Do you want "scientific proof"?

page: 15
60
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Saintwolf
 


Were those fat people within contained environments where all they had was a change in CO2?

If not, then your argument is bunk.

In scientific research, we have constants, and a variable. What you are showing are a few constants with huge variables.

Ergo, not science.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Saintwolf
 


Were those fat people within contained environments where all they had was a change in CO2?

If not, then your argument is bunk.

In scientific research, we have constants, and a variable. What you are showing are a few constants with huge variables.

Ergo, not science.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Haha are you kidding me? I was not referring to an actual study, it was purely an example of how causation from correlation can be illogically inferred. I am trying to tell you that even if you try to contain the experiment and control all constants, you cannot account for unknown physics. Simple.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Saintwolf
 


Yes you can. You eliminate all variables that are potential. If you still have these unknown things after virtually all has been eliminated, then we keep going. Indirect observation, checking if the act of observation is causing it, etc etc

You keep minimizing. And at the end of the day, if it is still there, it is no longer unknown. It is clearly part of the system you are studying, and it is no longer unknown.

When performing proper scientific research, causation = connection.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 

I was giving it as an example only of something that could indeed be a possibility which renders a rock not truly being a rock in essence (what it is assumed to be without question)

I don't think its something to be proven to science, only something to be aware of. If for instance if its true for your reality you will only find out through personal experience...trying to prove that to science will be like talking to a wall,. even if you claimed to be able to help scientists prove it for themselves each as individuals through meditation and what not, do you think the mainstream would be game?

On the other hand lets say something like a glitch in the program occurred and it became blatantly obvious I think people would fall into two groups...Those who'd believe It were an illusion - a trick of some sort; cast it aside and forget about the whole thing, and those who would be curious to know what the ramifications are.

Imo this is exactly what is occurring at many levels:

science / metaphysics.
spirituality / religion-shamanism
philosophy / consciousness
technology

and it then loops back to science (however the list can be contended with from any point making each facet equally so a point of which loops back)

I use technology in the list here in the raw context not the nuts and bolts type i.e. shamanism and religion are forms of ancient technology - systems of structured thought, with the end result of faith as the aim of the method, the technique or technology of coarse is invoked belief.

Science alone however is not a state of mind, those who only wish to trust thier senses use it as a basis for thier life philosophy... when all is said and done it is a branch of natural philosophy at its roots.

Metaphysics on the other hand is mostly philosophy with rations of "hard facts" here and there, the philosopher is always is ready to let go of what is believed to be "known" in order to explore other possibilities which may account for the surface appearance of those seemingly "known" things





new topics
 
60
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join