"Ghosts" implausible.???

[Dywyddyr]

Yet what we " do know " EVOLVES

Your comprehension difficulties are showing again.
Very, very very, rarely does what we come to learn radically alter prior knowledge to the point of contradiction.
Appealing to the argument "we don't know everything, therefore..." is neither logical nor rational.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yep, typical bullshit crank excuse.
While almost certainly true it's no excuse to accept things with zero hard evidence and that are directly contrary to what we do know,

Dywyddyr, while I would typically agree with this sentiment, the statement is inherently flawed...

Before the first powered flight, we (as a whole) "knew" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible for mankind... and thus, we ridiculed those who tried to achieve it.
Before the first man set foot on the moon, we "knew" that reaching out to the heavens was impossible for mankind... and thus, we ridiculed those striving to do so.

Right now, we "know" that planet-wide peace, equal standards of living, and acceptance of different and foreign ideals is impossible... and those that try to accomplish it are put down as "lazy" or "unreasonable" or "foolish"...

For all the things we "know"... how much do we REALLY know?

Or, to quote a movie that I am so terribly fond of:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Before the first powered flight, we (as a whole) "knew" that heavier-than-air flight was impossible for mankind.

Um, no we didn't.
That's why so many people kept trying.

Before the first man set foot on the moon, we "knew" that reaching out to the heavens was impossible for mankind.

Yeah, that's why, for instance, the British Interplanetary Society was formed in 1933. Why Tsiolkovsky (among others) published books about the feasibility of a Moon shot.

Right now, we "know" that planet-wide peace, equal standards of living, and acceptance of different and foreign ideals is impossible... and those that try to accomplish it are put down as "lazy" or "unreasonable" or "foolish"...

You're confusing "popular (or common) opinion" with what we know through science.

 

[river]

Your comprehension difficulties are showing again.
Very, very very, rarely does what we come to learn radically alter prior knowledge to the point of contradiction.
Appealing to the argument "we don't know everything, therefore..." is neither logical nor rational.

Disagree

the " we don't know everything " is both rational and therefore logical

 

[Magical Realist]

And here, back again to the crank's eternal "either/ or", "one or the other".
Reported experiences within standard parameters may be accepted at face value (which isn't the same as pushing those reports).
Reported experiences that go against everything we know (and have verified) require substantiation.

Reports of paranormal phenomena do not "go against everything we know". For one they have been reported in every culture from time immemorial. For that reason alone they are in line with what we know. We "know" these kinds of anomalous events occur. You don't dismiss a phenomenon just because it might require you to update your present paradigm.

That would be entirely false.
There's a vast difference between offering an explanation based on what we already and automatically believing something can't exist.

There are phenomena we admit exist that don't have an explanation based on what we think we know. Quantum entanglement for example. And dark energy. And the cause of the Big Bang. So by your logic we should also deny THESE phenomena simply because they don't conform to what we think we know.

Nowhere did anyone say that what was put forward was the only possible explanation: i.e. it is not a case of "saying now".

I said "only an alternative", NOT "the only alternative."

Oh right.
I mention literature and you decide I meant ONE particular blog (one which you can't even be bothered to state why you dismiss).

You quoted Rational Wiki and Patheos. What other "literature" do you have to support your "confabulation = false memory syndrome" hypothesis?

If you haven't experienced something either directly in person or been through a full and exhaustive education then your opinion remains just that: an opinion. With zero weight.

Oh so then the fact that people like Kitt HAVE experienced the paranormal directly then makes it credible. I'm glad you finally admitted that.

Reading second or third-hand accounts, of dubious provenance and rigour, doesn't make for a firm footing on any subject.

I don't read second or third hand accounts of the paranormal. I read first hand accounts. Something you should do instead of relying on second and third hand accounts of skeptics who weren't even there at the time.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

When i was about 6... durin the middle of a bright summer day i walked into the kitchen an saw somethin that looked like a black smoky Michelan-Man an it was as tall as the celin... i immediately ran out of the house screamin... my sister ask me what was wrong an draged me back into the house an into the kitchen an i was screamin an fightin the whole way... an when forced to look into the kitchen... to my grate surprize "it" was gone.!!!

 

[river]

When i was about 6... durin the middle of a bright summer day i walked into the kitchen an saw somethin that looked like a black smoky Michelan-Man an it was as tall as the celin... i immediately ran out of the house screamin... my sister ask me what was wrong an draged me back into the house an into the kitchen an i was screamin an fightin the whole way... an when forced to look into the kitchen... to my grate surprize "it" was gone.!!!

Meaning , this post , is meaningless

 

[Kittamaru]

Um, no we didn't.
That's why so many people kept trying.

And yet many "reputable scientists" of the time said it was simply impossible... such as Lord William Thomson Kelvin

Yeah, that's why, for instance, the British Interplanetary Society was formed in 1933. Why Tsiolkovsky (among others) published books about the feasibility of a Moon shot.

And yet people like Robert Goddard actually withdrew from the public eye after incredible criticism and denouncing of his ideas... despite the fact that, in the end, he was exactly right.

You're confusing "popular (or common) opinion" with what we know through science.

And yet "popular opinion" has incredible sway in what we, as a species, "know" and how we act... for example, in the US, the average person thinks NASA gets far more funding then they actually do... for example:

I know that a lot of people have a hard time grasping large numbers. Our puny brains, so recently evolved, don’t have a concrete example of a million, or a billion. We have a hard time past about 150!

So it doesn’t surprise me that the U.S. budget is difficult to comprehend, totaling $2.7 trillion. Still, I can’t quite wrap my head around the fact that the average American thinks that NASA gets 1/4 of the U.S. total budget:

Americans in general have no idea what NASA’s "cost" is. In fact, most members of the public have no idea how much any government agency’s budget is. What we do know — and have recently documented — is that the public perception of NASA’s budget is grossly inflated relative to actual dollars. In a just-completed study, we asked respondents what percentage of the national budget is allocated to NASA … NASA’s allocation, on average, was estimated to be approximately 24% of the national budget (the NASA allocation in 2007 was approximately 0.58% of the budget.)

A lot of people think NASA is a waste of time and money, and maybe this is why; they have a grossly overinflated idea of how much NASA spends. When NASA loses a $150 million probe, that’s a lot of real money, but hardly a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend as a nation (and remember, we spend $11 million per hour in Iraq).

I’ve written about this before, on what NASA does with its paltry percentage. NASA faces a clear issue here: they do an incredible amount of work and exploration with a small amount of money. People think that they don’t do very much at all and spend vast amounts of money. All NASA needs to do is educate the public on their real budget. Once it’s put into perspective, really made clear, I bet public support for NASA would go way up.

To be sure, a huge amount of NASA’s budget is wasted (I am not a big supporter of the space station or the Shuttle because of cost and mission, though I do not deny how cool they are), and that is a priority. But at the same time, if they could get the public to truly understand how little of the national budget they get, they might be able to actually get them to rally behind a real project, like getting back to the Moon, or building even better probes to the planets, moon, comets, and asteroids in our solar system — not to mention building bigger and more sensitive telescopes that can see the Universe across the electromagnetic spectrum.

I remember hearing a talk by a Hubble scientist years ago, and he said that if you download two or three Hubble images and use them to decorate your office or as a desktop wallpaper, you’ve gotten your money’s worth out of the telescope. I think he made a really good point. Exploration, science, understanding, beauty: the price on these is small, and it’s even smaller than most people think!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...udget-as-far-as-americans-think/#.VAvrFPldUYx

Yes... people actually think NASA gets as much as 1/4 of the US federal budget... in reality, it is, as of 2014, something like .4%. At it's height... 1966, it was 4.41%... still a far, far cry from 25%. Yet, NASA's budget has been continually cut and cut and cut... *shrugs*

 

[Dywyddyr]

And yet many "reputable scientists" of the time said it was simply impossible... such as Lord William Thomson Kelvin

Many. And you named one.
I think you'll find that A) he wasn't speaking for science as whole and B) he was more likely talking about the engineering not the science (since heavier than air flight was known to be a fact - birds).

And yet people like Robert Goddard actually withdrew from the public eye after incredible criticism and denouncing of his ideas... despite the fact that, in the end, he was exactly right.

Oh, he withdrew from public view.
Did that alter the science?

And yet "popular opinion" has incredible sway in what we, as a species, "know" and how we act... for example, in the US, the average person thinks NASA gets far more funding then they actually do... for example:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...udget-as-far-as-americans-think/#.VAvrFPldUYx
Yes... people actually think NASA gets as much as 1/4 of the US federal budget... in reality, it is, as of 2014, something like .4%. At it's height... 1966, it was 4.41%... still a far, far cry from 25%. Yet, NASA's budget has been continually cut and cut and cut... *shrugs*

Popular opinion isn't science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Reports of paranormal phenomena do not "go against everything we know".

I was, of course, speaking about what science knows.

There are phenomena we admit exist that don't have an explanation based on what we think we know. Quantum entanglement for example. And dark energy. And the cause of the Big Bang. So by your logic we should also deny THESE phenomena simply because they don't conform to what we think we know.

Yes, funny how you manage to come up with scientifically observed effects (for which we admit we don't have a full explanation) in support of YOUR general attitude of "Something, therefore supernatural".

I said "only an alternative", NOT "the only alternative."

And you thought it was put forward as what prior to realising that it was proposed as an alternative?

You quoted Rational Wiki and Patheos. What other "literature" do you have to support your "confabulation = false memory syndrome" hypothesis?

Ho hum, go back and read what I actually wrote, which that I would have expected you to have investigated this yourself (as opposed to opting for the "supernatural exxplanation" every time).

I don't read second or third hand accounts of the paranormal. I read first hand accounts.

Ah right.
So you've read exceedingly few books on the subject, since the VAST majority are 2nd or 3rd hand reports.

 

[river]

Many. And you named one.
I think you'll find that A) he wasn't speaking for science as whole and B) he was more likely talking about the engineering not the science (since heavier than air flight was known to be a fact - birds).


Oh, he withdrew from public view.
Did that alter the science?

Popular opinion isn't science.

Ironically , popular opinion , in the science's , is science

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ironically , popular opinion , in the science's , is science

Not true.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
Ironically , popular opinion , in the science's , is science

Not true.

Really

Then where is the evidence given by the alternative thinking included in the thinking of mainstream thinking ?

 

[Sarkus]

If you don't understand how that could be, I would question your understanding of human memory; important details or unusual events tend to stick much better than more mundane ones (such as ones age).

Of that I have no doubt, but if something as significant as that happened to me, I would remember the age for sure. Hence I would raise the question of how you couldn't recall accurately, and to me it suggests that over time some of the other details that you can remember are perhaps embellishments, albeit innocently arrived at.

 

[river]

Of that I have no doubt, but if something as significant as that happened to me, I would remember the age for sure. Hence I would raise the question of how you couldn't recall accurately, and to me it suggestO s that over time some of the other details that you can remember are perhaps embellishments, albeit innocently arrived at.

I understand your position , Sarkus

But all the same , you have , NO , experience

 

[Sarkus]

How do you know the paranormal defies all known understanding of physics?

It is why it is called "paranormal" - i.e. it defies scientific explanation.

It certainly doesn't contradict the notion of block time in physics where the past, present, and future all exist at once.

Sure - you just have the simple matter of explaining how one can view the past and future from the present. Block time is the idea that time is as fixed a dimension as is space, that the future is already there and the past remains. But throwing out the names of philosophies doesn't provide a scientific explanation of how something from the past can exist in the present... it would be much like something non-quantum in the present existing in two places at the same time.

And if by chance we ARE beings, not of matter, but of pure energy, then it sort of follows that we'd continue on after we die since energy is never destroyed.

I thought there was another thread for such "woo"?
Again, throwing around the unscientific ideas does not remove something from being deemed paranormal.

In any case, assuming the paranormal and physics to be incompatible makes the double mistake of thinking we know all about what the paranormal is, and of thinking physics defined in this present day represents all the understanding we will ever have of it.

I'm not saying they are incompatible, but we define what is paranormal by reference to current scientific understanding. As the latter changes, what we deem as paranormal changes.
But your attempt to raise the straw man is noted.

Is it not physics itself that already posits things such as other dimensions and universes, a possibility that would certainly explain the existence of transphysical beings? You just need to be more openminded before dismissing out of hand the very possibility of the paranormal.

I don't dismiss it out of hand - I just require the same level of evidence in support of it before dismissing the current scientific explanations that offer more rational (to me) alternatives.
And you need to be aware that throwing around ideas that sound as though they offer glimmers of opportunity to explain something in a scientific way is not sufficient to deem something not paranormal.
Yes, physics posits other dimensions and universes etc, but you need to show how that gap (to our universe) can be bridged in such a meaningful way (as to have a "ghost" help a 10-12 year old boy) so as to be "plausible".
At the moment you're doing nothing but saying "Ooh, alternate dimensions are posited to exist: therefore ghosts could exist. Ooh, other universes are posited to exist: therefore ghosts could exist. Ooh, block time suggests the future and past exist eternally akin to another spatial dimension... therefore ghosts could exist". It's nothing but "woo". (and no, that's not meant to be the sound of a "ghost").

 

[Sarkus]

I understand your position , Sarkus

But all the same , you have , NO , experience

No experience with what?
With interpreting things initially as ghosts (when I still was young enough to believe in such things)?
Or with having an inaccurate memory of certain events of my life - either through general memory degradation or through innocent embellishment?
Or with knowing my age at every significant event of my life?

What, exactly, do you think I have no experience with, and on what grounds are you making this claim?

 

[Stryder]

An analogy of Paranormal to me would be bug's in a piece of software.

Software for instance is designed to fulfil a particular role and sometimes during development things can be overlooked, misinterpreted or just not included because it's beyond the scope of the initial project (For instance if the software is built to run on an OS, it doesn't necessarily consider the need of support for hardware etc)

Occasionally such software will have a bug pop up (something paranormal for analogy sake) and testers and developers will attempt to recreate what causes that particular bug. Once they have worked out what the bug was, the understanding of that allows them to write a patch, thereby removing the bug.

The same goes between Paranormal and Science, Paranormal is just a bug in the understanding of Science in general. A majority of that time the bug exists with the individual that interprets what paranormal is. On the rare occasion it will be assumed that people in science are stumped, this is usually the reflection that not everybody involved in science has the time, effort or notion to educate people to the contrary. This means they abstain from commenting on the subject reducing the validity of what paranormal evangelists see as being the consensus of the subject.

(In otherwords "One stumped Scientist does not Science make")

Part of Science is challenging these "Bugs" for a better understanding of the universe as a whole.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

When i was about 6... durin the middle of a bright summer day i walked into the kitchen an saw somethin that looked like a black smoky Michelan-Man an it was as tall as the celin... i immediately ran out of the house screamin... my sister ask me what was wrong an draged me back into the house an into the kitchen an i was screamin an fightin the whole way... an when forced to look into the kitchen... to my grate surprize "it" was gone.!!!

Meaning , this post , is meaningless

Its a first hand acount of a "ghost" in which a technological singularity coud make plausible.!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

When i was about 6... durin the middle of a bright summer day i walked into the kitchen an saw somethin that looked like a black smoky Michelan-Man an it was as tall as the celin... i immediately ran out of the house screamin... my sister ask me what was wrong an draged me back into the house an into the kitchen an i was screamin an fightin the whole way... an when forced to look into the kitchen... to my grate surprize "it" was gone.!!!

Shadow people are common paranormal experience. They are often seen darting around or looming in corners. Based on the commonality of such an experience, I'd say you might have had a real encounter with something.

http://www.shadowpeople.org/