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.

 

What will it take for the scientific community to start taking the paranormal seriously?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
PROOF would be a start




What kind of proof?
Pictures?
Videos?
Audio recordings?

Oh wait, we have all of those already.




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I have found the following 'experiment,' the pictures it produced, and the subsequent breakdown by the Society for Psychical Research to be one of the more interesting offerings.

Dig around at the site and check out the pics.


The Scole Experiment chronicles the extraordinary results of a five-year investigation into life after death. At the beginning of 1993 four psychic researchers embarked on a series of experiments in the Norfolk village of Scole. The subsequent events were so astounding that senior members of the prestigious Society for Psychical Research asked to observe, test and record what took place.
www.thescoleexperiment.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Hey there, only read the title, thought I would weigh in.

Ahem... It would take some actual, measurable evidence in an environment that can be recreated.

That's all, thanks.
edit on 6-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: syntax



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There is a place for scientists to study the paranormal. It's called Quantum Theory.

....don't even bring psuedo-scientific ILLUSIONISTS like the Amazing Randy into the picture. Nobody will claim his $1M prize because he won't let them. Just because there is a possible explanation for anything under the sun, does not mean any of them are remotely the truth. That's the catch with his prize.

Here's my challenge to you people:

I will put up $2M to any one that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that black holes exists. No theories are allowed. Only hard proof.

...lol, good luck with that!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 

Amen and well put...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



Originally posted by purplemer
A ghost in a test tube would do the trick...


There is a scientifically unjustified assumption there. That a "ghost" could be contained within a bottle. Or at least could be contained in any remotely feasible manner. Example: Bose-Einstein Condensate. Or simpler... try to contain a neutrino in a bottle. We can't assume either way, and thus can't use it as a metric. I know you were being off the cuff, but this is an important aspect of how people *think* and thus affects what they will see.

This is like the assumption that the future can't affect the present, only the past affects the present. This is not a justified assumption, it is merely a workable platform to continue exploring on given our current level of awareness. Much like the assumption that the colors of the rainbow were the only "light" until new techniques were developed to increase the awareness. Until those techniques were found, those other ranges of "light" were relegated into the "paranormal".

Consider this story: www.wral.com...

The gist of this is that what he was reporting was considered "paranormal" by the community. Now the moral of this story is NOT that Science ultimately prevailed and recognized its mistake... but that if this ONE man had not kept on going, who knows how long Science would have held the opposite stance of what he has shown to be true. If he had given up, there was nobody else who believed and thus nobody else to pursue. This is referring to big S Science, meaning the institution of Science. Not the method of inquiry called science. How much potential have we been missing by not having the information Science has now "given us permission" to believe is true, but stated was false up till now?

Or even more reminders of "impossible" or "mysterious" behavior that was originally ridiculed but eventually proven: amasci.com...

We need to be careful we don't fall into the trap of assuming we too aren't on the wrong end of the "stupid idea" just because we have "evidence" in our court currently... and we should be grateful for those who keep going despite the lack of evidence, because they are the ones who actually keep us as a collective species learning anything interesting at all.

You would think with even the credible possibility that the "Speed of Light" is not what we thought it was, that it would provide a good opening for the entire discipline to wake up to the possibility that we are on the verge of another "Enlightenment" on a scale that makes the last one look like kid stuff.

Once the aspects of infinity/reality/existence that we aren't aware of are understood, they will be as "natural" to us as anything else we currently consider normal and natural. Thus they won't be anymore "magic" than the fact we're here at *all*... can combine microscopic matter to create an entirely new entity... transmute light into matter and back into energy without thinking about it, etc. The paranormal is simply the not-yet-understood. Even by those who believe in it.

Existence itself is paranormal. The only reason you can't argue against it is because the only thing you actually truly do know... is you exist, though you can't prove it to anyone else. Likewise my consciousness is paranormal to you. You can't prove it, you can't locate it, you can't put it in a bottle, etc... you simply have to take it on faith that I *am* conscious... or you assume I'm not... or you state that you can't know and just behave in whatever manner works best from your point of view.

Namaste!
edit on 6-10-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
PROOF would be a start

Prove you are conscious to me.

Namaste.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


Originally posted by GringoViejo
Hey there, only read the title, thought I would weigh in.

Ahem... It would take some actual, measurable evidence in an environment that can be recreated.

That's all, thanks.


What if part of the "environment" is the beliefs of those observing the events? How would you reconcile the effect of a doubter being able to truly affect the capacity for something to be expressed... and what if the strength of the beliefs (like the strength of a mass in gravity) dictated which way the events will turn out? Consider how much easier it is to doubt absolutely, versus believe absolutely?

What if new behavior was only able to "emerge" when the beliefs of those within the "area of effect" have shifted enough to *allow* them. iPhones and Cars have been possible for at least a few million years in terms of what was possible. The only thing that changed was the "awareness" or "beliefs" of what was possible.

news.sciencemag.org...

What if we've been counter-fitting every single attempt to measure a certain portion of reality... namely the part that is primarily affected by our expectations of reality? The role of consciousness in everything, even the big bang, is only just barely starting to re-enter the picture... but from the perspective of Science as an institution, it's still no-mans land despite there being no good reason for it to be so other than the fear that it might be right and thus the flipping upside down of almost everything we've held dear.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

We have a "problem" right now between the paranormal and non-paranormal camps. We've been trying to resolve it the same way for a very long time. We need to think about it differently.

Namaste!
edit on 6-10-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Tangible data.




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
I have found the following 'experiment,' the pictures it produced, and the subsequent breakdown by the Society for Psychical Research to be one of the more interesting offerings.

Dig around at the site and check out the pics.


The Scole Experiment chronicles the extraordinary results of a five-year investigation into life after death. At the beginning of 1993 four psychic researchers embarked on a series of experiments in the Norfolk village of Scole. The subsequent events were so astounding that senior members of the prestigious Society for Psychical Research asked to observe, test and record what took place.
www.thescoleexperiment.com...


I had to stop reading the link you offered to say thank you.....it is some good stuff!


Last year in May we had a terrible flood here in Nashville and surrounding counties. It was a nightmare....I lost a really good friend of mine whom I was close to..even spent Christmas with him. When he lost his life it was heartbreaking....not to mention the months we spent looking for him. One can only imagine. It is hard for me to go near water without looking for him...still.

Anyway.....guess how we finally found him? A local psychic. She showed us exactly where he was...we immediately found him after about 8 months of daily searches. All it took was her pointing and saying...."he is right here".

I called her to ask her a few questions regarding her gift. She said she has the intuition just as we all do. Some people are more in tune and listen while others disregard it.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cluckerspud
 


I offer you the same challenge since you seem confident that your statement has strength:

Provide me with tangible data that proves you are conscious. Why should I believe you have any inner thoughts?

Namaste



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I think research grants would be all it would take.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroeffect
 


You ask a tough question.

If I were going to begin to try to formulate an approach to convincing scientists of the supernatural I would probably try to begin with something like this...

en.wikipedia.org...

I do happen to think that just plain old Biology is pretty supernatural.


For instance, CluckerSpud, there below me, he seems to be a pretty good example of 'supernatural biology'.

I have always wanted to subject you to a Turing test, CluckerSpud.


edit on 6-10-2011 by Frater210 because:




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by cluckerspud
 


I offer you the same challenge since you seem confident that your statement has strength:

Provide me with tangible data that proves you are conscious. Why should I believe you have any inner thoughts?

Namaste


Who said I was conscious?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by zeroeffect
 


First I will like to say you can't proove everything with using the 5 senses in a basic way. The same scientist that claimed black holes never and could not exist are saying they exist now. They did not believe, nor did they want to consider it as a possibility simply because of one element, it couldn't be seen. People are always laughed at throughout history got introducing new ideas. Now we know different, and we also know much more.

The reason I say it will never be taken serious by the scientific community is not because of the lack of proof, it is because science lacks the proper faculties to establish a common understanding of the subject. Science is based off of measurements. Things that are swept into the 'paranormal' are things that cannot be measured with the tools or understanding we have. Once we come to the realization that everything cannot be measured, like infinity, no-thing, the mind, or the depths of a black hole, we can approach the universe as is rather than trying to squeeze everything into the 5 senses.

It is sad that testimony and evidence is nothing compared to a nice sounding theory.
In my humble opinion, the paranormal community doesn't have to wait for the scientific community to catch up. The vatican isn't sitting on thousands of books for nothing. Most of which they don't even understand, but they are willing to allow our/their understanding to grow, like the wheels inside of wheels mentioned in ezekiel. If we would have told scientist a hundred years ago that particles can randomly disappear and appear distance that are equivalent to an AU, or that they can communicate over these distances, they wouldn't believe you. Even if you had the proof (in terms of data,math) it means nothing to an unprepared mind.

**For those asking for others to prove if they are conscious, I have a better question. How does one prove he is conscious?? Proof is an instrument that is only going to go so far before it is rendered obsolete.
edit on 6-10-2011 by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS because: **addition



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cluckerspud
 


Originally posted by cluckerspud
Who said I was conscious?


Fair philosophical answer... though it doesn't address the challenge I'm offering regarding your stance that Tangible Data is what it would take. There are things that are accepted within Science that don't have tangible data. There are things that hadn't been accepted within Science that had tangible data at the time.

I am happy to run around the evasion game you have offered me by answering the way you did, or we can discuss the topic at hand. If you *aren't* conscious, but are able to understand the thrust of the challenge I offered, then we should be able to discuss it from the point of view where Science *does* make the claim that you are conscious, regardless of what claims you might make.

Namaste
edit on 6-10-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
 


Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
**For those asking for others to prove if they are conscious, I have a better question. How does one prove he is conscious?? Proof is an instrument that is only going to go so far before it is rendered obsolete.


You misunderstand my purpose for the question. It is to add support for your stance. I already know it is impossible to prove you are conscious to another person (at least in our current situation). That is the point, to get those who haven't considered Science from the perspective of things we "know" but can't "prove" in order to increase awareness of what exactly "Proof" and "Tangible Data" *are*.

Proof is simply the most consistent data thus far recorded. Nothing more. We agree.


Namaste.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


That's a great idea,give away grants and ask that they submit logical data the way a scientist might using scientific instruments. I think then maybe they might take it seriously



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Frater210
 


Great link, I just think that the scientific community should try to legitimize the paranormal and embrace it into its already many disciplines without dismissing it with blind skepticism



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
What many people fail to realize about science is that for something to be considered "scientific," it must be testable and subjected to the scientific method. Considering that paranormal happenings simply cannot be tested, at least to my knowledge, forever dooms the field to study by scientists on an individual basis.

I am actually surprised that there are so many people who do not believe in ghosts. I suppose it's just one of those things you must experience to believe. I have had a few experiences, and that was enough for me for sure, lol. I do not want more, and I often wonder how people can chase these things around. I suppose someone has to do it though.

I think it would be a great idea to take a group of willing scientists, and put them in a very active house together for a couple of weeks. I bet there wouldn't be many left once the time was up. That is if the right place was chosen. We hear a lot about houses that are haunted, but there are some, not that many, but some, that are extremely active.

I'm talking about the kind of active where you can walk in the house and experience something within 15 minutes or so, all day or night long.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join