Science is ALWAYS ready to accommodate new phenomenon Scientists attempt to determine the temperatures of distant objects in space by observing their blackbody radiation. The calculations are made by assuming that celestial objects behave as perfect blackbodies. A blackbody is a theoretical ideal, but many astronomical objects come reasonably close to this ideal. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/blackbody Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evidence needs to be interpreted and assigned a weight. A report of some extraordinary event might indeed be evidence of some new class of phenomenon that would turn our whole existing worldview on its head. Or on the other hand it might be a misinterpretation of something more prosaic, a hallucination, a lie or over-active imagination. (You believe that the Bible IS true and Jesus Christ IS your lord and savior, because there have been so many reports of religious miracles, right?) If we don't want to put ourselves in the credulous position of believing everything we're told, we need to assign reports credibility weights. As for me, I grade reports according to how I believe the universe functions and give reports that are in accordance with that understanding higher weights than I give reports that don't seemingly conform with my understanding of the universe. I don't give the latter zero scores since my understanding of the universe is a work-in-progress and might very well be incomplete or flat-out wrong. Lots of unexpected and counter-intuitive things ultimately turn out to be true and surprise me. But out-of-the-gate I don't initially consider those kind of things to be as plausible as more familiar and understandable events. It's like David Hume's famous argument about miracles. The familiar order of nature describes how nature typically seems to behave. So a violation of the natural order is going to be atypical and less likely by its nature. That doesn't mean that a violation of the natural order is impossible, but it does suggest that there might be alternative explanations that will be more likely. The importance of theory in these considerations arises in the case of new and unique sorts of events. It's hard to grade these events based on past frequency of their occurring, since they are new and unique. But if they do fit comfortably into an explanatory scheme based on previous experience, they they just seem inherently more likely to me than something that violates explanatory schemes that are based on previous experience.
I assure you I do not need to feign obtuseness. I can do it for real. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You certainly seem to be alleging something paranormal with your vague phrase "energetic interplay". That certainly sounds like woo all right.
When thousands of unrelated people report the same phenomenon over and over again exhibiting the same properties and traits, the credibility weight is huge. That's true whether the phenomenon fits our personal scheme of reality or not. Such factors are more influential in my decision to believe than whether it can be explained by extant scientific theories. Particularly when mainstream science does its darnedness to ignore or scoff at such reports. As if science somehow knows in advance what is a real phenomenon and what is a fictional one.
The bible oops sorry the Dictionary tells me so paranormal parəˈnɔːm(ə)l/ adjective denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding. "a mystic who can prove he has paranormal powers" faith feɪθ/ noun 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence;More 2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith" synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine "she gave her life for her faith" Both Google By your definetion I know it's true but I don't really know Would you care to elaborate? I think the evidence for the phenomenon is the sole basis for believing it. Except there is no evidence Explaining something with evidence is the ONLY basis for belief No evidence No belief The fact that we can't explain it yet has no bearing on its reality Except you can't explain it BECAUSE it is not real In fact theory presupposes the ontic status of the phenomenon itself Except ONTIC relates to reality ontic ˈɒntɪk/ adjective PHILOSOPHY relating to entities and the facts about them; relating to real as opposed to phenomenal existence Google NOT to phenomenal existence Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So your credibility weight is governed by numbers? Thousands of people believe in god hence it must be true But when thousands do NOT believe in god those people are ignored Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Exactly I would put it (evidence) at a zero level Thesis have NEVER produced EVIDENCE while insisting it exist I have no problem with anybody believing anything their hearts desire If for some reason you wish me to share your beliefs show evidence Otherwise it can be possible to be friends with different views on the world EXCEPT I do find in many cases those of a religious persuasion push the issue and in that process push me away Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't care what you believe. I just cited to Yazata the evidence of thousands of unrelated people reporting the same phenomenon with the same properties and traits as the reason I believe in the phenomenon. If you don't like it buzz off and go troll someone else for a change.
From Magical Realist Post # 29 Let me go on record as accepting the notion of one of my favorite fictional characters. The Master of Sinanju: From Magical Realist Post #7 The above is some sort of red herring or other fallacy. The lack of a plausible explanation for an observable phenomenon has never been an acceptable argument against the validity of observational evidence. Rainbows have been an observable phenomenon for longer than there was a plausible scientific explanation of their cause. The observational evidence of Sol’s output was not denied when there was no plausible scientific explanation for it. There was a time when science had no explanation for the source of the sun’s energy. The solar mass had been calculated using Newtonian physics at a time when there was no known process for generating the energy output. Burning wood or any other known substance could not provide the equivalent output per kilogram of mass. Scientists could only be sure that there was some unknown process responsible for the energy output per kilogram of mass. Lack of knowledge did not require disbelief in the observational evidence of Sol's energy output. It took the development of modern nuclear physics to provide an explanation for Sol’s energy output.
How much is understood? Which part of the spectrum still holds mysteries? Any idea how many scientists working on the not yet understood part of spectrum? Any update research papers on how the research on the yet to be understood part of the spectrum is progressing? Have a few more questions but will await answers to these 4 and ask more when I understand your replies Cheers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which leads to the 4 questions 1 Which parts are NOT...... Oh never mind Stupid me expected a sensible response Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you look at physics theories, like alternative universe and other dimensions, these theories are in the same boat as parapsychology; lack of hard data that can stand to science scrutiny. Yet the status quo will allow alternative universes to stand as mainstream. There are certain taboos in science defined by the atheist religion. Parapsychology is too close to angels, devils and spirits which is taboo to atheism ,since it would undermine their own faith. Ironically, other dimensions and alternate universes provides a basis for many of the claims in parapsychology. Once science can prove other dimensions, the other may logically follow. If you look at concepts, like heaven and hell, these are never said to be part of inertial reality. They are spirit and not matter. It is the original alternate universe theory. If one can live forever, in these places, and we apply Relativity, these places need to be close, if not the speed of light, where time slows down and appears to last forever in our reference.
Parapsychology is too close to angels, devils and spirits Of course it is close they ALL belong in the large rubbish bin in the corner Can't miss it Large transparent bin with "Place ALL paranormal stuff inside please Ensure lid closed and locked after" Funny thing is Scientist have been putting stuff in the bin for eons BUT when you try to look at the contents through the transparent walls you can't see anything Bob the night cleaner says he's never emptied it When the Scientist said it should be full of paranormal stuff he looked at them with bewilderment "Are you crazy? What chemicals are you sniffing? Everybody knows nothing exist in the Paranormal" Fred now has his own office and is charge of The Evidence store Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
