|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2005 : 16:28:15 [Permalink]
|
I disagree with you Dr. Mabuse. I think my theory is more closer to the truth than you know. I immedietly look for naturalanswers I have said that all along!!!! But there are those that define natural explanations, anomolies. My meter incident, my slipper incident...
I am not so far out in woo woo land as you might think? but a little woo wooing never hurt anyone  |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 20:42:30 [Permalink]
|
| So Storm, was there any particular lesson I was supposed to learn as a reason for you to use the same quote from my article 5 times? I fail to see the point, if there was one... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 21:09:48 [Permalink]
|
No Kil complete mistake. only meant to copy it once |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2005 : 22:58:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
I think my theory is more closer to the truth than you know.
Calling it a theory doesn't make it one. We've told you what a scientific theory is and does. Your speculation doesn't explain anything (you can't even define the words), and it doesn't predict anything. It's not a theory.
If you've got any desire for us to agree that you're acting in a scientific manner, or have any desire to, you should start acting in a scientific manner. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 10:03:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
No Kil complete mistake. only meant to copy it once
I'm still not sure what point you were trying to make by selecting that quote... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 16:06:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Orignally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perhaps, but you're still rejecting the notion of searching through all possible natural causes for a phenomenon before jumping to paranormal/supernatural explanations. And when I say natural, I mean natural in the sense any respected run-of-the-mill scientist would use: stuff that scientists have gotten the Nobel Prize for...
No I am not!!! I definetly look for natural causes first. Dr. Mabuse I have definetly shown that I do NOT think ghosts are supernatural/paranoraml
What makes what I say unreasonable? What part? Because A noble prize or run of the mill scientist has not said it first? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 16:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
quote:
Orignally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perhaps, but you're still rejecting the notion of searching through all possible natural causes for a phenomenon before jumping to paranormal/supernatural explanations. And when I say natural, I mean natural in the sense any respected run-of-the-mill scientist would use: stuff that scientists have gotten the Nobel Prize for...
No I am not!!! I definetly look for natural causes first.
Then why did you write this in the grieving-pet thread?
quote:
Hail to your thinking Siberia!!! I believe the horse picked up on you and your energy towards him.
The natural answer is obvious (just as Siberia's dog): The animal picked up from the body-language that Siberia was in distress, and came to offer support.
"Energy" had nothing to do with it. Just an example of you jumping to conclusion.
And your story about the meter that a ghost took out of your bag and laid on a table in the kitchen. Since when did ghosts move corporeal objects? The most likely explanation is that you took it out yourself, but forgot about it, or that someone else took it out when you were not looking. Both alternatives are more plausible than the ethereal ghost starting to mess around with the physical world.
A scientist would say: There could be several reasons for the meter to get moved from the bag to the table. We have no evidence that points in any direction, so the answer to the question "How?" the answer must be: "I don't know, and I will probably never find out, either."
Suggesting without evidence, that a ghost made it move is uncalled for, gets a high reading on a scientist's woo-woo-meter.
quote:
Dr. Mabuse I have definetly shown that I do NOT think ghosts are supernatural/paranoraml
Yes, you have made abundantly clear that you think ghosts are natural, and not paranormal. It's just that the rest of us, yes just about every scientist you could find, disagrees with you.
As long as there are no scientific theories describing the phenomena of ghosts, ghosts are by definition paranormal and not natural.
quote:
What makes what I say unreasonable? What part?
Because you are trying to reinvent language by assigning new definitions to already accepted use. Like using the word Energy to describe something that has nothing to do with energy.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 17:21:39 [Permalink]
|
Ya know Doc I am not really sure about the whole pet grieving section you are talking about maybe my mistake Sorry So forget that. Just got home from work. Wiped. Lots of death and grief today
any way back to Ghosts....
quote:
Yes, you have made abundantly clear that you think ghosts are natural, and not paranormal. It's just that the rest of us, yes just about every scientist you could find, disagrees with you.
As long as there are no scientific theories describing the phenomena of ghosts, ghosts are by definition paranormal and not natural.
Don't you think that a scientist must start somewhere? So maybe if I rephrase things you could see the possibilities of what I propose?
In my observations of ghostly phenomenon I am drawing a hypothesis that Ghostly phenomenon can be attributed to redistributed energy into the environnment. This redistributed energy comes from humans/animals that were once living but are now deceased.
The fact is the phenomenon exists? How? Why? Well I have just suggested one possibility? But this is of course after things like, draft, misperception, fraud, etc can be ruled out. Why should the anomoly stay an anomoly. Maybe there is an answer. Maybe it will be I to prove it.
quote:
Because you are trying to reinvent language by assigning new definitions to already accepted use. Like using the word Energy to describe something that has nothing to do with energy.
Explain?
quote:
As long as there are no scientific theories describing the phenomena of ghosts, ghosts are by definition paranormal and not natural.
I am proposing a new theory!!!
How's the Grammar? Better? Not so bothered |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 17:58:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't you think that a scientist must start somewhere? So maybe if I rephrase things you could see the possibilities of what I propose?
In my observations of ghostly phenomenon I am drawing a hypothesis that Ghostly phenomenon can be attributed to redistributed energy into the environnment. This redistributed energy comes from humans/animals that were once living but are now deceased.
The fact is the phenomenon exists? How? Why? Well I have just suggested one possibility? But this is of course after things like, draft, misperception, fraud, etc can be ruled out. Why should the anomoly stay an anomoly. Maybe there is an answer. Maybe it will be I to prove it.
Well, at least you have the order with the scientific method down. You are no longer starting with a theory first.
What is really lacking here is a concept of how energy is used. To do work, energy requires a mechanism to use it. I could shoot all the energy at a car I want, and it will not move. It will heat up but it will not move. I need some sort of mechanism to convert that energy into motion. In the cars case, it is a motor. The motor takes the chemical potiential energy found is gas, literally blows it up creating heat. It then takes this heat and coverts it into mechanical energy, pushing the car forward.
Until you can name some sort of mechanism in which the energy released from a body after death is used to do work, your hypothesis is seriously flawed.
And even if you can, you will need to show how energy from a dead body is somehow different than that of a living body or all the other energy in the universe. As far as physics is concerned right now, all that energy is exactly the same and behaves with the same properties. |
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 - 01/08/2005 : 18:11:09 [Permalink]
|
I am sitting here reading this wonderful book{see book review folder} and talking with you all, waiting for my chinese food!!!!.
I am looking at the authors model of the reasoning process used to evaluate scientific ideas.
1}Observe
2}Hypothesize- this is where I am
3}Predict
4}Experiment Difficult to do with dead corpses
5}Revise Hypothesis- this is what we need to do the current hypothesis on Ghosts
6}Expirement |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 21:17:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
In my observations of ghostly phenomenon...
What, precisely, are the phenomena you've observed? Here are a few that I've observed:- If I throw a ball into the air, it comes back down.
- If I take an aspirin when I've got a headache, the headache goes away.
- My heart rate, after running up and down stairs a few times, is higher than it is after I've been sitting for a while.
quote:
...I am drawing a hypothesis that Ghostly phenomenon can be attributed to redistributed energy into the environnment.
This hypothesis is utterly worthless until you define the word 'energy'. Yes, I'm a stuck record, but you don't have a hypothesis until you define your terms (and precisely record your observations).quote:
This redistributed energy comes from humans/animals that were once living but are now deceased.
Where this undefined "energy" is coming from to create these undefined "ghostly" phenomena is an entirely separate hypothesis, but suffers from the same problems as the first.quote:
The fact is the phenomenon exists?
Your question mark is entirely appropriate, since you haven't really told us what you think the "phenomenon" is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 21:36:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
I am looking at the authors model of the reasoning process used to evaluate scientific ideas.
1}Observe
2}Hypothesize- this is where I am
3}Predict
4}Experiment Difficult to do with dead corpses
5}Revise Hypothesis- this is what we need to do the current hypothesis on Ghosts
6}Expirement
What you will find is you will be stuck in hypothesis. (Musings in this case.) I predict that you will not be able to devise a way for your hypothesis to lead to a prediction that can be tested. The reason? Your energy idea is a null hypothesis. Until you can define exactly what this energy should be and how it should act, you will be at a serious disadvantage designing an in experiment to measure it. Since the energy you suggest defies what is known about the nature of energy, you may eventually have to conclude that your hypothesis is not in the realm of the falsifiable. And that would make it paranormal by definition.
However, I am glad to see you are learning about the scientific method. That is a good thing… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
