Abaddon Thanks for the link. It is really informative since i haven't read much on the formal methodology before this, esp in such a concise manner. I am no apologist for paranormal "beleivers" but i just am repulsed by the "just ain't possible" attitudes that seem so close-minded. I have grave dufficulty in one of the "tenets" or criteria viz: 1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Natural Law Natural law is central to science. Natural laws are broad generalisations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To me either this disqualifies the scientific methodology (as outlined) from analysing, proving or disproving paranormal phenomena. Since by definition it ( a priori ) discounts things that have not been repeatedly observed in nature. I'm having difficulty understanding what this other one means: 2. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Falsifiability Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that it be testable and most scientific theories have some trouble with this criterion. Historically based theories such as evolution cannot turn history back so we can view it directly but in that it is no different from many other forms of science ... in fact no one can literally look directly back to any time prior to their own lifetimes so what are we to do? Would critics of science have us assume that everything before our own time is untrue? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Who or what determines the validity of these tests. Doesn't hte above explanaton seem to be making a special case for the evolution theory? REM you said ************* Are you just speaking of generalities, or do you have specific examples? What type of paranormal experiences are you talking about? Fuzzy thinking will not help us learn anything. It's like saying X sees a cryptozoological creature in Europe today, Y sees several in India tomorrow. What cryptozoological creatures are we talking about? ************** Good questions. I'm making this up as i go along and i need to and will do a lot more reading on the topic, but I'm talking about basic observabble "phenomena" Eg John in Milwaukee says his daughter can _sometimes_ accurately describe objects and places she has never seen He's done it, say, 3 times. (Often the scientists initila reaction is:probably co-incidence or someone told him about this place or he saw it on TV and forgot etc etc) Ria in Brazil says she can "guess" what number is on a card in a sealed box. She gets maybe 6 out of 10 correctly in your "controlled" environment. Similarly Mark from Finland does the same thing. All these occurences happen with some probability that is higher than the statistical norm for "naturally observed" people. Going back to the questions of tesibility, repeatibility etc Each one of these occurences may be individually dismissed because they couldn't be repeated over and over again with significant statistical deviations. But does the scientist ever consider _A GROUP_ of these claimants as a whole? IOW to what extent does science discount each claim individually because each individual claimant couldn't demonstrate some paranormal phenomena sufficient no. of times to be deemed worthy of consideration. But if the viewpoint is changed to encompass the fact that, say, 5000 people have been able to demonstrate an extraordinary event even just once (eg. tell you what 5-digit no. is on a card in asealed box) would this not be the basis for the rational onlooker to say something abnormal (maybe paranormal) exists, even though we don't know what it is? Do scientists by trying to "isolate" the phenomena to an individual or even small observable groups destroy any chance of gettin to the truth of the matter? You're right it can come out a bit fuzzy, but hopefully i'll be able to sort it out in my mind a bit more clearly. Thanks for the interesting responses thus far.
Decidedly_Unsure
JoinedPosts by Decidedly_Unsure
-
24
skeptics and the paranormal
by Decidedly_Unsure inthe reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.
i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.
skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.
-
-
-
24
skeptics and the paranormal
by Decidedly_Unsure inthe reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.
i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.
skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
*******
Example : year "plonk" man says "I think there are little tiny creatures that we cannot see with our eyes and they could live inside us" - his friend says "don't be so stupid" then thousands of years later science discovers microscopic organisms.
Sirona
*******
And Plonk man's friend mirrors the attitude of a number of modern day skeptics. If instead Plonk man's fried had said, "that's highly unlikely" or "do you have anything that we could use to verify or disprove?" , all that's good; but what a number of modern-day skeptics (including some on this board)do, is ridicule all possibilities. "A psychic force?? hahaa, you delusional idiot: no such thing could exist, there is a logical explanation (ie based on something we already know about!)" -
24
skeptics and the paranormal
by Decidedly_Unsure inthe reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.
i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.
skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
Yike! What happened to my formatting??
-
24
skeptics and the paranormal
by Decidedly_Unsure inthe reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2c%2c5-2004040384%2c00.html was made in another thread.
i?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.
skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
The reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C5-2004040384%2C00.html was made in another thread. I?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity. Skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?. My question is: will any phenomena ever be able to meet such criteria? They ask for reproducible results, things that can be tested and reproduced under controlled conditions. All this sounds logical and has served us well. Important discoveries that have served us well have undergone this scrutiny. I?m sometimes confused as to what constitutes this scientific methodology, is it really complete? I?ll use 1 (perhaps far-fetched) analogy to illustrate the point: Long before microscopes were invented, some scientists and doctors like everyone else contracted not-so-common such diseases. Eg Rheumatic fever. By not-so-common I mean not everyone contracted them and usually not frequently. Did scientists/doctors say that these ailments/diseases were figments of the imagination of these poor souls? No! Even though it would be awhile before bacteria, microscopes and such things would be developed, unexplained diseases and science were able to co-exist. No such ?we can?t reproduce these conditions in a laboratory? nonsense was at work. So, has scientific method (un)evolved to a point of arrogance viz if I can?t explain the phenomenon or reproduce it under my controlled conditions, it can?t possibly exist? This is what they do with paranormal phenomena. X has an experience in Europe today, Y has several experiences in India tomorrow. They dismiss all these as random ?unexplained? things. Why not consider the countless experiences of all these people who experience paranormal activity as a whole? Why do u have to bring each of these people in a lab and say ?show me again and again? under my scrutiny so I can see it. Could you imagine if that approach was taken before bacteria and microscopes were discovered?
-
5
Anyone from Caribbean or smaller nations?
by Decidedly_Unsure injust curious.
seems like almost all posters here are either from north america, australia or uk.
are there are any others living on smaller or different rocks?
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
Just curious.
Seems like almost all posters here are either from North America, Australia or UK.
Are there are any others living on smaller or different rocks?
If so, do you refrain from Id-ing yourself cus it's easier to be tracked from a small place? -
9
A call for "essays"
by Decidedly_Unsure insomeone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.
that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.
assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
========================================================================================================================================
Preparing a written tool is powerful, and being creative in the way of getting it to the JWs attention I think is worth developing. I also note some posts raising the ethical issues involved such as the ethics of spamming them (even if done considering the person's best interest). What to say, how to say it, and how to deliver it, whom should deliver it, all need to be carefully considered (letting ethical principles also guide us). How can it's impact be maximised ethically? I see potential in the idea that is worth brainstorming.
========================================================================================================================================Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Nathan.
Such a project, as you seem to suggest, would be most successful when based on a collaborative approach, based on exchange of ideas. I suspect that, because the vast majority of posters on this board have already left, there may not be that much interest. While I could attempt something on my own, it would be better to involve others if possible. Could you reccomend, perhaps another "JW" board where there may be others who might be interested? (Perhaps a board with more active JWs who already know the Truth)Farkel
That was a fantastic reference. Reading material for weeks (if not months)!!!
Of course you realise the stuff there may be a bit too weighty for the average Jdub having the first pangs of doubt. The logic in those essays and the excellent use of the JWs own references is just so damned good, it will scare them off. One would probably have to begin with some kind of hazy, fuzzy questions like:"Is it being spiritually weak to think about ...... ?
Is it being spiritually weak to do ............... ?
Howcum we were told we could do .. a few years ago but now it's .... or is it really ..... ??
It's true the FDS are just imperfect men doing their best to do Jah's will but was it wrong for us to do --- when they said to do ---- but Jah said to do ..... in the bible? Would he be thinking we're following men and not him? We really just want what's best for Jah, ourselves and the FDS!! "etc etc
Basically, it would be great to come up with stuff that can keep pushing the envelope just enough that if they stop reading, they would have ingested enough "cult-serum/poison?" to be prepared for a little research.
I'm trying but I don't have the real mind of the typical fully-indoctrinated JW in that I wasn't born into a JW family and I fing there alarm bells go off a lot faster than mine would have before I discovered the real "truth "!
Hope to get some more feedback.
-
9
A call for "essays"
by Decidedly_Unsure insomeone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.
that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.
assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
Hmmm
=========================================================================
an email or letter that starts off innocently, then sneaks in a minor doctrinal issue will remind JWs too much of a Theocratic Ministry School talk or Service Meeting demonstration.
=========================================================================
what if the script purported to help them think about difficult situations to overcome in the ministry? A la :I met someone in field service who refused to take the mags. She said that her grandmother had some Awake magazines that said how getting a transplant was wrong because it was like being a cannibal, and how Aluminium cookware is killing millions of people in the world. She said that Jehovahs witnesses have to believe every thing their leaders tell them because theyre not to question any teachings from the top? She also said that people from other religions, leave to join the JWs because the JWs literature points out flaws in their churches. But if other churches or independent people publish things about JW flaws we cant read it.
I said of course we could! Then she asked me if I would like to read an independent study about what we do and teach. I guess I hesitated before I said no. But then it got me thinking, since we have the truth, should we be afraid to hear what other people (even opposers ) say? .
Am I being spiritually weak? What would you have done? Etc etcAny chance of stuff like this working? What's your opinion?
-
9
A call for "essays"
by Decidedly_Unsure insomeone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.
that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.
assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
Nathan, you said:
===================================================================================================================
The "evil slave" was off the charts, in a realm to themselves, a real threat to lovers of righteousness like myself.
===================================================================================================================
Therein lies the problem/solution. There needs to be information coming, not from the evil slave, but a "brother" who may be having some of the same nagging feelings they may be supppressing.You also said:
====================================================================================================================
For that reason I agree with Jgnat - the best thing to do is to ask leading open-ended questions, not to get up on a virtual soapbox and start preaching.
=====================================================================================================================
Once, some months ago, I actually did something like that in relation to birthdays/holidays and (gasp) the authority of the (FDS). There was no downright resistance, she even agreed somewhat on the really minor stuff. As things began to get a bit more weighty, one could see a certain barrier of fear surfacing. At that point it was suggested that I could perhaps raise these concerns with one of the nicer elders in the cong. Naturally I didn't and there's been no discussion since then. I know there may be small doubts on her ppart still.I just wonder if there was an e-mail from "one of the friends", if this may not provide some added momentum for persons in such situations?? i.e. It's not just me, it's not just "spouse", it seems that there might be others who may have the same concerns too.
Again the concerns would have to be expressed in a very respectful and concerned manner.Do you think the "momentum" concept is of any value?
-
9
A call for "essays"
by Decidedly_Unsure insomeone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.
that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.
assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
J I like your concept generally, but in a sense we're back to the original problem. How do you introduce these "study articles"? A typical response may be, "Where'd you get those? Is that apostate literature?"
As regards the e-mail I wasn't seeing it as being spam. The idea is that individuals like me could send it specificlly to loved ones. It's not a mass mailer where I send it to every Jdub. From the recipients point of view, (if the essay is cleverly developed) the e-mail could have come (and does in fact) from any of the concerned friends.
-
9
A call for "essays"
by Decidedly_Unsure insomeone, i believe it may have been farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board.
that being the case, i would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.. the requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in.
assuming that individual, like many jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth.
-
-
Decidedly_Unsure
Someone, I believe it may have been Farkel, suggested that there are no more meaty doctrinal issues to be discussed on this board. That being the case, I would like to solicit the help of the more capable posters on something that could be of tremendous help to, not just myself, but perhaps other lurkers as well.
The requirement is for someone like myself who is still actively attending only because of a close family member or friend who is still in. Assuming that individual, like many Jdubs, has a couple of nagging doubts, there is a need to introduce the real truth about the truth. The problem is direct confrontation with quotes or references from anti-J. W. sites such as these causes immediate panic to set in as the apostate alarm bells go off.
Do you think it is at all possible to develop a relatively short essay that can be sent out in the form of an email which asks pertinent questions to a loyal but thinking Jdub? Perhaps this is already been done but as a lurker since the H2O days I have not seen such a script.
An email like this would need to start off fairly innocently, as originating from a concerned brother for example. A number of pointed questions could be gradually developed around inconsistencies, perhaps even introducing a couple "light" doctrinal issues.(Long convoluted arguments would probably throw off the reader of the e-mail before serious doubts get planted).Someone like myself could then say Hey ____ you know I got this email from someone did you get it? What did you think of so and so?
The obvious question is why don't you write it yourself? Well one answer is, there are far more skilled writers here than I could possibly dream of being. Secondly, discerning spouses, would easily recognize our writing styles. Thirdly, it is an alternative to fluff.
Hey, we could even have a contest for the essay that was most effective.Any thoughts on whether this is at all practical?
Thanks
decidedly_ unsure