The Pattern Behind Self-Deception

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Bravo111
The onus is put upon the experiencer to prove, whereas I personally believe that the onus (in the case of the generic/mass supernatural experiences) should be upon science to discover and ultimately prove.

Science always sets out to explain anomalies such as the one we're referring to. However, such an event can easily be explained without invoking supernatural or mystical means. Remembering the hits and forgetting the misses is a common event in many branches of the "supernatural" including telepathics, psychics, astrologers, etc. Such explanations aren't very exciting though (like much of science), and those that claim a more exciting causation are called upon to verify their claims.

Should the experiments at Duke with Dr. Rhine be dismissed?

Just for the record I wasnt talking about Rhine in my Duke reference.

I don't honestly believe that science "always sets out to prove such anomalies" - that's quite a blanket statement - there is too much peer pressure, ridicule, corrupt and vested interests to ever allow this to happen.

Lets just say that one could create an independently financed, multi-disciplined scientific group to undertake leading edge research into such material and the findings for all subject areas resulted in:

a) False (it is explainable and we have a known scientific explanation using known science)

b) Positive (a breakthrough in science and understanding of say time, locality and information transfer)

c) Still unknown (but weight of evidence supports it is so, even if we don't have the ability to prove it)

Then these types of results would move that which is deemed "supernatural" into the realm of "natural".

The likelihood of such results would transform humanities understanding of itself upon its head - and ultimately would threaten all of the corrupt and vested interests and control structures that I referred to upon its head.

Which is why I always revert back to the point that the nature of human psychology ALSO has a very real and negative impact upon sciences attempts and "published or not" results in such areas, and has had since the birth of modern sciences, especially in the Western Hemisphere.

I am not debating that there is a lot of sensationalism and pseudo-science out there proclaiming to have the answers and that we absolutely must not fall into the trap of being gullible - I am just seeking the middle ground, as I believe that as yet, science has not been able to address the middle ground for any number of reasons already addressed.

The nature of human kind has essentially not changed in many hundreds or thousands of years and we have no reason to believe that when applied to the sciences and similar disciplines that it will do - not until a shocking event "supernatural" event or discovery defies belief on a mass scale and forces science to come face to face with its own contradictions and agendas, whether on an individual level or otherwise.

Thanks

Bravo

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Bravo111]

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Bravo111]

Originally posted by Logarock

No he didnt say that friend....Duke university did.

It matter not who said it. It's not a scientific answer.

But they kept his research available and sold his books for years.

I'm certain they were intent on recovering some of the research funds one way or another. Spooky stuff sells anyway, especially if it carries the mystique of a respected university's stamp on it.

No this is the lament of those that understand.

No, that is an insulated cop-out. Claiming that something is real AND that it cannot be tested by science is a shortcut to verifying a belief without any challenge. Those that believe they understand tend to understand that their beliefs are implausible and choose not to be burdened by such things as providing proof or withstanding a challenge.

Beside are you going to set thier strait faced and say that science can and now does understand everything? Look at the things science knows for a fact exsist and uses them, in the field of physics, but are still at a loss for a complete definition of its true nature.

I have never said, nor would I make the ridiculous claim that "science now understands everything". I will say though that the scientific method is the best known way to understand the world around us. Willfully excluding such a powerful tool from the realm of the alleged "supernatural" serves only to sustain belief, not to arrive at facts.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Logarock
they ended up firing their lead reasercher becouse he concluded that such things were not a matter of perception.....
My point here is that I perceive that submitting "proof" in this field of hard skeptics

If a professor at Duke concludes there is "supernatural activity" at work without proof then he's setting himself up for dismissal.

And he must have known that but said it anyway! Now why would a professor risk his standing at Duke to stand by his point? Beside this wasnt what got him canned. It had something to do with his out of the box experiments.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


What is a cop out is hiding behind scientific methods as the ansewer to all things and taking shots at all that dare disregard this elevated position. Science is just going to have to get out of the box, adjust its tools and join the human race on this subject.

Originally posted by Bravo111
I am not debating that there is a lot of sensationalism and pseudo-science out there proclaiming to have the answers and that we absolutely must not fall into the trap of being gullible - I am just seeking the middle ground, as I believe that as yet, science has not been able to address the middle ground for any number of reasons already addressed.

Science hasn't addressed a lot of things. But what are these "middle ground" things? Is the "middle ground" the area of the supernatural, mystical, metaphysical, etc?

Originally posted by Logarock
What is a cop out is hiding behind scientific methods as the ansewer to all things and taking shots at all that dare disregard this elevated position. Science is just going to have to get out of the box, adjust its tools and join the human race on this subject.

Nobody claimed scientific methods were the answer to all things. I did say that it was the best known tool we have for discovering facts about the universe.

If someone is going to claim something supernatural, mystical or metaphysical as an answer for some anomaly they should duly be required to demonstrate and verify their claim. This is the same standard any of the sciences follow and also the same method employed by anybody desiring to be taken seriously.



[edit on 18-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Bravo111
I am not debating that there is a lot of sensationalism and pseudo-science out there proclaiming to have the answers and that we absolutely must not fall into the trap of being gullible - I am just seeking the middle ground, as I believe that as yet, science has not been able to address the middle ground for any number of reasons already addressed.

Science hasn't addressed a lot of things. But what are these "middle ground" things? Is the "middle ground" the area of the supernatural, mystical, metaphysical, etc?

The middle ground is the "supernatural" in its entirety- I believe that here is where many of the breakthroughs in science are and ultimately humanities understanding of itself.

The vehicle and the mean for this as per my previous post:

"I don't honestly believe that science "always sets out to prove such anomalies" - that's quite a blanket statement - there is too much peer pressure, ridicule, corrupt and vested interests to ever allow this to happen.

Lets just say that one could create an independently financed, multi-disciplined scientific group to undertake leading edge research into such material"

Thanks

Bravo

Originally posted by Bravo111

Lets just say that one could create an independently financed, multi-disciplined scientific group to undertake leading edge research into such material"

There are a few. If I recall, one of the big ones is Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately in a lot of these institutes scientists have been genuinely convinced of supernatural activity when in fact they were duped by someone employing parlor tricks. Scientists are trained to examine phenomena, not to look for tricks. Uri Geller of all people had convinced PhDs of his mental powers.

In order for such institutes to validate their existence there needs to be a number of people presenting phenomena that seem to have no apparent scientific explanation. Unfortunately there really isn't much out there.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Logarock
What is a cop out is hiding behind scientific methods as the ansewer to all things and taking shots at all that dare disregard this elevated position. Science is just going to have to get out of the box, adjust its tools and join the human race on this subject.

Nobody claimed scientific methods were the answer to all things. I did say that it was the best known tool we have for discovering facts about the universe.

If someone is going to claim something supernatural, mystical or metaphysical as an answer for some anomaly they should duly be required to demonstrate and verify their claim. This is the same standard any of the sciences follow and also the same method employed by anybody desiring to be taken seriously.

But science cannot be taken seriously as something that must be addressed on this issue. Its ok for some to do what they can to bring some science on the supernatural but science cannot be satisfied here. It really doesnt have to be. I reject it as something that must ultimatly be satisfied to prove the supernatural. The supernatural continues to send science to the wood shed.



[edit on 18-6-2010 by Logarock]

So are you saying if you perceive a phenomenon that's not testable by science it doesn't exist? What if what you perceive is not objectively verifiable in the first place? I don't see how that makes it less real.