal gain.



I don't think it's biased, 99% of scientists who disprove things do it to try and help enlighten people to the scientific facts


That is pretty good statement. . .



since non-scientific beliefs, though not always, can sometimes be damaging or dangerous.


I agree also . . .



yes, and that truth changes every so often, which means it was not TRUTH, doesn't it? Used to be it was drink milk or don't have strong bones, now it's drink milk and get allergy reactions, how is that not "damaging or dangerous"?


Well times change and with the change of times comes a different new array of issues that affect us and science.

What could have been good for us 1000 years ago would not be in modern times, what we used to eat 40 years ago may be killing us now.

Is all about the time it takes to prove that some things were not as good as first though due to a time frame for people to develop reactions.

Is not so difficult to understand this.



And exactly how did such beliefs damage or become dangerous to anyone? And how did it help this community to have the scientists prove their beliefs to be stupidly wrong?


While this is hypotetical I find it no as a very good example in modern days when the world due to technology is becoming smaller . . . unless you find a tribe somewhere in earth never been touch by civilization then I imagine that a point could be prove.

Right now is not chance of that.



Again, why is it that whenever science is mentioned, church dogma, whether rightly or wrongly stated, is also brought into the discussion? Could it be that both are BELIEF SYSTEMS?


Perhaps because is always somebody that wants to use relgion against science or perhaps because religion biggest enemy is scientific method.

The role of science is very simple . . .science involves theories, laws of nature, experiments and observation. We can safely say that a product of science is a theory about the laws of nature that matches the results of experiments and observations.

That's what real science is all about. . .



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Science, as an ideal/hierarchy of methodology, is one of humanities greatest achievements.

Unfortunately the rub, is that we typically only see the former in action...

Too much "that's NOT possible"... Not enough 'tell me more...'.

Interesting Wilhelm Reich tangent.


Anybody here have any real knowledge of Reichs research work... Any tech materials?



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Bias can be found on anything that human intentions are involved, just like scientist choose what to study so religous minds like to chose what to preach that will be in their best interest. . .A true scientist will be failing himself if they are to alter results for personal gain.


So preachers are duplicitous and scientists are "pure as the driven snow"? Come on!!!! Your real bias is showing there, marg.

Anyway, you contradicted this statement: "A true scientist will be failing himself if they are to alter results for personal gain." with this one "Bias can be found on anything that human intentions are involved".

Human bias is always "what's in it for me", altruistic bias to the contrary notwithstanding.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity

So preachers are duplicitous and scientists are "pure as the driven snow"? Come on!!!! Your real bias is showing there, marg.


No really you going to find unscrupulous people in the scientific community and in religious communities as with leaders that is something unavoidable when it comes to human nature. . .



Anyway, you contradicted this statement: "A true scientist will be failing himself if they are to alter results for personal gain." with this one "Bias can be found on anything that human intentions are involved".


Now really . . . I very clear said A true scientist and like I said before is always some unscrupulous people out there . . .



Human bias is always "what's in it for me", altruistic bias to the contrary notwithstanding.


I trust the scientific community and I trust findings but I have my own mind and I also capable as with any concern person to question anything.

Blind believes are not healthy you know, you have to give a littler to gain a lot.







[edit on 28-7-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
i totally agree with curiosity. he makes some great points.

the one thing i can say, is that science changes almost , if not, everyday. the one thing that has stayed the same is faith. faith in people, faith in eachother. why not have faith in god.
there is no faith is science. it can be changed so drastically, so quickly. why believe in something, that 5 minutes later will be something totally different?
the one thing that has stayed the same is religion. whether it be catholicism, christianity, baptists, or penecostal. they all believe in the same thing. their practices may vary, but they got the point. like i said before, science is for people that are too proud to beleive that there is something " above" or "higher" than them. they want to believe that we are the higher power, well WE'RE NOT. thats why when scientist test something it will change, its not constant,. there will never be a definate answer. so keep believing in your " theories", but until we know the infinite truth that only god can give us. we will never know how we got here.

im out
-mindtrip02




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join