Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Is science the only awnser to Paranormal claims
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 9

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 12/18/2004 :  21:04:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Since there are 8 pages here that I don't have time to read, feel free to ignore this post if it is redundant. I see a theme in Storm's posts which is pretty common among those who don't understand why 'science' discounts the 'paranormal' and other 'supernatural' phenomenon. The assumption is often made that 'science' is some how opposed to certain conclusions. This is not so. Science loves to discover new and amazing things. Just look at quantum physics, cosmology and astronomy discoveries in the last decade if you want to see fantastic things.

If you think certain events or phenomenon are evidence for UFOs, ESP, or whatever, that mainstream science isn't buying, you have to look at what evidence is needed to confirm such ideas.

NDEs for example are fascinating. But evidence has come from G-force testing modules that depriving the brain of blood produces similar experiences. That is evidence against NDEs being something like an out of the body experience. On the other hand, some experimenters have put secret messages in ERs, ORs or ICUs high up where you could only see them if you really were floating above your body. When someone having a NDE reads one of those messages, it will be very good scientific evidence NDEs are more than blood deprived brain dreams. If two or three people read such messages in more than one setting, it will be some overpowering evidence.

So far, no one has read any secret messages.

A lot of fantastic claims really don't have that strong evidence. That is why mainstream science rejects the bizarre hypotheses. It isn't because we don't 'believe' or aren't open minded.

Take the time to look at evidence for and against things before you assume something is being unfairly dismissed. Science loves the bizarre, when it can be demonstrated, measured, repeated consistently, and so on.

Go to Top of Page

Storm
SFN Regular

USA
708 Posts

Posted - 12/18/2004 :  21:16:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Storm's Homepage Send Storm a Private Message
While I still believe there to be evidence, G-forces that might have had similiar experiences are no proof against it. The fact is maybe it is just chemical NDE and ghosts Energy dissapating dispersing. That is what I am trying to debate, discuss. I do much research and I continue to do the research you all suggest.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 12/18/2004 :  23:02:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Apparently, Storm, you want the term "NDE" to mean something other than it means to NDE researchers. An NDE, to them, is evidence of life after death, and/or the existence of the mind outside the body. The fact that NDE-like experiences can be induced by purely normal means is, indeed, evidence against the paranormal explanations. "Just chemical NDE" denies all meaning to the term "NDE" outside of "weird experience." We've already got a term for that: "weird experience."

This seems to be the same issue you've got with the terms "ghost" and "UFO," to name just two. It's a basic communication skill that one use the same definitions of words as other people, otherwise you won't be understood.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

astropin
SFN Regular

USA
970 Posts

Posted - 12/18/2004 :  23:14:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send astropin a Private Message
Yes Storm, but just what TYPE of research are you doing? If the research does not strictly follow the scientific method then it is not useful information. If you are reading someone else's research and IT did not following the scientific method, then it is not useful information.

I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.

You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.

Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.

Infinitus est numerus stultorum
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 9 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.14 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000