|
|
|
While I hope this doesn't devolve into yet another evolution debate, we always seem to end up with an item like this every agora. So here's a softball for lar: http://tinyurl.com/yraftd Can't wait to hear what professor crankypants thinks.
30 responses total.
What rot. If "Julia" exists and exhibits the given behavior, she has some mental aberration. All the supernatural attributes (e.g., psychokinesis) are someone's inventions, since claims of psychoknesis and other supernatural things have never been verified in properly conducted tests. I find it ridiculous that anyone pays any attention to this stutt, other than assisting the victim in recovering from whatever mental problem she has.
I tried to read it but wound up speaking in tongues and cleansing my soul.
Jeez, rane, did you ignore the entire discussion by the psychologist about screening out those with mental problems? You seem stuck on the idea that if no one can explain what they perceived with their own eyes and ears then it can't possibly be true. What a remarkably narrow-minded view of the world. BTW, my apologies for misposting this. I thought I was in agora at the time.
That's a peculiar conclusion, that someone expressing delusions has been cleared of mental problems. Where are the independently verified, under adequate controls, evidence of "demonic possession". And how DOES one distinguish claims of that from mental inventions? The article provided answers to neither question. I think it is reasonable to be sceptical of "exrtaordinary claims", which should require extraordinary proof. This is not a narrow-minded view. I read, I thought, and I concluded they were arguing nonsense. That is, does-not-make-sense.
Ummm. what you actually said was "All the supernatural attributes (e.g., psychokinesis) are someone's inventions." That is your conclusion, unsupported by facts. And if you'd bother to read the article, you'd note that five or more people NOT named Julia reported strange phenomena. So in Raneworld, those people were also insane or deceitful. In the real world, something happened that science cannot explain. Or do you believe that every single person who reports something science cannot explain is also insane or deceitful? That's some odd ground you've staked out, and not your only questionable assumption. BTW, is there any way to link this to agora?
Sure, there are *many* people suffering delusions. My conclusions are supported by the fact that there is zero verified evidence for any so-called supernatural phenomenaon. I didn't call anyone discussed insane or intentionally deceitful, although there is a lot of both among those with such delusions. Anything that science has not explained is still subject to investigation. The history of that is that science eventually either explains or repudiates all things that people have claimed as supernatural, or leaves them for further study. Never has science corroberated a claimed supernatural phenomenom as such. One would think you would get the message. My "world" is that of evidence and rational thought - of science, if you will. Those in that world are sceptical of claims of the supernatural but open to their proof. So prove one. I'm open to a proof.
Well, I find it quite odd that you claim to be open to proof yet are openly dismissive of those stories for which there is no proof AS OF YET. If you had any understanding and appreciation of the history of science you should be able to idenfity numerous examples of just such things in the past, where the phenomenon was observed before it was scientifically explained. But again, you make obnoxious dismissals without any recognition that science may simply be in one of its transition stages. And how do you claim there is no evidence when there are eyewitness reports? Do you not understand what "evidence" is? I think you are confusing evidence with "scientific evidence." The latter is used to explain the former. However, when the latter cannot, AS YET, explain the former, it does not negate the value of the former as "evidence." It merely means more work needs to be done to show that either the former is based on a false premise or observation, or that it was accurately reported and science later explains exactly what was observed. Here's another nice example: http://metgat.gaia.com/blog/2008/3/back_from_the_dead
It ends with: "I infer from Dr. Hamilton's comments that there is a case or two that actually "plugs the holes" in the Pam Reynolds case, but for patient privacy reasons the name(s) cannot be given." Naturally. No, there is no proof AS OF YET. When there is, I will credit it. Until then, based on the centuries of such stories and associated claims of the supernatural, NONE of which have ever been proven, I will not credit any of it.
Again, you seem to conveniently ignore the brain scan. Why do you find it so hard to say "Hmmmm, perhaps there's something here science has not yet explained?" I must say, though, your "scientific" bigotry is remarkably unwavering.
You are mistaking scienific openess for bigotry. That's very peculiar. Where can I find that brain scan account in the open scientific literature? Science has not yet explained lots. That's not the point. The point is to seek explanations without spending time adopting incredulous hypotheses. Every supposed supernatural phenomenon that has been subjected to an investigation that has reached a verifiable conclusion, has always found a natural explanation. You are digging in might poor pay dirt. Why are you so ready to believe any cock-a-maney speculation?
Who said I believe "any cock-a-maney speculation"? That says more about your prejudices than mine. You are unwilling to even examine stories that cannot be explained by existing scientific knowledge. Any real scientist who knows anything about the history of science will see the fallacy of your "logic." "Seeking explanations" requires an open mind, which you seem to lack. Your statement "Every supposed supernatural phenomenon that has been subjected to an investigation that has reached a verifiable conclusion, has always found a natural explanation" is demonstrably false. Google the Skinwalker Ranch and read the original newspaper articles. Find Part 3 if you can, because it offers a nice critique of narrow-minded "scientists" such as yourself. And BTW, before you trot out that old saw about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proofs, maybe you should apply that to your own comments. You would apparently have us believe that rather than a group of people honestly reporting their observations in the exorcism case, you imply they must all be mentally ill or conspiring to perpetrate a hoax. That's a mighty extraordinary claim on your part. Where's your proof? Oh yeah, and here's another article about the possible extra-terrestial origin of "left-handed" amino acids: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/acs-mdt_1031008.php
It beats me how you can be so credulous about such unsubstantiated folderole as concerns Skinwalker Ranch. It is just stories from which absolutely nothing of established fact has come. The following is the kindest thing that can be said - just "problematic": "Critics of NIDS and the Skinwalker Ranch stories claim that the activity reported at the ranch is problematic for a number of reasons. " * The wide variety of phenomena, and their sporadic appearances, make falsifiable and even quantifiable scientific investigations extremely difficult.[1] " * Since 1996, the land has belonged to NIDS, a secretive and, by some accounts, inactive organization[11] that rarely lets outside groups investigate the ranch's alleged phenomena or verify their findings. " * Paranormal groups and reporters both have a vested interest in sensationalizing and exaggerating the claims, as a means of raising money and/or increasing publication sales. The reporting of George Knapp can be seen as an example of this.[2] " * NIDS has reported that the paranormal activity has taken a steady nosedive since 2005[12]. This development, combined with NIDS becoming inactive for other reasons has resulted in the Skinwalker Ranch investigation being put on hiatus, and brings into question the veracity of the alleged phenomena in general. " * The accounts by the Gorman family were largely anecdotal, and NIDS investigators were not able to collect enough noteworthy evidence on the ranch to change the minds of skeptical critics.[13] (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinwalker_Ranch)
So you are admitting you haven't read the article I mentioned? That's some real intellectual curiosity you have there. You might be interested in what REAL scientists observed and reported before going to wiki for your ill-conceived response. In fact, if you read the article and what the NIDS scientists have to say, you would see there are responses for every cherry-picked item you just posted. What's so laughable, though, is that you are exactly the sort of narrow-minded "scientist" who holds science back, rather than advancing it. In other words, you are hardly a credit to your profession when you deliberately avoid subjects that bother you, or mischaracterize those subjects so you can, in your mind, wipe them from the purview of proper scientific investigation. And, BTW, where do you get off calling the observations of a group of scientists supervised by an oversight board,"unsubstantiated"?
I read the article and concluded that the extract from the wiki article
covered all the criticisms of it that I had, so it was easier to past that
than type a lot to say the same things.
We have endless such claims of supernatural phenomena, NONE of which have
ever been substantiated. I don't understand how you can remain so
gullible. It is not a matter of intellectual curiosity - it is a matter of
distinguishing good science from junk science or nonscience.
NIDS has, from the start, zero credibility in legitimate scientific
circles. It never produced any verifiable knowledge or anything else of
value (except for content for the Enquirer and other ufoology pubs), and
was disbanded in 2004.
By the way, I'm not a "novice" abouit this. I looked into it very
seriously some years ago, subscribed to the J. of Parapsychology, and
visited JB Rhine ("pioneer of parapsychology") at Duke Univ and discussed
ESP, psychokinesis, etc, with him. At that time, near the end of his
career, I found him to be very doubtful about the "phenomena" to which he
had devoted much of his life.
Well, I'm glad to hear you were open-minded enough to at least look into it. You say you read the article. Did you read Part 3? That's where the fundamental points about the limits of current science are made, as well as a nice discussion of the scientific bigotry you so amply display. And to say NIDS has produced "no verifiable knowledge" is ignorant. Do you not consider photographs, such as the mutilated cow and the cut video wires, to be evidence of SOMETHING? You treat such incidents as if they'd never happened or as if they were a hoax someone concocted. I can accept that people hoax abduction reports, and make crop circles, and fake seances. But that's not the same as an entire scientific organization, with an oversight board, recording EVIDENCE to the best of their ability. If you think those folks perpetrated a hoax, then you need to apply your "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule to your own explanations. What's even more remarkable is that they never reported reaching a scientific conclusion explaining what they observed, so you have no basis to attack them on that basis. Which leaves the EVIDENCE itself. You are so bothered by it, you attack the mere recording of events. That is about the most unscientific attitude I can imagine. Do you know who Jacques Vallee is? He simply RECORDS observations. Yet I'm willing to predict you will throw another arrogant tantrum simply because he dares to record unexplained events in an area filled with bad science as well as good.
Observations lacking explanation are not just a dime-a-dozen, but less than a mil-a-gigabyte. They should keep them to themselves until they come up with a rational, verifiable, explanation, instead of blatantly promoting themselves with sensational inventions they they know will cater to the public's gullibilities.
There you go, you're finally being honest with yourself. You simply DON'T LIKE inconvenient facts and seem to consider them a distraction. However, REAL scientists approach such inconvenient facts with an attitude of curiosity that you clearly lack. And keeping such facts to themselves hardly furthers science. As Vallee has pointed out many times, it is attitudes such as yours that prevent real scientists like him from amassing the types of data that are necessary to provide the explanations you claim to want but do little to get.
But this stuff isn't science. Where is it reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, discussed at scientific meetings with approval (that is, considered as science by those that have established consequently reputatons in the sciences)? Which of these hypotheses have been funded by reputable scientific funding agences (NSF, NIH, etc..)? I have no lack of real curiosity, but it is exercised by some evidence of real "science" being at issue. No supernatural claims have *ever* been verified by thorough scientific examination, and ufoology is not far behind. I don't mind people entertaining themselves and others with pseudoscience, but it should be understood that that is what it is until such time as convincing evidence is brought forward for anyone that wants to to examine.
I was going to ask the same thing about dinosaurs. How do we know they had reptilian scale like bodies and not chickenfeathered bird like bodies?
Rane, you seem to miss the flip side of your assertion "No supernatural claims have *ever* been verified by thorough scientific examination, and ufoology is not far behind." In other words, "there are documented phenomena that to date have NOT been explained by science." You claim "but this stuff isn't science." What a totally empty phrase! Either science can currently explain a phenomenon or not, but the mere fact it is currently unexplained does not remove it from the purview of science. Quite the opposite. Many scientific discoveries are based on identifying a phenomenon and investigating it further. As I've said before, your rabid willingness to prejudge a given DOCUMENTED phenomenon by claiming it "isn't science" or worthy of scientific investigation is scientific bigotry at its worst. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You misconstrue my position. Sure, investigate everything. Then come and show us what you have verified and can demonstrate. I'll be ready to applaud if it is actually a valuable contribution to knowledge. There are, though, areas that have already been investigated endlessly, for centuries, and never found to have any substance. Among these are those now called "supernatural". The consequence is that most thoughtful people choose to spend their time on more productive avenues that fall within what we call science. If others want to explore those traditonally unproductive avenues of inquiry, that's their choice. Just let us all know when you have something worthwhile, verifiable, and testable, to show us.
That's all well and good, Science Sheriff, but you have an awful itchy trigger finger when I point out unexplained observations. You might want to do a self-check next time you find yourself so quick to reach conclusions on things no one else has been able to. As I said before, read Part 3 of the Skinwalker article for a discussion of how damaging quick trigger fingers like yours can be for the health and vibrancy of science.
The link in item:#0 is dead. As near as I can figure - this item is referring to the following story: =============================================== GIVING THE DEVIL HIS DUE Real-life case of demon possession documented Woman levitated, spoke other languages, showed paranormal powers http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835 =============================================== If you liked that you might also like... http://www.huntfortheskinwalker.com/articles/ Path_of_the_Skinwalker_Part1.pdf http://www.huntfortheskinwalker.com/articles/ Path_of_the_Skinwalker_Part2.pdf http://www.huntfortheskinwalker.com/articles/ Path_of_the_Skinwalker_Part3.pdf
Nice. I've already mentioned the Skinwalker story elsewhere (or perhaps it was somewhere in this item). It's a fascinating story, in any case.
cyklone PWNED rcurl's ASS! LOL..rcurl is a blind pumpkin
"You misconstrue my position. Sure, investigate everything. Then come and show us what you have verified and can demonstrate. I'll be ready to applaud if it is actually a valuable contribution to knowledge." You lying sack of shit...you will reject any evidence that doesn't fortify your self deception.
Not at all. Produce some verifiable, incontrovertible, evidence for anything supernatural, and I will accept it.
Foxxy Brown. Explain her. She's super and natural.
She looks pretty earthy to me.
She was wild as the hooker in Fort Apache the Bronx with that razor in her mouth. I always thought they could have ran with that character for a full feature length horror.
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss