A Brief History Of Bunk

[RipVanWinkle]

One thing is for sure: There would be millions of Xtians who , having seen the video, would proclaim that physics theories have now been reduced to ashes by it. And they would not have the least idea of its

meaning.

bill

[skepticalme]

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

[mymistake]

 

 

Kind of like arguing with Christian Calvinists aren't they....

 

 

Nope.  I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about people.  Christian Calvinists are not going by evidence.

[miekko]

So many fallacies from the author of that video. Terrible bullshit.

[Deva]

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

[skepticalme]

 

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

 

Is there anything not discoverable, no.  If something influences or interacts with the universe, that can be observed.  If it has no interaction with the universe, how is that destinguishable from not existing.  The scientific method is the systematic exploration of reality.  Is this one scientist who isn't myopic the same one we discussed in a previous thread, the one with the psychic dog?  If so, why is he trying to use the scientific method [wrongly] to verify his ideas?                                                                       

[miekko]

 

 

 

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

 

Is there anything not discoverable, no.  If something influences or interacts with the universe, that can be observed.  If it has no interaction with the universe, how is that destinguishable from not existing.  The scientific method is the systematic exploration of reality.  Is this one scientist who isn't myopic the same one we discussed in a previous thread, the one with the psychic dog?  If so, why is he trying to use the scientific method [wrongly] to verify his ideas?                                                                       

 

 

 

Not trying to be smart-ass, but what about those parts of the universe we don't know exists?  Different dimensions?  I have read or heard even people like Stephen Hawking and Michau Kaku talk of such things and the fact that we have just reached the level of conjecture.  Much of what we may deem Supernatural could simply be an element of such areas of the universe.  Not saying you personally, but I have seen several reductionists who will all but dismiss it.  The stories of ghosts, apparitions, who the fuck knows, may be part of that.  Not saying it is, I just leave the possibility and cannot speak for her, but suspect Deva does too.  

 

We have found simpler explanations for ghosts, etc. Apparently, low frequency hum can induce ghost-like hallucinations on a significant number of test subjects, etc. Given that Occam's razor is a good principle, we need not recourse to really complicated explanations for ghosts, when simple ones suffice. (Also, if these extra-dimensional things were detectable by human senses, we have machinery that would detect them too - or do you believe the human eye has weird physics going on in them that is different from all other physics?)

 

We should only invoke a more complex explanation for things once we know our current explanations are not sufficient to account for all verified things. 

[mymistake]

 

Many of the simple explanations do make sense in many, if not most cases, but there are those cases where there are reports of say...objects moving or disappearing, coming up missing only to reappear somewhere completely out of place. Again, not saying all those, or even a majority are unexplainable, but there are some that simply are not.

 

 

Do you have any idea just how bad human perception is?  Look into it sometime.  

 

 

 I have actually spoken with a number of PhDs whom I know well and am friends with who have told me there are WAY more mysteries to the universe than we realize. Even many of them (even those in some hard sciences) hold out the possibility of the unknown or unexpected.

 

Sure but that has nothing to do with hallucinating that some object moved around on it's own.

[florduh]

Waste of time.  No ability to conceive that not EVERYTHING is explainable. Like I said...secular Calvinist. Even experts in most every field admit there are some things that are simply a mystery. 

 

Many, many things were not explainable - until they were explained. If we'd stopped investigating things and just assumed "some things are just an eternal mystery and unknowable" we'd still fear eclipses and epileptics. We would assume a rainbow was a sign from a deity. To not assume there is a reasonable answer and just chalk it up to being a mystery is embracing defeat.

 

Incidents of hauntings and other weird perceptions get explained every day. We just haven't gotten to all of them, and we probably won't. That doesn't mean we should ever accept "we just can't know" or "we just can't explain some mysteries" as the final answer to our questions. We keep looking, we keep finding. This corollary to the "god of the gaps" argument doesn't fly with me.

[florduh]

What I have a problem with is that some people will, using reductionism, speculate that it is something mundane (and not saying it is not) but then will write off ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY of explanation completely as if it does not exist.

 

Searching for answers that lie within known reality seems to pay off handsomely. We actually get answers that way. Assuming that mystical or supernatural constructs are in fact the reality has provided often conflicting speculation, but no answers. Not a one. Not in thousands of years.

[mymistake]

 

 

Waste of time.  No ability to conceive that not EVERYTHING is explainable. Like I said...secular Calvinist. Even experts in most every field admit there are some things that are simply a mystery. 

 

 

You keep talking about people who do not exist as if I was one of those people.  Are you hallucinating?  

[mymistake]

 

 

What I have a problem with is that some people will, using reductionism, speculate that it is something mundane (and not saying it is not) but then will write off ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY of explanation completely as if it does not exist.  

 

 

Who are these people?  Show us one instead of ranting so much.  If you can't find one then you are creating a mischaracterization.

 

Let me guess, you are going to say me but I don't write off any other possibility so you will be wrong, yet again.  That seems like a pattern for you.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

 

Is there anything not discoverable, no.  If something influences or interacts with the universe, that can be observed.  If it has no interaction with the universe, how is that destinguishable from not existing.  The scientific method is the systematic exploration of reality.  Is this one scientist who isn't myopic the same one we discussed in a previous thread, the one with the psychic dog?  If so, why is he trying to use the scientific method [wrongly] to verify his ideas?                                                                       

 

 

 

Not trying to be smart-ass, but what about those parts of the universe we don't know exists?  Different dimensions?  I have read or heard even people like Stephen Hawking and Michau Kaku talk of such things and the fact that we have just reached the level of conjecture.  Much of what we may deem Supernatural could simply be an element of such areas of the universe.  Not saying you personally, but I have seen several reductionists who will all but dismiss it.  The stories of ghosts, apparitions, who the fuck knows, may be part of that.  Not saying it is, I just leave the possibility and cannot speak for her, but suspect Deva does too.  

 

We have found simpler explanations for ghosts, etc. Apparently, low frequency hum can induce ghost-like hallucinations on a significant number of test subjects, etc. Given that Occam's razor is a good principle, we need not recourse to really complicated explanations for ghosts, when simple ones suffice. (Also, if these extra-dimensional things were detectable by human senses, we have machinery that would detect them too - or do you believe the human eye has weird physics going on in them that is different from all other physics?)

 

We should only invoke a more complex explanation for things once we know our current explanations are not sufficient to account for all verified things. 

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

[miekko]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

 

Is there anything not discoverable, no.  If something influences or interacts with the universe, that can be observed.  If it has no interaction with the universe, how is that destinguishable from not existing.  The scientific method is the systematic exploration of reality.  Is this one scientist who isn't myopic the same one we discussed in a previous thread, the one with the psychic dog?  If so, why is he trying to use the scientific method [wrongly] to verify his ideas?                                                                       

 

 

 

Not trying to be smart-ass, but what about those parts of the universe we don't know exists?  Different dimensions?  I have read or heard even people like Stephen Hawking and Michau Kaku talk of such things and the fact that we have just reached the level of conjecture.  Much of what we may deem Supernatural could simply be an element of such areas of the universe.  Not saying you personally, but I have seen several reductionists who will all but dismiss it.  The stories of ghosts, apparitions, who the fuck knows, may be part of that.  Not saying it is, I just leave the possibility and cannot speak for her, but suspect Deva does too.  

 

We have found simpler explanations for ghosts, etc. Apparently, low frequency hum can induce ghost-like hallucinations on a significant number of test subjects, etc. Given that Occam's razor is a good principle, we need not recourse to really complicated explanations for ghosts, when simple ones suffice. (Also, if these extra-dimensional things were detectable by human senses, we have machinery that would detect them too - or do you believe the human eye has weird physics going on in them that is different from all other physics?)

 

We should only invoke a more complex explanation for things once we know our current explanations are not sufficient to account for all verified things. 

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

 

Sorry, but your response is industry grade stupidity right there. I don't see much of a fucking point in keeping on talking with people who grasp at excuses to believe in bullshit.

[mymistake]

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

 

 

Actually you got it backwards.

 

When simple and complex are used in this context that isn't talking about the number of words used in the explanation.  Let's take for example two explanations for Christmas.  One is "Santa did it".  The other is "Parents like to use the myth of Santa to reward their children, bring the family together for the holiday and inspire good behavior.  Which one of these explanations is simpler by the occam's razor criteria?

 

One of them generates questions like:

"But how can Santa visit millions of children in one night?"

"But how can Santa get into our house without a chimney?"

"But how can Santa's sled fly faster than a jet plane?"

"But how can Santa eat millions of cookies and drink millions of cups of milk in one night?"

 

 

Simple means the idea with the fewest unexplained problems.  Once you start introducing ad hoc explanations it just grows and grows until you have a myth or a religion.

[florduh]

A ghost, a demon, talking with the dead, psychokinesis or human telepathy are never the most likely answers, Nobody can prove any of these ideas are not possible, but the mundane answers involving things like skewed perception, brain chemistry, low frequency hum and creaky floorboards are found to be the cause behind most weird phenomena; it behooves us to look there first, and keep looking. On the occasions there may be no definitive answer forthcoming, one should not jump to the miraculous/supernatural just to have an answer. The "acts of the gods" shouldn't be the place holder until we find a verifiable answer.

[mymistake]

Midniterider,

 

See what I mean, just like arguing with Christian Calvinists. They cannot see anything beyond their own textbooks. Sad. I am glad business people don't stick to the textbooks or we would never innovate.

 

So when you argue with Christian Calvinists they ask to see the evidence that they are wrong and because you don't have any you are forced to run away and make excuses?  Good one, BO.  Very funny!

[skepticalme]

 

 

 

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

 

Is there anything not discoverable, no.  If something influences or interacts with the universe, that can be observed.  If it has no interaction with the universe, how is that destinguishable from not existing.  The scientific method is the systematic exploration of reality.  Is this one scientist who isn't myopic the same one we discussed in a previous thread, the one with the psychic dog?  If so, why is he trying to use the scientific method [wrongly] to verify his ideas?                                                                       

 

 

 

Not trying to be smart-ass, but what about those parts of the universe we don't know exists?  Different dimensions?  I have read or heard even people like Stephen Hawking and Michau Kaku talk of such things and the fact that we have just reached the level of conjecture.  Much of what we may deem Supernatural could simply be an element of such areas of the universe.  Not saying you personally, but I have seen several reductionists who will all but dismiss it.  The stories of ghosts, apparitions, who the fuck knows, may be part of that.  Not saying it is, I just leave the possibility and cannot speak for her, but suspect Deva does too.  

 

It's science that hypothesized and is exploring the posibility of other dimensions.  One of the experiments at the LHC is looking to see if particles can be pushed into other dimensions.  If it is confirmed then scientist would start using the term multiverse instead of universe.

[skepticalme]

 

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

 

Occam's razor is not about the simplest explaination, it is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.  The simplest explaination for anything is "God did it", but you can fill a 1000 page novel(quite literally) with the assumptions that explaination presumes. 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say that something could exist that has yet to be "proven" by the scientific method?

The thing is that, it is science that pushes the boundaries of what we know exist.  We know that there are 100 billion other galaxies due to science.  We know the building blocks of matter due to science.  We know over 90% of the universe is made of stuff we can't see or touch due to science.  We know that space and time are malible and can be manipulated due to science.  Science is the most far reaching endeauvor that humans engage in.  What you can imagine, pailes in comparison to what science proves is reality.  If there is something unkown and unexplained out there, and there certainly are, science would be the first to explore it before you even know it exist.  You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

Science has been so sucsessful at exploring reality that it has become the next establishment that people rebel against.  The scientific method is simple; you have an idea and you prove it to be reality systematicly.  You have a counter culture that thinks it knows better.  They have an idea and they except it on faith, which is the ideology that science surplanted and that religion is founded upon.  Science is the ideolocical opposite of religion, those who dismiss it, are reinbracing religion.  You have many pseudoatheist who are feed up with current religions and are trying to invent there own.

 

 

Would you say there is anything in the universe that may not be discoverable by the scientific method or cannot be proved by repeatable experiments?

 

You may characterize scientist as myopic buearocrates who dismiss anything that isn't in there textbooks, but they are the ones who write the next textbook.

 

 

 I wouldn't broad brush all scientists that way. I know of at least one that is not myoptic. 

 

Is there anything not discoverable, no.  If something influences or interacts with the universe, that can be observed.  If it has no interaction with the universe, how is that destinguishable from not existing.  The scientific method is the systematic exploration of reality.  Is this one scientist who isn't myopic the same one we discussed in a previous thread, the one with the psychic dog?  If so, why is he trying to use the scientific method [wrongly] to verify his ideas?                                                                       

 

 

 

Not trying to be smart-ass, but what about those parts of the universe we don't know exists?  Different dimensions?  I have read or heard even people like Stephen Hawking and Michau Kaku talk of such things and the fact that we have just reached the level of conjecture.  Much of what we may deem Supernatural could simply be an element of such areas of the universe.  Not saying you personally, but I have seen several reductionists who will all but dismiss it.  The stories of ghosts, apparitions, who the fuck knows, may be part of that.  Not saying it is, I just leave the possibility and cannot speak for her, but suspect Deva does too.  

 

We have found simpler explanations for ghosts, etc. Apparently, low frequency hum can induce ghost-like hallucinations on a significant number of test subjects, etc. Given that Occam's razor is a good principle, we need not recourse to really complicated explanations for ghosts, when simple ones suffice. (Also, if these extra-dimensional things were detectable by human senses, we have machinery that would detect them too - or do you believe the human eye has weird physics going on in them that is different from all other physics?)

 

We should only invoke a more complex explanation for things once we know our current explanations are not sufficient to account for all verified things. 

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

 

Sorry, but your response is industry grade stupidity right there. I don't see much of a fucking point in keeping on talking with people who grasp at excuses to believe in bullshit.

 

 

No idea, including Occam's Razor is above criticism.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

 

 

Actually you got it backwards.

 

When simple and complex are used in this context that isn't talking about the number of words used in the explanation.  Let's take for example two explanations for Christmas.  One is "Santa did it".  The other is "Parents like to use the myth of Santa to reward their children, bring the family together for the holiday and inspire good behavior.  Which one of these explanations is simpler by the occam's razor criteria?

 

One of them generates questions like:

"But how can Santa visit millions of children in one night?"

"But how can Santa get into our house without a chimney?"

"But how can Santa's sled fly faster than a jet plane?"

"But how can Santa eat millions of cookies and drink millions of cups of milk in one night?"

 

 

Simple means the idea with the fewest unexplained problems.  Once you start introducing ad hoc explanations it just grows and grows until you have a myth or a religion.

 

 

Thank you for the apologetics and (re)defining of words. People here are just upset that I used Occam's Razor for something other than science. :-)

[midniterider]

.  Once you start introducing ad hoc explanations it just grows and grows until you have a myth or a religion.

 

 

Slippery slope argument.

[midniterider]

Midniterider,

 

See what I mean, just like arguing with Christian Calvinists. They cannot see anything beyond their own textbooks. Sad. I am glad business people don't stick to the textbooks or we would never innovate.

 

I try to avoid absolute world views. While I've given up Christianity I still enjoy mystical and paranormal stuff. I may even half-assed believe some of the mystical stuff is real or in some cases not. I also enjoy logic, reason, thinking and science. Two great things that I can keep in my head at the same time and my head hasn't exploded yet. I prefer mutual inclusion of science and mysticism. It is a moderate and balanced way of life for me.

 

Cognitive dissonance only occurs if you give a shit. :-)

[mymistake]

I agree that logic, science, the methods used in logic are valuable, but I don't place them on an unreachable pedestal of admiration or worship. 

 

 

Neither does anybody else.

[mymistake]

 

.  Once you start introducing ad hoc explanations it just grows and grows until you have a myth or a religion.

 

 

Slippery slope argument.

 

 

 

Actually it isn't. 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

 

When somebody says "Don't drink poison or you might die" this isn't a fallacy.  Likewise when you add unnecessary complexity to the worldview with every single step the complexity continues to grow.  This is addition.