Again, garbage.Science checks it’s facts via experiment, checks it’s theories both for logical/mathematical consistancy and adherance to the facts, and science works. Religion does none of these things. Science and religion aren’t even close; they are effectively opposites.
[/QUOTE]
Un huh…shall I supply you a very, very, long list, a list of Biblical proportion, of science that has not stood the test of time ? Science that was once rock solid and now has been shown exactly wrong ?
But of course, they’ve got it all right this time. Promise. No kidding. We’re serious this time. Trust us.
If your list is full of examples like “We once believed in Newtonian mechanics, but now believe in general relativity”, it’s not exactly as though the old science stopped being useful, giving accurate predictions, etc. We just recognized that it was an approximation, and that this approximation failed in some new, exotic contexts.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Un huh…shall I supply you a very, very, long list, a list of Biblical proportion, of science that has not stood the test of time ? Science that was once rock solid and now has been shown exactly wrong ?
But of course, they’ve got it all right this time. Promise. No kidding. We’re serious this time. Trust us.
[/QUOTE]
Even when it was wrong, it still worked better than religion; now it works even better. You have not refuted his point.
Just for refreshers, here’s what you said immediately after posting these definitions the first time (without links):I have bolded a couple of words in the above quotes for emphasis.
Oh, and: Your post is my cite.
[/QUOTE]
No, you cited definitons for “supernatural”.
And the words used in a sentence are called examples . Telepathy would surely be paranormal.
Perhaps you overlooked this post. Would you care to reply in a civil manner? If so, I would be glad to respond, also in a civil manner. Otherwise, I fear this thread is destined for oblivion or worse.
[QUOTE=Musicat] Iknewit, way back in post #11, I said, to wit:Perhaps you overlooked this post. Would you care to reply in a civil manner? If so, I would be glad to respond, also in a civil manner. Otherwise, I fear this thread is destined for oblivion or worse.
[/QUOTE]
Worse than oblivion ? What could that be ? Sounds paranormal.
We don’t know. We know we can’t know. We are limited in our understanding of much more than the most basic of facts about our conscious experience. Arguing that explanations exist but we just haven’t realised them is nonsense. We simply can not unify belief. Not even in our own minds, much less in the realm of the collective conscious. Establishing consistency in deductive logic is not only a tough problem, *the time needed to solve it grows exponentially with the number of premises for every known method of finding solutions. * The most simple sounding premises can not be proved in a human lifetime, much less to assume that all premises can ever be shown consistant.
The human brain is astoundingly inept at even defining the ground rules much less solving the problems. Again, this all pretty much a display of arrogance, born of what is, in the end, a very, very, small piece of the universe that we actually understand in absoulute terms. The fact is, most of what we claim to know, is not true at all, it is only true within the premises we use to begin our deductive logic.
[/QUOTE]
From your last couple of posts I gather that you hold any scientific endeavor to be pretty much an exercise in futility, then… Scientists, however, would beg to differ. And when you bring the word “paranormal” in, you’re bringing in definitions like
which directly involve science and scientists. And even though stuff like dark matter and Dark Energy and Human Consciousness are not well understood in current scientific knowledge, it’s stuff that is being investigated and, as far as I know, more than one research grant hinges on those investigations. Point being, not one of the scientists involved will throw up his/her arms and say “I give up, it’s beyond understanding”…
So, even though these themes aren’t yet understood, they are not commonly accepted as “paranormal”. And even though stuff like “Human Consciousness” might not be understood, ever, it still won’t be labeled “paranormal”.
Which brings us back to the OP: Is anything that can be investigated likely to be labeled paranormal?
I can bring up one example which even though observed, would still be called paranormal (at least at first). Suppose that someone, anyone, achieved a perfect map of Nostradamus’s predictions. By that I mean of course an investigation that would correlate 1 to 1 a certain number of couplets, with an unambiguous key to future events, before they happen. A work of this nature would perfectly document a “paranormal” event and yet would offer no explanation as to how the original work was produced. My guess is that it would still be “paranormal”
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
No, you cited definitons for “supernatural”.
And the words used in a sentence are called examples . Telepathy would surely be paranormal.
[/QUOTE]
And the examples are included as part of the definition in the dictionary…so surely you were being totally honest when you said that the dictionary “doesn’t say telepathy either”…perhaps you were referring specifically to the other dictionaries?
And yes, I did cite definitions of supernatural; like I already said, my error. I suppose you think repeating my stated fact I made an error will make your position better. Well, I suppose distracting from the issue is a theoretically effective approach…
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Nope. We already said the word is useless, a matter of opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Who’s “we”?
Regardless. Your real error in reading the definitions or ‘paranormal’ is that you’re confusing “has not been explained by science” with “impossible to explain scientifically”. They’re not talking about things we haven’t got around to explaining yet; they’re talking about things that break the laws of physics. Which precisely none of your examples do, which is why nobody but you refers to them as being paranormal, excepting (as I previously noted) possible special cases in spontaneous healing.
Once you realize that, you can begin to consider the question posited by the OP. When you reach that point, the thing to remember is that science is, as you yourself have noted, mutable. As things that are exceptions to the rules are discovered, they are examined and the laws are altered to account for the former exceptions. And if the forces come from unknown sources, well then, we slap a name on them and call it science anyway. How do you think we came up with Dark Matter, anyhow? Found a big pile of it behind the garage? Nope; we found it the same way we’ll find ‘esper energy’ - if there’s any such thing to be found.
And if the forces come from unknown sources, well then, we slap a name on them and call it science anyway. How do you think we came up with Dark Matter, anyhow? Found a big pile of it behind the garage? Nope; we found it the same way we’ll find ‘esper energy’ - if there’s any such thing to be found.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Even if we don’t know, we’ll just put a name on it and pretend to understand. In specifically non scientific terms “bullshit”.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Exactly. Even if we don’t know, we’ll just put a name on it and pretend to understand. In specifically non scientific terms “bullshit”.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, then photons, atoms, gravity, lightning, well, darn near everything must be bullshit to you, since it was once named ( :eek: ), and it’s very very likely that that naming took place before it was fully understood.
Worse than oblivion ? What could that be ? Sounds paranormal.
[/QUOTE]
OK, you’ve had your fun. Please note that the forum you posted in is “Great Debates”, not “Frivolous Tossoffs” and the question the OP posed is a serious one, or can be. My question is, too. Would you care to answer my query, posed here for the third time?
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Ah, then photons, atoms, gravity, lightning, well, darn near everything must be bullshit to you, since it was once named ( :eek: ), and it’s very very likely that that naming took place before it was fully understood.
[/QUOTE]
No, just the bullshit. Of course, naming an observed effect implies an explanation. Hence there is no paranormal.
This has been my argument from my first post. There is no acceptance of any known or observable effect being paranormal. This goes back to a previous argument that “prove the paranormal” is a completely bogus argument since once you prove it, it’s not paranormal.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
OK, you’ve had your fun. Please note that the forum you posted in is “Great Debates”, not “Frivolous Tossoffs” and the question the OP posed is a serious one, or can be. My question is, too. Would you care to answer my query, posed here for the third time?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Un huh…shall I supply you a very, very, long list, a list of Biblical proportion, of science that has not stood the test of time ? Science that was once rock solid and now has been shown exactly wrong ?
But of course, they’ve got it all right this time. Promise. No kidding. We’re serious this time. Trust us.
[/QUOTE]
It’s called correcting one’s mistakes. Another thing that seperates religion/the “paranormal” and science. Scientific knowledge often does not stand the test of time, because it actually does test itself.
You seem to think that some sort of absolutism would be superior, when it comes to knowledge. It’s not. One of the things that makes science capable of progress is that it’s built on the assumption of falliability.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
No, just the bullshit. Of course, naming an observed effect implies an explanation. Hence there is no paranormal.
This has been my argument from my first post. There is no acceptance of any known or observable effect being paranormal. This goes back to a previous argument that “prove the paranormal” is a completely bogus argument since once you prove it, it’s not paranormal.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, in this case the thing that you’ve totally misunderstood is what people mean when they say “prove the paranormal” (if in fact they actually use those specific words).
The set of things that persons who are not you consider to be paranormal is strictly included in the set of things that are really quite unlikely to be true. Most or all of them also require that there be at the least a currently unknown and largely undetectable force, entity, or group of entities that are extremely pervasive (if not outright omnipresent) and have the ability to effect the natural world, or at least they do when no cameras are pointed at them. Many incidents that have been touted as being paranormal have (when investigated) turned out to be lies and scams, often crafted to prey upon the gullible and ignorant.
So, when somebody says “prove the paranormal”, they’re not saying “please extend an accurate and complete explanation for this as-yet-unexplained verified-as-real effect”; they’re saying “If you’re going to spout that pack of delusions and lies here, please kindly back up your outrageous claims.” When you can discern the distinctions between those two statements, you might begin to understand why people say “prove the paranormal”, and why a frank admission that we’re willing to accept it as not being a lie if it is finally proven to be true is not a waffling, wishy-washy, or ‘bogus’ position.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Okay, in this case the thing that you’ve totally misunderstood is what people mean when they say “prove the paranormal” (if in fact they actually use those specific words).
[/QUOTE]
So, if I accept your arguments hear about the utter lack of the paranormal, next I have to change the meaning to suit you when it’s an argument you decide merits a new meaning.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Okay, in this case the thing that you’ve totally misunderstood is what people mean when they say “prove the paranormal” (if in fact they actually use those specific words).
[/QUOTE]
So, if I accept your arguments here about the utter lack of the paranormal, next I have to change the meaning to suit you when it’s an argument you decide merits a new meaning.
