Comments on: Return to Science

http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/ reality bizarres the standard Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:46:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: fooneyguy http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-1062 fooneyguy Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:16:39 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-1062 I agree with and disagree with you at the same time, kinda like clearvision. Science has given us the most complete and measurable understanding of our universe and existence that we know of. The scientific method is the best way to understand anything measurable. However no matter how hard you try every person has a subjective experience, and with psychic phenomena there is nothing but subjective experience. That makes it so confirmation bias is all you've got. The true believers see a truly real effect, and the skeptics see nothing. I personally see psychic phenomena as more art than science. There is no guaranteed step by step measured process for psychokinesis (for example) but everyone has what works for them. There is still experimentation going on but more often it seems to be guided by intuition than cold hard measurable results. By: ClearVision http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-899 ClearVision Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:10:55 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-899 Aha. So you're saying that Descartes and Bacon were right in their attempts to create a method to find out about reality. The fundamental theorem of it being "I think, therefore I am". Maybe it's time to test that statement and to see beyond :D, on whether we are our thoughts or whether our thoughts are us. But you just can't prove that. It's impossible to look at us, our thoughts from an outside unbiased perspective. No one else can perceive your thoughts - unless you use an "unproven" method (telepathy, etc.). And even then, one could still say that the thoughts were contaminated by someone else. Its a dead end circle. Science is right - but wrong at the same time, logically excluding certain areas of reality. It's just plain unmeasurable with direct effects. Psi is like dark matter - you can only measure it using its indirect effects, and even then, statistics are against you because the effects are so subtle compared to the whole system. I partially disagree with you. Some things in this reality just can't be measured using the scientific method. I'm not saying it's completely false - but it's not completely right either. By: cinderwild http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-897 cinderwild Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:01:58 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-897 In my opinion, the concept that most people live by, that they have free will, should be considered parascientific/supernatural in itself, since science seems to dictate any notion of that. By: antec-rex http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-895 antec-rex Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:45:46 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-895 Looking at evidence is necessary to proving anything, and I agree with your post. I also agree that there are some problems with Modern Science as well. Of course, things that are known as fact can be flipped upside down pretty easily with this method as well, which solves most of those problems - it just takes time. However I am interested to see your evidence on life after death. By: Sean http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-893 Sean Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:20:55 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-893 altrie - the lottery has been below 45 mil for the past two months :-P. I notice a few ideas in these comments that treat science as though it's a belief system. It is a belief system... but not in the same sense that religious belief is. I think it's important to make a distinction between science and modern science. I see science as just an idea - a way of looking at the world. Science (to me) is the idea that we need to be systematic and logical when figuring out the world around us. We need to base our theories on evidence, and be willing to change our beliefs when new evidence reasonably suggests that we should. Modern science, on the other hand, is what I consider to be what most scientists say about the world, today. It's whatever the current beliefs are. For example, the Big Bang Theory, evolution, and psychic abilities not being real, fall under modern science. When I talk about science being great, I am talking about the idea - the process of science. I am NOT trying to defend modern science. Obviously I disagree a lot with modern science, because I see a whole buttload of evidence for psychic abilities, life after death, and forms of intention manifestation. But I agree with the process - I agree 100% that we need to try and be objective, theorize, experiment, and gather evidence fairly. Just wanted to make that distinction clear :-P. By: altrie http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-892 altrie Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:06:29 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-892 You don't write too much nowadays. Eventless life, lower site priority or lack of time? The problem with science is that it doesn't like being wrong. Electrone movement was too hard to explain so it's a probability. Telekinesis can't be explained so it doesnt exist. I may not have accurate information in this field but does science claim that universe both expands and is infinite? That would deny each other. By: cinderwild http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-891 cinderwild Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:49:19 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-891 " There is a big gap in the theory of evolution, and I read a book that showed how the Big Bang Theory couldn’t be true. But then again, it was just a book, biased on the Christian religion. " What is the gap and what were the reasons given in the book? I'm asking out of interest, not to attack you. I've always felt that science would explain everything despite whatever the conditions are. Yes, it explains how things to be, and it can be interesting and useful, but sometimes it feels irrelevant in terms of saying, " NO, this can't happen because THIS is how it really happens and it can never happen any differently! " My theory is that even if we had tentacle arms and spoke using gaseous outbursts, science would still have an explanation for it. Of course, those things haven't happened, but that's the best way I can get my point across. By: Renodin http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-890 Renodin Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:33:21 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-890 I have never trusted science very much. I've always grown up on religion, though I'm starting to form my own, fitting in different things from different beliefs. I don't believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, though I do believe in the standard evolution, a change over time, such as something plain like growing taller. I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory. But, I do trust science on some things, because it has good ways of explaining things. The stuff I stated earlier that I don't believe in were well explained and made some sense, but even they still haven't been proven yet. There is a big gap in the theory of evolution, and I read a book that showed how the Big Bang Theory couldn't be true. But then again, it was just a book, biased on the Christian religion. By: Hey_you http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-889 Hey_you Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:01:24 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-889 I agree that science (as in the method because I'm not a so called "skeptic" who live under the delusion that its a position), is the best way to go. However, the scientific method doesn't really help with things like personal development, in my experience at least. Thats why you need philosophy. Philosophy and science are inseparable, actually if you think with the scientific method sound philosophizing follows so in general I agree with everything you said. I think intention manifestation can be tested scientifically BTW, in fact the experiments done with PK have arguably already proven it in it s most basic sense. Experiments with dice-tossing and random number generators for example. Come to think of it other experiments also provide defensible evidence of ESP. Science rocks! I don't think waiting around for evidence is smart though. Thats philosophical opinion. Sometimes you just have to experiment for yourself, especially in the case of psi. By: Tsumaru http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-888 Tsumaru Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:06:23 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2007/10/20/return-to-science/#comment-888 In my high school philosophy class we studied a bit of Karl Popper. You should give it a read: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/popperphil1.pdf We only dealt with the very first chapter, but the rest might be good as well. If nothing else, read that first lecture - I think you might find it interesting, as he is discussing the idea of the confirmation bias.