Heresy to the establishment

[Michael 345]

science must be ready to modify existing theory to accomodate new phenomena, as in the case of black body radiation.

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

 

[Yazata]

The purported events of parapsychology lack an explanatory theory in terms of our current understanding almost by definition. That's what lands events in the 'parapsychological' class.

But that needn't always mean that parapsychology must always contradict our current understanding or that our current understanding has to always be correct.

I just meant that if we have some theory that explains how some seemingly extraordinary event X can occur, then that theoretical support will make it a lot easier for many of us to believe that X did in fact occur.

If X seems to violate our understanding of how the physical world operates, then it will be much harder.

I don't agree. I think the evidence for the phenomenon is the sole basis for believing it.

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.

 

[exchemist]

stop feigning obtuse and simple. the ability to affect other's because there is energetic interplay and even unconscious exchange also between people can be construed as paranormal. not all exchange between people or living beings is strictly information from mind to mind, it can be visceral and that visceral and it's effects, because they are not concrete but still real is in the realm of paranormal.

I assure you I do not need to feign obtuseness. I can do it for real.

You certainly seem to be alleging something paranormal with your vague phrase "energetic interplay". That certainly sounds like woo all right.

 

[Magical Realist]

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.

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.

 

[Michael 345]

Do you really know that? If so, how?

Or is it just an expression of your faith?

I would define 'faith' as confidence in the truth of things that we don't really know with certainty. I think that it's a lot more common than people think. We couldn't live without it, since we know very little with absolute apodeictic certainty.

The bible

oops sorry the Dictionary tells me so

paranormal
parəˈnɔːm(ə)l/
adjective

1. 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. 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. 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. The fact that we can't explain it yet has no bearing on its reality. In fact theory presupposes the ontic status of the phenomenon itself.

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

1. relating to entities and the facts about them; relating to real as opposed to phenomenal existence

Google

NOT to phenomenal existence

 

[Michael 345]

When thousands of unrelated people report the same phenomenon over and over again exhibiting the same properties and traits, the credibility weight is huge.

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

 

[Magical Realist]

Thousands of people believe in god hence it must be true

Yet none of them ever see said God. Not much evidence now is it?

 

[Michael 345]

Yet none of them ever see said God. Not much evidence now is it?

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

 

[Magical Realist]

If for some reason you wish me to share your beliefs show evidence

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.

 

[Dinosaur]

From Magical Realist Post # 29

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.

Let me go on record as accepting the notion of one of my favorite fictional characters. The Master of Sinanju:

If billions believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea.

From Magical Realist Post #7

Really? We have to establish a theoretical model for a phenomenon before we acknowledge it's existence? I guess rainbows didn't exist before we learned about the refraction of light waves.

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.

 

[river]

From Magical Realist Post # 29Let me go on record as accepting the notion of one of my favorite fictional characters. The Master of Sinanju:From Magical Realist Post #7The 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.

Disagree

The light spectrum , the Full light spectrum of the Sun is yet to be understood .

 

[Michael 345]

Disagree

The light spectrum , the Full light spectrum of the Sun is yet to be understood .

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

 

[river]

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

Interesting isn't .

The full spectroscopy of the Sun is NOT FULLY understood .

 

[Michael 345]

Interesting isn't .

The full spectroscopy of the Sun is NOT FULLY understood .

Which leads to the 4 questions

1 Which parts are NOT......

Oh never mind

Stupid me expected a sensible response

 

[river]

Which leads to the 4 questions

1 Which parts are NOT......

Oh never mind

Stupid me expected a sensible response

1 ) now you know .

 

[Michael 345]

1 ) now you know .

If only

 

[wellwisher]

The problem, surely, is the absence of objective (that is to say, reproducible) evidence for any of these effects. It is not dishonest in science to ignore ideas for which there is no firm evidence. And, once again, one has to reiterate the point that no theory is ever proven in science: the test is whether there is good evidence that supports it.

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.

 

[Michael 345]

Parapsychology is too close to angels, devils and spirits which is taboo to atheism ,since it would undermine their own faith.

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