Spirits and other incorporial things

When I said you, I didn't really mean "you you". I meant "generally, you..." Yup, because back then there was no evidence for it whatsoever... actually, DM was already firmly established 50 years ago.But anyway, the point is if someone suggested that Uranus was on it's side rather than its south pole 50 years ago, it would have been justly deemed as a crackpot idea simply because there was absolutely no evidence for it.If we start considering every crackpot idea without any evidence, we might as well start teaching the existence of pink unicorns and centaurs. It doesn't mean that they will do so either. This is the way science works. If there's no evidence for it, it's kinda silly to believe in it, doesn't it?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

OK I can accept that. I did actually think I was ME though but I could be wrong there I guess. Was it? Well there's something else that I learned today. Make it 500 then. Either way I think you agree on the point. Cool That would be fun. I think most unicorns are actually flourescent green though. Now here I don't really agree with you. There are a bunch of things (UFO sightings included) that have been officially classified as unexplained.
I don't expect you to beleive every word I say. As I have said before. I am waiting for a reasonable explanation for my experiences and those of others.Some "eyewitness" reports may well be imagined, exagerated or even just plain fraudulent. I will be the first to admit that this could even extend to most of them. Others like my own are impossible to verify.So where does that leave us?I don't know. I fully understand your skepticism. I would just like to see some real effort to find out what is going on instead of offhand dismissals. I watch all the TV shows on paranormal stuff and I find that they are either people trying to prove the existence of the supernatural or people trying to disprove it.In the former case, "beleivers" tend to take stuff at face value or use methods which are clearly unscientific.In the second, "unbeleivers" tend to use whatever methods they can find to discredit it while ignoring possible methods that could validate the research. real scientists simply beleive it is impossible based on incomplete knowlegde of the subject, then just dismiss it as you are doing. These people generally aren't even willing to investigate for themselves.In short both sides appear to have an agenda.
The only thing I have never seen is a genuine project to investigate paranormal activity of any kind, using all available research tools and run by unbiased researchers.PY

I don't think science is done by unbiased or neutral scientists. Sometimes sure, but often there are various biases. There are several safeguards having to do with experimental design, peer review, etc. But perhaps the most important is that the data can be replicated or the event reexamined. This is the statistical assurance of science. Falsification of data happens. Hopefully it's caught in replication or even review.You have an interesting beginnings of a proposal but just what is it you think should be studied and how? It takes expertise to study a field. Quantum physicist have different expertise than say those who studied deep cold. So who do you think should study this? What kinds of qualifications would they have. What kind of equipment would they use? Parapsychologists have kind of gone the way of ghost busters it appears.I don't think t.v. does much more than offer entertainment, if that. I don't have a t.v. because it's generally so dismal, it's just so much nasty noise polluting my home. When I visit people who have t.v. going I wonder how they can stand to have that in their homes.lfen

That's just it, people have been giving the paranormal serious time and effort for centuries before they gave up because of lack of evidence and predictability.Besides, if something is truely paranormal, our scientific instruments wouldn't be able to detect it at all, wouldn't you agree? If our instruments can detect these things, then they are not paranormal at all. Science is designed to investigate things that are predictable (to some level at least) and things that are repeatable. Based on what we perceive the paranormal is, it's just not possible for conventional science to do much with the paranormal.You mentioned before that you are a chemist. Would you like to propose an experiment (hypothetical situation, of course) that might produce consistent results to imply the existence of the paranormal?Added by edit.Coincidently, here is a picture of the person, my idol, that first proposed the existence of DM to explain the behavior of the galaxies in 1933 (I believe). This message has been edited by Lam, 12-09-2004 03:14 PM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Thats funny Lam, I thought he was gestering what grade you were to receive for your paper. LOL!!! *edit typo.
Ok 3 edits for 2 lines...sheesh!!!
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-09-2004 03:20 PMThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-09-2004 03:21 PMThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-09-2004 03:22 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to say his name. The brilliant astronomer above is Fritz Swicky.

So, describe a test for the paranormal?I have a lab (you have a lab). How do we set up an experiment to test for the existance of UFOs?Or sprites?Or unicorns?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lam suggested the same thing.I will give it some serious thought but to be quite honest I doubt that I will come up with anything new that hasn't been attempted before.As Ifen said, each feild has their own experts. Unfortunately I am not an expert in Paranormal investigation. I wouldn't know where to start.Give me a chunk of rock, an ancient artifact or a water sample and I will happily give you a complete breakdown of its chemical composition. I have the tools for that. What I don't have is Ghostbuster stuff like PKE meters or those particle accelerator backpacks.If I manage to come up with an experiment then you guys will be the first to know.PY

Well, if you saw an image, then presumably light fell on your retina, so it should be captured by film. If you heard a noise, then presumably so would a tape.If there was an effect, energy should have been rerwuired to have been introduced. You should be able to confirm that energy by orthodox detection systems.

This was part of the reason I wanted to discuss spirits as incorporial beings.The claim is that they are somehow "untestable" since they are made out of something other than standard matter. Now this would be logicaly consistant IF they never had any effect on our physical world. But people who claim to beleve in spirits DO beleve that the spitits can effect us and our world.Why should it be impossible to test for them?

Because science requires reproducability. And the only reproducable behavior that is said to be caused by spirits (i.e. our own behavior) is confounded 100% with behavior that is said (by others) to be caused by the brain.I think it's just that simple.Ben

I've gotten the impression from Hangdawg and some other's accounts of demons that they would waive the retinal photon. I say that because they don't think everyone would see the phenomena that the sensitives see. It seems closer to a hallucination in that it is a direct stimulation of the brain's visual centers by something termed "spiritual sight"? It further appears that this "vision" is distinguished from hallucination because several people experienced it.I think it has to do with suggestible people and memory pliability.
Testing for hallucinations is probably possible with some of the new brain scan techniques but mostly it seems to be a matter of self reporting, which is why Hangdawg focuses on reliable witnessing by people one trusts.I have to say that I think Hangdawg is truthful. I fully believe his sincerity. I have reservations having to do with both his age, that the people reporting these things are personal friends of his, and his full participation is a belief system that is prone to believing these things. In short I think he lacks qualifications to properly evaluate the reports of his friends.My statement about lacking qualifications is in no way meant to derogate Hangdawg's intelligence, abilities, or sincerity. I'm not qualified to do many things and that is true of everyone. This doesn't disprove his friends experience but it means I'm inclined to stay with the more rational explanation of suggestion, hallucination, and memory drift.lfen

Bencip19,What do you mean when you say: Let's say we are looking for the giant squid (or some other creature that may or may not exsist). Now, this creature is elusive and in a hard to reach place. But some scientists come back with Vidio footiage of the animal.Science would beleve in the animal would it not? But is the experement "reproduceable"? Perhaps someone else could get footage of the creature but perhaps any given expedition would fail.How is this different from reasearching ghosts?

Ghosts shouldn't be hard to find (at least not as hard to find as the giant squid). Apparently they exsist in non-remote places such as houses, theatres, and other old buildings.And, also apparently, many many many people have found them. I have met dosens of people who firmly beleve that ghosts exsist and that they have seen them (or have evedence of their pressence).(By the way)All of these people, like purple Youkuo, have ONLY anecdotal evedence.So why is science unable to make any progress?This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 12-12-2004 06:11 PM

In some sense, it's really not.There's video reports of the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, weird sea creatures, probably ghosts too. There's photographic proof of many of the same things.There's a bunch of differences:

1. Video evidence is objective--everybody can see it. This doesn't hold for ghosts. If we were all seeing them, we wouldn't be asking the simple question of their existence
​
2. The authenticity (and motivation) of the objects are in question. It's the choice of the scientific community to doubt PY's findings rather than a video tape, because it's not objective. It goes against the methodology. Scientists are also prone to making up data (and some do), but it's scarier for them--because their results must be verifiable. In other words, in order to 'make up' interesting data, they have to give a method for others to expose them as liars!
​
3. WHAT is actually pictured is unknown. And people will question what it 'actually is.' When this happens, reproducability is very important to confirm the find; otherwise the find is very weak. It can happen for ghosts, but it can also happen for giant squids. People question what it was (i.e. the 'plesiousaur' carcass taht was found and photographed; is it a plesiousaur? Is it a decayed shark corpse?)
​
4. It must be, IN PRINCIPLE reproducable. Just expounding on the point given above... Lots of studies aren't reproduced, but they must be in principle. In fact, their "power" depends on their reproducability.


​
I think the most important point is that EVERYBODY can watch the video. Not everybody can see ghosts.