Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Edge Of Science # 14

Article Science Loyd Auerbach

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Cinnamon

Cinnamon

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:51 PM

View PostSnowlord, on 12 August 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Belief systems can't be tested this way, and so are very unreliable indicators of reality.
Yes I agree.  Belief itself sometimes is and isn't logical. But who's to say science is not faulty in it's logic. I'll give you an example later.


View PostSnowlord, on 12 August 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Sleep paralysis is tested and researched  in labs frequently, so I'm not sure why you might think it can't be replicated in those labs that are studying it.

It doesn't mean you are getting the actual details when replicated. Those that have been ridden by hags claim it is far different than the average sleep paralysis from say running a marathon. Because in one they feel legs, arms, private parts, etc on them. While the other is just being stuck and frightened.

You are also dealing with the invisible, and how is a scientist going to measure something invisible that may have a consciousness that can chose to be measured or not? That's what a ghost is right? Consciousness without a body. Imagine if you were a ghost, and how easy it is for you to move around while people think you are in a certain spot and end up measuring nothing. How do you measure being touched? How do you measure hearing voices? Currently we can only measure what everyone else can see and hear but not the individual experience. If you can't then it is easy to chalk it up as "in your head." Science can be dismissive. Doesn't make it right.

How would science prove or disprove consciousness outside the body exist? They can't. Don't get me wrong you can measure protons, neutrons, and anything that has a pattern or belongs to a system. But does consciousness have a pattern? If so, do you know what you will do three days from now. Will you get up at the exact time? Feel the exact way? Eat the exact things?

I'm just saying science is a good beginning, but there are things that aren't accounted for. So the argument should be based on reasoning, supplemented by science.

#22 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 16 August 2013 - 10:45 AM

View PostCinnamon, on 12 August 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

... Yes I agree.  Belief itself sometimes is and isn't logical. But who's to say science is not faulty in it's logic....

... and how is a scientist going to measure something invisible that may have a consciousness that can chose to be measured or not ...

... I'm just saying science is a good beginning, but there are things that aren't accounted for ... So the argument should be based on reasoning, supplemented by science ...


The logic of science is not faulty, only some of it's results can be, due to mistakes and human errors and occasional frauds and such. The logic is sound. Test until it is repeatable, accurate, and evident to anyone who repeats it.

In the second quote above ... well, if something is invisible and can't be measured then you are back to just having a belief. No way to test for that, and just using reasoning will result in multiple, unproveable explanations that wil vary considerably from person to person.

In the third quote above you have it reversed again. Reasoning is the beginning, but can generate no reliable results until science is used to determine the final answer. There is no other way to do it reliably. Science is the only way to correctly define reality. My reasoning might vary considerably from your reasoning.

.

#23 Cinnamon

Cinnamon

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 12:58 PM

View PostSnowlord, on 16 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

The logic of science is not faulty, only some of it's results can be, due to mistakes and human errors and occasional frauds and such. The logic is sound. Test until it is repeatable, accurate, and evident to anyone who repeats it.

So if it can't be repeated can does it make it untrue? Or is it possible current science is not able to explain everything.

View PostSnowlord, on 16 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

In the second quote above ... well, if something is invisible and can't be measured then you are back to just having a belief. No way to test for that, and just using reasoning will result in multiple, unproveable explanations that wil vary considerably from person to person.

Again, if there is no way to test for this, does it make it (spirit/ghosts) false or nonexistent? Or at some point do we have to suspend the need for science to be the answer all and have believe in our own experience? Scarey, huh? To believe we hold our own answers....

View PostSnowlord, on 16 August 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

In the third quote above you have it reversed again. Reasoning is the beginning, but can generate no reliable results until science is used to determine the final answer. There is no other way to do it reliably. Science is the only way to correctly define reality. My reasoning might vary considerably from your reasoning.

Yes, reasoning does not generate result. But I feel a person can discover more of "reality" if they admit current science misses a lot. I've already pointed out what it misses. Sometimes when we suspend what we were taught and look at something from another perspective, neither believing nor disbelieving we see that it all eventually connects with enough reasoning.

And yes your reasoning would be different, than mine. But that is why we need to listen to each other's reason. =) At the end of the day, it is up to the individual to accept given the facts, situation, story or not.

#24 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 20 August 2013 - 05:28 PM

View PostCinnamon, on 16 August 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

...


So if it can't be repeated can does it make it untrue?


Again, if there is no way to test for this, does it make it (spirit/ghosts) false or nonexistent?




No ... that doesn't make it untrue. Just possible. There is no way to prove something is not possible, in general. Anything that science can't prove to be real simply remains in the possible file.

In my opinion we don't need to suspend what we have been taught to carry on the way you have described. Any proper scientist "should" ( yes, I know not all do ) not let what he/she already knows bias what he/she thinks might be possible. I think that the fact that scientists will wait for a certain amount of reliable evidence to be collected before engaging in expensive research can create the illusion of this being the case.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Article, Science, Loyd Auerbach