Paranormal

[Jude]

Because for some cases the conditions of false memory or "sensors misfiring" is are MORE improbable explaination than "ghost" to some experiencers.

The problem is with the judgment you're employing.  Stating that it is more probably for a ghost to exist than for your mind to be malfunctioning is not an accurate statement.  There is concrete, documented evidence of the ways in which the human mind malfunctions.  I can show you websites that have examples of it that will fool you into seeing certain things you did not see.  Sensory illusion, placebo, etc. all of the ways in which experience is fallible are clearly documented.

People who believe in the existence of the paranormal are purposely ignoring the rational explanation and going outside the framework of science which already solves the confusion, and creating their own theory.  That's not rational unless you have a reason to believe that the current framework does not explain the situation.  Such a reason would be empirical evidence in the form of suitable photographs, video footage, etc.

But again, all of the 'hard evidence' paranormal research put forth is blurry and useless.

You'd think with 7 billion people (almost 8 now) on this planet one of them would've obtained some hard evidence which is indisputable by now.  But none of them have.  What does this tell you?

I hear strange voices often, but I dont think that much of them - enough for me to beleive that perhaps its my mind mis-firing some nerons or something..

I hear things too.  It's an example of your mind's amazing ability to organize chaos into something tangible.  Human beings constantly attempt to analyze sensory data and filter it into something meaningful.  This is why people see the Virgin Mary in Windows, Jesus on toast, and images in clouds; what you're describing is just happening on an auditory level.

BUT some experiences are not explained so easily - for example those that effect several sensors - sight, temperature and sound - or effect several people or a person
AND a cat - when they are witnessed by many at the same time its harder to beleive they are "false memories". YES it could be true that a false memory effects more than one sense, YES its true that the mind can "impose" its belief system on a memory, yes after a fact two can talk about something then come to a mutual conclusion which is false.... BUT ... to many these seem more unlikely than"entity / energy that is conscious"

I'd put forth it only seems that way because they're employing magical thinking.

Just because you can't (or that it is very difficult to) prove a negative (statement 2) does not imply that you can't prove a positive.  Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions (Hofstadter 1989).  Does that mean that mathematics can't be used to prove anything?

I'm not that one who said any of that, I was dissecting her statement.

[Oniya]

I was actually trying to add support to your deduction.  Probably should have tried to quote both your post and Kate's.  *tips hat*

[Kate]

O -

well - i really did mean concerning proving it doesn't exist ... but I get your drift.

Mathmatics can be used to prove something within its own context.

ie ... assuming a + b = b + a ... and so on and so on ... yes logically other statements of truth can be made that are logical in its own context.

The "rules of reality" however we don't know before hand, science is guessing them (very good guesses or useful guesses in many contexts, so much so we call them "laws", but they are more theories that have high prediction tendencies for MOST of the observed. repeatable experiences we have.

*

J-

"Stating that it is more probably for a ghost to exist than for your mind to be malfunctioning is not an accurate statement.  " - J

"People who believe in the existence of the paranormal are purposely ignoring the rational explanation and going outside the framework of science which already solves the confusion, and creating their own theory.  That's not rational unless you have a reason to believe that the current framework does not explain the situation.  Such a reason would be empirical evidence in the form of suitable photographs, video footage, etc."  - J

- experience / video footage / photographs exist of paranormal phenomena.

blurry =! useless, all ghost reports = blurry is not true. Ghost reports exist of people seemingly as real as the living just "disappearing" or doing something that doesnt logically make sense if they were a living body. Those previously skeptics or unbeleivers have been changed by some experiences because they found the most logical conclusion with the CURRENT state of science was = paranomal / ghost / ufo / alien etc.

"You'd think with 7 billion people (almost 8 now) on this planet one of them would've obtained some hard evidence which is indisputable by now.  But none of them have.  What does this tell you?"

Current scientific theories are being disputed by respectable scientists CONSTANTLY in order to cater for increasingly exotic phenomena.

Nothing on this world exists that can not be disputed by someone at some point
regardless of the evidence - some (I am one of them) may feel that any logical mind can not dispute the existence of the ufo phenomena implying "alien"s of some sort - even if some contributory "evidence" has been discovered to be hoaxes or mistaken identification, all you need is one that isn't discredited by testable means for the hoaxes not to prove anything about future experiences.

Some would dispute 1 + 1 = 2, I'm sure some do.

[Serephino]

Yes, what about when more than one person experiences the same thing?

Another example; A few friends and I were walking around an old mine one night.  We see these barrels that some of our neighbors had down there to shoot at.  Now the ground is not level.  There are piles of coal dust, and saw dust from when there was a logging camp there.

One of my friends kicked a barrel and it rolled down hill.  It wasn't a steep hill, I'd say maybe a slant of 12-15*.  It rolled a few feet then stopped.  Then it rolled back up the slant toward us and stopped at our feet.  All 4 of us saw it. 

So you're saying the barrel that each and every one of us saw never actually rolled away, but 4 people imagined it.  The barrel really just fell over sideways and stayed there.  Our brains misfired to make us think it rolled, then our minds had to imagine the barrel rolling back to explain why it was lying at our feet.

Oh, and my ex boyfriend and I imagined a stack of CD's sitting on my dresser flying across the room and hitting him.  The mark he had on his forehead was just his body reacting to the hallucination.  Our feeble minds were just trying to justify why those CD's moved 3ft and ended up on the ground all by themselves, so we imagined them flying, when in reality um... there was a spacewarp and they teleported!

Yes, it does sound ridiculous, but that's been your whole argument.  Paranormal experiences are simply are brains misfiring. 

If paranormal experiences are so rare, then why have I experienced so much in my life?  Why do all these ghost hunter TV have inboxes stuffed full from people who want them to come investigate a certain place?  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are probably thousands of people who have experiences, but don't tell anyone because of people like you who seem to love telling them they're crazy and/or too stupid to realize the truth.   

And that ghost hunter show I was talking about... They do try to debunk everything.  If they come across something that doesn't make sense at first they try everything they can think of to recreate it and explain it.  Sometimes they do, and sometimes they can't.   

[Cythieus]

Yes, what about when more than one person experiences the same thing?

Another example; A few friends and I were walking around an old mine one night.  We see these barrels that some of our neighbors had down there to shoot at.  Now the ground is not level.  There are piles of coal dust, and saw dust from when there was a logging camp there.

One of my friends kicked a barrel and it rolled down hill.  It wasn't a steep hill, I'd say maybe a slant of 12-15*.  It rolled a few feet then stopped.  Then it rolled back up the slant toward us and stopped at our feet.  All 4 of us saw it. 

So you're saying the barrel that each and every one of us saw never actually rolled away, but 4 people imagined it.  The barrel really just fell over sideways and stayed there.  Our brains misfired to make us think it rolled, then our minds had to imagine the barrel rolling back to explain why it was lying at our feet.

Oh, and my ex boyfriend and I imagined a stack of CD's sitting on my dresser flying across the room and hitting him.  The mark he had on his forehead was just his body reacting to the hallucination.  Our feeble minds were just trying to justify why those CD's moved 3ft and ended up on the ground all by themselves, so we imagined them flying, when in reality um... there was a spacewarp and they teleported!

Yes, it does sound ridiculous, but that's been your whole argument.  Paranormal experiences are simply are brains misfiring. 

If paranormal experiences are so rare, then why have I experienced so much in my life?  Why do all these ghost hunter TV have inboxes stuffed full from people who want them to come investigate a certain place?  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are probably thousands of people who have experiences, but don't tell anyone because of people like you who seem to love telling them they're crazy and/or too stupid to realize the truth.   

And that ghost hunter show I was talking about... They do try to debunk everything.  If they come across something that doesn't make sense at first they try everything they can think of to recreate it and explain it.  Sometimes they do, and sometimes they can't.   

The problem with all of this is that the skeptics are going to be as bad about trying to disprove you as they can. I have heard the stories about mass hallucinations and other things which don't seem to old much water most of the time and the ball lightning thing that others use to explain UFOs.

Paranormal experiences aren't rare, but to those who don't believe in them and are reluctant to give them second thoughts they are usually shrugged off as something else and the person moves on. Almost everyone I know has had some experience of a paranormal nature. Whether it be seeing something or just something more internal.

And what's funny is that one of the Ghost Hunter shows actually caught what they thought was a ghost, it was a reflection of a camera man and they admitted it when they tested the footage out back at their offices. So they don't seem to out and out lie.

[Serephino]

*sighs*

I know.  My mother is the same way.  When she moved into her new house there was a constant knocking sound which she said was just the pipes... The brand new pipes that had just been installed in the house that was just built...  When the dishes rattle in the cupboards they're settling. 

I was the same way as a kid.  When strange stuff happened it scared me so I grasped for a rational explanation so I could sleep at night.  I know my mother is just scared too.  When my father died she acted very strange.  She became religious for a little while.  But I think if she admits ghosts exist, then souls exist.  If souls exist then God exists.  If God exists then she's probably going to Hell.  So it's just easier for her to explain it all away and stay in a nice neat little box where 1+1 always equals 2. 

[Cythieus]

*sighs*

I know.  My mother is the same way.  When she moved into her new house there was a constant knocking sound which she said was just the pipes... The brand new pipes that had just been installed in the house that was just built...  When the dishes rattle in the cupboards they're settling. 

I was the same way as a kid.  When strange stuff happened it scared me so I grasped for a rational explanation so I could sleep at night.  I know my mother is just scared too.  When my father died she acted very strange.  She became religious for a little while.  But I think if she admits ghosts exist, then souls exist.  If souls exist then God exists.  If God exists then she's probably going to Hell.  So it's just easier for her to explain it all away and stay in a nice neat little box where 1+1 always equals 2. 

The problem with that rationalization is that it assumes God is the Christian-Jewish-Muslim version and that a ghost is a soul. It could just be energy. I actually had this talk with my dad a while back, he saw a Native American in full costume at a Fort where there are no costume actors. My dad is pretty rational, more so than me, but he's told me things about some Paranormal stuff that seems pretty undeniable.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

African-Americans are of inferior intellect than European Caucasians due to the structure of the skull and size of various portions of the brain.  Possessing less intellect is a genetic condition of their race so that they are not in control of what occurs.  Those expressing intellect are an evolutionary abnormality.  This was a leading theory derived by anthropology at its time based on the measurement of human skulls.  Later this theory, used as fact by many in power to subjugate African-Americans and explain away slavery and inferior living conditions, was debunked.

Minorities, the impoverished and women are all of inferior intelligence.  According to IQ scores gathered throughout decades, these groups consistently score lower.  Research indicates this trend has not corrected itself and the IQ of these populations remain low within a 97% confidence level with little variation.  Theory not debunked and the defining text, The Bell Curve, is still used in social policies with the basis that these groups are not deserving of any funding since they will not improve at all.

Women were once treated, medically, for hysteria.  Something that we would now consider an anxiety disorder and treat with medication.  Women were told by their physician to lay back, put their feet in stirrups and had a vibrator pushed against their genitals.  Essentially they were lead to a climax to “fix” whatever was wrong with them.  Of course this hysteria was diagnosed by the physician, a man, for any action that just didn’t make sense to him.  More than likely the woman needed someone to talk to or perhaps counseling than an orgasm.  Debunked and unethical, thankfully unless someone has a medical fetish.

Need we even speak of the loving embarrassment to medicine that is homosexuality?  Categorizing this lifestyle as a disease of the mind and in need of therapy, medication and sometimes hospitalization.  Not yet debunked, though largely not considered a popular choice.  Researchers still use this principle to guide grants, experiments and sometimes even social argument. 

Science makes mistakes.  The scientific method is performed by human beings with all their bias, beliefs and desires.  Research grants are given by committees that are ruled by their agendas and needs.  Science is guided by the hand of people and so is not sterile.  Do not act as if this is a flawless system that is rising above the flames of ancient witchcraft and religious foolery.  While science has come a long way from the days of alchemy and little Albert, it still has a long way to go in understanding every facet of the world.

Paranormal activity has been part of our world since the days when man first looked up at the sun.  The paranormal has not disappeared despite the advances of science and in truth science has yet to debunk paranormal activity on a large scale.  Some of their conclusions about mass hallucinations, reflections of light off gas or trickery are downright insulting and not repeatable.  I remember taking a class on skepticism and realizing that if the theories science was proposing to explain away paranormal activity was put through the same scrutiny, it would fail miserably.  Bias dripped from every page as science rushed to convince everyone that they had it all figured out.

I will dispute Silk’s little video in this.  Science can be amazingly close minded.  When a scientist looks at something that they cannot explain through an experiment, they don’t attempt to rationalize into a mold.  They simply admit this is not something that can currently be measured or tested.  Something, that could be understood by science with the right instruments and theory, is occurring here that requires further investigation.  Which there are areas of science that deal with investigating, explaining and understanding paranormal activity. 

[Cythieus]

I read the first part of this and was like "Whoa, wait...what the...." but I see what you're doing now.

[Jude]

African-Americans are of inferior intellect than European Caucasians due to the structure of the skull and size of various portions of the brain.  Possessing less intellect is a genetic condition of their race so that they are not in control of what occurs.  Those expressing intellect are an evolutionary abnormality.  This was a leading theory derived by anthropology at its time based on the measurement of human skulls.  Later this theory, used as fact by many in power to subjugate African-Americans and explain away slavery and inferior living conditions, was debunked.

Minorities, the impoverished and women are all of inferior intelligence.  According to IQ scores gathered throughout decades, these groups consistently score lower.  Research indicates this trend has not corrected itself and the IQ of these populations remain low within a 97% confidence level with little variation.  Theory not debunked and the defining text, The Bell Curve, is still used in social policies with the basis that these groups are not deserving of any funding since they will not improve at all.

Women were once treated, medically, for hysteria.  Something that we would now consider an anxiety disorder and treat with medication.  Women were told by their physician to lay back, put their feet in stirrups and had a vibrator pushed against their genitals.  Essentially they were lead to a climax to “fix” whatever was wrong with them.  Of course this hysteria was diagnosed by the physician, a man, for any action that just didn’t make sense to him.  More than likely the woman needed someone to talk to or perhaps counseling than an orgasm.  Debunked and unethical, thankfully unless someone has a medical fetish.

Need we even speak of the loving embarrassment to medicine that is homosexuality?  Categorizing this lifestyle as a disease of the mind and in need of therapy, medication and sometimes hospitalization.  Not yet debunked, though largely not considered a popular choice.  Researchers still use this principle to guide grants, experiments and sometimes even social argument.

What you're describing here is the strength of science; not a weakness.  These are all false theories put forth by individuals in the name of science which science eventually rejected for being the incorrect statements they were.  This isn't a statement of its flaws; it's an illustration of what makes science authoritative and trustworthy:  it's a system of thought that is self-correcting.

Science makes mistakes.  The scientific method is performed by human beings with all their bias, beliefs and desires.  Research grants are given by committees that are ruled by their agendas and needs.  Science is guided by the hand of people and so is not sterile.  Do not act as if this is a flawless system that is rising above the flames of ancient witchcraft and religious foolery.  While science has come a long way from the days of alchemy and little Albert, it still has a long way to go in understanding every facet of the world.

As you said, the flaw is with its practitioners and establishments.  You're making a fallacy out of being unable to separate the belief from the believer.

Paranormal activity has been part of our world since the days when man first looked up at the sun.  The paranormal has not disappeared despite the advances of science and in truth science has yet to debunk paranormal activity on a large scale.  Some of their conclusions about mass hallucinations, reflections of light off gas or trickery are downright insulting and not repeatable.  I remember taking a class on skepticism and realizing that if the theories science was proposing to explain away paranormal activity was put through the same scrutiny, it would fail miserably.  Bias dripped from every page as science rushed to convince everyone that they had it all figured out.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking of science as a rigid, elitist club of few that promotes a world view and bashes any opposing thought that would threaten their agenda.  This point of view has been repeatedly put forth by religious institutions, political figures, and most recently celebrities; like in that poor excuse for a film Expelled.

The fact of the matter is, science is an open body.  Anyone who agrees to the terms can do science, and the terms simply rule out human error.  If you want to gather evidence of paranormality and present it, you can do so.  All you have to do is follow the criteria and present your findings.  People who try to do this fail, because they cannot find the evidence to be presented.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this:  because sufficient evidence cannot be found, it is unlikely that paranormality is not a genuine phenomenon or science is flawed.

Paranormality proponents first try the process and it fails, then they throw it away because it doesn't give them the result they wanted.  This speaks volumes; it says that their mind is already made up before they even began the investigation and they were simply looking for a way to justify their belief.

This makes your belief in paranormality a religion: i.e. not rational, but faith-based.  Which really renders all of this discussion null and void.  There's no point in tossing logic at true believers.

Note, no where have I said that paranormality is impossible.  I said it's improbable.

I will dispute Silk’s little video in this.  Science can be amazingly close minded.  When a scientist looks at something that they cannot explain through an experiment, they don’t attempt to rationalize into a mold.  They simply admit this is not something that can currently be measured or tested.  Something, that could be understood by science with the right instruments and theory, is occurring here that requires further investigation.  Which there are areas of science that deal with investigating, explaining and understanding paranormal activity.

And as I previously stated, all of those areas fail to present anything of substance, which is why claims of paranormality are not taken seriously by scientific consensus.

As for people who speak of mass hallucinations, watch the video that Silk posted.  It explains why giving a piece of anecdotal evidence as support for your hypothesis is not an admissible token of evidence.

[Serephino]

Yes, this whole conversation is pointless, though not because of those of us who believe.  Askie's point was that the things we know now through scientific study could prove false in a decade or so.  At least that's the point I think she was trying to make. 

You say that's what makes science so perfect, but that is incredibly flawed logic.  What it really means is that it's hard to know what to believe in, because eventually facts are usually proven wrong.  It really is all guesswork.  Hell, what is known as depression now could turn out to be something completely different and anti-depressants won't exist anymore. 

But you know what's funny?  All the old beliefs that are a 'placebo effect' still hold water after all these years.  If you look at paranormal activity from a scientific and rational point of view nothing makes sense.  However, if you look at that shadow walking half way across the yard and disappearing and say it's a ghost, it makes sense.

Modern medicine?  Don't get me started.  Allergy medications make my head feel like a giant balloon and raises my blood pressure.  But the old remedy of black tea with a little honey works just as good without the side effects. 

Science can't cure the common cold, but I can.  Chicken soup with a dash of cinnamon and thyme.  It works every time.  And if it gets really bad there's this tea called Gypsy Cold Care.  That stuff is a miracle cure. 

I'm sure you'll say the stuff works because I believe it will.  Well, if my mind is really that powerful, then why do I need modern medicine at all?  Just give me a few pounds of sugar pills and I'll be fine. 

But you Jude, have been saying the same thing over and over again.  Science is perfect and since the paranormal can't be proven by scientific means then it doesn't really exist and we're just imagining things.  You're not bringing anything new to the table, you're just ripping apart everything anyone else says with the same closed minded statements.

[Oniya]

Science has actually gone a long way to verify (note, I didn't say 'prove') the old remedies.  Garlic, something my grandfather recommended for darn near everything, has been shown to have possible antibiotic and cholesterol-reducing properties.  The honey thing - I was told that it works by introducing small amounts of the allergen into the system, much like an allergy shot.  In addition, the honey helps coat the throat, which eases the scratchy feeling.

And chicken soup?  If it's made right, you've got a boatload of vitamin-rich veggies, warm fluid, and protein - throw in a matzo ball, and you've got your carbs - all of those things you need to fuel your body and help it fight the infection.  A quick glance shows that both cinnamon and thyme have antiseptic and antibiotic properties.  If someone's made it for you (or at least heated it up for you in the microwave  ;D), then you've got a powerful mood-elevator - another thing that has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on the immune system.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Jude]

Yes, this whole conversation is pointless, though not because of those of us who believe.  Askie's point was that the things we know now through scientific study could prove false in a decade or so.  At least that's the point I think she was trying to make.

Anything you know could be proven false.  Nothing in life never is certain.  Science provides a higher degree of certainty than magical thinking and the sort of guesswork that people employ, but you can choose to believe in nothing too if you so wish.  That's the only way to not be wrong about anything ever.

You say that's what makes science so perfect, but that is incredibly flawed logic.  What it really means is that it's hard to know what to believe in, because eventually facts are usually proven wrong.  It really is all guesswork.  Hell, what is known as depression now could turn out to be something completely different and anti-depressants won't exist anymore.

If you can find me calling science 'perfect' anywhere, I'll give you 10 dollars on Paypal.  Putting words in people's mouth is a good example of the straw man fallacy.

I've never proclaimed that science proves anything or provides absolute certainty; in fact I have said the opposite.  I think I've been quite candid about the fallibility of science; it doesn't provide proof, just good guesses.

Furthermore, you can't just say I'm using "incredibly flawed logic" and then not explain it, then expect to be taken seriously.  Refuting of people's points typically involves explanation.

But you know what's funny?  All the old beliefs that are a 'placebo effect' still hold water after all these years.  If you look at paranormal activity from a scientific and rational point of view nothing makes sense.  However, if you look at that shadow walking half way across the yard and disappearing and say it's a ghost, it makes sense.

That...makes sense?  How?

Modern medicine?  Don't get me started.  Allergy medications make my head feel like a giant balloon and raises my blood pressure.  But the old remedy of black tea with a little honey works just as good without the side effects.

Science can't cure the common cold, but I can.  Chicken soup with a dash of cinnamon and thyme.  It works every time.  And if it gets really bad there's this tea called Gypsy Cold Care.  That stuff is a miracle cure.

You can't cure the common cold like that because it's a virus.  What you're doing is helping to alleviate the symptoms by dealing with the resulting sinus issues.

I'm sure you'll say the stuff works because I believe it will.  Well, if my mind is really that powerful, then why do I need modern medicine at all?  Just give me a few pounds of sugar pills and I'll be fine.

Because placebo doesn't fix real problems; the examples you've given are trivial.  Try casting a spell on someone who gets hit by a car instead of going to the hospital, succeed, then you'll have a point.

But you Jude, have been saying the same thing over and over again.  Science is perfect and since the paranormal can't be proven by scientific means then it doesn't really exist and we're just imagining things.  You're not bringing anything new to the table, you're just ripping apart everything anyone else says with the same closed minded statements.

When did I say the paranormal didn't exist?

If you actually carefully read what I say you'll see that I said it was improbable, not impossible.  That's been a constant mantra.  I don't speak in absolutes, because to do so almost always leaves you wrong.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, what I’m displaying here is the arrogance of science.  To make broad, sweeping claims with supposed facts that often times they do not fully understand.  Case in point would be The Bell Curve, which is not debunked even though you seem to believe it is for whatever reason.  The data used by the scientists for this book was history of IQ scores.  Scores were analyzed, put their impeccable statistical analysis and churned out with their conclusions then analyzed by some extremely qualified professionals.  The conclusions were as I pointed out.  Minorities, impoverished, single mothers, women in general are all intellectually inferior.  This book was then put forth by the scientific community with absolute certainty and social policies enacted.  Few people bothered to question exactly what an IQ test actually tests. 

Same thing can be said for global warming.  Millions, if not billions, of dollars are being lobbied across the world over this issue.  The conclusions are “blurry” to use your word and the data is inconclusive and little understood.  Yet people are in fact proposing economic warfare on countries that do not comply with the highly debated conclusions.  Agendas are being pushed by scientists wanting grant money and their name in magazines alongside politicians wanting a vote.  Insurance rates in coastal cities skyrocketed because scientists made the blanket claim that global warming would generate massive, unseen before hurricanes.  No hurricanes, but science is still marching on with their claims.

Chaotic is correct by saying that ideas and evidence change.  The flaw in the logic is indeed to keep believing in science because some day science will get it right.  Similar to staying in a bad relationship cause one day that person will be a rock star.

There’s a lot of faith involved in people’s belief of science.  People believe the authority of science, because science seems to know what is going on with the world.  Science has a great gig going for it in regard to having people believe it.  Were aliens to land on the front lawn of the White House tomorrow, science would begin claiming to understand aliens.  Suddenly aliens are a scientific matter, no longer paranormal.  Acetaminophen, Tylenol, was being used by herbalists long before modern medicine “discovered” its existence.  Yet this is considered a medication, not an herbal remedy even though it remains largely untouched.  Science once again stepping forward to claim something while talking down what was before.  Those that believe in herbal remedies or have faith based practices dealing with them are still wrong, even though modern medicine uses their concoctions. 

Another example might be the practice of nurses to offer holistic care.  Nurses are encouraged to pray with their patients or to at least allow them to pray, working the religious observations into their care.  Nurses are encouraged to support a patient’s beliefs in regards to death and illness, to not argue with them.  Nursing is now considered an evidenced-based practice, meaning evidence must be supplied before practice can be implemented.  Evidence is supplied that people with religious views, hope and a belief in the spiritual have better outcomes and experience less anxiety.  Course, this is another illustration of the human mind and not of religion.

Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology.  Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition.  The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology.  Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner.  The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine.  This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned. 

I would like to believe that you are not naïve enough to believe that science is an open-community.  Perhaps at its inception it was, similar to how Christianity was open in the beginning with its wandering disciples and wise men.  The scientific community is no more open to public skepticism by a lay person than the institution of the Catholic Church is to a non-believer.  I’m sure there are stories of backyard scientists making discoveries with their little microscopes.  Certainly there are papers written by the rare sparks of invention or inspiration.  Similar to the rare prophet that sparks up or the odd document of religious inspiration discovered from an unlikely source. 

Do I believe in science?  Certainly, to an extent I have to believe in science.  When one of my patients tells me that there is a demon outside her window telling her to kill her roommate, I don’t go sprinkle holy water outside.  When one tells me that we are all devils and she is a servant of God, I start asking for ativan.  When someone says that Jesus is in their room, I don’t kneel down to worship wherever he believes the image to be.  If someone asks me how to get rid of their allergies, I’m more likely to recommend Benadryl or something similar.  I am a product and subscriber to the religion of science, but I also keep a healthy dose of skepticism for that religion as well as my own regarding Christianity.

When faith, in either science or the paranormal, blinds you to the possibility of other things than indeed the argument is pointless.

[Jude]

No, what I’m displaying here is the arrogance of science.  To make broad, sweeping claims with supposed facts that often times they do not fully understand.  Case in point would be The Bell Curve, which is not debunked even though you seem to believe it is for whatever reason.  The data used by the scientists for this book was history of IQ scores.  Scores were analyzed, put their impeccable statistical analysis and churned out with their conclusions then analyzed by some extremely qualified professionals.  The conclusions were as I pointed out.  Minorities, impoverished, single mothers, women in general are all intellectually inferior.  This book was then put forth by the scientific community with absolute certainty and social policies enacted.  Few people bothered to question exactly what an IQ test actually tests.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.  IQ is a hotly criticized subject.  There are multiple theories on it.  That's not even science you're talking about; it's social science.  There is a large difference between the two.

Same thing can be said for global warming.  Millions, if not billions, of dollars are being lobbied across the world over this issue.  The conclusions are “blurry” to use your word and the data is inconclusive and little understood.  Yet people are in fact proposing economic warfare on countries that do not comply with the highly debated conclusions.  Agendas are being pushed by scientists wanting grant money and their name in magazines alongside politicians wanting a vote.  Insurance rates in coastal cities skyrocketed because scientists made the blanket claim that global warming would generate massive, unseen before hurricanes.  No hurricanes, but science is still marching on with their claims.

Again, I encourage you to educate yourself on the matter.  I suggest looking up "The American Denial of Global Warming" on Youtube by UTC Television.

Chaotic is correct by saying that ideas and evidence change.  The flaw in the logic is indeed to keep believing in science because some day science will get it right.  Similar to staying in a bad relationship cause one day that person will be a rock star.

There’s a lot of faith involved in people’s belief of science.  People believe the authority of science, because science seems to know what is going on with the world.  Science has a great gig going for it in regard to having people believe it.  Were aliens to land on the front lawn of the White House tomorrow, science would begin claiming to understand aliens.  Suddenly aliens are a scientific matter, no longer paranormal.  Acetaminophen, Tylenol, was being used by herbalists long before modern medicine “discovered” its existence.  Yet this is considered a medication, not an herbal remedy even though it remains largely untouched.  Science once again stepping forward to claim something while talking down what was before.  Those that believe in herbal remedies or have faith based practices dealing with them are still wrong, even though modern medicine uses their concoctions.

Belief in science requires faith in reason, it does require faith, you're absolutely right.  What makes it authoritative is that if you go through the process it churns out practical applications for use in the real world.

I'm curious as to what you're proposing in the absence of science anyway?  What process works better?  How would you fix it?

Another example might be the practice of nurses to offer holistic care.  Nurses are encouraged to pray with their patients or to at least allow them to pray, working the religious observations into their care.  Nurses are encouraged to support a patient’s beliefs in regards to death and illness, to not argue with them.  Nursing is now considered an evidenced-based practice, meaning evidence must be supplied before practice can be implemented.  Evidence is supplied that people with religious views, hope and a belief in the spiritual have better outcomes and experience less anxiety.  Course, this is another illustration of the human mind and not of religion.

There's a difference between evidence based medicine and science based medicine as well.

A lot of nurses buy into Therapeutic Touch which a little girl proved was absolute nonsense during a school project.

Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology.  Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition.  The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology.  Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner.  The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine.  This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned.

So wait; you're claiming that because people equate the sins of a religion with its ideology unfairly, the same can be done to science?

I would like to believe that you are not naïve enough to believe that science is an open-community.  Perhaps at its inception it was, similar to how Christianity was open in the beginning with its wandering disciples and wise men.  The scientific community is no more open to public skepticism by a lay person than the institution of the Catholic Church is to a non-believer.  I’m sure there are stories of backyard scientists making discoveries with their little microscopes.  Certainly there are papers written by the rare sparks of invention or inspiration.  Similar to the rare prophet that sparks up or the odd document of religious inspiration discovered from an unlikely source.

If you're going to make claims that science isn't an open community, you should actually provide evidence to support this.

Do I believe in science?  Certainly, to an extent I have to believe in science.  When one of my patients tells me that there is a demon outside her window telling her to kill her roommate, I don’t go sprinkle holy water outside.  When one tells me that we are all devils and she is a servant of God, I start asking for ativan.  When someone says that Jesus is in their room, I don’t kneel down to worship wherever he believes the image to be.  If someone asks me how to get rid of their allergies, I’m more likely to recommend Benadryl or something similar.  I am a product and subscriber to the religion of science, but I also keep a healthy dose of skepticism for that religion as well as my own regarding Christianity.

And I keep a healthy dose of skepticism for science as well.  There are certain fringe theories which are unsupported that certain scientists propose and work toward even now that I have misgivings about (theoretical physics for one).

When faith, in either science or the paranormal, blinds you to the possibility of other things than indeed the argument is pointless.

Again, I am not blinded to the possibility of the paranormal.  I challenge you to find a single quote of me saying that the paranormal is impossible.  You won't.

Why can't those who argue against me stop stating blatantly untrue things about my position?

If you'd bother to read what I write you would've seen this:

Note, no where have I said that paranormality is impossible.  I said it's improbable.

[Serephino]

See, you implied that I believe I should pray for a car accident victim and believe that will fix everything.  You're saying Askie isn't educated in global warming.  That's called tearing down the opposition to make yourself look smarter and right. 

I'll pull one of your tricks here; show me where I said I truly believed prayer would cure car accident victims, or cancer, or anything like that, and wasn't being sarcastic.

And yes, science is now finding out that home remedies do work because of vitamins and stuff.  But they're just catching up.  These remedies existed long before science. 

But I'm done here.  You are very careful in what you say so that you can twist everything and prove yourself right while belittling those who don't agree with you.

So what if I believe in ghosts?  I'm allowed.  It doesn't make me crazy or stupid.   

[Kate]

Askie - Im glad you have joined this thread I hope you stay with it for a while
and see though some of the passion here ..

*

The fact of the matter is, science is an open body.  Anyone who agrees to the terms can do science, and the terms simply rule out human error.  If you want to gather evidence of paranormality and present it, you can do so.  All you have to do is follow the criteria and present your findings.  People who try to do this fail, because they cannot find the evidence to be presented.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this:  because sufficient evidence cannot be found, it is unlikely that paranormality is not a genuine phenomenon or science is flawed.

Paranormality proponents first try the process and it fails, then they throw it away because it doesn't give them the result they wanted.  This speaks volumes; it says that their mind is already made up before they even began the investigation and they were simply looking for a way to justify their belief. - J

Oh Jude lol. You believe that those that are "pro-paranormal" start off chosing
to have faith in its existance first then ingnore science's explainations of a phenomena.
With "faith" in existing science (Which is what your claiming) being an explaination to app paranormal phenomena you do come over as someone that choose "faith in science explaining everything" and then ignoring evidence otherwise.

To some exent its sciences failing they have not got to the bottom of all of it - its sciencs ROLE to explain everything - it fails when it doesn't. Its the paranormals "role" to prove its repeatability for conditions where exicisting scientists with their tools can capture it before they are very real experiences to many civilians.- "false memories" do not account for 100 percent of phenomna ... and evidence of UFOs etc are proof to many - some are not debunked, some can not be identified with non-paranormal explanations.

*

This makes your belief in paranormality a religion: i.e. not rational, but faith-based.  Which really renders all of this discussion null and void.  There's no point in tossing logic at true believers. - J

Anyone who has strong belied in a particular simulation or model of reality is "religious" or has "faith based confidence" in that model.... some scientists included, although I may add its likely most scientists would have less confidence in science than yourself.

Note, no where have I said that paranormality is impossible.  I said it's improbable.
- J

It being improbable to YOU is due to your experience.

And as I previously stated, all of those areas fail to present anything of substance, which is why claims of para-normality are not taken seriously by scientific consensus.
- J

They are taken seriously by some in the scientific community.

As for people who speak of mass hallucinations, watch the video that Silk posted.  It explains why giving a piece of anecdotal evidence as support for your hypothesis is not an admissible token of evidence. - J

A of view of "there is a scientific explaination your not looking hard enough"... is "religious" statement.

*

Ok i think having an example would refine main stances.

Crop circles

"Those "faithing" explanations of paranormal" => proof of alien-entity intelligence (not necessarily from outer space)

However some have been found to be hoaxes.

What does this mean to you J ?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would honestly advise you to educate yourself on the matter of science at this point Jude.  To say that social science and science are not the same thing is downright insulting and ignorant.  Perhaps you feel that you can pick and choose the aspects of science you wish to believe, but I’m sorry that tends to not be the case.  The scientific method is still applied to the social sciences with requirements of data and scrutiny observed.

As for IQ, I am aware there are many theories regarding this concept.  Yet the SAT, ACT, MCAT, aptitude tests, special placement studies, determination of mental retardation, etc. etc are all based on this concept.  The ideas of standardized tests are based on the concept of the IQ test being able to test a person’s mental acuity and intelligence regardless of background.  Countries across the world use this concept in order to screen children for a variety of opportunities and areas.  So while the basic premise of these things is not even understood, science still says to keep using it.

I am going to assume that your refuting of therapeutic touch is by Emily Rosa in 1996 who refuted the notion of mystical energy fields.  That is not the therapeutic touch that nurses advocate using with their patients and the fact that you confused the two has me nearly falling on the ground with laughter.  Therapeutic Touch as used by medical personnel is a form of non-verbal communication in order to display sympathy and build a therapeutic relationship with that patient.  When I use that notion I am not checking for energy fields, I am trying to display sympathy and understanding. 

Nurses that believe in energy fields are outside the realm of evidence based practice as nursing does not include that notion of therapy in their practices.  Similar to a scientist believing in God, she might believe it but that doesn’t make it part of scientific acceptance.

As for your proof that science isn’t an open community, I will do my best even though you failed to prove that it is an open community.  We will take your beloved Emily Rosa, as I am guessing this would be the evidence of how open the scientific community can be.  David J. Hufford, Professor in the Department of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, remarked that those with evidence in support of this evident (energy fields) are not published due to criticisms of the investigators yet a nine-year old’s experiment with stated bias is published in a major medical journal.  Carol Wells-Federmen, a registered nurse and co-director of the Chronic Pain Management Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated that someone advocating this therapy would not even have gotten reviewed by the medical journal even though the scientific basis for both is about as equal.

Even the editor for the magazine apologized for publishing that story and admitted that five years ago it would not have been printed.  I found this all on a wiki page with about two minutes of a google search.  Did you bother to read what you were talking about before insulting the entire profession of nursing?

Also Jude, if these is a consistent inability of people to address your specific arguments then perhaps that is more your fault than theirs.

[DarklingAlice]

Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology.  Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition.  The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology.  Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner.  The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine.  This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned. 

Firstly, you are simultaneously criticizing an attack used unfairly against religion and using it unfairly against science? That is staggeringly hypocritical. The errors made by the institution should not be the measure of the beliefs of that institution. IF you actually believe that, then you should never have tried to use the mistakes that people have made when using science as an argument against it.

Secondly, it seems extreme poor judgement to try to use homosexuality as your selling point on this issue as it is something that has been horribly dealt with by all sides of this issue, everyone knows that, and it has no bearing on the validity of either side. Further, so what if homosexuality was in the DSM? Was is the operative word, that was recognized as a mistake and corrected. Of note, gender identity disorder still is in the latest edition of the DSM, and that won't stop me from going into the lab at the crack of dawn tomorrow morning and proudly working towards my goal of being a career scientist (nor will my religious sentiments and personal paranormal experiences).

I had really hoped this could be an interesting discussion but it seems to have just turned into an intractable argument, I think I am going to follow Chaotic Angels example and wash my hands of this.

*EDITED for less snark and unfair emotion*

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Darkling, I will first state that the comment was not intended as you are making use of it in your statement.  That my language skills were not adequate enough to remove this misunderstanding are my fault and I do apologize for any insult.  That was certainly not my intention.  I do not contend that people should not participate in science nor do I believe that its past mistakes mean that it offers no benefit or reason to be proud in its use.  Just as I do not contend that the Inquisition, Crusades, accusations of child molestation are reason to leave the Catholic Church or the religion of Christianity.

Homosexuality was not my “selling point.”  Simply look at the three paragraphs before that one for a list of the instances other than homosexuality.  I attempted to display a consistency of science being used as a social engine of control on those deemed inferior or outside of society.  Minorities, women, homosexuals and the impoverished were groups that I made mention of in those paragraphs.  The studies were all reflections of the predominant social view of the time, including the presence of homosexuality in the DSM.  As each group found more acceptance, with the possible exception of the impoverished, each was given a “pass” by science. 

The purpose here is to force science from the position of purity that it seemed to occupy.  That science is allowed to make its mistakes, but those are merely part of the process.  Therefore science is wrong, but then it really isn’t wrong because that’s just working forward.  Science is, much like religion, manipulated by influential figures, current events and the whims of society as any other ideology.  In essence I am attempting to draw a line of similarity between science and religion as perspectives rather than one as fact and the other as fancy.  That “was” is an operative word for you in regard to the DSM should also be considered.  Nothing changed scientifically about homosexuality to have it removed from the DSM, it was to adjust to political climate.  Meaning that a scientific text made an arbitrary decision to save its ass politically.

I am not dragging out the history of science in an effort to shame it.  I am pointing out that indeed science has been wrong in the past with dangerous consequences so should practice humility.  Indeed was someone to say that religion can only lead to good outcomes, I would similarly drudge out their background as an example of how false that statement was.  This statement was to not allow an escape by the opposing side by splitting the reality of science with the vaulted notion of science.  To split institution from practice as it were.  Both are reflections on one another and if one side can be tarnished by this argument than so can the other.

I hope this does something to clear up the misunderstanding.  Likewise I do hope you will participate further and accept my apologies for any offense I may have caused.

[Saerrael]

I haven't read all of this, too many walls of text.

My two cents ; the paranormal will not ever be fully excepted by science, for it doesn't fall into it and you need parameters outside of science to messure it.

I could give examples and spam your screen with a nice contribution to this discussion, but I have allready seen this type of discussion before. And, after about, oh I'd say two decades, of defending my point of view on something that can not be proved, I rest my case and leave it to those still willing to fight this fight.

[DarklingAlice]

Homosexuality was not my “selling point.”  Simply look at the three paragraphs before that one for a list of the instances other than homosexuality.  I attempted to display a consistency of science being used as a social engine of control on those deemed inferior or outside of society.  Minorities, women, homosexuals and the impoverished were groups that I made mention of in those paragraphs.  The studies were all reflections of the predominant social view of the time, including the presence of homosexuality in the DSM.  As each group found more acceptance, with the possible exception of the impoverished, each was given a “pass” by science.

The purpose here is to force science from the position of purity that it seemed to occupy.  That science is allowed to make its mistakes, but those are merely part of the process.  Therefore science is wrong, but then it really isn’t wrong because that’s just working forward.  Science is, much like religion, manipulated by influential figures, current events and the whims of society as any other ideology.  In essence I am attempting to draw a line of similarity between science and religion as perspectives rather than one as fact and the other as fancy.  That “was” is an operative word for you in regard to the DSM should also be considered.  Nothing changed scientifically about homosexuality to have it removed from the DSM, it was to adjust to political climate.  Meaning that a scientific text made an arbitrary decision to save its ass politically.

It is not science making a mistake in the DSM example it is individual scientists influenced by politics (the very fact that nothing changed about homosexuality shows that this decision had to be void of scientific reasoning). By the same token I wouldn't say that religion was making mistakes in the crusades. Our concepts of both science and religion are constantly changing, and I afraid I just don't see science as getting this free pass that religion doesn't. Sure no one has forgotten the crusades, but by the same token no one forgets Mengele. The history of both science and religion is littered with cautionary tales of what can happen when good ideals fall into the hands of the manipulative.

My problem stems from the fact that these things you point out are not inherent consequences of science. And those using science to perpetrate acts of discrimination could just as easily use religion to exactly the same end, as their agenda and methods rely on improper use of both (or vice versa, many horrible things perpetrated in the name of religion could have been perpetrated in the name of science). Maybe it is another miscommunication but you seem to see science's exploitable nature as a black mark against it, and I presume you would see the same in the way religion can be exploited. One the other hand, I see such misuses as irrelevant in a discussion of either science or religion. They are regrettable, but in the end do not seem to me to speak to the character of either field, but rather the character of those people misusing said field.

I hope this does something to clear up the misunderstanding.  Likewise I do hope you will participate further and accept my apologies for any offense I may have caused.

I must also apologize. I think I was a bit too overemotional when I made that post. The reason I checked back into this thread was actually to edit it. I realized that the content of it made it seem like my major problems with this thread were either in your arguments or with you personally and I want to assure you that is not the case. This is just a topic I was following hoping for an interesting discussion and it seems to have turned into a rather heated debate (and a rather heated science vs. religion debate instead of a general paranormal vs. skepticism debate), and worst of all a dogmatic debate in which I am not sure there will be any progress made as each side appears well entrenched.

[Silk]

I really suggest that people look more into the work on QualiaSoup or theraminTrees on youtube because I don't have the time to go through everything in this thread and I respect these two greatly.

[Jude]

I would honestly advise you to educate yourself on the matter of science at this point Jude.  To say that social science and science are not the same thing is downright insulting and ignorant.  Perhaps you feel that you can pick and choose the aspects of science you wish to believe, but I’m sorry that tends to not be the case.  The scientific method is still applied to the social sciences with requirements of data and scrutiny observed.

There are differences in hard science vs. social science.  You can start here if you want to learn about them:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science

Much of what you said in that quote is blatantly untrue as you'll see.

As for IQ, I am aware there are many theories regarding this concept.  Yet the SAT, ACT, MCAT, aptitude tests, special placement studies, determination of mental retardation, etc. etc are all based on this concept.  The ideas of standardized tests are based on the concept of the IQ test being able to test a person’s mental acuity and intelligence regardless of background.  Countries across the world use this concept in order to screen children for a variety of opportunities and areas.  So while the basic premise of these things is not even understood, science still says to keep using it.

Science says?  Not at all.  Political and business institutions choose to employ it, ignoring the problems with it.  There are many cases where political and business institutions employ flawed science in the process.  But again you're only picking instances of soft science, and paranormality is a hard science issue, not a soft science issue.

I am going to assume that your refuting of therapeutic touch is by Emily Rosa in 1996 who refuted the notion of mystical energy fields.  That is not the therapeutic touch that nurses advocate using with their patients and the fact that you confused the two has me nearly falling on the ground with laughter.  Therapeutic Touch as used by medical personnel is a form of non-verbal communication in order to display sympathy and build a therapeutic relationship with that patient.  When I use that notion I am not checking for energy fields, I am trying to display sympathy and understanding.

Nurses that believe in energy fields are outside the realm of evidence based practice as nursing does not include that notion of therapy in their practices.  Similar to a scientist believing in God, she might believe it but that doesn’t make it part of scientific acceptance.

Just because you have your own separate definition of it doesn't change what it actually is taken to be and understood as by the majority of practitioners.  Look it up; that energy BS is the norm, not the exception.

As for your proof that science isn’t an open community, I will do my best even though you failed to prove that it is an open community.  We will take your beloved Emily Rosa, as I am guessing this would be the evidence of how open the scientific community can be.  David J. Hufford, Professor in the Department of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, remarked that those with evidence in support of this evident (energy fields) are not published due to criticisms of the investigators yet a nine-year old’s experiment with stated bias is published in a major medical journal.  Carol Wells-Federmen, a registered nurse and co-director of the Chronic Pain Management Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated that someone advocating this therapy would not even have gotten reviewed by the medical journal even though the scientific basis for both is about as equal.

"Energy fields" used in such a way is absolutely ridiculous.  It means nothing.  The two clearly are not of equal plausibility because the concept of an energy field in such a way is absolutely at odds with all of modern physics.

All practictioners of psuedo science should start by educating themselves on what energy is to begin with.  Every time I hear the term used incorrect I want to puke.

Even the editor for the magazine apologized for publishing that story and admitted that five years ago it would not have been printed.  I found this all on a wiki page with about two minutes of a google search.  Did you bother to read what you were talking about before insulting the entire profession of nursing?

So you did a light dusting of research on the subject and now you're an expert.  We all know Wikipedia is written by geniuses of the field and not random people who edit pages on the internet!  ...wait.

Before you point out the fact that I used a Wiki link as well, keep in mind I chose to do it on a subject that was non-controversial and I said start there.

Also Jude, if these is a consistent inability of people to address your specific arguments then perhaps that is more your fault than theirs.

Yes, because those arguing against me can't seem to refute me without twisting what I'm saying, it's clearly my fault.

The only thing I see going on is one person, from a scientific, logical point of view claiming paranormality is unlikely and a bunch of other people saying NUH UH IT HAPPENED TO ME PERSONALLY!

Ask yourself, who's the extremist?  The person dealing in "I don't think this is the case, it's not likely" or the people insisting something is true?  And yet I am labeled as the close-minded one.

I too am done with this thread.  What's the point in debating with people who have an axe to grind against science (while relying on the fruit of its efforts none the less) and have had airtight personal experiences which verify the existence of the paranormal?

[HairyHeretic]

Alright folks, time to put down the keyboards and chill for a little while.