Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 6, 2016.
And so evolved the scientific method.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Still based on our 5 senses.
No It's not. it's based on our intelligence and our 'tools' ( maths). How else did wthey come-up with branes in a higher dimensional bulk space. Or, The idea that gravity might be 'working' in four spatial dimentions and so making it appear the weakest of forces in our three spatial dimensions. Or again, How many dimensions does String theory rely on. And how did science make sense of light...The eletromagnetic spectrum model.
Wrong..the so-called scientific method starts with observation--seeing and hearing and touching to gather facts. That's sensory data. How did we come up with branes and string theory? Certainly not thru the scientific method. It was thru math. String theory comes up with 11 dimensions btw, none of which we can observe as far as we know.
What is 'sensory data' worth if you haven't an intelligent system ( scientific method) to make sense of them. Voodoo.
The brain processes what is seen in front of it. It's not using the scientific method. It's processing that information unconsciously. No scientific method necessary.
I did some editing..we crossed posted.
That would be just input stimulation of the brain. The intelligent logical outcome will involve the scientific method (SM).
So a computer is doing the scientific method?
Note I said outcome not output.
The person uses their intelligence on how to use the data of their instruments. (telescopes and whatnot).
So everyone who perceives something and reacts to it is doing the scientific method? What makes that scientific if it is basically just logic and common sense?
Your speaking as if I'm talking of an individual, I'm talking of the scientific community.
Well, it seems not everyone as the same ''basically just logic and common sense''.
Ps. Who mentioned ''common sense''? And what you call '' just logic'' maybe an agreed upon scientific logical model or whatnot that explains the observation.
You know the best series for scientic investigation and the standard that I hold to any paranormal investigations was the series : The PSI: FACTOR. hosted by Dan Ackroyd.
In this series they used scientic methods to investigate the paranormal . Somes it was a simple explaination sometimes it wasn't , they simpley could not explain the experiences , by people.
I have all four seasons on DVD , it is truely a series worth buying .
By which you mean only that you believe these anecdotes.
Nobody has a full grasp of reality. Reality is too big.
Putting aside some problematic features of your claim about assumptions, my answer is that if I'm wrong I'm happy to change my mind. A rational person will accept convincing evidence. If you have some convincing evidence of "other" sources information than the physical world, please present it.
We use various reliable tools to probe the regions of the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot sense directly. Radio, for example. Repeatable experiments (such as the fact that you can receive CNN on your TV reliably) show that radio is real.
Dark matter and dark energy are labels that refer to unsolved problems right now. There are many speculative theories of dark matter and dark energy. The reason those theories exist, though, is to explain certain sensory observations that, like radio, are reliable and repeatable.
Compare radio to sightings of Bigfoot, or to your favorite ghost story. There is a difference.
There was a case of this girl who was living in a dorm known to be haunted. She didnt really take this seriously or believed in it. It was hokey to her.
One night she woke up around 2-3 am in the morning to go to the bathroom. She heard a woman mournfully crying behind a bathroom stall and she decided to be respectful of her privacy and went to quietly wash her hands but the weeping got louder so she knocked softly and asked if she was okay and if she needed help. Then the crying abruptly stopped and the door was ajar and when she opened the door, the stall was empty. She ran to her dormmates terrified and they ended up having to console her all night ironicly. It shook her very foundational assumptions of reality we take for granted. Thats what these do.
These are anecdotal stories but the point is you cant recreate these experiences or prove them. But these kinds of experiences which may happen rarely or never in a lifetime still make you wonder beyond the usual to 'what if'.
And its even more so when its personal and you know you didnt imagine it even if you would like to shake it off as such or comfort zone.
Irrespective of any explaination I can understand why the experience would be extremely upsetting you could worry that you were going crazy.
Do you know what the story of haunting covered?
Did it tell of a lady and some sad tale?
Separate names with a comma.