[QUOTE=BlinkingDuck]
You are very close on the first one.
Way off on the second.
I actually use e (the first several digits anyway) on non-important passwords.
[/QUOTE]
I hafta admit, "when come back bring ‘e’ " seems a lot more compelling than the more popular number!
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No amount of proof can turn a theory into law. A theory is not a step on a ladder towards becoming law. They both describe certainties. A law is an observed, consistent property of the universe, a “what.” A theory is an explanation, “why.” The atom is a theory. There is no question that atoms exist. It’s still a theory and can never become a law.
[/quote]
We’re having a “violent agreement” here. However, with regard to atomic theory, you’re a bit behind the times. We’ve recently invented microscopes powerful enough to directly observe individual atoms in their natural state.
If what you say is true, then how does science explain how life began? Enlighten me.
Scientific Method is not mere observation. S.M. is specifically about experiments that can be replicated in a controlled enviroment. Mere observation is basically a collection of anecdotal evidence (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
All of this (with the exception of genetics) is anecdotal evidence, NOT scientific method.
I’m unclear on what you mean by “falsify” – can you elaborate, please?
[QUOTE=KGS]
I’ll agree that anecdotal evidence is a poor way to prove anything. Especially on the Internet, because 90% of people on the Internet are totally full of shit. (Nobody knows you’re really a cat, etc.)
However, sometimes anecdotal evidence is all we have to go on. The Theory of Evolution, for example. While certain small parts of Evolution have indeed been proven by Scientific Method, the grand scheme of Evolution has not. That’s why Evolution is still a “Theory” and not a “Law”. (Yes, I know what the word Theory means in this context.) We still don’t know the mechanism that allowed Life to spontaneously appear on this planet. But we know it happened. We have overwhelming evidence that Evolution is a fact, not a belief. But nearly all of it is based on mere observation, NOT repeatable experiments in the lab. We simply don’t have the technology to create another planet with identical conditions to what Earth was like 4,500,000,000 years ago.
But that doesn’t mean Evolution isn’t fact. Because Science doesn’t always require repeatable experiments to be factual.
[/quote]
KGS
I take your point but I think it is unrealistic to compare the evidence supporting evolution to that supporting ghosts. One the one hand you have libraries full of tightly reasoned papers showing evidence and the results of experiments. OTOH, you have pages and pages of stories. Also, we can do perform experiments to broaden the knowledge we have, or in some cases, knock it down and replace it with something better. We can’t do any of that with ghosts. I’ve read reports of people trying to duplicate the original conditions on Earth back then. They had surprisingly promising results.
On the “repeatable” bit, I’m forced to agree that you have me on that one.
Oh no it doesn’t require faith. If I am sufficiently concerned about a discovery, I could (at least theoretically) sit down and learn the subject and repeat the experiment. I’d either confirm what the guy discovered or maybe discover something new myself. No faith required.
As far as the religious bit goes, I am the son of a Southern Baptist minister who was a big believer in hellfire and brimstone. "There may be people in my family tree hanging by their necks, but none by their tails . . .etc etc. Literal believer in the King James edition exclusively, the whole thing. There is hope for people brought up in that kind of environment if they’ll take the time to think about things.
Regards
Testy
[QUOTE=Testy]
*Bolding mine.
Lekatt
You seem to use the term know pretty frequently but I disagree. We don’t know these things at all. All we actually know is that Lekatt asserts this. Sorry, but that’s not even close to being good enough.
Regards
Testy
[/QUOTE]
Exactly the answer I expected. You see it is really just a conspiracy, millions of people say they saw ghosts, thousands of them wrote about seeing them, and hundreds of pictures have been taken of ghosts. Millions of people have joined the big conspiracy telling lies about what they saw, or just so ignorant they didn’t know they weren’t seeing anything because science says ghosts are impossible. They wrote books full of lies and ignorance just to “bug” scientists. Yeah, man. That’s it.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Exactly the answer I expected. You see it is really just a conspiracy, millions of people say they saw ghosts, thousands of them wrote about seeing them, and hundreds of pictures have been taken of ghosts. Millions of people have joined the big conspiracy telling lies about what they saw, or just so ignorant they didn’t know they weren’t seeing anything because science says ghosts are impossible. They wrote books full of lies and ignorance just to “bug” scientists. Yeah, man. That’s it.
[/QUOTE]
Lekatt
I don’t know whether it was the answer you expected but it was certainly the one you deserved. No conspiracy required guy. Millions of people have been wrong about things for many years. They can get an education or they can continue along believing their dead grannys are talking to them.
As far as photos go, was that one with the car wreck the best you have? I’ve produced many pictures with strange artifacts. Most of them went away after I cleaned the lens.
Sarcasm really isn’t your strong point, is it?
Testy
[QUOTE=KGS]
We’re having a “violent agreement” here. However, with regard to atomic theory, you’re a bit behind the times. We’ve recently invented microscopes powerful enough to directly observe individual atoms in their natural state.
[/quote]
This isn’t really direct observation, it just allows for some sophisticated modeling from inference. Even direct observation of an atom wouldn’t make atomic theory into a law, though.
It doesn’t. Abiogenesis (the origin of life on Earth) is still an open question. There are several hypothetical models which are plausible but we currently do not know which, if any of those models are the correct one and we may never know. We do know that nothing magic or supernatral was require, though.
Experiments have to be observed, dude. Empiricism is the core of the methodology. And you’re incorrect that all tests have to be done in laboratories or in controlled environments. Scientific method also involves falsifiable predictions about in situ physical events, objects or phenomena. A prediction that certain fossils will never be found in certain geological layers is a prediction which can only be tested in situ and it has been millions of times.
No, the position of fossils in the geologic column is a specific, falsifiable prediction made by the ToE.
In order for a hypothesis to be scientifically viable, it has to make a prediction which can be confirmed or falsified. All scientific testing works by trying to refute hypotheses. It’s an elaborate process of elimination. You keep actively trying to eliminate explanations until you arrive at the correct one. You don’t start with something and try to prove it, you’re trying to rule things out.
[QUOTE=KGS]
Two problems:(1) The mere act of observation can directly affect the results of the experiment. Heisenberg’s Principle, Chaos Theory and all that.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand. Are you saying that no observed experiments are worthwhile? Or that there is some special problem with respect to clairvoyance?
What kind of clairvoyant dreams do you have?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Are you saying that no observed experiments are worthwhile?
[/quote]
Words on a message board posted by someone you don’t even know is hardly a controlled environment.
I don’t dream anymore, but I do occasionally have visions. At the moment, my only unresolved visions pertain to when (and how) certain family members will die. One has already come to pass (but that vision was so vague & non-specific, even I am wondering if was merely coincidence. Interesting pattern, though.) Others are a little more specific. I haven’t told anyone about them, but I have written them down.
Since these visions pertain to real-life people who I’m closely connected with, you’ll understand why I’m not at liberty to say anything more than that.
[QUOTE=Testy]
Lekatt
I don’t know whether it was the answer you expected but it was certainly the one you deserved. No conspiracy required guy. Millions of people have been wrong about things for many years. They can get an education or they can continue along believing their dead grannys are talking to them.
As far as photos go, was that one with the car wreck the best you have? I’ve produced many pictures with strange artifacts. Most of them went away after I cleaned the lens.
Sarcasm really isn’t your strong point, is it?
Testy
[/QUOTE]
No sarcasm isn’t my strong point. Truth is. What I see is scientists moving farther and farther away from reality in favor of their doctrines, methods, and dogma. If it continues scientists will eventually isolate themselves completely from the general public and lose all credibility. They have already deemed themselves superior in intelligence to ninety percent of the world population that believes in God.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s neither philosophy nor science. Both of those disciplines are supposed to have some kind of explanatory value.
[/QUOTE]
You apparently haven’t read Chalmers. If the Chinese, properly organized, could become conscious, then certainly the molecules of a rock, properly organized, can become conscious.
Unless you are religious and find Descartes’ arguments convincing, this is outrageous.
[QUOTE=alterego]
Unless you are religious and find Descartes’ arguments convincing, this is outrageous.
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that consciousness has been scientifically verified to reside only within the human brain? If so, I’d like to see a cite for this.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
No sarcasm isn’t my strong point. Truth is. What I see is scientists moving farther and farther away from reality in favor of their doctrines, methods, and dogma. If it continues scientists will eventually isolate themselves completely from the general public and lose all credibility. They have already deemed themselves superior in intelligence to ninety percent of the world population that believes in God.
[/QUOTE]
You’re forgetting again that a significant percentage of scientists believe in God, which makes your last sentence silly. You’re also forgetting that scientists are guided by reality, which makes your third sentence silly. Unless you’re claiming that scientific results are wholly imaginary? That everything from electricity to atoms to microwaves to vaccines are wholly the fantasy of lying scientists?
This sort of extreme hyperbole-to-the-point-of-falsehood is a large part of why it’s hard to take you seriously, lekatt. We know you’re wrong about lots of simple, obvious truths, like that scientists are in fact not a totally undirected yet magically coordinated cabal of conspirators with no other goal than to spread lies and falsehood in their wake. And if you’re wrong about all those things, why shouldn’t we believe that you’re wrong about the unlikely things like ghosts and spirits and happy fuzzy impotent gods as well?
Simply put, you make it very, very hard to even entertain the notion that truth is your “strong point”.
[QUOTE=KGS]
Are you saying that consciousness has been scientifically verified to reside only within the human brain? If so, I’d like to see a cite for this.
[/QUOTE]
Consciousness, by definition, is an emergent property of complex electro-chemical processes in living, organic tissue. (Whether it’s limited to specifically human brains is debatable. Depending on how you qualifiy “consciousness,” most animals have some degree of it). If you would like to assert that consciousness can exist independently of those chemical processes, then you are the one who needs to provide a cite. Asking people to “prove” that consciousness is a property of brains is like asking them to prove that sight is a property of eyeballs.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
You’re forgetting again that a significant percentage of scientists believe in God, which makes your last sentence silly. You’re also forgetting that scientists are guided by reality, which makes your third sentence silly. Unless you’re claiming that scientific results are wholly imaginary? That everything from electricity to atoms to microwaves to vaccines are wholly the fantasy of lying scientists?
This sort of extreme hyperbole-to-the-point-of-falsehood is a large part of why it’s hard to take you seriously, lekatt. We know you’re wrong about lots of simple, obvious truths, like that scientists are in fact not a totally undirected yet magically coordinated cabal of conspirators with no other goal than to spread lies and falsehood in their wake. And if you’re wrong about all those things, why shouldn’t we believe that you’re wrong about the unlikely things like ghosts and spirits and happy fuzzy impotent gods as well?
Simply put, you make it very, very hard to even entertain the notion that truth is your “strong point”.
[/QUOTE]
I certainly don’t have the market cornered on extreme hyperbole. You do real good also. Science is guided by their methods and doctrine not reality. I have shown research after research to support my positions and they are ignored not because they are not good science, but because they don’t agree with science doctrine. Enough said. I believe what I said is true. We will find out someday in the future.
[QUOTE=KGS]
Words on a message board posted by someone you don’t even know is hardly a controlled environment.
[/QUOTE]
I’m lost. How does this relate to Heisenberg’s Principle and Chaos Theory, and the act of observation affecting an experiment?
Then you would not be a good candidate for testing these visions. But since the question was not directed at you, I am a bit unclear on your objection.
At any rate, one incident of a clairvoyant dream could be dismissed as coincidence, I suppose, but anyone who predicts the hour and manner of someone’s death is going to get people’s attention, and I was talking about investigating, not proving. Four or five such incidents would make coincidence a much less likely explanation. All that is required is that the prediction be verifiable. What’s the harm in reporting the next time a clairvoyant dream occurs?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I certainly don’t have the market cornered on extreme hyperbole. You do real good also. Science is guided by their methods and doctrine not reality. I have shown research after research to support my positions and they are ignored not because they are not good science, but because they don’t agree with science doctrine. Enough said. I believe what I said is true. We will find out someday in the future.
[/QUOTE]
If you contend that the picture you linked is proof of a ghost looking at the car he just died in, them I have proof just as compelling that an anti-gravity force exists, here.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Consciousness, by definition, is an emergent property of complex electro-chemical processes in living, organic tissue. [emphasis mine]
[/quote]
Well, if you choose to define it that way…fair enough, I’ll bite.
But I think we’ll run into trouble debating “complex electro-chemical processes” because: (1) Neuroscience is still working out how those processes actually work, and (2) the brain is NOT entirely electro-chemical, in my opinion.
You see, it’s my belief…oops I mean hypothesis…that consciousness, memories, and other high-end thinking skills are based not on biochemistry, but on the actual electricity created by the brain. Specifically, the electrical patterns created by the organization of neurons in the brain. These patterns are very simple and limited in number (kind of like how the English language has 26 letters to describe 70,000 common words and millions of potential “nonsense” words; or how you can use an Erector Set to build countless, varied & unique objects with just a small set of specific parts) but – here’s the rub – they probably vary from individual to individual.
(BTW, I came up with this theory 20 years ago. Since neuroscience isn’t my field of expertise, I never wrote a thesis or suggested experiments to test this theory. But as I watch the field of neuroscience evolve, it’s interesting to see how they’re starting to figure it out. Except, of course, the stubborn assertion that the brain is 100% chemical.)
Oh, there’s no question that human/animal consciousness requires a biochemical system to exist. At least, while we’re alive.
Ghosts have no matter. We can assume that is fact. Therefore, ghosts must have energy. What kind of energy? How do you measure it? How is that energy connected to living human consciousness? Based on our current level of science, these are questions we can’t answer with any level of certainty yet.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If you contend that the picture you linked is proof of a ghost looking at the car he just died in,
[/QUOTE]
I agree, that photo does not prove that the ghost was the driver.
He could be the ghost who caused the crash in the first place.
[QUOTE=KGS]
I agree, that photo does not prove that the ghost was the driver.
He could be the ghost who caused the crash in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Where did you get the idea that a ghost caused the crash?
It is getting hard to take you seriously. Is it your assertion that the photo is proof of ghosts?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I certainly don’t have the market cornered on extreme hyperbole. You do real good also. Science is guided by their methods and doctrine not reality. I have shown research after research to support my positions and they are ignored not because they are not good science, but because they don’t agree with science doctrine. Enough said. I believe what I said is true. We will find out someday in the future.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, the much-acclaimed “I know you are, but what am I” defense. I shall give the textbook response: “I am rubber and you are glue”. There. Now intelligent debate can resume.
The simple true fact that you go through elaborate gymnastics to dodge and evade having it stick to you and enter your consciousness is, that the methods and “doctrine” (which is to say, the methods again) of science exist for precisely one purpose, and that purpose is to discover and expand our knowledge of the truth about reality. Every character you type into this message board, every credulous vistor to your website is soverign testament to this fact, since if it were not true, this message board, your web site, the internet, your computer, and the light you turn on to find it would not exist.
The only way not to be good science is to not “agree with science doctorine” (translated to english: “comply with good scientific methodology”). There is no other way to do it. There simply is no other “doctrine” of science, nor is there a priesthood to codify such a doctrine, nor a God of Science to declare it. These things are all figments of your admirably active imagination, in having deluded yourself into thinking that science is an establishment of religion.
I haven’t ignored what you’ve posted. I’ve read a fair bit of it (though not all). It simply doesn’t say what you say it does. Just as science isn’t what you think it is, and doesn’t do what you think it does. You clearly have spectaular and well-demonstrated skills at seeing things as they are not. Frankly I’m not surprised you see ghosts or spirits or whatever too.
I’m certain that you do indeed honestly believe that your perception of reality is true. But the truth about the intentions and outcomes of science have already been shown, not sometime in the future, but untold millions of times in the past.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Is it your assertion that the photo is proof of ghosts?
[/QUOTE]
Proof, no. Evidence, yes.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
At any rate, one incident of a clairvoyant dream could be dismissed as coincidence, I suppose, but anyone who predicts the hour and manner of someone’s death is going to get people’s attention, and I was talking about investigating, not proving. Four or five such incidents would make coincidence a much less likely explanation.
[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you something…where do you stand on synchronicity? (Aside from being Sting’s best work ever…)
I’m glad you say, “Four or five such incidents would make coincidence much less likely.” That’s how I process such paranormal events these days…indeed, using this process has already taught me that SOME paranormal events I’ve experienced, including some fairly major ones, turned out to be “normal” events, so to speak. Others, not so much.
