|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
On meteorites and skepticism.
#9464577 - 12/19/08 09:52 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I could more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall down from heaven. --Thomas Jefferson
Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky! --Antoine Lavoisier
Who is to say that the current scientific dismissal of so-called paranormal phenomena isn't in the exact same line?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464626 - 12/19/08 10:01 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I see what you did here.
|
Bernackums
The universe will have its way.
Registered: 08/06/07
Posts: 865
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464635 - 12/19/08 10:03 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No one, but thus far no paranormal experiments are properly observable, so we just can't tell.
-------------------- Let's get the fuck out of here.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464665 - 12/19/08 10:08 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
TJ's cosmological ignorance has convinced me. I am now a certified UFO nut. Solid argument.
--------------------
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464681 - 12/19/08 10:11 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How do the ignorant comments of two specific individuals, neither of whom were astronomers, equate with the default position of the scientific community with regard to so-called phenomenon that has not been demonstrated? (i.e. not demonstrated = most likely does not exist.)
BTW, the anecdotes regarding the "paranormal" cannot be described as "phenomenon" according to the definition of the word:
"An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464696 - 12/19/08 10:14 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How do the ignorant comments of two specific individuals, neither of whom were astronomers, equate with the default position of the scientific community with regard to so-called phenomenon that has not been demonstrated? (i.e. not demonstrated = most likely does not exist.)
I thought I just said that.
--------------------
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Dude, you posted it while I was still typing.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: TJ's cosmological ignorance has convinced me. I am now a certified UFO nut. Solid argument.
Good to see I finally turned you into a believer.
Quote:
Veritas said: How do the ignorant comments of two specific individuals, neither of whom were astronomers, equate with the default position of the scientific community with regard to so-called phenomenon that has not been demonstrated?
The default position of the scientific community at that time was to dismiss all reports of meteorites as nothing but folk superstition and tall tales.
Quote:
BTW, the anecdotes regarding the "paranormal" cannot be described as "phenomenon" according to the definition of the word:
"An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."
Are you saying no one has ever claimed to see a ghost, or experienced ESP? Paranormal events most likely cannot be qualified as scientific phenomena, but they certainly are capable of being experienced by the senses regardless of their identity in objective reality.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464726 - 12/19/08 10:21 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Many different imaginary/hallucinatory experiences are possible...does this mean that they are phenomenal (being perceived by the senses)?
Obviously, the failure to thoroughly investigate reports of meteorites was NOT a scientific approach. How can you equate this with the amount of (fruitless) investigation that has been undertaken in the field of the "paranormal"?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464755 - 12/19/08 10:26 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said: Many different imaginary/hallucinatory experiences are possible...does this mean that they are phenomenal (being perceived by the senses)?
I would say so, although this argument veers more into semantics than anything else. If I see a chair in a dream, is this chair not phenomenal if I am using my capacity of sight? If I hallucinate music while under the influence of psychedelics, am I not phenomenally hearing it?
Note that I am not claiming that a phenomenal experience must have a basis in objective reality.
Quote:
Obviously, the failure to thoroughly investigate reports of meteorites was NOT a scientific approach. How can you equate this with the amount of (fruitless) investigation that has been undertaken in the field of the "paranormal"?
The original failure to corroborate the existence of meteorites was due to their infrequent occurrence, inability for scientific investigators to predict their arrival, and lack of fast communication and travel to verify the origin of the meteorites.
Perhaps paranormal phenomena are equivalently or more spontaneous than meteorites?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464778 - 12/19/08 10:32 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, by definition the phenomenal must be perceived by your actual senses & not occur within your mind. (Let's refrain from the tired solipsism bit for now, Mmmkay?)
Let's say that "paranormal" events are perceptible by the senses, as were meteorites. Obviously, once folks started looking for meteorites, they verified that they exist. Why is it that believers and scientists alike have failed to verify paranormal events?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464813 - 12/19/08 10:39 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said: No, by definition the phenomenal must be perceived by your actual senses & not occur within your mind. (Let's refrain from the tired solipsism bit for now, Mmmkay?)
Perceptible by the senses means that one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell it. This does not imply objective reality, only the mental experience of a sensation that may or may not be correlated to the real world. The definition of phenomenal experience itself only implies the mental.
Quote:
Let's say that "paranormal" events are perceptible by the senses, as were meteorites. Obviously, once folks started looking for meteorites, they verified that they exist. Why is it that believers and scientists alike have failed to verify paranormal events?
. How should I know? I'm not advocating the objective existence of paranormal phenomena here; I just thought those were interesting quotes from respectable people that shed an interesting analogy to modern scientific disbelief.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464823 - 12/19/08 10:42 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The scientific approach is not disbelief, but maintaining a working understanding that an anecdotal event which has not been demonstrated is probably not phenomenal.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464826 - 12/19/08 10:43 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Meteorites were likewise anecdotal events that had not been demonstrated to scientific satisfaction.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464848 - 12/19/08 10:48 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
As I said, once people began investigating these reports, they were able to demonstrate the phenomenal nature of said events. Not so with paranormal events, despite ardent attempts by true believers to obtain verification of their beliefs.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464856 - 12/19/08 10:50 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said: Not so yet with paranormal events
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9464862 - 12/19/08 10:52 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Don't hold your breath.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464864 - 12/19/08 10:52 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Damn, and here I was hoping to pass out and see the non-phenomenal white light at the end of the tunnel.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
Edited by deCypher (12/19/08 10:59 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: Veritas]
#9464877 - 12/19/08 10:56 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said: Dude, you posted it while I was still typing.
What does this tell you?
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9465344 - 12/20/08 01:33 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The problem is that even though paranormal activity hasn't been properly observed and studied by modern science, people still like to make specific claims about the nature of said phenomena. Those specific claims are much harder for me to believe.
Eg, you could argue that "UFO sightings" are possibly caused by UFOs and that science just hasn't found enough evidence yet. Fine. But if you said that UFO sightings are definitely UFOs from Vega come to take our cattle, you're no longer able to argue the "science hasn't found evidence yet" angle, since for you to make such a claim you must (presumably) have evidence.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: zouden]
#9465870 - 12/20/08 07:00 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Your well-crafted (pun intended) logic doesn't fly with UFOlogists.
You are assuming they are actually rational about these things. You are only impressing people who already hold your stance. It is like pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible to a fundamentalist.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: zouden]
#9466319 - 12/20/08 10:35 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: The problem is that even though paranormal activity hasn't been properly observed and studied by modern science, people still like to make specific claims about the nature of said phenomena. Those specific claims are much harder for me to believe.
Eg, you could argue that "UFO sightings" are possibly caused by UFOs and that science just hasn't found enough evidence yet. Fine. But if you said that UFO sightings are definitely UFOs from Vega come to take our cattle, you're no longer able to argue the "science hasn't found evidence yet" angle, since for you to make such a claim you must (presumably) have evidence.
Agreed.
On a slightly relevant topic to paranormal phenomena such as telepathy etcetera, what do you think about quantum entanglement? This at least provides some basis for an explanation of non-local instantaneous events, of course assuming that these exist in the first place.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466371 - 12/20/08 10:51 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Bullseye!
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Are you denying that quantum entanglement is a scientifically verified phenomenon?
Also, your bingo scorecard just lost some credibility due to its fallacious spelling of Galileo.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466396 - 12/20/08 10:56 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Entanglement does not provide a basis for telepathy or other various non-local instantaneous events. Mystics will misinterpret the science (surprise surprise) to support their pre-conceived notions about what happens. But its an ad hoc fit, they cherry pick certain topics (like entanglement) that superficially seem to support their faith.
Back to the original topic, two counts of anecdotal evidence from people hundreds of years ago who shouldn't convince you of anything. Those claims have no evidence to support them so of course a rational "skeptic" shouldn't believe them. Some people do the same thing today.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466400 - 12/20/08 10:57 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is a pattern of New Agers to whip out the physics card (there are at least a dozen such books with 'quantum' in the title) as evidence to support their particular brand of magic. This sort of ignorant handwaving gets old.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Bullseye!
lol, Im gonna save that. People pepper the word quantum in their mysticism, its real annoying. I was at the bookstore with my women and saw a book on 'quantum consciousness'... after that I kept nagging her - Get me the fuck out of here!
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466407 - 12/20/08 10:58 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I agree quantum mechanics is certainly misused by a hell of a lot of New Agers and people who don't have half an understanding in science.
However, the phenomena certainly provides at least a possible explanation for non-local instantaneous events. Perhaps this makes it more difficult to debunk claims of paranormal phenomena--before the advent of quantum mechanics one would be laughed at for suggesting the possibility of something instantaneously affecting something else far away.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466420 - 12/20/08 11:01 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, it doesn't. You, like your new ager friends, are misinterpreting it either purposefully as a devils advocate or innocently through ignorance.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466422 - 12/20/08 11:02 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The Joker failed to address my point that the quotes were not even from an expert in that field, so his point becomes even less noteworthy - if that is possible.
There was a recent TV commercial wherein the announcer says, "Back in 18XX, the US Patent Office said, 'Everything that can be invented has been invented.'" Of course the Patenet Office cannot speak, but a fallible human can.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466424 - 12/20/08 11:03 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I see no interpretation of entanglement in my post, so I fail to see how I could have misinterpreted it.
And yes, obviously, this entire post is attempting to argue for paranormal phenomena. I personally remain an extreme skeptic.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: The Joker failed to address my point that the quotes were not even from an expert in that field, so his point becomes even less noteworthy - if that is possible.
'Twas an attempt to sway the masses with appeal to ethos and authority. C'mon, man, you should know that emotional arguments convince far more than logic alone.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466435 - 12/20/08 11:07 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You interpret it as a possible mechanism for instantaneous non-local causation like that of telepathy.
Quote:
I personally remain an extreme skeptic.
Seriously? hmm...
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466457 - 12/20/08 11:11 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: You interpret it as a possible mechanism for instantaneous non-local causation
Not for causation, but certainly for non-locality of the Universe, which provides better support for such claims than relying on classical physics. This isn't to say that it's great support (and in fact most people err when they try to base mysticism solely from quantum events), but it's assuredly better than in a physical paradigm where such things are absolutely impossible.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466481 - 12/20/08 11:17 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What is non-locality in the universe without causation? I honestly dont get what that means. Not to derail the thread... I get confused about what people in here mean alot, Im like a fish out of water.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466490 - 12/20/08 11:19 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
By non-locality I mean some sort of deeper connection between two photons that are spatiotemporally separate.
We've observed the phenomena, certainly, but we're unsure as to why it happens.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466497 - 12/20/08 11:20 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Dear Commie, you must first get rid of the notion that words have specific meanings. Then you must not read what a poster actually wrote (that pisses many people off), but attempt to figure out what they were trying to communicate. Then you must forget logic and reason and you are good to go.
Hope this helps.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Haha, yea it does thx. I see that many philosophy people in here pin their argument on ambiguity, they thrive on it. Almost as though they believe that an ambiguous statement is necessarily a profound statement.
Cypher: What you describe there is precisely what I meant by causality, so Im lost. Oh well, back to the topic right...
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466535 - 12/20/08 11:28 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't quantum entanglement the idea that if two photons are entangled, and we remove them to a great distance apart and measure the spin of one, the spin of the other photon regardless of how far away it is will collapse out of an indeterminate state to the opposite spin?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466557 - 12/20/08 11:34 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yea man, and that does not even possibly account for the phenomenon you said it possibley could, IMO. I dont want to throw a bunch of science mumbo jumbo around in here though as its not proper, so Im gonna leave it at that.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: DieCommie]
#9466579 - 12/20/08 11:37 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I was hoping for a more rigorous explanation, as I'm not well-versed in quantum matters.
At any rate, I find it interesting that you grant this no possibility whatsoever of supporting telepathy. What if, hypothetically, consciousness in the brain interferes with a photon/electron in the neural substrate of an individual, which being previously entangled with a photon/electron in the neural substrate of another, causes both photons to collapse into identical or opposite spins, therefore altering the consciousness of the second person?
Agreed, this is substantially unlikely, but I don't think you can say that that it's impossible for quantum entanglement to provide a basis for telepathy. There is no such thing as impossibility in physics, only improbability.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9466636 - 12/20/08 11:47 AM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
We might as well be trying to figure out how unicorns reproduce or how ghosts walk through walls.
Seems you want to figure out how a non-existent form of communication works. FIRST, confirm once and for all that it works - and THEN try to understand the mechanics behind it.
Comprende?
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Si, Senor.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
mushroom people
I ♥ LSD
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 406
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: We might as well be trying to figure out how unicorns reproduce or how ghosts walk through walls.
Seems you want to figure out how a non-existent form of communication works. FIRST, confirm once and for all that it works - and THEN try to understand the mechanics behind it.
Comprende?
Unicorns are extinct, but I would imagine they reproduce just like all other mammals, except the platypus. The platypus, that is one the most woo hoo animals there. This egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal certainly must be one of them new agers.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Strawman much?
--------------------
|
mushroom people
I ♥ LSD
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 406
|
|
Huh? Sorry, I don't speak woo hoo.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I guess reading and understanding the contents of the top stickied post in a forum you regularly attend is a lot to ask.
--------------------
|
mushroom people
I ♥ LSD
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 406
|
|
Oh, it looks like I built my straw man on top of yours. That is kind of gay. Sorry about that.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: On meteorites and skepticism. [Re: deCypher]
#9468961 - 12/20/08 07:32 PM (15 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My understanding is that quantum entanglement cannot transmit information. When you learn the spin of one particle you immediately learn the spin of the other, true, but how does that help? You can't alter the spin of a particle without breaking the entanglement.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
|