|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2004 : 15:19:01 [Permalink]
|
If you type in "no ghost" in quotes just like that, you get 33,000. If you do it without the quotes, you get 8,650,000. But without the quotes, you get things like:
Return to the INE Main Page. LIGHT IS THE GHOST OF MASS. By Chuck Bennett. From: NEN, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 1997, Special Edition, p. 8. ...
Where there is "no" and there is "ghost" but they have nothing to do with each other.
So Storm beats us on popularity. But any time you wish to talk about the validty of it, Storm, you are welcome to. So far, you have not. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 05:52:04 [Permalink]
|
What more valid points would you like? I have shown you all and given many references. Now it is up to you to decide on what is valid and what is not. Read the Fence Sitting article it is wonderful!!!! Do not fall into True Believer. Some of us are meant to lead some to follow. |
Storm |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 07:27:26 [Permalink]
|
Do you think a ghost is only the conscious soul of a dead person? Like in the movie Ghost? Thank God for Scientific Examination!!! Let us move on from ghosts being the conscious souls of the dearly departed |
Storm |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 09:25:52 [Permalink]
|
| The Fence Sitting Article on the Skeptic Friends Network |
Storm |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 11:12:16 [Permalink]
|
Storm wrote:quote:
Read the Fence Sitting article it is wonderful!!!!
As author of that article, I thank you, but I also must say you seem to be missing the point, and/or failing to apply the ideas in the article consistently.quote:
Let us move on from ghosts being the conscious souls of the dearly departed
Fine by me, but why don't we also move on from the idea that ghosts are the conscious souls of living people, too? There doesn't appear to be any evidence for souls at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 13:34:39 [Permalink]
|
Tell me the point. I thought that you meant True Believers are those who believe because that is what they have been told, taught, etc? They do not take a look at any other evidence than what they know what they have been taught? I do not want to miss the point. |
Storm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 18:15:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave said, You don't think that falsehoods aren't "putting down" scientists? Here are some of yours:[list][*]"By definition, the skeptical scientists just discount such happenings and are unable to study them empirically (they don't really care to find something that might counter there long held beliefs)."
Perhaps I should have said, "some skeptical scientists". There are always exceptions, but you must admit that many discount certain unexplainable happenings without an attempt to understand what happened. The burden of proof seems to be placed on the individual with the "paranormal" story, instead of the scientist taking up the quest to explain these happenings. Probably because there is no funding to help him do so. That is certainly understandable. If I can get a grant for a chemical experiment on the next Mars probe from NASA, why would I divert my attention to some paranormal occurance? There's no funding for it, at least, not yet.
As to one of your other point, thanks for pointing out my error in my interpretation of your comment about the 20 years.
Also, I will try to look for scientific research regarding some of the paranormal or spiritual happenings, since you say it's out there. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2004 : 18:57:21 [Permalink]
|
I just did a brief search and came up with a lot of dingbat sites. But here's something. I'll look a bit more.
http://www.flamelcollege.org/paranormal.htm
Edited to add:
A little more on the CIA projects.
http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?articleid=294
I dunno about this one:
http://www.paranormalresearchonline.com/fpr_what.html
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/30/2004 19:07:29 |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2004 : 17:38:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
3. COLD FUSION. The Cold Fusion phenomenon violates physics as we understand it, and yet it has been duplicated in various forms in over 500 laboratories around the world. Recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute, a large non-profit research organization funded by the nation's power companies, found that Cold Fusion works. A recent Navy study also verified the reality of Cold Fusion, and the original MIT study which supposedly disproved Cold Fusion has been found to have doctored its data. Present day physics has no explanation for how it works, but it does work.
I may be wrong, but the only Cold Fusion I know that works is a programming language. I've never heard about a cold fusion experiment that worked - what I did hear about was that some guys once claimed they'd discovered it, just to later deny it.
Funny how they mention the "so-called Theory of Everything". Well, I'd have to say I'm rather surprised Stephen Hawking's book, The Universe in a Nutshell, mentions it only as something they're trying to discover, rather than something that not only has already been established but has also been broken.
(posted too soon, sorry) |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 12/02/2004 17:44:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2004 : 19:37:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Perhaps I should have said, "some skeptical scientists". There are always exceptions, but you must admit that many discount certain unexplainable happenings without an attempt to understand what happened. The burden of proof seems to be placed on the individual with the "paranormal" story, instead of the scientist taking up the quest to explain these happenings. Probably because there is no funding to help him do so. That is certainly understandable.
Nope. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim because otherwise, scientists would spend 99.9% of their time investigating utter crap, and be unable to do any real science. And I mean utter crap like trying to find out if there are microscopic buildings and spaceships on the Moon, or hunting huge woodland creatures which leave behind neither scat nor bones, or attempting to build perpetual-motion machines. The list of nonsensical claims is far, far longer than the list of current scientific research projects.
So if someone makes a scientifically-testable claim, it is up to that person to support it with evidence. Nobody else is obligated to either provide positive evidence or to disprove the claim. They are free, like most of us here, to say "if you provide the evidence, I'll look at it, but until then I have no reason to believe that what you're talking about exists."
If you think of that as dismissive, you're right. There are only so many hours in a day, and most scientists have jobs, family, hobbies and bodily needs which fill them. They're not dismissing the claims on merit, they're dismissing them because they don't have either the time or the motivation to do someone else's work.quote:
If I can get a grant for a chemical experiment on the next Mars probe from NASA, why would I divert my attention to some paranormal occurance? There's no funding for it, at least, not yet.
As above, it's much more basic than that. Is that hypothetical chemist even interested in the paranormal? If not, he/she would probably rather spend time off work on a beach in Hawaii than looking into a "haunted house" or some such. Being a scientist does not imply familiarity or motivation for all aspects of science. Many high-level scientists are highly specialized (there's probably one out there who's entire career is built upon nothing but research into the mosses which inhabit Oregon forests, for example, who if asked to identify a sparrow might actually say, "sorry, I'm a moss guy, not a bird guy."). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2004 : 18:46:06 [Permalink]
|
Dave said, "Is that hypothetical chemist even interested in the paranormal? If not, he/she would probably rather spend time off work on a beach in Hawaii than looking into a "haunted house" or some such." '
Yep, that is probably correct, Dave. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2004 : 19:21:05 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W is 100% correct when he says that the burden of proff lies with the individual making the claim.
If you make a claim, you need to support it. Not some random scientist.
I'm not sure if many people realize it or not, but anyone, even a fourth grader, can do real science.
(Edited to add: Emily Rosa was, at the time, a fourth grade student. The original experiment was proposed by her when she overheard her parents discussing the topic of theraputic touch. In it's original write-up I think she was credited as the lead investigator. It was executed well enough to pass peer-review and be published in JAMA in 1998)
Now, if a fourth grade student can design a double blind study to evaluate the claims of theraputic touch.... ANYONE who makes a signifigant claim about any subject can, if they so wish, devise a test to evaluate their claims and (maybe) provide supporting evidence. Why don't most of the woo-woo's do so? Simple. They know that they are full of shit, not evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 12/10/2004 19:25:36 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
