river is just simply not worth the time duck. I still hold out hope for MR, for some reason I have a soft soft spot there....
A physicist explains ghosts in our digital reality
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla
Bells
Staff member
I will say this as a general comment... In that I will address both groups.
Everyone who appears to be so insulted and angry that someone believes in this stuff...
Get over yourselves. If this sub-forum offends you so much that you lose you collective shit to the point where you are making homophobic insults, then perhaps you should remain out of this sub-forum and stick to the science subjects that interest you. Time and again, I see people come down in this sub-forum and complain that this sub-forum exists and that they have to read these posts. No one is dragging your eyeballs down into this subforum and subjecting you to something you all find personally insulting or offensive in some way.
This sub-forum exists where it does so that it is well out of the way of the pure science forum and it is called The Fringe sub-section for a reason.
And looking through these responses, very few of you are countering his comments with evidence, just your words that he is wrong. Why should he believe you? You are upset that he expects you to believe him? When you are essentially doing the same thing.
There is a plethora of scientific journals that could support your arguments. Why not post them? Why not counter his pseudoscience with science? And if he doesn't believe it? So what? Move on. Put it down to a matter of your winning some and losing some?
Magical Realist
Surely, we have come to the T bend where you have to notice that your behaviour has been pretty bad. You misrepresent what you post, you have been known to not support what you are posting with veritable articles or links, and you often misrepresent what others say, not to mention intellectual dishonesty in how you present yourself in this sub-forum.
I get it, everyone is against you. It would serve you better to a) not be personally insulting, even to those who are trying to help you and b) not posting like what is tantamount to being someone with his head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge what everyone else is saying.
You do not post objectively. Ever. People would respond better if you did post objectively, so that a video or a photo is not a declaration by you that it is a UFO or a ghost. Instead, you would find better discussions here if you were open to the prospect that it is unknown and unexplained instead of absolutes. Even the story in Zimbabwe and Mack acknowledged that we cannot give any definitive answers but simply keep searching for more explanations. It would also serve you better to first do some research and prove that isn't a more mundane explanation before making any declaration of fact and then refuse to accept that you might be wrong.
You want to have people less riled up at you? Post objectively and approach these subjects objectively.
A video of what looks like a silver object in the sky? Objective reasoning would question how anyone could identify it as a UFO when the video is darting about all over the place and the image is fuzzy. Objective reasoning would remove everything it could be from the equation first and foremost before making any sort of declaration.
And you aren't doing that.
What you are posting is not evidence. It barely supports your contention. Half the time you haven't even read what you are posting.
Look at the 62 kids in Zimbabwe. You referred to Dr Mack, you got his profession wrong, you got his whole premise wrong. Mack believes that these are visual experiences, not real occurrences as such and that further investigation and study is needed, because he does not know absolutely. Which directly contradicts the rest of what you are trying to argue. Because not only are you arguing that these are real physical things, but that it is proven, despite the doctor you referred always advising that further study is needed.
It isn't known and settled. To even suggest this shows ignorance on your part. Just because someone says they saw something does not always mean they are being truthful or that they did see what they claim they saw. Be objective.
I once saw lights in the night sky, too high to be a plane and moving in a way no plane moves. I'm not sitting here saying "I saw aliens". I say I saw something I cannot explain and will remain objective about what I saw. It could have been a satellite (more than likely) or an asteroid or my eyes playing tricks on me (even more likely). At no time will I ever say that this is definitive proof of aliens visiting us in flying saucers. Objective. No declaration of fact without discounting everything else it could be. The story of the 62 kids.. One of the kids thought it was the gardener. Another said it looked like Michael Jackson. But the manner in which those interviews were conducted with someone they knew was a so called UFO specialist clearly shows that these kids were being led. It harks back to the implanted and false memories about sexual abuse from the 80's and 90's.
And the anti-science stuff you post, not just insulting people who post here, but "science" in general also do not help you.
Everyone who appears to be so insulted and angry that someone believes in this stuff...
Get over yourselves. If this sub-forum offends you so much that you lose you collective shit to the point where you are making homophobic insults, then perhaps you should remain out of this sub-forum and stick to the science subjects that interest you. Time and again, I see people come down in this sub-forum and complain that this sub-forum exists and that they have to read these posts. No one is dragging your eyeballs down into this subforum and subjecting you to something you all find personally insulting or offensive in some way.
This sub-forum exists where it does so that it is well out of the way of the pure science forum and it is called The Fringe sub-section for a reason.
And looking through these responses, very few of you are countering his comments with evidence, just your words that he is wrong. Why should he believe you? You are upset that he expects you to believe him? When you are essentially doing the same thing.
There is a plethora of scientific journals that could support your arguments. Why not post them? Why not counter his pseudoscience with science? And if he doesn't believe it? So what? Move on. Put it down to a matter of your winning some and losing some?
Magical Realist
Surely, we have come to the T bend where you have to notice that your behaviour has been pretty bad. You misrepresent what you post, you have been known to not support what you are posting with veritable articles or links, and you often misrepresent what others say, not to mention intellectual dishonesty in how you present yourself in this sub-forum.
I get it, everyone is against you. It would serve you better to a) not be personally insulting, even to those who are trying to help you and b) not posting like what is tantamount to being someone with his head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge what everyone else is saying.
You do not post objectively. Ever. People would respond better if you did post objectively, so that a video or a photo is not a declaration by you that it is a UFO or a ghost. Instead, you would find better discussions here if you were open to the prospect that it is unknown and unexplained instead of absolutes. Even the story in Zimbabwe and Mack acknowledged that we cannot give any definitive answers but simply keep searching for more explanations. It would also serve you better to first do some research and prove that isn't a more mundane explanation before making any declaration of fact and then refuse to accept that you might be wrong.
You want to have people less riled up at you? Post objectively and approach these subjects objectively.
A video of what looks like a silver object in the sky? Objective reasoning would question how anyone could identify it as a UFO when the video is darting about all over the place and the image is fuzzy. Objective reasoning would remove everything it could be from the equation first and foremost before making any sort of declaration.
And you aren't doing that.
What you are posting is not evidence. It barely supports your contention. Half the time you haven't even read what you are posting.
Look at the 62 kids in Zimbabwe. You referred to Dr Mack, you got his profession wrong, you got his whole premise wrong. Mack believes that these are visual experiences, not real occurrences as such and that further investigation and study is needed, because he does not know absolutely. Which directly contradicts the rest of what you are trying to argue. Because not only are you arguing that these are real physical things, but that it is proven, despite the doctor you referred always advising that further study is needed.
It isn't known and settled. To even suggest this shows ignorance on your part. Just because someone says they saw something does not always mean they are being truthful or that they did see what they claim they saw. Be objective.
I once saw lights in the night sky, too high to be a plane and moving in a way no plane moves. I'm not sitting here saying "I saw aliens". I say I saw something I cannot explain and will remain objective about what I saw. It could have been a satellite (more than likely) or an asteroid or my eyes playing tricks on me (even more likely). At no time will I ever say that this is definitive proof of aliens visiting us in flying saucers. Objective. No declaration of fact without discounting everything else it could be. The story of the 62 kids.. One of the kids thought it was the gardener. Another said it looked like Michael Jackson. But the manner in which those interviews were conducted with someone they knew was a so called UFO specialist clearly shows that these kids were being led. It harks back to the implanted and false memories about sexual abuse from the 80's and 90's.
And the anti-science stuff you post, not just insulting people who post here, but "science" in general also do not help you.
So what?
Just because a loon (as he was in later life) said something doesn't make it true.
So true. So, so true.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The reason I can be more certain a particular ufo is an alien craft is because I take all the evidence together. I don't start from scratch with every sighting, assuming the ufos don't exist. I assume they do exist, and hence for me the prospect of a silver disc in the sky being one, or of 62 kids seeing aliens come out of a flying saucer, is much more plausible to me than to a skeptic. If we live in a reality where ufos are real, then the next unexplained sighting that comes along can be much more certain to be a ufo than to a skeptic who continues to live in a reality where ufos don't exist and never can exist. Why is such certainty offputting to you folks? What I fail to understand is the certainty of the skeptic, who just knows for a fact the sighting isn't an alien craft and is instead mundane in origin. There's no way anyone could know that in advance. So we look thru the whole field, weigh the accounts, and judge the evidence based on the conclusions we make. That's real objective science. Not this status quo habit of denying a phenomena in advance of actually looking into it.
Hear , hear , !!!!!!!!!!!!
These two statements are mutually exclusive.
And this - "judge the evidence based on the conclusions we make" - doesn't help. You're supposed to make conclusions based on the evidence.
This happens to be false. Since you're starting with an a priori assumption then what you consider to be evidence may well not be. In fact you have, numerous times, claimed something as evidence when it's really not.
Oh and a blatant mischaracterisation of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Has anyone on this forum stated that "ufos don't exist and never can exist"?
Has anyone on this forum said that they " just know for a fact the sighting isn't an alien craft and is instead mundane in origin"?
Why? Is this somehow a more rational position than assuming they don't exist?
Who? Who "just knows for a fact the sighting isn't an alien craft"? It's about evidence - preponderance of evidence, not "certainty". Your evidence just isn't enough to justify "extraordinary" claims - that's all. End of story.
Don't you think even your worst critics (excepting the religious fundamentalists) wish that we would find certain evidence that these assertions are true? We all want to believe, some of us just require more proof...
Really? That's your contribution?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I think such people would far rather believe in a universe that was always scientifically explainable and reducible to status quo science theories. There's something disturbing about the existence of aliens that can enter your bedroom at night and do weird things to your body. Many assume believing in ghosts and ufos and bigfoot is a basic thrillride, but it really isn't. It leads to a reality far more surreal and unpredictable than the one we were taught to believe in school. Not that many come across aliens, or ghosts, or bigfoot in their lives. I haven't yet. But that reality is such that these beings exist raises more questions than we can answer. At least at this stage of our evolution. And for the sciency types I suspect that is just too much to bear.
Unfortunately that's not the problem.
It's how he comports himself in putting his case forward.
I.e. the lies, misrepresentations, failure to address/ acknowledge points...
MR, if we had incontrovertible evidence that our planet was, is, or will be visited by "aliens" that would be "scientifically explainable and reducible to status quo science theories". I think this is why you always feel that there is some sort of uncrossable divide between you and the "science fundies" - there's really not.
At the risk of being redundant - "We all want to believe, some of us just require more proof..."
That's the complete opposite of answering my question.
Do you understand why the scientific community doesn't accept those things as evidence?
There's always more science to learn. But if you don't know how to tell the difference between science, pseudoscience, and fantasy, then you're of no use to science and probably downright detrimental to the goal of advancing scientific knowledge.
At the very least, the first thing you can do is learn critical thinking.
At the very least, the first thing you can do is learn critical thinking.
Oh there is incontrovertible proof. You and others simply won't investigate.
Perfect. I'll settle for your head.
Please present such "incontrovertible proof" or withdraw that statement.
Intriguing.
How do you get from "require more "proof" [evidence]" to "won't investigate"?
I'm also highly interested as to what "investigation" you personally have done.
Presumably, given your numerous claims that certain posters here have never "investigated" the subject, you mean something considerably more involved and arduous than just reading books and looking at videos and the like.
Do tell, I'd be fascinated as what your investigations consist of.
- Status