by bohm 62 Replies latest jw friends
notverylikely you are sharp
Has any scientist even attempted to explain telepathy? Sure. Many studies have been done but it can't reliably be demonstrated or repeated. However the senses provide us with knowledge that science cannot test. Like? |
I'm going to edit my post to clarify what I mean by "test" which is that the senses provide us with knowledge that cannot be repeated in the lab.
However the senses provide us with knowledge that science cannot test/repeat in the lab.
Examples, please?
BTS
That is what I was getting at with my question on telepathy.
For instance, how do I know my sister in Atlanta, GA is thinking of me?
Syl
For instance, how do I know my sister in Atlanta, GA is thinking of me?
Because you are family and often think of each other and, more likely than not, you both think about each other at the same time.
NVL, we can talk about the reasons why or why not modern science emerged in one part of the world versus another, but they are incidental to the subject of this thread.
True dat.
My point is (or one of them) that science rests on scientifically unprovable axioms.
Fair enough.
If we observe a phenomenon, there must have been a cause.
What's awesome is that in some cases, the act of observation is the cause :D
I'm going to edit my post to clarify what I mean by "test" which is that the senses provide us with knowledge that cannot be repeated in the lab.
Well sure. That doesn't mean that some type extra sensory perception is going on, though.
For instance, how do I know my sister in Atlanta, GA is thinking of me?
Why is it that I can sense when my wife is about to get home?
It seems to me that I open the door far too many times just as she is turning into the driveway for it to be coincidental. I "feel" like she is near.
BTS
okay okay bts - I'm just also cooking dinner - so give me a couple of mins
Because you are family and often think of each other and, more likely than not, you both think about each other at the same time.
Point.
However, it is only this particular sister (I have 5 others); it happens time and time again, so can't be a coincidence.
Syl
BTS: Not claiming you are wrong. But you wrote
I'd like to add, science itself rests on certain scientifically unprovable assumptions, or first principles. These assumptions were made, philosophically, before what we would consider the age of modern science and helped enable it.
1) Nature is orderly: regular in pattern and structure.
2) Humans can know nature. They can deduce laws describing its order.
3) Everything has a natural cause.
3) Claims must be subject to objective demonstration to be true: nothing is self-evident.
4) Knowledge can be derived empirically through the senses, whether directly or through augmentation.
5) The senses can be trusted to provide a true knowledge of reality (see number 2 and 4)
Lets begin by the second item 3). "Claims must be subject to objective demonstration to be true". Thats a funny item to find on a list of unproven assumptions ;-). anyway, 1, 2, 3 and possible 5 seem to be imperical claims: It need not be so. Certainly, Sylvia will agree with me on the first number 3 :-).
Finally number 5 - it properly need to be augmented by adding "But they do a really lousy job, dont trust them unless you are looking at an instrument!"
snowbird: A great body of emperical material is avaliable on the subject. As far as explaining it, there has been attempts - but before the experimental situation improve to the point where there is an agreement what, exactly, the observable telepathic phenomona are, it is difficult to find an explanation.
Meeting Junkie: Pythagaros once had a man killed for prooving a theorem he didnt like.
Thats hardcore.
Didnt know he was said to be able to raise the death though!
All the rest - Thanks for all the input!
