If Science Can't Answer it...

[Dao Hao Now]

Well, our differences comes down to who is the one between us most willing to be unbiased and that's where we're stuck. No amount of debate can change an emotionally held position.

Just curious, do you believe every anecdotal, experimental and investigative claim of paranormal phenomena has a materialistic explanation?

I have never been convinced of one yet, but would be happy to IF there was something to back it up.
I reserve my judgment of claims until they are verified.

Which is why I asked for what in your opinion is the best bit of evidence and if you could point me to it.

If I ever come across any convincing evidence of anything I’ll accept it as true….until such time as that evidence may be refuted.

I do my best not to presuppose anything and am willing to change any opinion I hold in the event of better information coming to light.

I am not credulous or gullible and have heard too many ‘testimonies’ that have been shown to be false to take any at face value, and wait for confirmation before I accept it as fact.

The further from typical everyday experience…
the more verifiable evidence is required.
Surely you heard the expression; “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

With paranormal phenomena the only thing extraordinary I’ve come across is the claims themselves…never anything even approaching evidence to back it up.

If I ever come across any, I would be happy to reconsider. Do you have any?

 

[George-ananda]

I have never been convinced of one yet, but would be happy to IF there was something to back it up.
I reserve my judgment of claims until they are verified.

Which is why I asked for what in your opinion is the best bit of evidence and if you could point me to it.

If I ever come across any convincing evidence of anything I’ll accept it as true….until such time as that evidence may be refuted.

I do my best not to presuppose anything and am willing to change any opinion I hold in the event of better information coming to light.

I am not credulous or gullible and have heard too many ‘testimonies’ that have been shown to be false to take any at face value, and wait for confirmation before I accept it as fact.

The further from typical everyday experience…
the more verifiable evidence is required.
Surely you heard the expression; “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

With paranormal phenomena the only thing extraordinary I’ve come across is the claims themselves…never anything even approaching evidence to back it up.

If I ever come across any, I would be happy to reconsider. Do you have any?

I can bring up evidence into infinity, but it won't take you long to find/cut/paste some skeptic's words. I know the drill after decades now of discussions. Pretty much all the evidence in that website I consider strong and don't have any one thing in particular to present. It is the cumulative weight of everything that has me a believer beyond reasonable doubt.

My point is to read as much as you can and ask yourself; what are the chances every piece of evidence involves lying or misperception? To me that likelihood by now approaches near zero.

Dean Radin talks about 10 to the 104th power against chance in just the thousand experiments in controlled conditions. It seems the skeptics have a lot of error to claim.

I think many so-called skeptics have a dislike of paranormal/spiritual things people claim that are beyond current science, but they do their best to appear logical and fair as they muster their best sounding attack possible and then all rally around it. Strong science types really don't like paranormal/spiritual types to be way ahead of them on these subjects. Science is to rule the roost!!

As I said data and argumentation usually can't persuade one from an emotionally preferred position. If you say in your lifetime you have found nothing compelling, do you think I think I can change that in a reply post on Religious Forums?

Paradigm flips happen zero or once in a lifetime.

 

[Nakosis]

paarsurrey said: ↑
" no value "

on what standard, please?

It simply and loudly tells that

1. it is beyond the limits of Science,
2. the narrow limits of Scientific Method,
3. and it tells reality is not a function of Science
4. or the Scientists, please. Right?

Regards

paarsurrey said: ↑
" no value "

on what standard, please?

It simply and loudly tells that

1. it is beyond the limits of Science,
2. the narrow limits of Scientific Method,
3. and it tells reality is not a function of Science
4. or the Scientists, please. Right?

Regards

It means the question asked has no intrinsic value.
Of course it may have some sentimental value for the individual.

 

[Nakosis]

The ineffable can't be defined in words by definition.





If we're speaking of formal science, then "truth" can't be defined within science and formal science is by it's nature provably incomplete.

There is of course empirical science, that which involves experiments. So physics is not a formal science but mathematical physics is.

Stepping back and hopefully being clearer: "God" and "soul" can't be defined because they are ineffable concepts. In addition, the attempt to use formal systems to speak to "God is the truth" can't be done because "truth" can't be defined in the confines of a formal system. In addition, given various theologies such as advaita which asserts that the world of experience is an illusion, like a dream, any possible experimental result can be dismissed as just part of illusion and not real at all.

My view is that questions about truth, God, and soul at best have only sentimental value to the individual. This should be easy to understand in that these kind of questions have no real answers.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I can bring up evidence into infinity, but it won't take you long to find/cut/paste some skeptic's words. I know the drill after decades now of discussions. Pretty much all the evidence in that website I consider strong and don't have any one thing in particular to present. It is the cumulative weight of everything that has me a believer beyond reasonable doubt.

My point is to read as much as you can and ask yourself; what are the chances every piece of evidence involves lying or misperception? To me that likelihood by now approaches near zero.

Dean Radin talks about 10 to the 104th power against chance in just the thousand experiments in controlled conditions. It seems the skeptics have a lot of error to claim.

I think many so-called skeptics have a dislike of paranormal/spiritual things people claim that are beyond current science, but they do their best to appear logical and fair as they muster their best sounding attack possible and then all rally around it. Strong science types really don't like paranormal/spiritual types to be way ahead of them on these subjects. Science is to rule the roost!!

As I said data and argumentation usually can't persuade one from an emotionally preferred position. If you say in your lifetime you have found nothing compelling, do you think I think I can change that in a reply post on Religious Forums?

Paradigm flips happen zero or once in a lifetime.

Actually, I have changed my opinion on many matters through my lifetime.
My goal is to have my beliefs as closely conform to reality as possible; no matter what that reality may be.
As result, I actively question and scrutinize my positions continually because I realize new things can come to light that I may have overlooked or been unaware of.
If I’m wrong, I want to know.

As I said data and argumentation usually can't persuade one from an emotionally preferred position.

Would this be an admission that this is an emotional position for you?
I ardently strive to remove any and all emotions from clouding my judgements, which is another reason I continually asses my beliefs to guard against just such biases.

If you say in your lifetime you have found nothing compelling, do you think I think I can change that in a reply post on Religious Forums?

I never said I’ve found nothing compelling….
As I stated above, I have changed my mind on many things through my life if there was compelling evidence to do so.

Do I think a reply post on Religious Forums could change my mind on a position I hold?
It’s doubtful, because I don’t put a lot of weight in ‘testimonies’ (which is all that’s available on a forum), but if it could point me to a source where I may discover some compelling ‘evidence’…
then that definitely could.
This is why I asked you if you could.
It may be something I’ve missed.

Would I take it on face value?…..Certainly not.
I would investigate it to determine the veracity of it
and if it proved to be valid I would THEN weigh it against any other available relevantly valid evidence to determine if it may confirm, negate, or reverse my current position.

 

[George-ananda]

Would this be an admission that this is an emotional position for you?

No, I feel in my most unbiased moments that certainly something is going on that is dramatically outside material science. Learning more about that has become my interest.

 

[joelr]

Who is anti-science? I don't place all my faith in science, and don't consider it the saviour of mankind, but that doesn't make me anti science.

It might save mankind from a pandemic of planetary destruction one day? I don't consider faith to be a reliable path to truth. For every Christian who has faith there are Muslims or Hindu who have faith they are correct. People can have faith that their race is superior or their sex. So faith is not reliable.

Modern technologies bring as many problems as they do solutions, but it would be foolish to reject them. And I am very interested in what scientific discoveries can tell us about life, the universe and everything; in order for science to do that, there necessarily has to be some overlap with philosophy, sometimes poetry and, yes, even theology. Because much as the human mind likes to put things in boxes, our best insights and advances tend to come when everyone is encouraged to think outside their particular box.

You seem to be one of those who have made science your religion. Perhaps you feel the need to defend your new religion against heretics, but why do you need to have a religion at all?

I don't have a religion. Science works but there is also many branches of philosophy that are helpful on a personal level. This includes soft sciences like psychology. I don't see any overlap into theology. Modern physics and cosmology raise questions but they are unanswered for now.

 

[HonestJoe]

Just curious, do you believe every anecdotal, experimental and investigative claim of paranormal phenomena has a materialistic explanation?

Sorry to cut in but I think this question is key;

Can you identify any claim of paranormal phenomena that isn't already based on "materialistic" events? Objects moving, visible images, sounds, changes in temperature, voices etc.? It all involves energy and/or matter.

Regardless of what is causing this phenomena, there appears to be a material element to all of them. So why should we assume there is any "non-material" element at some point in the chain, especially given that literally nothing "non-material" has ever been identified (certainly nothing that can have direct material effects)?

 

[joelr]

The best experimental evidence is odds against chance experiments showing the reality of psychic ability. But to me that is rather minor compared to the investigative evidence for things like Afterlife Sciences.Well, each of those things require its own discussion. Suffice it here to say I do not suggest every belief and behavior is always correct and best. Reason and intelligence are our best tools.


So, then I think our goal should be to find and carve the best path all things considered. Science is good. Spirituality is good. Reason and intelligence should be our tools.

What experiments? I read The Field by Lynn McTaggart years ago and she documented all these experiments. But a debunking of her results showed everything was really equal to random chance.
No one claimed the Randi 1 million dollar prize. Where are these documented experiments?

The NDE stuff also has detractors. Mainly neuroscientists who can recreate some of those effects with drugs. So it's hard to say. If reason and intelligence are the tools then I need some empirical evidence for these abilities. There is for sure a lot of fraud in the psychic world.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry to cut in but I think this question is key;

You are welcomed in.

Can you identify any claim of paranormal phenomena that isn't already based on "materialistic" events? Objects moving, visible images, sounds, changes in temperature, voices etc.? It all involves energy and/or matter.

For one, I can suggest telepathic communication with alleged non-physical entities.

Regardless of what is causing this phenomena, there appears to be a material element to all of them. So why should we assume there is any "non-material" element at some point in the chain, especially given that literally nothing "non-material" has ever been identified (certainly nothing that can have direct material effects)?

Well the theory I espoused is that there are entities in other dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments.

So, in the 'object moving' case you mentioned above we can see the physical activity with our physical senses, but we are unable to see the source behind the movement. Hence in this view the 'object moving' is the relatively rare time that an unseen source is able to manipulate material energy (perhaps draining batteries or leaving cold spots) to produce an observable effect.

 

[George-ananda]

What experiments? I read The Field by Lynn McTaggart years ago and she documented all these experiments. But a debunking of her results showed everything was really equal to random chance.

Here's a paper by Professor Jessica Utts of Applied Statistics
University of California, Irvine

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING

Excerpt:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud

The NDE stuff also has detractors. Mainly neuroscientists who can recreate some of those effects with drugs. So it's hard to say.

Even drugs can just be another way of opening people up to the real non-physical realms as many claim.

If reason and intelligence are the tools then I need some empirical evidence for these abilities. There is for sure a lot of fraud in the psychic world.

I think there is a lot of empirical evidence for things not explainable in a materialist paradigm. And I think the level of fraud by serious researchers and serious experiencers is very low.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It might save mankind from a pandemic of planetary destruction one day? I don't consider faith to be a reliable path to truth. For every Christian who has faith there are Muslims or Hindu who have faith they are correct. People can have faith that their race is superior or their sex. So faith is not reliable.



I don't have a religion. Science works but there is also many branches of philosophy that are helpful on a personal level. This includes soft sciences like psychology. I don't see any overlap into theology. Modern physics and cosmology raise questions but they are unanswered for now.

If your hypothetical Hindu, Christian and Moslem all have faith, then they are likely to have one thing in common which is more powerful than any differences between them.

I agree that science and philosophy overlap - to the Greeks and the Renaissance Europeans, the separation of disciplines would have been absurd. But if you try to understand the universe using only logic and reason, you will imo only ever perceive it in limited dimensions. Logic and reason are wonderful tools, but they are not the only tools we have; you have been given intuition and imagination for a reason. And every human being has, I believe, a capacity for insight and inspiration that transcends pure reason.

We are creatures of mind, body, and spirit, and when we neglect one side of the triangle, we cannot but be unbalanced; that, at least, is my experience- and we learn by experience, do we not?

 

[HonestJoe]

For one, I can suggest telepathic communication with alleged non-physical entities.

That isn't the phenomena, it is your claim for a cause. The phenomena in that example would presumably be the individual experiencing thoughts they, for some unstated reason, believe come from some external source. All thoughts (regardless of their cause) demonstrably involve material effects in the brain.

Well the theory I espoused is that there are entities in other dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments.

Can you describe in formal technical terms how such entities could exist, why they couldn't be directly detectable by any means yet be able to have observable and measurable material effects? If not, you might as well just be saying "It's magic!".

So, in the 'object moving' case you mentioned above we can see the physical activity with our physical senses, but we are unable to see the source behind the movement.

I'm not asking about the source, I'm asking about the matter and energy of the phenomena. Anything that moves has kinetic energy and that energy has to come from somewhere.

If you're proposing that somewhere could be something "non-material", you would need to explain how the transfer from the non-material source to the material effect could occur. If you can't do that, you have literally nothing to based your claims on beyond blind faith (which you're entitled to but should be honest about).

 

[George-ananda]

That isn't the phenomena, it is your claim for a cause. The phenomena in that example would presumably be the individual experiencing thoughts they, for some unstated reason, believe come from some external source. All thoughts (regardless of their cause) demonstrably involve material effects in the brain.

The best evidence we have that there is something to these claims is the reception of verifiable knowledge not known by the receiver. I feel this has been demonstrated in controlled laboratory experiments:


DISCARNATE READINGS BY CLAIMANT MEDIUMS: ASSESSING PHENOMENOLOGY AND ACCURACY UNDER BEYOND DOUBLE-BLIND CONDITIONS

I would agree this phenomena has effects in the brain of the receiver. But what source can present the brain with such information?

Can you describe in formal technical terms how such entities could exist, why they couldn't be directly detectable by any means yet be able to have observable and measurable material effects? If not, you might as well just be saying "It's magic!".

I'm saying "It's not actually magic". The theory I am espousing says that there are extra-dimensional realms of reality not directly detectable by our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments. This would not even be 'magic' to mainstream current science which holds that the majority of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable (so-labeled Dark Matter). There can be an astral body (composed of astral plane matter) endowed with intelligent consciousness right in front of our eyes and we wouldn't know.

I'm not asking about the source, I'm asking about the matter and energy of the phenomena. Anything that moves has kinetic energy and that energy has to come from somewhere.

If you're proposing that somewhere could be something "non-material", you would need to explain how the transfer from the non-material source to the material effect could occur. If you can't do that, you have literally nothing to based, your claims on beyond blind faith (which you're entitled to but should be honest about).

Now I cannot give the details of how say battery energy (draining batteries) and atmospheric energy (leaving cold spot) can be mentally focused by a non-physical entity to perform physical movement but that would be a valid challenge for future science that is over my head. However, if I searched, I believe there are Theosophical and other esoteric sources that do get into that stuff in more detail than I am familiar with. That is not my specialty.

 

[HonestJoe]

I would agree this phenomena has effects in the brain of the receiver. But what source can present the brain with such information?

I don't know and neither do you. I'm asking why you're stating that the source is "telepathic communication from alleged non-physical entities" with absolutely zero basis of any kind? You're not even able to establish how "non-physical entities" could even exist or, if they did, how they could possibly have effect on the material world.

The theory I am espousing says that there are extra-dimensional realms of reality not directly detectable by our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments.

That is not a theory (by any use of the word), it's just empty speculation.

This would not even be 'magic' to mainstream current science which holds that the majority of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable (so-labeled Dark Matter).

Dark matter is not said to be undetectable. It is hypothesised on the basis of as-yet unexplained material effects (primarily on gravity) and so, like so many other things, could be detected via it's effects. It certainly isn't said to be "non-physical" or non-material, because there is absolutely no rational reason to do so. It's hypothesised as just another aspect of the material world that we simply don't (yet) understand.

Now I cannot give the details of how say battery energy (draining batteries) and atmospheric energy (leaving cold spot) can be mentally focused by a non-physical entity to perform physical movement but that would be a valid challenge for future science that is over my head.

Let me give you some help then; If something is taking material energy from one part of the material world, transforming it in to a different form of material energy and applying that material energy to a different part of the material world, why the heck would you assume that thing isn't part of the material world itself!?!

However, if I searched, I believe there are Theosophical and other esoteric sources that do get into that stuff in more detail than I am familiar with. That is not my specialty.

Theosophical is a posh word for faith and esoteric is a posh word for "you're not good enough to understand" . As I said, you are presenting nothing beyond your personal faith (which is still your right but still something you should be honest about - if only to yourself).

 

[Sheldon]

Science is limited. It has a domain but is not omnipotent. There are other domains in which science is tangential or not relevant. Nor are these other domains necessarily religious. Consider the domains of poetry, art or emotions. These spheres are not constrained by science.

Superstition is limited, it has assumptions, but there are no real domains in which it is tangible, and none where it is rationally relevant. Nor are these fantasy domains objectively relevant. Reality is not constrained or dictated to by unevidenced superstition.

 

[George-ananda]

Dark matter is not said to be undetectable.

I type in What is Dark Matter? on my browser and I get:

(from Space.Com)

Dark matter is completely invisible. It emits no light or energy and thus cannot be detected by conventional sensors and detectors.


(from EarthSky.org)

Dark matter is invisible; it doesn’t emit, reflect or absorb light or any type of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays or radio waves. Thus, instruments can’t detect dark matter directly, as all of our observations of the universe, besides detecting gravitational waves, involve capturing electromagnetic radiation in our telescopes.

You might want to retract your above statement. It seems as I said: Dark Matter is not directly detectable but its effects can be detected.

The science behind this is all and why/how it can effect the detectable realm is still in the theoretical stage by current mainstream science.

Let me give you some help then; If something is taking material energy from one part of the material world, transforming it in to a different form of material energy and applying that material energy to a different part of the material world, why the heck would you assume that thing isn't part of the material world itself!?!

That's just an issue with standard English language. One can extend the meaning of physical matter to include Dark Matter and the Material World to include Dark Matter.

Perhaps 'Detectable Matter' and 'Undetectable Matter' are terms we should use.

Theosophical is a posh word for faith and esoteric is a posh word for "you're not good enough to understand" . As I said, you are presenting nothing beyond your personal faith (which is still your right but still something you should be honest about - if only to yourself).

These traditions are developed through the efforts of many clairvoyant/masters/seers for our consideration only. To my mind, they are the ONLY traditions that seem to have a reasonable basis for explaining paranormal/spiritual phenomena that don't fit into the straightforward materialist view of reality.

Along with this is the idea that man is more than physically detectable components (some call etheric. astral, etcetera). This includes etheric/astral senses that tell of things the directly detectable senses cannot. The more gifted and refined in the use of these extra senses can give us information for our consideration.

 

[HonestJoe]

You might want to retract your above statement. It seems as I said: Dark Matter is not directly detectable but its effects can be detected.

Not yet directectly detectable by currently known means and currently detectable via it's immediate effects. It is in no way similar you your proposed "non-physical entities" which are somehow fundamentally immune to scientific method.

One can extend the meaning of physical matter to include Dark Matter and the Material World to include Dark Matter.

No fundamental scientific definitions need to be "extended" or changed to incorporate Dark Matter. It is part of the "material world" because we can detect it acting in the "material world". The open questions are what it is and how it works (quite major questions admittedly) but if/when we get better understanding of those questions, that will be simply extending our understanding of the "material world".

Perhaps 'Detectable Matter' and 'Undetectable Matter' are terms we should use.

Perhaps you should stop speculating about things you're incapable of even coming up with consistent terms for.

To my mind, they are the ONLY traditions that seem to have a reasonable basis for explaining paranormal/spiritual phenomena that don't fit into the straightforward materialist view of reality.

If that's the only basis you have, maybe you should stop unconditionally excluding even the possibility of a materialist explanation for literally no good reason.

Along with this is the idea that man is more than physically detectable components (some call etheric. astral, etcetera).

Ideas are good and to be welcomed. If you're incapable of taking them beyond ideas though, they're not of any practical use and should be set aside (at least until/unless anything concrete can be established to support them).

 

[KWED]

I don't think from that you understand what the word 'Scientism' means. From Wikipedia:
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.

Hmm, strange. My copy of Wikipedia says...
"Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality"

I can't see any problem with the statement "Science and the scientific method is the best way to render truth about the world and reality".
Obviously there are areas that science doesn't necessarily cover like aesthetics, emotion, morality, etc - however, science is beginning to explain the how and even the why behind such things.
I don't think there are actually any rational thinkers who insist that only science can ever be used as a means of arriving at any conclusion about anything.

Perhaps "scientism" is just a pejorative term for people who prefer evidence-based explanations over ones that require the supernatural?

 

[KWED]

It means I find it overwhelmingly convincing.

So no more valid that my finding it overwhelming unconvincing.

Whatever words you want to use I consider everything in my 'all things considered' position.

They are the words that describe the things you are referring to.

And that would include my judgment of the quality of your anecdote regarding my mother.

Well, let's consider and compare the two claims.
You claim you have seen a ghost. There is no hard evidence for ghosts. Every attempt to detect, record or otherwise test ghosts has failed. There is hard evidence that the consciousness is a product of the physical brain. There is hard evidence that the brain can produce false experiences that seem completely real to the subject. So "all things considered", ghosts don't seem at all likely.
I claim to have slept with your mother. We have hard evidence that we both exist and we also know that people sleep with people, including other people's mothers. So "all things considered", regardless of how unlikely it seems, it is a more reasonable claim than your ghost actually existing outside your imagination.

It's Wikipedia and not me.

You cited that definition so it therefore became yours in this context.

But for our general edification the dictionary definition is:

e·pis·te·mo·log·i·cal
[iˌpistəməˈläjəkəl]
ADJECTIVE
philosophy

1. relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion:
   "what epistemological foundation is there for such an artificial discrimination?"

So how does that term apply to the application of science and the scientific method?