Crossing over

[pragmathen]

The paranormal world is hardly glanced at in scientific terms, except to dismiss it altogether. But, is it possible that there are things which are neither accountable to God nor to science? Possibly, scientists would argue that the questioner just lacks the knowledge with which to address those issues. Perhaps.

Do people have paranormal experiences? Or are they just delusional sequences of events which are entirely traceable to patterns in their life or drug-inducing hallucinations? The latter conatins some weight to the matter, but can they all be equally dismissed? Thinking outside of the box usually means thinking outside of <i>your</i> box.

If I have an experience where I feel certain things in relation to my deceased grandfather, can we rule out the paranormal so easily and, instead, place the focus on the neuron-firings within my brain? It is true that certain physiological responses are caused by the release of hormones and inhibitors throughout the bloodstream, but can these account for <b>every</b> experience?

There seems to be too much of a categorical dismissal to people that have other-than-normal experiences. Perhaps they are all experiencing mass-inducements of self-ascribed phenomena (they're all making the stuff up). Or, perhaps there's a few that are having genuine experiences.

Take the instance with communion with God. Several different leaders of religions (if not all) have claimed to have had communications with God, yet we unilaterally dismiss these as bunk. Why is that? Perhaps because all of the accounts differ completely from one another. The thing with science is that results need to be reproduceable by others in the field. Taking someone's word over the matter does not suffice. Thankfully, scientists are concerned with finding the answer, not dutifully sitting back and accepting the question.

So, is it possible for science to find the answer with paranormal experiences? Ask a chemist if they consider Psychology to be a science. What do you think the reply would be? At least some form of hesitation. Why? Because it's not a <b>hard</b> science. Hard sciences require and are answered with hard-earned facts. Theories are tested for their correctness and disposed of accordingly if they are found to be unsound. With the <b>soft</b> sciences, however, theories are propagated and usually through personal experience, which isn't always repeatable, are the theories declared sound. Not fact, but a solid theory.

But times change and theories change, hence soft science. Does this undermine the soft sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, ect.)? Not to those people <i>that study them</i>. Just what the hell is my point in all of this?

It is possible that paranormal experiences do, indeed, occur with or without the help of other agents (drugs, meditation, whatever). However, despite these experiences being categorized as soft science material, this does not automatically imply they do not occur. IOTW, sometimes empiricism is determined by the person's point of view.

Hopefully this receives some form of debate, because it's a topic I consider quite often, despite the constraints of my logic-bounded mind.

thanks,

prag

 

[Cris]

Prove it

Prag,

If something can’t be measured, or deduced from measurements then we cannot claim that that something exists. This is the basis of science.

Psychology is a science because it is based on the measured effects of human reactions to known stimuli.

The value of science is that it can tell you if something does exist. Science cannot be used to tell you if something does not exist. The scientific conclusion on such claims is always – unproven, or unknown.

The problems with claims to the paranormal are that no one has shown a method to measure it. If that ever occurs then science can do its work.

One of the primary reasons why those of a skeptical nature or scientific outlook will dismiss claims to the paranormal is credibility. When claims to the paranormal have been made for millennia without any proofs being shown then there is little reason to give them any further credence. For such people it will be necessary to show that such activities can be measured. The imagination and creativity of the human intellect is tremendous, and it can propose many fantastic possibilities for things that might be. But we have to turn to science to tell us the truth of reality.

Without independent corroborative evidence that an individual has experienced a claim to the paranormal then we have no way to know whether it was intellectual imagination or truth. Our conclusion in such events must be – unproven. This is not the same as concluding that the claim is false, since we cannot prove the matter either way.

Whether hard or soft science, both are based on repeatable and readily reproducible measurements and observations, empiricism if you like. Any science, soft or hard, will take great pains to exclude subjective opinions as any form of basis for measurements.

Hmmm, I don’t think I have added much to what you have already said. The issue comes down to – if you make a claim and want people to believe you then you must provide proof.

Cris

 

[pragmathen]

Alas, I agree

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by Cris:</i>
The value of science is that it can tell you if something does exist. Science cannot be used to tell you if something does not
exist. The scientific conclusion on such claims is always – unproven, or unknown.
<hr>
</blockquote>

This answer is good, if not entirely accurate as well. With the paranormal, because there does seem to be quite the extensive amount of data suggesting possibilities, the mind (with, as you say, its "imagination and creativity of the human intellect [being] tremendous") fills in those potholes of information with possible connections, though the resulting conclusion cannot either be duplicated or is very subjective. Much like good ol' Lyndale seeing demons inhabiting his entire household as if it was "Spook Central" (<i>Ghostbusters</i>), some of the people with experiences in the paranormal are looking for ways and means to quantify what happens to them. But, when they do not find means to do so, it is far too easy to say and assume that paranormal events supercede scientific explanations. However, I must agree with you Cris. Experiences of any sort must be duplicated, otherwise we're basing (sometimes) our very lives and livelihood on the credibility of some dubious account.

I look at that scene in <i>Contact</i> (whether the book or otherwise) where Arroway said what she saw, yet no one could make the leap of faith with her ... until they had some facts to back it up. I don't consider them bad for not being able to trust her because, frankly, I'd have a hard time as well. The facts merely support what someone says, especially if they're reproduceable. Which, in the case of most paranormal phenomena, it is not.

In my youth (probably still in my youth for all I know), I had experiences with Ouija boards where I'm fairly sure my friends and I weren't manipulating the object, but who knows? Regardless, people commonly receive a varied outcome when they practice or experiment with these kinds of things.

I studied a fair amount of psychology (as the saying goes, "Usually those that study psychology are the ones that need it the most"), mainly as a way to study myself. The hardest person to figure out for me is me. Anyway, my mind ate this stuff up, because it offered different views and theories and it seemed to fill in some of those blind spots in my understanding of the world. However, I also studied genetics and microbiology and a little bit of neuroscience which grounded me again and let me know that most things can and are explained, because they are repeatable. And, having read science fiction (especially Asimov) for the greater part of my high school years, I feel grounded whenever I encounter science- or logic-oriented material. Fantasy is fun to entertain, but when it comes to making absolute sense to me, it's science.

Suffice to say that my thoughts are "muddied" by my experiences in parapsychology, and it takes a bit of maneuvering to rid myself of those supposed connections. I kind of knew I was setting myself up with this thread, but that's pretty much why I wanted to write it. I was hoping for a viewpoint such as yours to point out the loopholes in my thinking. I know they're there, I won't say they're not.

But, unproven is a good way of putting this. It doesn't totally invalidate what I've "felt" or "seen", yet at the same time it doesn't allow me to get away with generalizing and painting a more elaborate picture.

thanks again,

prag

 

[ripleofdeath]

hard case prag
you pose a very interresting thought
cris- i can only assume a double negative by-
Originally posted by Cris:
The value of science is that it can tell you if something does exist. Science cannot be used to tell you if something does not
exist. The scientific conclusion on such claims is always – unproven, or unknown.
-i think i undestand where your coming from -untill you get to-Originally posted by prag:
... until they had some facts to back it up. I don't consider them bad for not being able to trust her because, frankly, I'd have a hard time as well. The facts merely support what someone says, especially if they're reproduceable. Which, in the case of most paranormal phenomena, it is not

if we were to lean on a social science methidology then would it not be prudent to discard facts and thus refer to 'events'?

-for what is our reality-??????stress?... it kills with no weapon and leaves no battle wound yet scars for life and quickens death and illnes.

is stress paranormal?
the ferefence to the state of the human mind makes me ponder this!
laws that govern our society lend them selfs to facts of mind or intelectual reality - hence> perversion-hence> self esteem-
hence> manipulation from perversion to perverted to mental
abuse =victim of thought!....?=paranormal trueth
what u think?
#note this is not a personal belief but mearly a thread of thought for manipulating periferal reference to lend wholeness.
groove on all

 

[lythea]

I'm wondering if anyone has read the book or seen the video of "Life after Life" by Dr. Raymond Moody? It addresses some arguments for the "neurons firing in the brain" and the arguments that the "light, tunnel, feelings of love" is just an experience of the brain at the time of death.

I found it very inspiring and especially helpful as I lost my mother this past February 5th.

peace,
lythea

 

[gardenofdreams]

But we have to turn to science to tell us the truth of reality

I agree that it is difficult for things to be measured subjectively on this matter, and unfortunately this may always be the case.

As science is our best bet for the truth of reality, 'reality' is an underlying question in this i feel.

As Humans we are only capable of accessing a finite perception and we call this our 'reality'. We are simply conditioned to this human reality. With this in mind my point is, that there could be paranormal events, but simply as we can only perceive little information from what is out there, it means we have a small scope by what is ultimatly measurable in science, which is of course dictated by our senses.

Though it seems logical that paranormal events are just down to our imagination or subconscious, we still cannot know. We will always go for the answer that seems most logical (based on our current understanding) or things that seem to be most simple while ruling out other possibilities knowing how strange they could be.

I think we have to be careful in judging this subject as we only know what seems to be true by our small perception and understanding as human beings.

 

[Simon Anders]

Prag,

If something can’t be measured, or deduced from measurements then we cannot claim that that something exists. This is the basis of science.

Consciousness?
Can we measure it?
What measurements can we use to deduce its existence?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Sorry to hear that you lost your grandfather first of all. As for having some kind of paranormal contact with him , that is something only you can determine if it was real or just your own thoughts thinking about him. Science doesn't deal in the paranormal but in facts, so if only you had that experience with your grandfather then it would be impossible for science to prove that you did or did not do such a thing. The only thing that science can say is that it cannot be tested or seen by others as it happens to provide scientists with factual proof you can do such things.