Life on Mars ended by nuclear war
- Thread starter bartosimpsonio
- Start date
Trepanated
Supreme Member
- Sep 18, 2010
- 1,390
- 5,442
Real life, proper scientific descriptions huh?
I've read a few scientific descriptions of other amazing things people don't believe, like:
Ghosts
Telekinesis
Reincarnation
Some of them were even turned into scientific documentaries.
They were all written by a renowned scientist by the name of Stephen King.
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
The "real life scientific descriptions" in the Bible made me smile too
That being said, there are people who don't believe in ghosts, TK and reincarnation, people who believe, people who understand what they are and how they're possible and people who can actually do/sense them - ghosts/TK specifically, because reincarnation is done by everybody. Problem is most people, including scientists, are dogmatic. So if they research something they do it starting with the assumption it isn't possible. That's not science any more than religion is science. The fact you have a diploma doesn't make you a scientist; following the scientific method and being curious and open minded does.No, I don't have any hard proof about the 3 things u mentioned being scientifically proven. Telepathy was scientifically proven but I doubt TK was proven in a scientific environment, or at least i have no knowledge of that.
Trepanated
Supreme Member
- Sep 18, 2010
- 1,390
- 5,442
And likewise, I don't know of anything that categorically disproves them.
The only only one of the three I think could feasibly be possible is telepathy, but not in the way the quacks believe.
Right now we are starting to be able to 'read' people's minds. They are already at the point of wiring up sensors to people's heads and knowing whether they are thinking 'yes' or 'no'. Those experiments are done by scientists trying to help people control prosthetic limbs and they are advancing their capabilities rapidly.
It's not too much of a step to be able to detect those brain signals remotely (without having the sensors directly connected to the head).
As far as telepathy as a sixth sense, I think, similarly to your point about vaccine efficacy being misinterpreted, the same thing happens with telepathy. There are other factors we ignore, like coincidence, subliminal signals, non-verbal cues and many others. Well, the quacks and desperate believers ignore it, at any rate.
I don't know of any properly controlled experiment that proves telepathy exists - but I know of many studies that showed positive results which, when examined in more detail, were proven to be either badly controlled/conducted, rigged, or had key data ignored or misinterpreted.
I think we will all find out whether ghosts/reincarnation/life after death is real sooner or later - I am happy for it to be as 'later' as possible.
And telekinesis. Well there is only one person on the planet that can do TK - and that's our Pewep
And even he can only move a paper windmill when it has an electric fan pointing at it - or make ripples on a pond in the middle of a storm.
WebLab
Junior Member
- Nov 2, 2013
- 176
- 86
Ha ha ha, an indian troll, just when I was expecting. ( I'm an indian too )
I was just about to say to Bartosimpsonio from his last post, that may be USA or other western countries are too much into sci-fi to believe it. But a life on mars doesn't bother any indian or any Asian country. Actually indians will start connecting themselves to martians and will start searching if any of their ancestors or gods lived there. LOL
FutureProofSeo
Senior Member
- Jul 3, 2013
- 956
- 484
If you have access to 40d (UK tv), checkout the show "Black Mirror", I think you'd enjoy it.
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
There are many, many experiments (double blind standard) that prove telepathy. Problem is they don't understand why it happens and how it happens. But their measurements are outside the realm of chance. And this is with regular untrained people. Better experiments and studies come from those who choose subjects that are related (mother-child, friends, relatives, etc) and work of Rupert Sheldrake (Morphogenetic Field Theory).
Tech has been used to improve PSI results in various areas not just telepathy. What they're trying to do today (not the greatest way of going after this imo) is to use tech (EM,MRI,etc) to amplify brain signals. Problem is telepathy and most PSI stuff are not brain-only stuff. The brain is more like an interface than a source/generator.
I happen to personally know people that are telepathic. Several of them. So for me personally is not a matter if it exists or not, I even understand to a certain degree how it works. Problem "scientists" have is they disregard the fact everything alive is not just material. So what they're doing is just focusing on material stuff (brain). Also, everybody expects telepathy to work with 100% accuracy and for every single person. A requirement of scientific experiments is to be repeatable by somebody else - that's like requiring blind people to see. Not gonna happen. Native, untrained PSI abilities are one thing (not so reliable, flukes, etc) while trained skills are something else (more reliable, still not 100% for every situation).
Some tests were conducted properly, but because from the start the "scientists" started with the premises "telepathy can't exist" and "everything is material", they couldn't make sense of them within this rigid thinking frame.
In the end if a person refuses to accept something he will find 1000 explanations to enforce his belief, whether that belief is correct or not.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
Are they too shy to snag Randi's 1 million?
Randi is close minded. Just like many others out there. Some of the things he says are ok and logical and all that, he has god train of thought, etc. but he's close minded and I doubt he actually wants to prove PSI is real. Same goes for Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I respect them for certain things, I respect certain views of them, I think Hitchens was an amazing thinker and a great debater. I understand their points on religions and belief in God and all that. However, if you really don't want to believe something, you will find all the proof you want to support your views. I can guarantee you, even if somebody would give you undeniable proof of something and you don't want to believe it as being true, you will still think there's some kind of a scheme involved.
If you setup an experiment in a fucked up way, don't expect to get positive results from it. You can't do an experiment where a train should appear at some point and conduct the experiment in the middle of the ocean. That's how Randi and many others conduct these things.
Me for one had all the proof I need. If I wouldn't have had it I wouldn't believe either. I was totally skeptical/agnostic/atheist or whatever you want to call it. I can't convince you and don't even want to because I know is impossible to convince somebody of these things unless he's kinda dumb and believes all sorts of crap or he actually gets his own personal proof in his own way at his own time. Might not seem logical or make sense but that's how it is. Any discussion with me about this would be very long and would always end up at perception and what is reality where I would prove to you that it is impossible for you to prove me anything and I mean anything, to be true, except for the statement "I am". In other words the fact you exist is the only thing you are sure of, rest is subjective and perception related and all rules/laws/etc. are just an agreement and common language.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
I was very surprised reading this response from you, as it is completely illogical
So let me point the issues one by one.
That's like saying "He's a Lakers fan, you can't trust Laker fans!". Amazing argument
Does it even matter if he believes PSI is real or not? He's providing an incentive and a platform for someone who does to go and prove it. If Randi goes out and says "he won the bet", you can be sure a LOT of heads will turn with interest. So, it's an excellent opportunity for PSI advocates to leverage.
That's what religion is about and that's exactly what we strive to avoid in science. So, that's a wrongly used argument.
Really? So why do the people taking part in them go with it? Also, do you have an example where you have methodological questions or is it something you assume? Finally, what methodological problem do you see for the following test over someone who claims to be able to levitate: "we're on the 20th floor, jump through the window"
It's funny how this is the standard argument of every religious advocate - "I can't prove it to YOU, but I know". As I said, that works perfectly fine in religion, but we care about science. And in science, reproducible proof is of paramount importance.
This may be true, but it's completely irrelevant. That's because the question of proof is always bounded within the limits of the construct we require proof in. So, for religion, proof is defined in the ways each religion considers proof. When I ask for proof, I consider proof defined in the scientific realm. You argument here is "science can't explain it". My counterpoint is, welcome to religion.
So let me point the issues one by one.
That's like saying "He's a Lakers fan, you can't trust Laker fans!". Amazing argument
Does it even matter if he believes PSI is real or not? He's providing an incentive and a platform for someone who does to go and prove it. If Randi goes out and says "he won the bet", you can be sure a LOT of heads will turn with interest. So, it's an excellent opportunity for PSI advocates to leverage.
That's what religion is about and that's exactly what we strive to avoid in science. So, that's a wrongly used argument.
Really? So why do the people taking part in them go with it? Also, do you have an example where you have methodological questions or is it something you assume? Finally, what methodological problem do you see for the following test over someone who claims to be able to levitate: "we're on the 20th floor, jump through the window"
It's funny how this is the standard argument of every religious advocate - "I can't prove it to YOU, but I know". As I said, that works perfectly fine in religion, but we care about science. And in science, reproducible proof is of paramount importance.
This may be true, but it's completely irrelevant. That's because the question of proof is always bounded within the limits of the construct we require proof in. So, for religion, proof is defined in the ways each religion considers proof. When I ask for proof, I consider proof defined in the scientific realm. You argument here is "science can't explain it". My counterpoint is, welcome to religion.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
You guys are all wrong.
You all all taking out of Uranus.
Mars was destroyed by Tampon shaped missiles fired from Venus.
You all all taking out of Uranus.
Mars was destroyed by Tampon shaped missiles fired from Venus.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
@W130SN - Wait, what?! But it was beans and icecream... wtf... tampons... really? Wait what brand of tampons? Was this a conspiracy?
@jazzc
Yes, I know it seems illogical (some of it at least).
No it isn't. Close minded is not the same as Lakers fan. Close minded means he only accepts something if it is presented to him the way he wants it. Which is the case with many scientists. I can expand on this and why I say they're close minded if you wish, just let me know. Also, when I said Randi is close minded it was an observation of mine, an opinion about the guy. Not an argument of any kind.
I said it because somehow a guy sponsoring something like this might come across as somebody who intends to actually find the proof PSI is real. I dont care if somebody believes is something or not, I do care if he tries to make it seem like he's impartial when in fact he has a made up mind about it already and is not open to anything.
When you start from the position "I have no idea if X is real or not or any details about it but I want to find out" is one thing (scientific). When you start from "I know X is not real, hence any proof of X is some hoax and I must find the proof for the hoax" that's another thing. Science might want to appear as impartial but IMO it is not.
I have no idea who took part and why they did. "we're on the 20th floor, jump through the window" - nothing wrong with it, and it was in fact done thousands of years ago (from cliffs - some would succeed, some would fall in the spikes below). Of course I have no hard proof of this except for some historical recordings from Greek (I think) merchants. My point is, PSI stuff that has repercussions in the material word is not something easy. Even PSI stuff at an energetic/informational level is hard enough. And as I said it is easy to influence this if you're not in a setup where nobody tries to screw with you.
Is a perfectly valid argument because is a subjective argument of mine. If you see a flying pig but nobody else in the mainstream science circles sees it, does it mean it was not real? No, it just means they didn't saw it.
Science is a form of religion for some. Atheism is a form of religion for some too. If science can't explain something it doesn't mean it's a religious thing. I disagree with this argument of yours. Science considered flight to be impossible and earth to be the center of the universe. So was flight a religious thing? Because now is quite possible. And my argument is "science can measure it but can't explain it". When you accept something like the double slit experiment but you refuse to accept a telepathy study just because it is about telepathy, hence tabu, I do have a problem with that and I think those scientists are dogmatic and close minded.
Leaving PSI aside, you have the placebo effect which is both measurable and repeatable. Maybe not as much as some scientists would like but is clearly well known. Yet everybody in the scientific circles considers it some kind of fluke, a weird thing. Yet in certain cases it has higher chances of curing diseases than some of the FDA approved drugs and with zero side effects. But nobody would consider the placebo effect as an actual cure or solution or even use it as foundation for further research. Why? Well, because there's no profit in the placebo effect.
One more thing. Rain is a commonly accepted event. It is measurable and repeatable. It can now be produced artificially but this wasn't always the case. So, before it could be produced artificially, while it is reproducible by the nature it was not by scientists, so not even rain would be accepted by science. But rain is too easy of a subject. How about big bang, black holes, dark matter and energy, etc. which are purely theoretical, yet accepted by science. Like some guy used to say, "Give me one free miracle (Big Bang) and I'll explain everything else."
This video might be a good intro on my POV on the matter of science:
@jazzc
Yes, I know it seems illogical (some of it at least).
No it isn't. Close minded is not the same as Lakers fan. Close minded means he only accepts something if it is presented to him the way he wants it. Which is the case with many scientists. I can expand on this and why I say they're close minded if you wish, just let me know. Also, when I said Randi is close minded it was an observation of mine, an opinion about the guy. Not an argument of any kind.
I said it because somehow a guy sponsoring something like this might come across as somebody who intends to actually find the proof PSI is real. I dont care if somebody believes is something or not, I do care if he tries to make it seem like he's impartial when in fact he has a made up mind about it already and is not open to anything.
When you start from the position "I have no idea if X is real or not or any details about it but I want to find out" is one thing (scientific). When you start from "I know X is not real, hence any proof of X is some hoax and I must find the proof for the hoax" that's another thing. Science might want to appear as impartial but IMO it is not.
Really? So why do the people taking part in them go with it? Also, do you have an example where you have methodological questions or is it something you assume? Finally, what methodological problem do you see for the following test over someone who claims to be able to levitate: "we're on the 20th floor, jump through the window"
I have no idea who took part and why they did. "we're on the 20th floor, jump through the window" - nothing wrong with it, and it was in fact done thousands of years ago (from cliffs - some would succeed, some would fall in the spikes below). Of course I have no hard proof of this
except for some historical recordings from Greek (I think) merchants. My point is, PSI stuff that has repercussions in the material word is not something easy. Even PSI stuff at an energetic/informational level is hard enough. And as I said it is easy to influence this if you're not in a setup where nobody tries to screw with you.Is a perfectly valid argument because is a subjective argument of mine. If you see a flying pig but nobody else in the mainstream science circles sees it, does it mean it was not real? No, it just means they didn't saw it.
Science is a form of religion for some. Atheism is a form of religion for some too. If science can't explain something it doesn't mean it's a religious thing. I disagree with this argument of yours. Science considered flight to be impossible and earth to be the center of the universe. So was flight a religious thing? Because now is quite possible. And my argument is "science can measure it but can't explain it". When you accept something like the double slit experiment but you refuse to accept a telepathy study just because it is about telepathy, hence tabu, I do have a problem with that and I think those scientists are dogmatic and close minded.
Leaving PSI aside, you have the placebo effect which is both measurable and repeatable. Maybe not as much as some scientists would like but is clearly well known. Yet everybody in the scientific circles considers it some kind of fluke, a weird thing. Yet in certain cases it has higher chances of curing diseases than some of the FDA approved drugs and with zero side effects. But nobody would consider the placebo effect as an actual cure or solution or even use it as foundation for further research. Why? Well, because there's no profit in the placebo effect.
One more thing. Rain is a commonly accepted event. It is measurable and repeatable. It can now be produced artificially but this wasn't always the case. So, before it could be produced artificially, while it is reproducible by the nature it was not by scientists, so not even rain would be accepted by science. But rain is too easy of a subject. How about big bang, black holes, dark matter and energy, etc. which are purely theoretical, yet accepted by science. Like some guy used to say, "Give me one free miracle (Big Bang) and I'll explain everything else."
This video might be a good intro on my POV on the matter of science:
Last edited by a moderator:
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
No one claims that scientists are unbiased angelic creatures. On the contrary, there are battles upon battles upon battles in the scientific realm just because bias, prejudice and personal interest exists so much. Despite that, the scientific method IS unbiased. Your mistake here is that you are confusing the practitioners with the practice.
A scientist does not have to be impartial in his own opinion. That would be totally unproductive. What he needs to be is impartial in his methodology! To give you an example, do you think it is a bad thing is someone working on finding a cure for X, is biased in believing that such a cure exists before finding it?
Well, the second sentence is not even science because of that "any proof" part...
It was an actual Randi case I believe
It simply means that we can not accept it being real yet. But if you present proof of it, we will. That's very fair, isn't it?
Only my argument was slightly different than that. I said that everything defined outside the realm of science, may or may not exist, BUT if it does in a way that can not be proven scientifically, it is religion. Something is either science or religion, there's no third option.
Is science a religion? Well, I guess that if we stretch the definition we can say that. But even in that way, I'm sure you'll agree that the truth finding process of science is highly more sophisticated than something like "my holy book said so" and thus more probable.
But that's exactly what science is about. Prove something with the scientific method, and poof, it's now real! Sure, scientists of the old could not prove that flight was possible. Then someone did and that was that. Same argument is here with Randi - he says: we don't have any proof. Come and give us one and poof, it's real. Does it get any more fair than this?
Accepted by science, you mean accepted in the "Standard Model" in physics. The standard model is just one of the models and NO, it's not considered anything more than a model. It just happens to be the most accepted one as a probable fit.
As for the rain, if you want to study it you just go somewhere where it rains to do so. Is there a place where I can go where it's raining PSI events to study?
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
Not quite. The scientific method is not unbiased. It is unbiased within a certain agreed upon model. As a matter of fact we need double blind to be unbiased and we didn't knew about that until relatively recently. Witch reminds me, we need double blind to protect us from man-injected bias but there's no such thing as PSI. So a scientist might influence the result if he wants it to be in a certain way, but there's no such thing as PSI. Am I the only person who finds this striking? But yes the SM is solid enough.
A scientist does not have to be impartial in his own opinion. That would be totally unproductive. What he needs to be is impartial in his methodology! To give you an example, do you think it is a bad thing is someone working on finding a cure for X, is biased in believing that such a cure exists before finding it?
And if somebody's belief that he can heal a person through prair or energy or dancing around a fire actually cures that person (see placebo effect), how exactly is this different?
But it is; how many scientists don't approach the tabu areas this way?!
It simply means that we can not accept it being real yet. But if you present proof of it, we will. That's very fair, isn't it?Just because YOU don't accept something to be real or don't understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't real. Also the proof you ask is very material. In a way it's like a blind man asking for proof of the color of a rose because somebody sees color yet he doesn't believe in such thing.
I highly disagree with this. Why would you think is either one or the other? Again, are you saying flight is something in the realm of religion until it was proven? The realm of science is the realm of the scientists' capacity to understand things. First off, religion is a human invention and you shouldn't mistaken it for spirituality or PSI or anything else. But back to your statement, I believe there's an "unknown" state too - which might be capitalized upon by religion and might be thought of at theoretical level by science. Also all proven scientific things are proven within a certain structure, model, etc. The moment you take them outside that model you can not reliably keep stating they hold true.
When I said science is a religion i meant that some scientists are dogmatic. They feel they are somehow superior or more righteous or more true because they're scientists. Yet they somehow forget/ignore the fact science is based upon an agreed upon language and frame of reference.
But telepathy for example has been proven using the SM. But Randi would say, well it's not telepathy, is something else. For Randi to accept telepathy you'd have to have a person literally repeat what another person is reading in another room from a piece of paper. He wouldn't accept a person "feeling" when he's being stared at by a group of people as being telepathy for example. Witch for the record is not, but i won't go into it.
Is there a place where I can go where it's raining PSI events to study?
Yeah it is. You just have to lower your bar a lot and not expect people levitating or Jesus walking on water.
Trepanated
Supreme Member
- Sep 18, 2010
- 1,390
- 5,442
But this isn't how scientists conduct their investigations. They set up the experiments properly so that cheats can't cheat. And then when the cheats are no longer able to cheat they claim the experiments have been set up wrong or the scientists are just trying to disprove their abilities.
The scientists are not trying to disprove, or prove psychic abilities - they are trying to find out whether they exist or not.
Unfortunately for the psychics/mystics/mind readers, when experiments are conducted rigorously, their abilities invariably disappear.
I can guarantee you, that's not the case. If I were given undeniable proof of something, I'd accept it was true.
For me, I don't need for psychic/mystical abilities to not exist. I have no inner need to disprove them. I'd actually prefer if they were proven to exist, because that would make life far more interesting and intriguing. So when people accuse me of being closed minded, they are very wrong.
I think you'd also find very many scientists who have the same viewpoint.
It's not the scientists who are closed minded, it's the 'believers'.
They are the ones who insist the psychics are not cheats every time they are proven to be cheats.
They are the ones who insist there is a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon even after rational explanations have been found
They are the ones insist the experiments are biased every time the results are not the results they yearn for.
- Sep 7, 2012
- 652
- 363
Nuclear weapons is something the humans created. How big are the chances that some other civilization, which probably looks completely different, thinks completely different and evolved completely different, creates the same kind of weapon based on the same principle? I would say 1 trillion to one. Just because someone has a title, doesn't mean he is smart. I know a lot of morons who can learn anything by memorizing it, even though they don't have a clue what it means, but its enough to pass any university and get a degree.
p.s. Once a doctor was googling my symptoms to find out whats wrong with me. Yes, it was in a 1st world country.
p.s. Once a doctor was googling my symptoms to find out whats wrong with me. Yes, it was in a 1st world country.
Trepanated
Supreme Member
- Sep 18, 2010
- 1,390
- 5,442
I think this is a great example of the difference between science and mysticism actually.
The faith healers tell the world they have mystical, magical or supernatural abilities. Some of them genuinely believe it and others are just in it for the scam.
And some people who are 'cured' of some ailments then also believe in the supernatural abilities.
But what's actually happening, is the placebo effect. Which, as you say, is a real and measurable phenomenon.
And despite the fact that science has a perfectly rational explanation for these so called supernatural phenomena, the close minded 'believers' still insist it is supernatural.
And the placebo effect was and still is being, investigated using proper scientific methodologies. Blind, double-blind and even more than that.
For example, experiments have been conducted where one of the groups of people are told point-blank they are being given a placebo pill, a sugar pill with zero active ingredients. They are told they are the control group - and yet those people still display positive results.
Basically, the placebo effect is so strong, it works even when people know they are being given a placebo.
But there is nothing supernatural happening - it is just a way of triggering the body's own healing and curative mechanisms.
And yet still there are faith healers and their groupies who have a need to believe in a supernatural explanation.