Because the moderators have told me not to speak about Czarcasm in the thread.
I am therefore unable to reply.
No, and I’m getting a little frustrated that you aren’t responding to my point.
For all we know, this is a phenomenon that picks things up from the ground randomly and chucks them up in the air. There need be nothing unusual about the rock itself.
The topic of this thread has nothing to do with Czarcasm.
Yes they are. Again I ask, where can I similarly witness ghosts?
Meteoric rocks do not look like terrestrial rocks, and the claims about them were indeed that there were not terrsetrial – they they fell from “heaven” or space, not that they were ordinary rocks being picked up from the ground.
Furthermore, the relevant claim with your alarm clock hypothesis was not that an alarm clock fell off a table, but that your claimant claims to have seen a ghost knock it off a table. The clock itself becomes immaterial at that point. It’s akin to somebody saying they saw Allah himself throw the rock from the sky. It’s a fundamentally different sort of claim.
Have you, personally, ever witnessed a meterorite strike the ground? I mean actually strike the ground, not just a brief flash in the sky?
If I want to see one strike the ground, where can I go to see it happen?
There are over a thousand documented meteorite falls (meaning actually witnessed falls with recovered stones as opposed to “found meteorites”). Many of these falls are documented by cameras or other electronic data. All can be backed up by the actual stones themselves. What is your point with this question. Observed meteorite falls are not an unknown or rare phenomenon.
I think you understand the point just fine.
I’ll try and explain it again.
The analogy is the evidence for ghosts today, vs the evidence for meteorites in the time of Lavoisier.
PlainJain asks where she can go to see a ghost for herself. So, where could Lavboisier go to actually see a meteorite fall for himself.
The analogy is for evidence for ghosts today, yesterday, last week, last month, last year, last decade, last century, last millennium-the totality of which is zero.
Zip.
Nada.
The square root of negative purple.
To compare it to a small point in time in which the evidence for meteorites was slim is ignorant at best, deceptive at worst. Again, I have to ask-how many years of failing to find any evidence of ghosts does it take for you to give up and find something better to do with your limited time on earth?
Away from a common occurrence with shitloads of evidence like meteorites, and back to a woo occurrence with absolutely no evidence like ghosts haunting houses-what test can be devised that not only will prove that a ghost doesn’t exist at a certain residence, but that it also couldn’t exist at a house that has yet to be tested? Otherwise, this hypothetical “perfect test” will have to take place at every single location said to be tested, the cost of which would make Richie Rich shit gold bricks.
Are you accusing me of believing in ghosts?
Are you claiming that I have ever spent any time looking for them?
And of course, once again lets say this. If you had been around in the time of Lavoisier, when some people believed in meteorites, and were dismissed as cranks, you could have confronted a believer and said :
How many years of failing to find any evidence of meteorites will it take before you give up and stop looking.
Are you saying I’m ignorant or deceptive?
I’ve looked at a couple of sources and I see that meteorites do tend to have certain distinguishing features (unoxidised iron, attract a magnet, glossy coating).
Which changes the picture somewhat, but anyway, we are implying the period before meteors had been collected and analysed in sufficient numbers to notice such patterns.
This isn’t relevant though. How would they know they came from heaven?
But in the meteorite case maybe an unseen entity picked the stone up from the ground. In the iron filings example the phenomenon itself is invisible.
What makes the clock immaterial and the rock important? Where do the filings fit in this picture?
Remember all those times I’ve said this thread isn’t about me?
Well. it also isn’t about you.
I can understand how you may think that and no disservice was intended.
What I’ve been doing in tracking this conversation is to try to put it into some kind of historical perspective. I appreciate aruvqun’s post made at 1:37 pm today as it makes some reference to the way I’ve been thinking about it.
I imagine most here are familiar with the concept, as mentioned somewhere here, that the stage has to be set both technologically and sociologically for acceptance of new inventions/ideas. It’s accomplished in small increments by many people sometimes over long periods of time. Included are farces and failure, insane people and geniuses. Once in a long while there are smashing breakthroughs which manage to turn people’s heads and minds.
Sometimes (and I can’t think of an example at the moment) things have been discovered or invented that seem to have no apparent use. After further progress has been made a place is found for these odds and ends.
It’s not surprising in this time of intense human hubris and hostility to anything that hasn’t yet displayed concrete evidence, and the widespread belief that all things spiritual are somehow the enemy of science, there would be a clamor to squelch efforts to apply scientific method to such a silly cause.
What “belief in ghosts” may possibly mean for future progress in the world of science is indeterminate. Of course, should they be discovered, they would no longer be ghosts, but some observable natural phenomena.
I’d say I am more interested in this conversation from a sociological aspect than whether ghosts exist or not. And I’ll repeat my earlier comments that left-brained functions, probably for political reasons more than anything else, currently are at the forefront. I suppose it’s because they are more easily measured. My interest is in seeking a healthy and scientific balance between left and right brain functions.
Sheesh. I don’t know if that made it more clear or more, um, spectral.
What “hubris” exists is in the insistence by some that because woo has endured for so very long, and there is a constant supply of nonsensical anecdotes reiterated on its behalf, that there must be something to it.
What it’ll mean is what it’s always meant in terms of progress towards understanding our world - foolish and sometimes irritating background noise, but of progressively less importance.
I certainly don’t feel “intensive hubris”, or hostility, or any profound emotional/intellectural response to those who believe in the paranormal. It’d be mild exasperation at best at the lack of critical thinking involved. Belief in ghosts and goblins seems a far less harmful sort of woo than the alt med that attempts to replace evidence-based medicine or the malevolent mindlessness of 9/11 Truthers, for example.
Because they saw them fall.
No one claimed to have seen the meteorites rise up from the ground, only that they fell from the sky.
You are also ignoring the fact that your clock hypothetical involves somebody actually claiming to have seen a ghost, not just positing it as an explanation for something.
Did anyone read my post? This is exactly right!
Evidence of meteorites eventually came! It’s here now! We now have evidence that meteorites are from space!
We currently do not have evidence of ghosts! Maybe some day we will, but today, we do not!
That is the difference.
As near I can figure, you’re showing contempt for reason and respect for superstition.