Is there a real science of spiritual effects?

by metatron 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rem

  Metatron,

  My understanding from How to Think About Weird Things was that the authors were cautioning against stating that ESP is physically impossible because it may be impossible with our current theories of reality, but there may be a chance that our current theories change if ESP were ever detected. The kicker, though, is that ESP has not been detected yet.

  What it basically comes down to is that it's cool to be agnostic about the possibility of ESP (however low that possibility is), but there is absolutely no reason to believe in it today based on the evidence at hand. There is no current evidence that ESP is real.

  rem
• 

  metatron

  while I'm drifting off topic somewhat here's an example of an anomaly that could blow up everything- physics-wise.

  www.amasci.com/freenrg/sukdynam.html

  if that doesn't work, try a websearch on 'photon dies screaming'.

  I've read Consciousness Explained and it had some good logical arguments - especially regarding 'bandwidth' and hallucinations.

  ( OK, you see it, but can you smell it? or hear it? or feel it? All at once ?)

  I've read educated defenses of both remote viewing and the statistical basis of ESP.

  What is so disturbing in this and other anomalies, is the blithe and easy going way such anomalies

  are casually dismissed. No amount of evidence is ever enough , regardless of what they say about 'extraordinary

  proof'! Occam's razor is freely used - but FREELY ignored if it leads to a simple conclusion a skeptic

  doesn't like ( "God created this"). If someone suggests homeopathy, a skeptic rejects it because he doesn't

  see double blind proof - if you then supply double- blind proof( it's been done), he rejects it all anyway.

  I read complete dismissals of 'cold fusion' - while many scientists replicate it using the most careful techniques

  imaginable. I doubt many of the critics even bother to read the research - and just toss it away.

  I find the recent news about the Atkins Diet VERY DISTURBING because of what it tells me about medical

  science. WHY on earth does it take over THIRTY YEARS for science to admit that , yes, you can lose weight

  and no, it doesn't necessarily cause heart trouble. Immediately after the results were announced to astonished

  doctors at the American Heart Association, some ( of course) said "Oh, he paid for that study".

  Really? Well, somebody pays for EVERY study! Let's throw them all away(?)

  I thank heaven that - somehow- we've managed to get this far as humans - inspite of ourselves.

  metatron
• 

  rem

  Metatron, I'm sorry but I have to reply to this.

  Occam's razor is freely used - but FREELY ignored if it leads to a simple conclusion a skeptic doesn't like ( "God created this").

  If you don't understand how postulating an unknown and extremely complex being as the creator of anything goes totally against Occham's Razor, then you do not understand what Occham's Razor is.

  If someone suggests homeopathy, a skeptic rejects it because he doesn't see double blind proof - if you then supply double- blind proof( it's been done), he rejects it all anyway.

  No it has not been done. In fact the BBC just did a program on Homeopathy where the postive homeopathic results of a respected scientist suddenly turned negative when the experiment was performed double blind. I and all skeptics I know are very interested in seeing the results of good, double blind experiments - no matter what result they show. The fact is that none exist that support homeopathy.

  I read complete dismissals of 'cold fusion' - while many scientists replicate it using the most careful techniques imaginable. I doubt many of the critics even bother to read the research - and just toss it away.

  Again, not true. Cold fusion has never been replicated in a lab. There may be a lot of interesting theories, but no real replicable expirements.

  I find the recent news about the Atkins Diet VERY DISTURBING because of what it tells me about medical science. WHY on earth does it take over THIRTY YEARS for science to admit that , yes, you can lose weight and no, it doesn't necessarily cause heart trouble. Immediately after the results were announced to astonished doctors at the American Heart Association, some ( of course) said "Oh, he paid for that study". Really? Well, somebody pays for EVERY study! Let's throw them all away(?)

  I happen to think it's a good thing to be skeptical of extraordinary claims when it comes to our health. If the data supports the Atkins diet, then that is fine. Let it be vindicated scientifcally. Instead of getting in a huff when rational people don't accept anecdotal evidence, do it the right way with well designed expirements that are replicable.

  rem
• 

  metatron

  One, there have been some double blind studies showing some homeopathic medications to work.

  Two, I don't even comprehend your assertion that NO ONE has replicated cold fusion results. If you really

  think this, then it illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. The evidence is simply ignored. It "doesn't exist".

  Likewise, evidence for ESP 'doesn't exist'. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong ( ho-hum).

  Three, I view Occam's Razor as often very dull indeed. One person asserts a 'least postulate' or a 'simplest'

  explanation in contrast to an asserted 'complex' or set of multiple assumptions. Subjective opinion is thereby

  clothed with the appearance of hard reason - and we can thereby make wonderful assertions about things

  that are utterly unknown to us. Creationism somehow involves many assumptions and evolution

  few. For me, this 'razor' cuts nothing distinctly.

  metatron
• 

  rem

  One, there have been some double blind studies showing some homeopathic medications to work.

  I'd love to hear about them. I've read much on this subject and have not heard of it. Please provide me a reference, if possible. You do realize that most homeopathic remedies are just distilled water, right? The principles of homeopathy are from 19th century quackery... but still, if it works there ought to be some pretty evidence.

  Two, I don't even comprehend your assertion that NO ONE has replicated cold fusion results.

  Why is that so hard to comprehend? If I recall correctly, alleged replications have turned out to be hoaxes. Please provide me a reference, if possible, of replicated cold fusion experiments.

  Likewise, evidence for ESP 'doesn't exist'. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong ( ho-hum).

  Again, I consider myself pretty well read in this area, and yet I've not seen anything convincing. Did you have anything in specific in mind?

  Three, I view Occam's Razor as often very dull indeed. One person asserts a 'least postulate' or a 'simplest' explanation in contrast to an asserted 'complex' or set of multiple assumptions. Subjective opinion is thereby clothed with the appearance of hard reason - and we can thereby make wonderful assertions about things that are utterly unknown to us. Creationism somehow involves many assumptions and evolution few. For me, this 'razor' cuts nothing distinctly.

  With all other assumptions being equal, which option is more complex: 1) A self organizing system that always existed, or 2) A system that was created by an external entity. This entity must necessarily be more complex than the system it created. No one has ever detected this outside entity. Oh, yeah, and since everything must have a creator, this entity also requires a creator, and so on, until infinite regress insues.

  Of course, Occham's Razor is only a rule of thumb, but please use it correctly.

  rem
• 

  metatron

  I don't have access to my files at the moment but if your use of the Razor is really the best that any skeptic can offer,

  then I feel no embarassment in looking at it as nonsensical. Making any observation about which ( with the added

  assumption that everything needs a creator!) is more 'complex' is purely a matter of taste akin to judging how many angels

  can dance on the head of a pin. Rule of thumb, indeed!

  Basically, I'm a pantheist. I see direction and design in nature - but 'God' speaks to no one but schizophrenics.

  I don't see any choice facing future science other than recognizing non-local distributed intelligence ( I think Freeman Dyson

  felt this way) or classifying things as 'emergent' - which is a nice way of saying 'hell, I don't know, it JUST IS!"

  now, where'd I put that book by Feyerbend?

  metatron
• 

  Abaddon

  rem;

  I think that people who complain that well informed people act superior are, themselves, insecure about their own beliefs. Instead of taking the time to study them with an open mind, they use the superior attitude as an excuse to carry on with irrational beliefs.

  Oh I think at times there is a reverse intellectual snobbery. I also think it happens over scholastic knowledge rather than practical knowledge.

  For example, I think someone who knew next to nothing about cabinetry giving advice to an experienced cabinet maker, or telling them where they were going wrong would be seen as arrogant; the hard-working blue collar craftsman would deserve respect for the hard graft he had put in to aquire his skill. He or she would be quite right to tell the ignoramous they didn;t know what they were talking about.

  Somehow if it's white collar knowledge or scholastic, then it is the person with the knowledge who is arrogant when they point out the person disagreeing with them doesn't know what they are talking about. Somehow the years of learning, if they apply to scholastic knowledge, are worthless, unlike the years of practical knowledge.

  A very dumb double standard.

  metatron;

  One, there have been some double blind studies showing some homeopathic medications to work.

  Provide the evidence. I can point you to fantastic scientific validation that acupuncture works, but there has been no repeatable scientific validation of homeopathy. Please note this is different to saying it doesn't work, but you are the one claiming it has been scientifically validated. It has not.

  Two, I don't even comprehend your assertion that NO ONE has replicated cold fusion results. If you really think this, then it illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. The evidence is simply ignored. It "doesn't exist".

  Provide the evidence. You know the carefully constucted experiments that are repeatable elsewhere and that avoid the outcome being influenced by the participants? Presumably you'll also be able to tell me when we'll get all this cheap clean power... let me guess, there's a conspiracy?

  Likewise, evidence for ESP 'doesn't exist'. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong ( ho-hum).

  Provide the evidence. You know the carefully constucted experiments that are repeatable elsewhere and that avoid the outcome being influenced by the participants?

  Three, I view Occam's Razor as often very dull indeed. One person asserts a 'least postulate' or a 'simplest' explanation in contrast to an asserted 'complex' or set of multiple assumptions. Subjective opinion is thereby clothed with the appearance of hard reason - and we can thereby make wonderful assertions about things that are utterly unknown to us. Creationism somehow involves many assumptions and evolution few. For me, this 'razor' cuts nothing distinctly.

  You simply don't understand it; if you have a situation where the evidence for every theory has equal weight (i.e. it is impossible to have final closure on how the Universe came into being at this time), then Occam's Razor is a useful tool, as it explains normally the simplest theory in this situation is the right one.

  Which is simpler? That the Universe came into being as a result of natural forces and came to be how it is today through natural forces? Or that there was already a vastly powerful entity that we have no explaination for the existance of, who made the Universe, but also removed all conclusive evidence as to its existence?

  Any way metatron, please provide the evidence for your claims...