Only idiots believe in ghosts: The religion of science.

Today's flamebait threads on the ghost/UFO poll are so stereotypical of DU as to be humorous. Pick a side and let the insults fly!

Just to clarify, my IQ score puts me in the 97^th percentile, so, at least on paper, I'm not an idiot. I have a respectable collection of college degrees, all of which have the word "science" in them somewhere, so, again, at least on paper, I'm not ignorant. In spite of my qualifications, I believe in a phenomenon that some call magic. I believe that there is a class of valid phenomena that some classify as ghosts/UFOs/fairies. I believe in shit a lot weirder than any of that.


A study in the mid eighties concluded that NORAD averaged seven hundred unidentified radar contacts a month in the western region of the US alone. Astronomical observatories regularly discard or suppress records of erratic bodies. This has been a hotly debated scandal as far back as the nineteen sixties. So much for lack of scientific data.


UFOs have been widely reported by professional and military pilots, scientists, police, and statesmen, including Thomas Jefferson and, supposedly, Dennis Kucinich. So much for lack of credible observers.


Ghost phenomena have been measured electromagnetically and are regularly studied using standard scientific methodology, including that most sacrosanct "reproducibility". So much for lack of scientific orthodoxy.


Modern science is founded on a few basic assumptions. One important concept is the Newtonian notion that the Universe is a complex clockwork mechanism that can be disassembled, studied, and understood. Quantum physics cheerfully destroyed that assumption in the first half of the twentieth century.


More important, perhaps, is the notion that the Universe is distinct from and independent of, human observers. Quantum theory debunked that one too. This discovery kicks the door wide open for magic and the paranormal.


Another important concept is the idea of entropy. That energy concentrations unfailingly move toward equilibrium. That order invariably devolves to chaos. You know, Thermodynamic Law. Chaos theory blew that away. We're beginning to understand that chaos is itself a form of order, albeit a more complex one.


All of you who are so smugly certain of your perfectly rational worldviews need to return to your Scientific Bibles for a refresher. Science itself is in the midst of a revolution that, I believe, will result in the complete destruction of Rationality. Careful, conservative, orthodox laboratory science has proven, many times and in many ways over the last couple of decades, that "reality" is not at all what we've thought it is. Reality is something other, something with a twisted sense of humor.


My personal opinion is that there is One True God, and his name is Bugs Bunny. But that's just me.


In a bizarre twist, one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics insists on an intelligent Creator. The creationists have thus far missed this little corner of hard science, probably because the math is atrocious. At the moment, this interpretation is rapidly gaining acceptance amongst those who can follow it. Maybe the Creationists are running away since the math requires greater than 10¹⁰⁰ parallel Universes. Scary that.


Before you explode in an apoplectic orgasm of righteous indignation, check on what science really has to say about weird shit. Science, or perhaps Rationalism, has become one of the most dogmatic religions in western culture. For those of us who are agnostics, things are getting weird. And fun.

Just sayin...

I don't believe in ghosts. I think people who do are either (a) hallucinating or (b) making things up.

UFO's on the other hand, may have been here, or may have not. We simply do not have enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another. People who have reported seeing UFO's may have seen USAF Test Aircraft, an illusion (something along the lines of Aurora Borealis) a normal aircraft flying low or even an asteroid. They might have also seen a spacecraft from another planet.

I had my own experience when my wife passed, that cannot be explained away by absolute dismissal of ghosts (or equivalent phenomenon)

My wife was dying of congestive heart failure in Los Angeles. I know the exact moment of death because she was holding my hand.
at the exact moment of death, the phone in the ICU rang, it was her brother in Florida, saying he just felt her pass through him so he was frantic to know if she had just passed.
On the way to her funeral, I was suicidal. My father in law was driving and I was in the back seat. I was planning to kill myself after she was buried. My thoughts were dark, despairingly dark, a maelstrom of resignation from which my own death was the only option I saw in my grief.
Suddenly, I felt my wife hold me from behind ("spooning" as we used to refer to it), and I felt a rush of positive memories of her and I together that entered my brain like a compressed movie. My mood changed, and there was absolutely no way I changed it from within myself, I was at the lowest rock bottom possible. I had even planned out suicide methods.

I was alone in the back seat.

At her funeral, her brother had flown in to Illinois and we sat on a river bank to toast her memory. He said "this is what she would have wanted", and we set up an empty chair. Both he and I "felt" her sitting there and both looked at each other at the same time.

So, whether ghost, spirit or energy, some force was at work when she died, and was independently corroborated from thousands of miles of distance.

Therefore I believe it is not only possible, its real.

I am so sorry about your wife...and I can't even begin to imagine the emotional toll that took on you.

But...(and I feel bad just asking this) how do you know you didn't project those feelings subconsciously? Studies have shown that what the brain expects and wants can be projected. Basically, calling up the same chemicals that would occur if she really were there...

that would require clairvoyance and telepathy on my part, not mention I was not in the state of mind to consciously do anything, my wife had just died.
but even if I did, that would be paranormal and therefore not in the realm of science, and you don't seem to accept that, either.

I can only tell you what happened, I'm not saying I know definitively it was a ghost per se, however it was certainly outside the realm of provable science, and I did experience it, and so did her brother. Btw, I did not know her brother before that because he lived so far away.

She said she doesn't know how and isn't a big fundie or anything. She basically "knew" when some of our relatives had died. There really is no explaining that. I really do believe intuition exists.

He calls it a loss. He'll usually tell me when he feels a sense of loss and advise me to be prepared. He's been right 100% of the time.

I had premonitions about my mom. I have never said it to anyone before. Its a bad thing for me. I've not been wrong.

there was a story on 20/20 several years ago about the benefits of pets to older people. One nursing home that was profiled had resident dogs, cats, and birds. One cat in particular would always predict which patient would be the next to pass away. If the cat curled up on the foot of a patient's bed, the nursing home staff would contact their family and tell them that their loved one would be gone within the week. The cat was never wrong.

Sure, it could have been coincidence, but the timing is certainly strange.

And that might have some merit - however studies are inconclusive on that, and they have tested the hell out of it.

Also - if someone is in the process of dying, that narrows down the statistics a little. For example, person A has disease X. It is fatal. People tend to die at night, so if person B has a "premonition" that person A is dying nightly, all that person has to do is have one correct premonition to be right.

It could be nothing or something.

that's ok, not everyone believes me.
I'm just pointing out that your denial of it is more convoluted and full of holes than simply accepting what happened.

Sir Arthur Connan Doyle

The problem is deciding just what is "the impossible."

Where does that energy that animates the corporeal body go when it leaves the body? Energy cannont be destroyed....

Let's see, dead people tend to cool off. The energy contained within their cells would appear to be dissipated in the form of radiated and conductive heat into their immediate surroundings.

the tv run dissipates.

My grandmother died a few years ago. My dad was in the woods hunting and he suddenly had a strange feeling come over him that something was not right with his mother. He headed back through the woods to the house, and a call came in that Grammy had a heart attack while Christmas shopping and died.

My mom used to freak us out a little when we were kids. Sometimes she knew who was calling when the phone rang and would tell whomever it was for to answer it. Very handy, actually.
I also sensed when my Grampa died 800 miles away. I just started crying for no reason one afternoon, my mom called a few hours later to let me know what I already knew. The timing was exact, but he had been sick for 3 years, and lasted a year longer that the doc thought possible.

Science is what we already know. There's a lot left to learn.

I think these things are explained by confirmation bias.

--IMM

before. I consulted a medium after my mother's unexpected passing and the passing ten months earlier of my father, one who specialises in murder investigation and has a national reputation. Here are some of the things she told me. (I could only answer yes or no. She didn't know me from Adam.)

1. My mother had a hip replacement and a knee operation. She told me about it. Spot on.

2. She mentioned my mother wanted to talk about 'the red bird'. My mom's favorite animal is a cardinal and there are dozens in our house.

3. She said, 'let's talk about rugs. Do you have a dirty rug?" After my mom's passing, I decided to honor her and replace our rugs with wood floors because our rugs were dirty from dogs and wear and tear. I had almost finalized the financing on it when this reading happened. Mom didn't know I was doing house repairs, especially floors before she died. She also complemented the painting I was doing and the lady told me something VERBATIM from my mom that she always said when I did work that she was unable to help with: "I would be there helping you if I could." VERBATIM. She told the lady that I should not worry but "tear up the rugs and put the floors down. Do it and not worry." My mother to a tee.

My mom also said that she 'understood my dilemma', meaning my unwillingness to change anything in the house and what to do, what to do. (You have a strange need to preserve everything when someone dies.) She said, go ahead. She 'liked what I am doing' and that since my stuff didn't seem to fit, to trade out her stuff with mine and such. (I had emptied a u-haul bin into my house after she passed and it was crowded as I sort out stuff. She could not have known that. It happened after her passing.)

4. She described our house as if giving a tour.

5. My dad showed planes. We owned a flying service and many planes.

6. She said, "Let's talk about the raised flower beds". I had begun those four months after my mom passed for their honor. She loved them. She mentioned the plants I had planted. Mom never saw them alive but she loved them and described them in detail.

7. She mentioned the 'christmas tree' in our yard. It was our little sweet pine that looks like a christmas tree that my mom always wanted to light up. I will this year in their honor. She mentioned 'deer' (moose)
that walk through our yard. They do. Also across our front porch.

She told me "Celebrate Christmas like crazy" this year. Three days before I decided not to celebrate it. How I've changed my mind, for them.

This lady called me out of the blue to schedule this reading and noted from my depression that I should talk sooner. She asked me if 11 am the next day was good and I said yes. When I hung up and turned to the calendar, I froze in my tracks. The date she would call was my mother's birthday.

There are a number of other things too. I will edit this when I fetch my notes. There are sounds and lights coming on and off in the house when I am deeply sad and when that happens, I also have experienced my mother and my grandmother's perfume for just a second. Those are small pats to help me get along. Our ancestors knew this stuff. Too bad we are too 'advanced' to see them too. Look around at our world and worship how advanced we are. Those silly old-timers who could teach us a lot about the nature of life and what is true. What do they know? Look at us now!

My mother and father talked to me. She named my great grandparents and my aunts and uncles and cousins, most of whom are gone too. The afterlife exists and we go home to it after this school of life.

No one could have told this lady these things and they are not 'coincidences'. There ARE no coincidences.

The conservation of energy makes all things possible. My mother and father are with me everyday, all day. They are only a thought or whisper away. That goes for you too. You can believe or not. But in the end, when you die, you will know the truth.

Peace,

RV

experienced very similar things to what you've described. A close friend of mine lost her husband to cancer about ten years ago. She also didn't believe in an afterlife, but she asked her husband to send her a message if he could once he had passed. After he was gone she heard many odd noises in the house and the lights began flickering on and off in nearly every room. Another friend of ours, a physicist, DOES believe in life after death and thought that the manipulation of electricity is one of the few physical ways the dead could communicate (since they are only made of energy themselves). He also smells his late father's cigars in his home every once in a while. When his son was very young he would relate conversations with his "grandpa Buddy", a grandfather he had never met. His son was never told that his father's nickname was "Buddy", but the child had all sorts of knowledge about his grandfather that no one had ever told him.

on the phone when we answered. The phone company says that can't happen. One night, stressing out over what I'm going to do with the floors, I was laying in bed in the dark. A wave of peace came over me and the phone next to my bed glowed a huge red glow and died down immediately. The phone didn't ring, it just glowed the lights bright red. The phone, when it rings, glows an yellowish-light orange color. Red is my mother's favorite color.

Of course, there are those who say coincidence, etc. There are no coincidences.

Did these experiences change any of your beliefs?

to heal small hurts with a touch. My mother talked about it when she was a youngster, getting help herself. "Take her to Vidie." :)

When my sister, mom and I were ever overstressed, we smell carnations for just a second or two. My grandmother's perfume was carnations. Vivid dreams are also common in my family. The world is so vast, I cannot believe we end. Our souls are immortal even if our bodies aren't. I would hate to think that love ends with death. I am now sure, beyond the reason of a doubt, that it doesn't. I feel them with me everyday and I wish to let people like OMC know that. Look and listen and you will know too.

It changes you for the better. Everyone in the world is mine and I am theirs.

Joel Martin and Patricia Romanowski? (WE DON'T DIE, GEORGE ANDERSON'S CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER SIDE and WE ARE NOT ALONE ... can't remember the subtitle).

Those books will reaffirm your experience.

28th next year, the day my mother passed away. He is so very comforting and amazing in his accuracy. The letter I received back confirming it says no contact. In fact, they number you so that no one can research you for details.

brain which I believe happens when people love each other and thinks almost independently of your own conscious, within the brain acting like and thinking like the person you love, in this case deceased in a kind of super ego fashion. This could explain a few things. I am still on the fence (on the fence meaning I haven't got a clue but keeping an open mind) about what happens after death. In relativity and the infinite anything is possible. Quarks and mesons might be, no matter how unlikely, entire yin and yang universes.
At the exact moment of death of my closest friend a bird flew into an open terrace door of a high rise apartment and flew around chirping, appearing to look everybody in the eye, lit on dying friends favorite Tiffany clock then flew away back out the door, an astonishing coincidence.

I've had personal experience with supernormal phenemena following the death of someone close to me. There may be a scientific explanation found someday, so I won't say "ghost," but sometimes it's a useful term to use when all other explanations fall short.

I've seen them and I'm not hallucinating or making things up.

Than the idea of a soul or ghost.

There are so many stars and so many galaxies.....and we can calculate roughly how many of them have life and narrow that down to how many have intelligent life capable of travelling here.

What math could you possibily apply to ghosts? Are there models for this?

So comparing something that is mathematically described (however crudely) with something that we cannot describe mathematically (yet) is apples and oranges.

I'm not saying they're the same thing, only that they share certain similarities. In some cases, significant similarities.

But, he saw one. He does not believe what he saw. Or rather, he does not want to believe it.

I have hallucinated before - I swear I heard voices in this old home I was staying at (and there was no one in the house). And I wasn't on any drugs at the time.

But the probability that it was a hallucination is much higher than that of a ghost - so it must have been a hallucination.

He has a skeptical, brilliant engineering mind. He was staying at a friend's guesthouse in England, which is reputed to be haunted. As he was laying in bed the dresser drawers started sliding in and out on their own. He thought to himself "I don't believe in you and went to sleep!"

mean that it doesn't exist. I know for a fact that something exists because my brother and I both saw the same thing together when we were younger. A door knob turned slowly and the door slowly opened a few inches and then rested back on the frame but not closed. I thought someone was playing a joke and I grabbed the door, opening it and looking behind it to catch who ever was doing it and there was no one there in the room at all. I was around 10yo and my brother was around 15yo when it happened, he had already complained to us all that things had happened in his room ( which this was ) and my whole family always just explained it away as something else. That is, until I witnessed the door knob thing. So there is something that can do physical things without being seen, I don't know what YOU want to call it but there is something.

My brother and I didn't hallucinate or make this up, it happened.

You are very close to understanding the mindset of many scientists.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.

care to share? It's not often one encounters an Enlightened One.

I only have an undergraduate minor.

but have you seen OpenCourseWare at MIT?
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

They've got lecture notes, tutorial info and exams from 1700 of their courses, all for free online.
If a person was so inclined, they could complete the entire MIT undergrad physics program without ever having to register or attend classes. No degree is awareded of course.

Very cool resource, tho.

Sid

You referred condescendingly to "basic physics" in the flame bait thread, and now you imply that you yourself are "well read" in "modern physics" while the OP is not. I asked you to elaborate on what "basic physics" disproves the existence of ghosts, but you have yet to do so.

I stated that, for starters, the selective incorporeality of ghosts is impossible. You claimed "maybe they're not, they're outside science and so science can't say anything about them either way." I said that "outside science" is nonsense. You agains moved the goalposts to "outside KNOWN science."

"We're talking about something here that by definition is outside human understanding, ergo no scientific theory can disprove their existence."

Now, if we understand how English works, when I say "scientific theory" it pretty much means that I am referring to theories based on "known science" and not theories based on *unknown* science. I'm sorry if common sense didn't make that clear. "Unknown" science would, er, be unknown to us, and not, in effect, possible to discuss.

And what does your phrase "selective incorporeality" have to do with "basic physics"? You have still never stated what part of "basic physics" (whatever that may be) disproves the existence of ghosts.

Matter can't superimpose matter. Ghosts are therefore not matter, given the incorporeal nature of ghosts. However, ghosts are claimed to be visible, and claimed to be able to impart force on matter. Therefore, ghosts are not energy, dark matter, or dark energy. Moreover, while it is possible they could pass through walls if they lacked any form of electric field whatsoever, they would not be visible and could not impart any force on matter were that the case (that is 10th-grade physics, which I would still call "basic.")

Would you care to clarify what you're trying to say here?

Matter repulses matter, and thus matter cannot go through matter, and matter cannot occupy the same space as matter. Matter cannot superimpose.

own experiences. Consider just a few years ago the idea of sending pictures through space to tv's was a 'joke.' consider texting and wireless and the rest. You can't see it but it exists. Energy exists in many forms and I know that there is more to the life beyond this one than any text book or lecture can confirm. Dark matter wasn't possible and now it is. All kinds of unthinkable particles are now being found. They were always there. We just weren't smart enough to find or see them. I believe that is the point here. We always will be behind the curve of the infinity of the universe. Degrees be damned. I am up for knowing a lot more than is known.

has disproven the existence of ghosts. It's just that there's no empirical evidence, despite the bleating from the woos, to support the existence of ghosts. To repeat that trite phrase, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Sid

Ghosts, which are an observable phenomenon, have not been disproven by any part of the body of knowledge called "science" (including "basic physics"). And not being an expert on the field that attempts to study ghosts using scientific methods, I can't say that there really is *no* empirical data. Are you that familiar with this topic that you say such a thing with complete assurance?

But for myself, I agree--I know of no empirical data myself that proves the existence of ghosts. I just think it's an irrational mind set that denies the very existence of something observable merely because the scope of our ability to measure it empirically hasn't reach a given point yet.

And I would never equate anecdotal evidence with fact. That's just common sense. I myself have had an experience that I think might have involved a ghost, but I don't claim that I know that for sure.

For things to be "observable," they must be able to be observed. Ghosts have never been observed in a controlled setting, nor have there ever been any evidence of observation. They are just as "observable" as God is--that is to say, not at all.

no kidding....... I'll send copies to anybody who would like one to see for themselves. :)

will not be convinced otherwise, that something of that nature does exsist. There are a lot of people who are so blocked by their stubborness, (for lack of a better word) they will never believe all these things could be possible.

I have never seen a ghost, I have never seen UFO's yet I believe in ESP and some aspects of the supernatural. I have had experiences that have come true. AND they were documented, by me telling other people before they happened. So I myself know it exsist, and so do the people I told the things to.

I pity someone so set minded that they don't believe all things are possible. I can't understand religious people in not believing in ghosts. After all don't they believe that the soul doesn't die and God's spirit and his followers spirits are all around us...

Well the non-belivers, it's their lost.

"...on an intelligent Creator"

Huh? WTF???

It does not - please show me where

Just because it raises more questions than answers DOES NOT mean that we were created by an intelligent creator.

Preferably in English rather than mathemetics.

The original post would have taken days to prepare had I presumed to provide adequate scholarly sourcing. But here goes.


The Copenhagen Interpretation (1927?) of quantum mechanics has been predominant in the physics community for at least the last half of the twentieth century. According to Bohr and Heisenberg, reality exists only as a "soup" of probability until consciousness locks a particular frame of reference into a fixed state. While this interpretation is wildly successful in creating semiconductors and other such handy toys, it implies that should everyone look down one night, the moon will cease to exist¹. This troubles some people.

In 1952, Everett, Wheeler and Graham proposed the EWG model, which counters that rather than a quagmire of probability, entire universes exist coincidentally, each representing a different Eigenstate or probability set. Given that a probability set differentiates every time I decide whether to go to the mailbox or wait five minutes, you can see that this is really the Copenhagen Interpretation, but with universes instead of probabilities. Primarily, this model assumes that all probabilities have some kind of "reality" rather than simply existing as some kind of Cosmic Schroedinger's Cat. Something more than 10¹⁰⁰ Universes. Wheeler claims that there are not infinitely many Universes, but I don't see how.

Then it was discovered that variations in physical constants by even minute amounts would prohibit the formation of the Universe as we observe it.

Davies² examined this problem in detail. His conclusion is that we must accept the EWG model, which hasn't had near the technological success of the Copenhagen Interpretation, or accept that there is some kind of Creator Principle.

Wheeler of the EWG model then steps up and addresses the non-locality problem of Quantum Mechanics³. According to Wheeler, Bell's Theorem requires that non-local effects not only apply to space, but to time as well. So he fired up his handy physics lab and proved just that. To begin with, this one experiment blew the idea of causality straight to hell.

At this point, I sort of loose the thread of the argument. But basically, one must either accept that the big bang was more conceptual than real, that space is an illusion, and time is merely a convention, or consider the possibility of a Creator.

My vote is for both. We just imagine the shit.




1 Merman, N. D. "Quantum Mysteries for Everyone", Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 78, 1981; "Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?", Physics Today, April 1985

2 Davies, Paul. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press 1982.

3 Glidedman, John. "Turning Einstein Upside Down", Science Digest October 1984.


After all this effort, my bet is that not one of the Rationalists will hoof it to the library to verify even one damned thing.

See http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9501/9501014v5.pdf . Bohr's interpretation, aka the Copenhagen interpretation, talks about measuring objects and events with another object, not consciousness. Consciousness was brought in by von Neumann and others, and that is not a popular interpretation among scientists.

just as soon as you can find a definition of "measurement" that does not require conscious direction.

"it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being". To run with the example impeachdubya is giving in this thread, we don't think the Moon didn't exist before a conscious being observed it - its effect on other objects, such as the Earth, mean it is 'observed', whether or not ther is consciousness involved.

a physicist has proposed that the moon might "vanish" if it were not observed. Still, the idea that the Universe would continue to exist without conscious observers is a matter of contention, and I am a long way from assuming the idea of an independent Universe. It cannot be verified either way, and thus becomes a pointless debate. As it stands, I am in the Bohm camp, at least partially, sharing the position that consciousness and reality are closely bound.

I think it was Wheeler, of multiverse fame, but I'm not at all sure. Multiverse theory is founded on the realization that if physical constants were changed by as little as 0.01%, planets wouldn't form, stars would be rare, and so forth.

The claim is that in a multiverse, only a small number of possible Universes in the manifold manifest reality as we know it. Beyond that, it gets weird, to weird for my head.

The real point of this anecdote is that the Creationists apparently won't touch it.

That given the possibility of multiple parallel universes, the chance of ours developing is so small as to make it seem unlikely without 'help' of some kind. If I'm understanding the idea correctly...?

To that, I would merely say that given even a small chance in an infinite or near-infinite number of universes, the chance of a universe like ours coming into being is still substantial, bordering on 100%, in effect. That's the thing about creationism...they always seem to assume that human consciousness is unique and unlikely, and it possibly is within the context of this one planet, or even as you say within this one universe. But given that there are planets beyond count in this universe, and universes beyond count in the multiverse theory, it all becomes rather routine from a statistical viewpoint.

The core idea is that, based on certain lab tests, it seems that consciousness selected this particular instance of the multiverse. Consciousness as opposed to some kind of Anthropomorphic Deity. I've never fully grasped the argument that the whole thing is other than a statistical phenomenon. There are some far more knowledgeable than I who do, however.

This point was more humor than deep reality to begin with.

So the all-knowing, all-being deity, which connects us and is everywhere at once, really is made up of all of us. This seems to make much more sense to me than some giant old, gray-haired and bearded man in the sky.

It seems that any time there is a gap in understanding, we are quick to ascribe it to a deity rather than saying we just don't know yet.

From the readings, I believe they were trying to explain peoples' concepts of a deity to something which isn't necessarily a deity, but potentially some other form which supposedly connects us all - basically some kind of cosmic plane of consciousness. Again, it's just a theory, and an untested one at that.

Similar to background processes in computers if you're aware of that.

So at the time we are making a fight or flight decision, our unconscious mind has already calculated the best odds for each path and has advised the conscious mind accordingly.

(imho).

edit: And the conscious mind had better be paying attention.

God is a hive of bees, and we're bees.

You've put your own spin on it. And that's good.

If only people would stop thinking of "God" as a personality the same way we think of ourselves as a sepearte personality.

We could not be here discussing this if this universe didn't happen to be one that supported conscious carbon based life. If you accept multiverses then there are essentially an infinite number of parallel universes, a plethora of which have no carbon based conscious life at all. We just happen to be in one that does.

.... I, too, am educated and hold multiple degrees and diplomas and awards .... at least one of which includes the word 'doctor'.

I believe in ghosts

I believe in UFOs

I believe lots of other inexplicable phenomena are what we 'kooks' and 'crazies' say they are.

is the mark of a true intellectual.

Pseudo-intellectuals hold on to their dogma with white knuckles.

..... and open mindedness causes one to question one's beliefs. Its circular.

residence in their face.

references, sources, documentation, and linkage to existing bodies of knowledge.

Just saying something doesn't make it so.

None of your assertions above give source information, so they are just opinions. That is fine by me.

But that isn't science.

My point is that maybe people like you might look around before getting indignant. To paraphrase you, "just sayin' it ain't so doesn't mean it isn't".

There is a lot of legitimate, peer reviewed, documented science out there you aren't acknowledging.

I guess indignant is how you define people who disagree with you.

My point is that science is only interested in what is provable. There are many truths beyond the reach of science (and many falsehoods too).

If it is provable, then it falls in the realm of scientific inquiry. If it is not provable, then it may be true, it may be false, but it is not within the realm of science.

If, as you say, "There is a lot of legitimate, peer reviewed, documented science out there", it's up to you to present it. It's not my job to go dumpster diving for it.

Occam's Razor?


:hide:

I've had some pretty weird shit happen that I've been a witness to in these 59 ass years that makes me believe one sees what one wants to see not necessarily what is there. When it comes right down to it though what I believe is the only thing that really matters to me anyway isn't it

your heart is your master

-- Sun Ra

guess that makes me one too!
:pals:

another great post of the day.

I don't think so....

Perhaps you're referring to Prigogine- and if so, it's time for you to brush up on your systems theory.

I defy you to watch this video and try to pretend otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAPJ3CAUdk

and rivals the excorcist in film quality

:)

The video just makes me laugh my ass off.
And, as it so happens, I've never seen the Exorcist, so I don't know about the film's quality. (I did see the SNL Richard Pryor sketch, though.)

:hi:

you bastard :)

Sid

:evilgrin:
:toast:

God, I practically leaped outta my skin. I hate the freakin' Exorcist.

That was not nice.

I just about fell out of my chair!

:scared:

I so want to say you are a jerk, but it was fun!

First time I saw it, I shit my pants. Then I watched it again and again, and laughed my ass off!

:rofl:

If you are the type of person who eschews horror and violence on film, do not watch the video.

"Ghost phenomena have been measured electromagnetically and are regularly studied using standard scientific methodology, including that most sacrosanct "reproducibility". So much for lack of scientific orthodoxy."

I mentioned this in that thread earlier today and was told I was making it up.

Talk about ignorant!

where research supporting your claim was published. And you failed to provide a citation.

So, were you making it up?

Sid

your claim.

And we're still waiting.

:)

Sid

And have read a bit of an article in it. Although I believe the journal is one of those published sporadically. I did not note if it was peer-reviewed.

But all it takes is for a few sceintists to take it seriously enough to start making measurements and scoring incidences.

Nothing will be "proven" anyways. It will be "proven" about as much as evolution has been proven (which it has not....but it is hard to refute given the evidence). What we can do is support hypotheses through testing. At this point, we haven't even gone past observing these phenomena nor have we figured out how to test hypotheses concerning "ghosts" yet.

Australian Journal of Parapsychology
European Journal of Parapsychology
International Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Near-Death Studies
Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der
Psychologie

and these journals feature occasional articles in the field

Anthropology of Consciousness
British Journal of Psychology
Consciousness and Cognition
Cortex
Imagination, Cognition and Personality
International Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Journal for Transpersonal Psychology
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Journal of Consciousness Studies
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Personality and Individual Differences
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Reports
Transcultural Psychiatry




So there IS a science behind the paranormal, but it is in its infancy.

The point of a peer reviewed SCIENCE journal is that the review includes scientific scrutiny.

Or self-published by a crackpot on the web?

There is actually no scientific evidence for any paranormal activity. James Randi has been trying to give away a million dollars for decades. No one has ever been able to meet the objective standards of proof required.

both of them are mired in their own dogmatism.

"proof" is a tall order in any scientific endeavor, and I have a feeling that if Randi is awaiting proof on his own terms, then he will be waiting forever.

Meanwhile, look at the list of peer-reviewed parapsychological journals and read a few articles. There is a lot of interesting stuff there, but it is not "proof".....just hypothesis-testing and case reporting. That what science is, you know.

They still have not "proven" evolution (how can one test the hypothesis in a lab?), but they have accumulated a lot of evidence (a mountian of it). That same exists for any dodgy subject that does not lend itself to laboratory testing.

Randi's tests are like that panel that wants to give away a million to the person who can "prove" evolution: Both are phrased in such a way that the object will never be proven.

There are some skeptics I have high regard for. Carl Sagan for example but James Randi is both a shameless publicity hound and the athiest equivelant of Fred Phelps.

It basically only provides him with publicity. To borrow someone else's comment about it, even if someone won the "challenge," no-one would take that as proof of the existence of psi phenomena - they'd just say that Randi was fooled.

This article investigates the way Randi structures the "challenge" so that it's impossible to meet his criteria, and unnecessary for him to actually ever pay up.

Michael Prescott's blog also discusses Randi's deception in two parts. There's a link there to the second part.

Randi's challenge isn't impossible to meet the criteria - it's only impossible if you can produce the sort of data science produces with great regularity.

Thomas S. Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.


Guaranteed to blow your mind.

Kuhn didn't doubt science as a process in the least, he only wished to shed light onto the social contexts in which science takes place, as a philosopher would. I'm friendly to his ideas and think they deserve consideration, but I don't consider them mindblowing.

Did you intend mentioning Kuhn's book to be some sort of refutation of Dawkins' speech?

My position is that Science is not some kind of self-correcting super-intellect that automatically rejects incorrect ideas. It is fallible, a human social order, and as such constantly suspect.

I reference Kuhn as a warning not to accept scientific findings simply because they are scientific findings. At the moment, science is rife with contradiction, which is really the point of my original post.


I haven't read Kuhn in decades. I have the third edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on my Amazon buy list. I've run across a need for refreshing myself on his ideas lately. Do you know anything about The Road Since Structure?

Science should not simply roll over whenever someone comes along and tries to give it a shove. You need to work to overturn established theories. And revolutions do still happen. But only when the work gets done and the evidence cannot be denied.

The problem for a lot of paranormal claims is that they rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence and are susceptible to the chaos of the human mind. There is this assumption that just because you experienced something you know what happened. First hand experience of strange events are horribly susceptible to all manner of cacophony. Observation, memory, interpretation, and a host of other issues create a storm of things that can go wrong in how a person concludes what their experience had to have meant. Science is not just going to roll over and revised all known theories just because you felt your grandmother's presence. There is a lot of other possible explanations that need to be ruled out first.

And his work as been so abused by Postmodernists, cackpots, and con-men it's sickening. I am reasonably knowledgeable on the history of modern science and much of these "revolutions" really aren't, they only look like revolutions to lay people because popular science magazines and the like generally only mention the most popular theories and often ignore ones that are just as respected but aren't held by as many people in the scientific community for reasons of space, creating an illusion of dogmatic groupthink that doesn't exist.

of an illusion created by science magazines is by far the worst abuse I've seen so far.

...the "revolutions" Kuhnians think. The late evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, in a criticism of Kuhn (at least with respect towards biology) used evolution as an example. Evolution was becoming more and more popular among biologists and geologists several decades before The Origin of Species was published and it wasn't until the 1930s and 1940s that natural selection and Mendelian genetics were fused into the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology that is the basis of all modern Evolutionary Biology. That is 150 years to go from the Divine Watchmaker to the Blind Watchmaker.

The One True God's name isn't Bugs Bunny,it's Krusty the Clown !

But seriously I see myself as a skeptic who try to keep an open mind.

And you're right about the true weirdness of hour Universe (And parallels ones in theory)

but I have to say that UFOs are exactly what the acronym says they are:Unidentified Flying Objects.

What are they ? I don't know.Spaceships from another planet,galaxy,dimension?

I'm waiting for solid proofs before swallowing that.The same thing can be said of ghosts.There's

certainly an explanation fore those phenomenons but I'm not convinced that it proves the existence

of a soul that survive after we die.

(Please don't see in my bad english the sign of a low IQ,I'm French Canadian so it's difficult for me to express myself clearly in your language).

Thanks for you're very interesting post.

-Jeff

We know that hallucinations and delusions exist. And we know that people differ in their perceptions. Nobody perceives reality directly. We all interpret information provided by our senses.

The OP for all his or her intelligence should know that nature, at the micro or macro scales referenced will behave differently than the world we experience, but that does not account for ghosts, UFOs, leprechauns and other imaginary occurrences.

--IMM

Blasphemer!

Bow to the Carrot Munching One now! Or pay the penalty!


I'm working up to the belief that UFOs/ghost/fairies are all imaginary, but that imagination is real too. Mix that in with alternate dimensions and it's obvious why I have trouble explaining things clearly. I'm considering the idea that there is no life after death because life after birth is an illusion.


I think I'm one step beyond solipsism, but I'm not sure.

who stated she was a solipsist and could not understand why more people were not. No kidding.

That's the funny thing about interpretation - uninformed interpretions can come up with anything.

See post #24 above. He who proposed that interpretation is hardly "uninformed".

proposed this interpretation.

Change your mind?

with a parallel universe that we cannot sense, most likely sitting just 1mm away from us at all times. I tried reading up on the 5th and 6th dimensions a few months back, and they were difficult to understand. It's quite possible that someone's "spirit" or a UFO are able to travel through multiple dimensions and make it to the world that we sense. I'm just throwing this out b/c nobody really knows what the other dimensions are like.

We would never be able to travel faster than the speed of light, which would make travel to distant stars really nothing but a pipe dream. However, latching on to another dimension which infinitely connect time and space might make it possible. However, we again have no idea how to sense that possibility in our 4-dimensional world of senses.

I'm sure this all sounds like a bunch of garbage, but what I'm saying is that we really don't know much about the universe(s) around us other than what we can physically touch or visually observe. So it is difficult to absolutely deny there is something called a "spirit" or that UFOs exist - because they very well could.

Read about time if you want to abuse your synapses.

How truly ignorant we all are about how the universe works. I started watching this show about supernovas about a month ago and it explored how black holes are so small, but so powerful that they literally warp space and time. Then there is anti-matter, dark matter, string theory, etc. It makes you feel quite insignificant.

I heard a program which interviewed a guy who has been meditating for 30-some years. In it, he said there were multiple universes. Through yet another source, I've learned there are something like 9 or 11.

Back to the original source, the guy who has been meditating for 30-odd years. He says our world view is way off. He confirms the reality you're talking about that's very close to us. He says that after all this meditating, he can often see through to the other dimensions.

My own personal experiences tell me that when we die, we cross over into another dimension. At this point, we can hear and see those who have left this dimension in some limited fashion if we or they make the effort to reach out.

My experiences have been interactive and in "real time." I am confident that I am not just imagining or filling in the blanks. I also have photographic responses to my queries to those in other dimensions. This is not uncommon. If one enters the places where people engage in dialogue on this issue, it is quite commonly found. It seems as though digital technologies are able to capture this phenomena more easily--but maybe it's just because more people are taking pictures or that the I'net affords greater opportunities to share them.

I no longer use the term "superatural" or "paranormal." To me it is just "the natural." Some of it we understand, other parts we don't.

One thing for certain is that it is sad that our understanding on this is so limited, especially for those who have relatives or friends who have passed over. There is great relief that comes whe the loved one who has passed over is in touch. I myself have experienced it many times.

Cher

Not sure what you mean about photographic responses though. I haven't seen anything definitive, especially considering how easy it is these days to manipulate images. Not saying it hasn't happened - just haven't seen evidence as such.

Perhaps that's because I have about 30 people on Ignore. And because of this, I never have to see the multiple flamebait threads that come to us daily courtesy of Rove's memo-sending machinery.

No Britney. No nonsensical BS. Minimal hatefulness.

Anybody who wants a copy of my Ignore list for relief like I'm getting can PM me.

hopefully you can see this :evilgrin:

Sid

points, I'm sure, since eliminating that crap and clutter from GD.

than your ignore list.

Nyeah!

I just can't afford to believe in stuff any more.

Hahahaha.... GREAT line !!!!

of things.

UFOs have been widely reported by professional and military pilots, scientists, police, and statesmen, including Thomas Jefferson and, supposedly, Dennis Kucinich. So much for lack of credible observers.

What is a UFO? It is an Unidentified Flying Object. Have people seen things in the sky and not known what they were? You betcha. What does that have to do with alien space craft?


Modern science is founded on a few basic assumptions. One important concept is the Newtonian notion that the Universe is a complex clockwork mechanism that can be disassembled, studied, and understood. Quantum physics cheerfully destroyed that assumption in the first half of the twentieth century.

Non-sequitur.

More important, perhaps, is the notion that the Universe is distinct from and independent of, human observers. Quantum theory debunked that one too. This discovery kicks the door wide open for magic and the paranormal.

Wrong. Quantum theory doesn't say anything about human observers. It is a set of equations. What exactly constitutes an "observer" is still a questions that has no definitive answer. Quantum theory does nothing as far as kicking the door open for magic and the paranormal. Not sure who told you that but it was probably some scam artist trying to sell you a book.

Another important concept is the idea of entropy. That energy concentrations unfailingly move toward equilibrium. That order invariably devolves to chaos. You know, Thermodynamic Law. Chaos theory blew that away. We're beginning to understand that chaos is itself a form of order, albeit a more complex one.

Chaos theory has not changed the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy still increases over time. Emergent properties of "chaotic" systems are interesting though. What that has to do with ghosts and UFOs I have no idea.

In a bizarre twist, one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics insists on an intelligent Creator.

Non-sense. The equations do not have a variable representing a creator of any kind. From reading another post in this thread by you I see you are really really confused on this one. The interpretation that has "many worlds" is the exact opposite of what you think it is. Sometimes theists argue that the universe is put together just right for human life to emerge. However, if there are many universes, each with their own set of constants, then our particular set of constants is no longer strange or coincidental! Thus defeating that theist argument!

That said, the many worlds idea is not necessary to defeat the theist point. This is off topic so I'll do this quick and dirty and hope your highly intelligent mind will understand it.

Every time you are dealt a bridge hand the odds for that specific hand are very very low. But you are 100% to get a hand of some sort. The interesting question isn't how likely is it to get humans the question you want to look at is how likely is it to have a set of constants that give rise to some/any kind of life. No one knows the answer to that so it is not possible to have discussions about how likely or unlikely it is. Of course we look fitted to the universe we evolved to survive in it!

that it is not you who is confused?


I'm a big fan of Adams. I consider him one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. I use the puddle analogy frequently.


I don't believe in a Creator in the sense proposed by any religion I'm aware of. However, the argument for some kind of Creator Principle revolves around the impossibility of space, stars, planets, that sort of thing. It really isn't the same thing as Adams' puddle. See post #86 above.

Because yours would get at least one from me.

You have IMO, successfully answered all the non-sense that the OP put up.

Thank you.

as I am laughing too hard, to type more than one sentence.

All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one.

What is simple about an intelligent creator?

Even if it is a given that there is an intelligence involved when devising a systematic explanation of the universe, on which end of creation is the intelligence most likely to reside?

Giving up and declaring that God created the universe isn't a sign of some new, profound understanding, it's a sign of laziness.

If Occam's Razor were true, we would still believe the sun revolves around the earth, our medical science would consist mainly of bloodletting, and most of us here would believe a lack of evidence of any W.M.D.'s in Iraq is attributable to an honest mistake.

Sid

To say something is generally explained by the simplest explanation depends too much on the person(s) coming up with the explanation, what is known by that person, what he/she personally observes, etc. I think there are too many variables to say the simplest explanation is generally the correct one. That explanation is typically based on a number factors, and there have been numerous scientific theories throughout time which many scientists initially thought preposterous - hence, they had settled on another potentially simpler explanation for what they were observing.

I was probably a little too harsh in the last post. Sorry. One thing I have learned in my experience, is that many people tend to settle on the most obvious, but incorrect explanation. Oftentimes they tend to be observing the symptom of a issue or a related occurrence, and they don't investigate enough to find the true answer.

Really are zebras and not horses. As someone pointed out, a million to one chance happens on an average of 9 times a day in New York City (and 30 times a day in Mexico City).

That still hasn't convinced me to buy many lottery tickets, though.

Scholars have known that the earth and the other planets orbited the sun since ancient Greece.

Many at that time (and even centuries later) still believed the sun orbited the earth. Of course they were wrong, so obviously they weren't intellectually curious, or were blinded by their religion or just plain obstinance.

Thats like bitching about a screwdriver being a total POS because you're trying to hammer a nail with it. Its not the screwdrivers' fault - it just means that its being used incorrectly.

Using Occam's Razor means getting the best evidence, setting aside superstition & obstinance, and asking questions to get better evidence.

is an overused philosophical position espoused by a Catholic bishop (cardinal?).

It may be useful, but it is hardly physical law.

The Razor is there simply to choose a hypothesis to test. It states that the simplest expanation should be attempted first because it is the easiest to test.

But it does not serve as an answer in itself and certainly is not the basis of a "belief".

From wiki...an Eistein quote included

Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.

...and therefore ghosts exist.

1). The law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.
2)We, and everything in the world, are all made up of electrons and etc.; which are forms of energy.

Conculsion: if energy is not destroyed and it only changes form, when you die you simply change form.

Of course this is personal, unscientific opinon, but I really don't see how it could be any simpler.

Of course we don't know all the forms that energy could take, but considering the amount of evidence for other dimensions and encounters with 'ghosts'; it seems to lean on the side of probability to me.

But hey...who really knows.

You are not energy. Your body uses energy. You're constantly spending it. That's why you have to keep renewing it by eating.

In death you're like a TV set with a broken cord - you can't process energy anymore. Bu you aren't the energy any more than the TV is.

We're pretty much of the same mind in this regard.

Science doesn't have all the answers -- even on its own terms, there is a LOT more that we DON'T know than what we DO know. In addition to that, there are areas that cannot be understood by logic and analysis (my canonical example is sex: measure it all you want, you will not get to the essence of the experience). And again, even within its own terms, logic is limited, as demonstrated famously by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Finally, none of this means we should just assume that claims of ghosts, UFOs, angels, etc. are necessarily true. But I don't get why people are so invested in assuming that they are necessarily untrue.

It reminds me of a Usenet poster years ago, who used to get all worked up telling people that life and the universe were deterministic, and how other people were reasoning emotionally. But what made it really funny, was that he would get so heated up that you had to duck the spittle flying out of the CRT when reading his posts. And he never made the connection to his own emotional investment in his thesis.

Oh well -- anyway, thanks again. Great post!

Scientific belief is the product of the human mind, and humans don't have all the answers yet. And there are strange things on this earth. Just because we can't yet explain everything that humans report experiencing doesn't automatically mean that the unexplainable is a hallucination or a lie. Remember - not too long ago doctors thought mental illness was caused by demons and disease by "vapors". Maybe 200 years from now people will wonder why the hell we ever thought people who saw UFOs were hallucinating (for example).

My father, an atheist who has two hard science degrees and is the least "woo woo" person I know, swears he saw a UFO when he was 12 years old. He can describe the incident in great detail now 50 years later, and is positive beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't a "weather balloon", a "flare" or any kind of aircraft flying in the skies at that time. Was it an alien spacecraft? Who knows, and he makes no claims about that. But he says he saw something very strange and I believe him.

I was living in Arizona during the 1997 UFO incident. I saw whatever it was over Estrella mountain with my own eyes, and so did half of metro Phoenix for several days running. I don't know what it was, and I'm not going to make claims about aliens, but it definitely WASN'T flares or whatever the military claimed it was at the time. If the government had the answers about that incident, they sure didn't share it with us, and if the thing in the sky belonged to them it was a mighty large and strange craft. But one thing for sure is that a million and a half people weren't merely hallucinating. BTW, I have a graduate degree in a scientific field. I use the scientific method every day. But I'm still willing to admit that there are some things I/we might just not understand yet. Call me nuts if you want to. I don't care.

...one of the things I find fascinating is that science itself is providing proof that there are possible avenues for so-called paranormal phenomena.

For example: Bell's theorem positing instantaneous action at a distance between particles, has been demonstrated correct (Alain Aspect was the first to verify). Also, there is atomic tunneling -- the ability of matter to creep out of containment even when there was nowhere for it to creep out of -- at least according to the classical theory of matter and how it can't be in the same place at the same time. This phenomenon took its discoverers by complete surprise. And of course one of the earliest of these odd discoveries, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which certainly allows some latitude in how matter manifests (and is implicated in the tunneling phenomenon).

Scientists come up with models to try and fit the facts, then they hone them down to the minimal necessary set of theorems (per Occam's Razor) to account for all the facts. So science provides models of the real world. Science is not itself the real world. And as it is a human endeavor, it is constrained by that fact alone.

None of this means we should disparage science. Newtonian mechanics was a towering achievement, as was quantum mechanics and the theory of evolution. We just should not make a religion out of it, and disparage everything that does not fit into the current scientific mold. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --Shakespeare

Some people seem to love using science as a bludgeon with which to diminish others' experiences. I think that's too bad. But whatever, what do I know, I'm not only a tree-hugger, I'm an unapologetic rock-hugger. Again, this does not mean we should be overly gullible. "Keep an open mind, but not so wide open that the wind whistles through it". --Anon

does it come from, where does it go and where does it live inside of us? Does it have weight? Can it be seen? Given the idea that there is conservation of energy in our universe, where does it go when it leaves the body? Why should anyone believe it doesn't generate from some place and go back when the shroud of our bodies is gone? Seems reasonable to me. :)

Because there's no evidence that it exists.

to yours. I have also read extensively on these subjects and know that if people learned about Quantum Physics, their belief systems will be sorely tried.


I believe in a multidimensional Universe.

I have had psychic experiences through my life and gasp! Even saw a UFO (along with about 7 neighbors and my dog). When my beloved died I did an EVP and he told me he loved me. I have that recording. I also have a dear friend who is a medium and her gifts cannot be denied. The week that Tony died she did a reading for me. He came through and revealed something that only I and his family knew.
Also coming through was my Great Uncle Herman (she never knew he existed) and he gave me information to protect my mother from a debilitating accident. Unfortunately it still happened.

I am also a Reiki Master and have assisted with spontaneous healings and my business caters mostly to a spiritual community, healers and lightworkers who are some of the most special, loving people on this planet. Each has an extraordinary life story.

When I hear mockeries of my beliefs I don't get offended. I am very securely walking my path and I don't need validation from others.

Oh yes! I believe in fairies too!

was raking leaves in the backyard, my uncle John appeared before him and told him not to worry about him, he was well and fine and he loved my dad. Full body apparition. If it had been anyone but Daddy I would have wondered.

and had a near death experience. then, he was fine with it. The last few days he was with us, we watched him when he was resting. He was watching and whispering to people we couldn't see. I was so glad. My dad is my hero and he deserved peace at the end.

for the person who can reproduce ANY verified supernatural phenomenon. Then again, if you can't, don't expect people to take you seriously when you assert that it's so.

:shrug:

The proof is in the pudding, as they say...

But Rationalists would rather label anything as hallucination or ignorance or even magic rather than admit that Rationalist ideology may not hold all the answers. Hence my religion reference.

prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake.

It is obvious you do not understand what Rationalism is. Rationalism is about using logical reasoning to understand empirical evidence. It is by definition ANTI-DOGMATIC. I suggest you read stuff by the great philosopher of science Karl Popper, especially his book Conjectures and Refutations, in which in one section of the book he attacks the notion of rationalism as dogmatic.

I am highly rational, logical person -- but I believe in ghosts because I've seen one with my own eyes. When I was a child, I saw a tall man dressed in black walk across our living room and "fade" into the wall. Both of my rational, intelligent parents also got unexplainable strange, creepy sensations in that house, like they were not alone. Later I found out my cousin who lived in that same house for awhile saw an old woman walking through the house when she was a child. To this day I get goosebumps when I hear other people's ghost experiences because I do believe they exist. And while I am a huge fan of science, I just don't think it can explain absolutely everything....

but he - and a maintenance man - saw an elderly woman standing in the hallway in a hospital. The maintenance man thought she should have stayed in bed.

The woman then disappeared.

The woman had died a couple of weeks earlier, and my doctor signed her death certificate.

A system of testing hypotheses. Where is the scientific evidence for ghosts? Or UFOS? I'll take Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World over any idiotic UFO/ghost believer any day.

There is simply no evidence to prove the existence of UFO's. No material collected that is not of Earth origin, nothing but some blurry photos (which can be easily faked).

about science. However, I am confident that studies have shown and my own experience has verified that our minds can do considerably more than we generally ask of them. I know that after not thinking of a particular friend or acquaintance for months or at least weeks, I will think of them for a few days and they will communicate with me. It has happened too many times to discount. Our minds are capable of mental telepathy; we just are not advanced enough to use it yet. If we destroy the planet, we never will.

That the rationalists will be in for a whupping.

The trouble is the strategists. I think people confuse scientists and strategists.

The strategists can rationalize pretty much anything, and they are a threat to the race, IMO. If you aren't sure of what I mean, let's discuss it another time. It's Friday.

that an industry exists to "debunk" claims of the "paranormal".

Several awards have been offered for anyone who can prove paranormal activity to the satisfaction of those offering the award. Several individuals have declared that their attempts to claim such awards have been rebuffed or ignored. Said tales are hearsay, but I'd think the skeptics would be happy to increase the number of failures, even to the extent of calling such bluffs.

We live in interesting times, and the current paradigm shift in Science is one of the more interesting phenomena of the times.

you whinge about an "industry" existing to "debunk claims of the paranormal" but fail to mention that that industry is there only in response to the thousands of charlatans, fraudsters and snake-oil salesmen in the New Age Industrial Complex. Jeez, take a trip through any bookstore and compare the sizes of the Spiritual, New Age, and Self-Help sections to the Science section. Leaf through any magazine and count the ads for 1-900 Astrology hotlines. Walk through a "Health Food" store, or check online for natural products, for a sampling of the homeopathic bullshit being peddled by the billion-dollar neutriceutical industry.

My god, open your freakin' eyes to who is really making money from the gullible. 'Cause it sure isn't Skeptical Inquirer.

Sid

I guess I should have read the other thread first. I was speaking more generally. FTR, I have about as much skepticism towards paranormal research as I do the bible.

I have actually gotten EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena)on a tape recording. It was 6 notes of whistling. I had heard about EVP and that virtually anybody is able to get it without fancy equipment. So on a lark I headed to a cemetery to see if I could get it on tape. I was very skeptical. I was also very surprised and a little creeped out when I played the tape back and heard 6 notes of unexplained whistling. I can't say for certain what it was, but I can say what it wasn't. It wasn't another human or animal living in the dimension that we live in. It also wasn't something playing on a radio or anything else. It was even ruled out by an ornithologist as being the whistling of a bird. I have absolutely no explanation for those 6 notes. Maybe it was a ghost. Maybe it was a being in a different dimension. :shrug:

Got the wav's on my server, just need to get it up and running again after the move.

I was skeptical and did a lot of recordings myself, and have some really odd things on them.

I was hoping to post them a long time ago here, but life kept getting in the way. Hopefully, this weekend when I clean up the garage and unpack my server and get it booted up I will have them online. I was amazed at what I found (clear voices) and my last trip to the cemetery before I left I also got something (our of many hours I only have a few clear examples, but they still give me goosebumps).

It's an eyeopening experience, isn't it? I have my "whistler" up on YouTube. I have a couple of other ones too. But that was my first so I'm kinda partial to it. I hope I catch yours on here. I really want to hear them.

Check out http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0711227217/103-9333789-6899863 "> this. Guaranteed to blow your mind and pretty (gorgeous) too.

I have no idea how they are created or who or what creates them but they are so beautiful and intricate.

and some rope.

Sid

of years. lots of boards. lots of rope. but what would I know. I never took physics.

But here are many cases when it was known that human agents were responsible

I really doubt that alien beings draw crop circles but since I regard them as a form of earthform art, can't we appreciate them just for being beautiful and pretty amazing evidence of human ingenuity?

Unless, of course, it's your crop and you don't want the damage. :-)

...by exhibiting them for a fee.

that's how we should appreciate them, as "amazing evidence of human ingenuity".

:)

Sid

my shoulders, back of my neck. I decided to try EVP. I used a digital recorder and in the absolute silence of my home called out for him to talk to me. I played it back and in between my voice, I heard the words I Love You. I still have that recording.

Especially after the horrific death of my fiance' and his brother and our best man but
my first experience with a ghostly visit was when I was 19 and living in my friends house.
Small apt. on the top floor. Her father dropped dead in that apt. about an hour after he
finished remodeling it! After I moved in, I'd wake up and see a figure standing by the bed
and the bed would be shaking. :scared: He used to visit me and shake the bed and after
discussing it with her and her older sister, we did a seance and told him to move on and
stop shaking the bed. Oh yeah, my friend and I have the same first name and we told him
that I wasn't his daughter. That she lived on the first floor! :P The shaking stopped and
the standing at the end of the bed. I moved out shortly after that but this went on for a year!

No, I wasn't stoned, drunk, or delirious with fever either. :P

at various times in this thread.

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

I hate stupid, too.

Sid

Edit: please tell me you also believe in chemtrails, 'cause I need chemtrails in woowoo bingo.

Thanks for the link!

:hi:

Sid

Keep on rockin' :thumbsup:

:toast:

Sid

without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” - Douglas Adams

That kind of summarizes my belief in fairies. I do like fairies, but I know that they are just fairy tales.

"I believe that there is a class of valid phenomena that some classify as ghosts/UFOs/fairies."

I keep an open mind about unexplained phenomena. I have a soft spot for aliens and UFO's, but have never found any convincing data to support them. Ghosts and fairies have much less evidence evidence to support them. I think that to believe in something, you ought to have some evidence to support those beliefs.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Anyway, I love Halloween. Have a Happy Halloween!

Okay you know what science has to say about UFO's/Ghosts/Paranormal activities? Give us sound scientific data that we can analyze and then we will make a judgement. So far there hasn't been any. The JREF foundation offers a millon dollar prize for any one who can give reproducible data on paranormal activity. So far no one has. Science is NOT religion where things are taken on faith. For someone who claims to have a scientific background you *ought* to understand that. Most scientists are willing to admit they don't know everything and given sound data are willing to change their paradigms and hypothesis.
Screaming "scientific fundamentalist!" is an intellectually lazy cop out excuse for believing in whatever pseudoscientific or unproven theory (and UFO's and ghosts and ESP are UNPROVEN scientifically--anecdoctal evidence is NOT scientific evidence).

Anybody who equates science and religion obviously has little understand of what SCIENCE is VERSUS religion and in my book is little different from the creationists who deny evolution because it contradicts their view of the universe.
Sorry just because scientists *refuse* to take thinks ON FAITH does not make them "fundamentalists"....

and not well versed in history of discovery

There are 'scientists' who are so absolute in their insistence that if we can't prove it NOW, with what we know, and the tools we have NOW, it means it isn't there. Their stubborn adherence to such a limited field IS a form of fundamentalist thinking.

Just as narrow. Just as ignorant. Just as dangerous.

Twenty years in science I haven't seen this idiocy! I have seen people who are dogmatic in their science and conservative in thier thinking but they AREN'T 'fundamentalists" for actually you know thinking the scientific method is relevant! None of the above concepts have been reproducible through the scientific method therefore, scientists have the right AND DUTY to be skeptical about unsubstantiated claims. Anyone who says okay people say so, so it MUST be true is NOT a scientist..thats the true RELIGIOUS folk taking things on faith.
This thread is proof that the right is far from having the exclusivity on anti-intellectualism
here's how this distills out
Person "I know ghosts exist because I saw one"
Scientist: "Can you reproduce the evidence, or give any evidence for what you beleive you saw, because its easy for one to misinterpret what they are seeing?"
Person: "Well no,ghosts are unpredictable..."
Scientist: "How can you understand the behavior of something you don't even understand or give valid proof of?"
Person"How dare you say I don't understand what I saw, I don't want MY believes questioned! You are a narrow minded fool!"
Some DU members have an issue with having cherished beliefs challenged, same as the fundies..therefore the ones who challenge those closely held dogmatic believes are therefore accused of the same...

They pretend to have a handle on science, though. As for being skeptical, in science that does not involve the childish name-calling of people making claims. Or does it? Hmm, theory vs. practice, I suppose.

There are scientists, and as one clever DUer pointed out, there are 'lab technicians' who just repeat things in the lab.

Then there are some teachers (many in colleges) and plain people who know a lot about one or two area of proven theory who just plain refuse to allow that something may exist because they have never seen it.

Those are narrow minded fundy scientists ;)

The theory of germs was hogwash to such learned men not too long ago. Didn't keep the germs from existing.

Man, I stopped believing in that shit when I was 8.

on Halloween.
I provide links to each one that I could find, spanning the years. It's a really looooooooooooooong post.