by GromitSK 74 Replies latest jw friends
But the presence of light and colour does not depend on the viewer. In fact the human eye can be very easily fooled.
We have instruments that can measure colour and light very precisely.
" faith, spirituality, dimensions above space and time, and spirit beings " depend entirely on subjective opinions.
Hey Cofty!
I wonder if evaluating the correlation between between a series of independent instances of such "subjective opinions" can be understood to comprise the "phenomenological method" and how scientific this method is regarded to be?
Draw us a picture....
@Xanthippe
Gromit, had to get some sleep that's why I didn't reply – OK but don;t let it happen again
I wasn't quoting Wiki as an authorative text. Cofty was. I was replying to his quote from Wiki - I realise that – sorry I didn’t make that clear. I wasn’t directing it at you it was intended to be more of a general remark.
I have replied directly to your questions, I just haven't put them in to a two answer formula.
I will rectify that now for you. You asked:-
1) What would you consider to be supernatural?
I would consider telepathy to be 'supernatural'. Although all physical phenomena seems 'supernatural' or at the very least weird without evidence, eg have you seen a Higgs-Boson particle?
2) What would satisfy me it is genuine?
I would require evidence that a psychic is reading my mind. Specific names. Specific facts. Not generalisations. That they wouldn't fish for information from me but give me the facts. Why, because this would show that there is more to mind than brain. That without speech or written words information is being transferred.
Thanks – no I haven’t, to my knowledge, seen a Higgs-boson lol .Thanks for replying concisely on your view.
Just a thought on the telepathy/brain dependence (if you will pardon the pun) – assuming telepathy could be shown to exist, is it not possible that this might simply indicate that the processing of the brain was in some way ‘readable’ by another brain sometimes? A bit like a radio picking up stray signals?
So, Gromit, why do you ask? If that is not off topic or going in to the wilderness. I would say it's about as on-topic as you can get
I am curious to know what people would accept as evidence of supernatural ability and what controls they would prefer for them to be confident the phenomena were genuine. So far the suggestions seem reasonable to me. What prompted this was a discussion on another thread about supernatural phenomena and the apparent diametrical opposition between those who accept such phenomena and those who are convinced such do not occur. I guess I am interested to see how rational each party’s position is.
I don't mind it going off-topic (like it matters what I mind? lol) - it's just easier to keep track of what people are saying if it doesn't stray too far.
Fernando - Not scientific at all.
A sample size of 1 is a sample size of 1 no matter how many people claim to be able to confirm it.
Google "guru Sathya Sai Baba" to see how many thousands are willing to testify to his supernatural shenanigans.
@Fernando - do you mean by ' a series of independent instances of such "subjective opinions"'; anecdotal accounts of things that have been witnessed or experienced?
Hey GromitSK!
After looking up and contemplating the meaning of anecdotal: "consisting of or based on second-hand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation", no.
@ Fernando - touche! So you mean peronal testimony I think as opposed to anecdotal reports or scientific investigation - am I right?
Although I doubt whether personal testimony would be, for many, conclusive, it would certainly be a matter for serious consideration for me if I knew and trusted the person reporting the experience. If many people are reporting similar experiences, one would have thought the phenomena would be worthy of serious investigation.
Google The Million Dollar Challenge. James Randi Foundation has offered $1 million to anyone who can provide evidence. The proof is passing a test designed by both the Foundation and the participant. It consists of a preliminary test followed by a repeat test.
No one has even tried the final part of the test.
@rebel - I think this has already been mentioned above.
