Reality and Fantasy, a discussion.

[Panda Tar]

If you think about emotional realities, of how different two people will live and feel through the same event, talk, comment and so on or even how different memories of the same event turn out to be when you compare them with each other, I think there's no telling where fantasy starts.

I'm glad someone shares the same idea as I posted before. I was starting to wonder if we would get into a Physics analisys of our own ideas and beliefs.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I did not say that they do or do not exist. But my mind is open to the possibility.

Why? Is your mind open to the possibility that the flying spaghetti monster is real, or that ice-cubes rule the universe? At what point to you declare that something is out of the realm of possibility?

My mind is open enough to consider that I don't know all there is to know and to know that I have been wrong about things before. I will give any serious theroy [substitute the word proposal so you don't freak out ] consideration. The flying spaghetti monster was made up to ridicule people who believe in God, not as a serious proposal.

If we don't strive to keep an open mind we are very limited in what we can learn.

There are a number of people who say they have seen what appeared to be intelligent beings that appeared to not be human. Because I have never seen a ghost I do not rule out the possibility that there are ghosts. In fact I have seen enough evidence to convince me that ghosts are something.

A number of people all over the world have said they have seen things that would fit in the faery/elemental catagory. Are you saying they are all looney?

Whatever was in the video to which you allude, if it was even a video that wasn't doctored, there was a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for it.

Yes, and perhaps the scientific explanation is that they captured beings or manifestations of beings on camera that you don't think exist.

But ice-cube overlords or carnivorous pumpkin demons are equally viable under such an open interpretation of possibility. I believe in what I can see, what I can hear and what CAN be seen and felt. I don't believe that conceptions of mythical creatures that may or may exist in some undefined way is productive.

Well, of course I have never heard anyone but you propse the existance of ice-cube overlords and your proposal in not serious.

So you catagorically rule out anything that you personally haven't seen even if many people say they have seen things that you have not? I mentioned things captured on camera (they were seen by different people and camtured as a thermal image) that were following the Ghost Hunter team. Now can I be sure the cameras were doctored for those and other instances. No, but you can't be sure they were either. There were other things that were heard (like footsteps that were captured on recordings) when nothing appeared to be around to cause the sounds.

Just because you have not heard/felt/seen them doesn't mean that they can't be heard/felt/seen.

[

Are you sure that life has to be carbon based?

Knowing what I know of physics, chemistry and biology, yes I'm fairly certain. Carbon is a special bird.

Scientists recently encouraged NASA not to only look for carbon based life.Check out this link.

If they exist perhaps they are beings than came here from some other planet or maybe they have always coexisted with man.

I find that to be quite an untenable hypothesis that is based in mere speculation.

Well, I have seen UFOs. My parents have seen them. Both my sisters and my brother have seen them. We saw them fairly frequently actually for a time while I was growing up. Believe it or nor as you choose. Who was in the crafts I can't say. Top secret government craft? I doubt it. I believe there were extraterrestrials in it.

There, now I've given everybody ammunition to use against me in future arguments.

GOW sometimes I can't quite figure you out.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Sometimes I don't know what to make of myself either.

I'll bypass for a second the fact that these aren't theories in the scientific sense. What if I told you that I theorize that ghosts were polka-dotted ballerina elephants

Good because you should not limit possibilities to currently "known" science. Well, of course if you proposed a serious idea about what they were I would consider your proposal.

There are things that science once "knew" were facts that aren't considered facts today.

Name one.

Flat earth. That was considered to be absolute fact at one time but we know better today. There are oh so many others too.

GOW

[okrane]

Easy way to solve that Okrane. If you find the discussions inane and childish, just do not partake in them, nor follow them. See religion, despite your personal belief is an important thing in a lot of peoples life. As long as discussion is civil, there is no reason not to have them. Philosophical debates are healthy. They can even spur creativity, inventiveness, and insight.

I never said the topic in its whole was childish, I implied though that the direction it is heading is childish, like in the other one where you were trying to solve the paradoxes of an omnipotent being... that's a logical black hole....

Philosophical debates are really interesting, but they should lead exactly to what you say, a creativity boost, and certainly not an attempt to prove/disprove the existance of the spaghetti monster or other stuff like that.

About fantasy... I want to add that in this particular case, we must agree upon a relativism of opinion. What is reality for some is certainly fantasy for others and vice versa. Furthermore, metaphors like the ones you used in your little tale are just a stylistic fashion of presenting the action and have nothing to do with fiction.

I believe that, more accurately, the barrier between reality and fantasy should be looked from another perspective: the separation between real and fiction. Real meaning palpable event/person/object, and fiction hypothetic ones... of course with the same degree of relativity...
Looking at it this way will bring a new light to the story

[Corribus]

Hmm I am to assume that if I say that I have seen ghosts for certain that some would consider me mad or delusional.

I would consider your interpretation of what you "saw" to be incorrect.

You keep giving examples that are from the start ridiculous and somewhat belittle the subject discussed. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an intentionally ridiculous construct; one would automatically dismiss it as absurd, so it's not a good example, IMO. Ice-cubes ruling the universe is another rather ridiculous one.

Sometimes the best way to prove a point is to extrapolate it to absurdity and then ask where the boundary lies. This is because for me to say that "I don't believe in spirits, so therefore I conclude they do not exist" is a logical fallacy called Argument by Incredulity. I cannot resort to that. OBVIOUSLY my examples were ridiculous. Do not interpret that as an insult or an attempt to belittle the subject. Let me spell it out for you so you understand.

You consider that ghosts and fairies, things which have no empirical evidence to support their existance, to be within the realm of possibility. Right? In fact, if you ask the average person if he believed in ghosts or fairies they'd probably say something like, "Yeah, I don't really believe in them but I guess they COULD exist. I certainly can't PROVE that they don't." So, at the very least, we give ghosts or spirits or fairies or whatever you want to call them, a "Within the realm of distant possibility" stamp. Let's say for a moment that I hold that opinion as well a sort of "spiritual agnosticism".

Now we agree there is no documented, undeniable scientific proof for ghosts or fairies. They are a conceptual thing right now, something pulled out of our minds that we agree, for the sake of argument, may indeed be proven to exist at some point in the future. They are "within the realm of possibility".

Now I say to you, "Well, what about Ice-Cube Overlords?" Or the "Spaghetti Monster". Can THEY be receive that stamp of "within the realm of distant possibility" as well? Ask the average person and what will they say? They will laugh at you and say, "What, are you mad?" Obviously, you and I and everyone else can agree that Ice-Cube overlords or the Spaghetti Monster are "beyond the realm of distant possibility".

So now, we have to classes of things at opposite ends of the spectrum. Ghost spirits and fairies - and God - at the "possible" end and "ice-cube demons and spaghetti monster" at the other end. Both sets we have no physical evidence for, both sets we just took from our imaginations, or from folk-lore, or whatever. And yet we are somehow able to make the distinction that one set is within the realm of possibility and the other is laughably ridiculous. What is the criteria that separates these two extremes? More to the point - if I can come up with things at both ends of the spectrum, I can certainly come up with things in the middle that are not as patently absurd as "ice cube demon" but may not be as "possible" as roaming spirits. Dragons, for instance. Vampires. Minotaurs. Satyrs. Wizards. All of these are taken from folk-lore or imaginative exercises. At one point someone thought they definitely existed. Today most people regard them to some undefined degree as whimsical fantasy. At what point do you draw the line? What is your criteria for incredulity? You have already said that some things are absurd and some things aren't. What distinguishes between these two ends of the spectrum?

The point is that if you can sit there and say that one thing seems more likely than another, you have to have some criteria - even if its subconscious - to make that judgement. I am only asking you to think hard about what that criteria is. The reason I use absurd examples is because it may be easier for you to determine what those criteria are.

My own, very simple solution to that problem is that there is no spectrum at all. NONE of them exist. Then the need for criteria is eliminated.

If I'm not mistaken, people once believed ether was the medium that transmitted electromagnetic waves.

Or a more classic example: the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it.

Nice try, but that doesn't work. People have believed a lot of things. The flatness of the earth was more an unfounded belief than a scientific hypothesis. It was easily proved to be an incorrect belief by simple observation. Aether was a proposed substance that had no scientific underpinings - it was hypothesized for quite some time but never proven to be right, so therefore science cannot be interpreted to have been wrong when it was discarded prior to the evolution of modern physics. And besides which, even though they were not hypotheses formed by modern scientific thought, they still were CAPABLE of being proven right or wrong in the first place. If something does not exist in the physical world, how can you use physical science to evaluate it? This is a point that is constantly eluding many of you.

My mind is open enough to consider that I don't know all there is to know and to know that I have been wrong about things before. I will give any serious theroy [substitute the word proposal so you don't freak out ] consideration. The flying spaghetti monster was made up to ridicule people who believe in God, not as a serious proposal.

Alright, the FSW is a bad example then. What about Zeus?

There are a number of people who say they have seen what appeared to be intelligent beings that appeared to not be human. Because I have never seen a ghost I do not rule out the possibility that there are ghosts. In fact I have seen enough evidence to convince me that ghosts are something.

I would ask you the same question I asked tLD, above.

A number of people all over the world have said they have seen things that would fit in the faery/elemental catagory. Are you saying they are all looney?

No, I wouldn't put it that way. The thing is that the mind inherently interprets what the senses provide it. In the old days, when lightning stuck the ground, people saw the light and heard the noise (of thunder) and interpreted it as being caused by a god's anger. Of course we now know that that interpretation is absurd. Lightning is caused by differences in static charges in the atmosphere (and the ground), and we have an explanation for thunder as well. Were the ancient greeks all looney? No. They had much less scientific knowledge than we do now, and were interpreting what they saw using the knowledge they had. People see something they don't understand today - something that seems to them to be beyond the realm of what science can explain - and they leap to interpret it as something supernatural or otherworldly. What you see is what you see. What you believe causes what you see is up to interpretation. If these people had more knowledge of the physical laws that make up the world (and many laws are yet to be uncovered), then interpretations would be different.

Some people are genuinely looney though - but what does that mean? A guy who thinks a tree tells him to kill his whole family - is he looney? A guy hopped up on LSD that thinks he hears all his dead relatives? These people problems with their brains that cause them to interpret reality very incorrectly.

So bad or inaccurate interpretations can be caused by many things. Sometimes its a simple lack of knowledge. Other times its an actual chemical or physical defect in the brain. It doesn't mean that everyone who believes in a ghost belongs in an assylum.

Yes, and perhaps the scientific explanation is that they captured beings or manifestations of beings on camera that you don't think exist.

If they don't exist in the physical world, then they cannot have a scientific explanation.

Well, of course I have never heard anyone but you propse the existance of ice-cube overlords and your proposal in not serious.

*sigh* See above. Don't like my made up ridiculous extremes, use something you're more comfortable with. What about Ra?

So you catagorically rule out anything that you personally haven't seen even if many people say they have seen things that you have not? I mentioned things captured on camera (they were seen by different people and camtured as a thermal image) that were following the Ghost Hunter team. Now can I be sure the cameras were doctored for those and other instances. No, but you can't be sure they were either. There were other things that were heard (like footsteps that were captured on recordings) when nothing appeared to be around to cause the sounds.

So why leap to a supernatural explanation? I hear noises on a film and I don't suddenly think: "ghosts!" I think: "House settling". I see red blotches on a thermal image and I don't think: "Dead spirits!" I think "Hot pockets of air." Why are you so eager to assume that something supernatural is going on?

Knowing what I know of physics, chemistry and biology, yes I'm fairly certain. Carbon is a special bird.

Scientists recently encouraged NASA not to only look for carbon based life. Check out this link.

Did you read the article? They are looking for live that may not subsist on, for instance, water. That does not mean they are not looking for carbon-based life. If you want me to go into the chemical and physical nature of carbon bonding that make it probably the only element capable of forming molecules complex enough to sustain complex life-forms, I will, but it's really unnecessary. Some people have proposed other elements (silicon, as an exaple) as potentially responsible for the very earliest "life-like" replicating molecules on Earth, but they could hardly be called life by any modern stretch of the imagination.

I do not rule out the possibility - in fact it is entirely possible - that life on other planets may not use water, nor that they may not use RNA or DNA, or even amino acids. Who knows? But carbon has many properties that are really not found in any other element. I would think it very unlikely for complex life forms to be made of elements (primarily) other than carbon. Impossible? I guess not. But of course that is something that can be observed and tested, like any good scientific theory, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Well, I have seen UFOs. My parents have seen them. Both my sisters and my brother have seen them. We saw them fairly frequently actually for a time while I was growing up. Believe it or nor as you choose. Who was in the crafts I can't say. Top secret government craft? I doubt it. I believe there were extraterrestrials in it.

There, now I've given everybody ammunition to use against me in future arguments.

Well, I won't ridicule you. You may interpret what you saw how you wish. Personally I find it hard to believe that we have been visited by intelligent ET life. *But* I certainly find the prospect of UFOs and aliens to be within the realm of physical possibility. I would certainly be more likely to say, "Yeah I guess that's possible." than I would to you telling me you saw your dead great-grandfather sitting in your rocking chair.

Flat earth. That was considered to be absolute fact at one time but we know better today.

That's actually a myth. It was considered absolute fact by some people based on no credible scientific evidence, mostly by early religious (Christian) organizations. In fact, the Greeks, who could probably be considered to be the earliest "scientists" in that they used empiricism to make theories about reality, mostly concluded (e.g., Ptolemy) that the earth was spherical. These determinations were made by crude experiments and empirical observations. Those who dissented (e.g., Lucretius) did so predominantly on philosophical grounds. Even in early Chrstian eras, the round-earth philosphy was the most widely accepted, with the few dissenters believing in flat earth because of some absurd notion about Adam and the antipodes. Actually a lot of later (early medieval) Christian scholors taught that the earth was round, probably as a result of some remnants of early greek scholarly works. Some were persecuted for this belief, but the round earth philosophy was so widely accepted that the persecution was not nearly as great as, for example, in heliocentricism. It was certainly never "absolute fact determined as agreed to by all scientists" that the earth was flat - quite the opposite. Most scientists (such as they were) in the middle ages, who had access to old greek texts, upheld a round-earth theory, and after islamic astronomy reached europe in the beginning of the 2nd millenium, flat earth-icism was all but eliminated. Those who DID believe the earth was flat did so mostly as a result of simple belief based on no empirical evidence. The chinese (far east) did believe in a flat earth for quite a long time, but this was not a scientific belief.

Also, the whole "Christopher Columbus was the only guy who thought the earth was round and other people thought he'd sail off the end of the world" is a complete misconception that arose from a history of Columbus published several centuries after Columbus' voyage. There is no evidence to support this conjecture.

So you'll have to find something else. tLD's "Aether" example was a much better example. But even so, it's not great. I'm not saying scientists (or science) are never WRONG. But scientists rarely say things like, "OK, this is a fact, no ifs ands or buts." They make theories, they test them, and they conclude that, based on available evidence, the theory is good or its bad. More evidence may come by later to show that the theory is not complete. But it has to be something that is testable in the first place.

[Gaidal Cain]

The flying spaghetti monster was made up to ridicule people who believe in God...

... and are unable to differentiate between religion and science.

Flat earth. That was considered to be absolute fact at one time but we know better today. There are oh so many others too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

[Ethric]

I guess in a debate about the fallability of science the mistakes of the past as examples will be easily dismissed by todays scientists as not being based on proper science or such. But the thing is, those who did draw the various flawed conclusions often did base them in what was then considered sound "science".

But I guess discussing the supernatural and the possibility of it's existence with certain segments of "hardcore" scientists is very similar to debating the credibility of religion with fundamentalists; as much fun as banging your head against the wall.

[Gaidal Cain]

Science screws up all the time. It just so happens that those swrew-ups tend to be more technical in nature than ideas like "the earth is flat".

But for more commonly known examples, astrology and alchemy were once considered "science". They aren't today. The hippocratic medicine, commonly used into the nineteenth century, wasn't exactly good either. The thing is though that they aren't considered science by today's definition, because science tries to correct itself.

[Jolly Joker]

Okay, let's make some basic distinctions.
Science as such may be wrong only if the collected data are "wrong" as in: there was an measuring error.
Secondly, results may be INTERPRETED wrongly. This is often the case when data are incomplete or partial.

HOWEVER, we are here not in a scientific thread. The world is "scientific" only a few centuries and the world has evolved without it. Fantasy or fairy tales were there right from the start because you can bet your life on it that the mind who was able to imagine a FUTURE use of a certain tool for getting the food easier has been able to imagine their own death - seen exemplary when friends or relatives died.
So you can further bet that even the primirive mind asked a lot of questions - and provided answers. You can say safely, that everything started out as fantays: ecplanations being given for questions being asked: stories being told.

Now, Corribus, your main error is that you mistake science for answering those questions. You talk of lightning. Sure, science has found how they WORK - still there could be a god running wild and creating them. Science would explain only the HOW.

So science doesn't touch anything out of the realm of fantasy. Science is just a WAY to look at things. It's no EXPLANATION as such.

[okrane]

You talk of lightning. Sure, science has found how they WORK - still there could be a god running wild and creating them. Science would explain only the HOW.

I cannot believe there are people in this world that actually think this way...

Without any reason at all for which the existance of some god or other cause is necessary and still some need to make them up.... very strange...

[Ethric]

For one that berated others about being childish in their discussions, you fail miserably at basic reading comprehension. Saying something COULD be true, admitting that it's hard to be absolutely sure one way or the other, is not the same as stating it IS true.

[Jolly Joker]

You talk of lightning. Sure, science has found how they WORK - still there could be a god running wild and creating them. Science would explain only the HOW.

I cannot believe there are people in this world that actually think this way...

Without any reason at all for which the existance of some god or other cause is necessary and still some need to make them up.... very strange...

You miss the point. Without "fantasy" there wouldn't be humans because people wanted "explanations" (or answers) before the scientific age.

[Pol]

You talk of lightning. Sure, science has found how they WORK - still there could be a god running wild and creating them. Science would explain only the HOW.

I cannot believe there are people in this world that actually think this way...

There's actually no contradiction in JJ post. Fact that you know how is something working doesn't imply that you know when or why is happening. - That's completely different thing.

[Caradoc]

We can directly, empirically observe the effects of quantum mechanics in countless ways. We cannot observe the effects of fairies. I'm not sure why you would call quantum mechanics "unproven". The line between fantasy and reality is not so blurry as you want to make it out to be.

But you cannot observe quantum events as they occur. Just as you can't see the fairies, just the effects of their actions. All I know is that I put a tooth under my pillow when I go to bed and there is dime there the next day. Fantasy is just the recognition that there are phenomena currently beyond scientific explanation. The reason the line is blurry is that 'reality' itself is blurry, and outside that line, anything goes.

As to the fairies, like ghosts, the reports are too persistent and pervasive to conclusively dismiss them as lies or delusions. It would seem there is some real phenomenon there, currently outside the realm of scientific explanation.

[Corribus]

But you cannot observe quantum events as they occur. Just as you can't see the fairies, just the effects of their actions. All I know is that I put a tooth under my pillow when I go to bed and there is dime there the next day.

Eh? You can observe the effects of fairies? Are you just messing with me?

As to the fairies, like ghosts, the reports are too persistent and pervasive to conclusively dismiss them as lies or delusions.

That's a logical fallacy. Argument by popularity or belief does not work. Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it so.

It would seem there is some real phenomenon there, currently outside the realm of scientific explanation.

If it can be observed empirically, it can be explained using scientific laws.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

You consider that ghosts and fairies, things which have no empirical evidence to support their existance, to be within the realm of possibility. Right?

Yep. Personal testimony by **lots** of people have to count for something. And the mounting evidence that is being captured by "paranormal" investigators.

You talk about blobs of hot air. In the Ghost Hunter's episode I mentioned, there were three things following behind the team, not sitting in one place.

And the sounds weren't creaking of a floor. They sounded like footsteps. In other instances voices have been captured responding to questions in an empty house, more images, ect.

While some people are indeed too quick to believe everything that anyone says some people are also too quick to dismiss everything that does not jive with what they believe to be true.

My mind is open enough to consider that I don't know all there is to know and to know that I have been wrong about things before. I will give any serious theroy [substitute the word proposal so you don't freak out ] consideration. The flying spaghetti monster was made up to ridicule people who believe in God, not as a serious proposal.

Alright, the FSW is a bad example then. What about Zeus?

I didn't think we were talking about religious beliefs. But if you seriously believe in Zeus put forward your proposals and I'll try to keep an open mind.

There are a number of people who say they have seen what appeared to be intelligent beings that appeared to not be human. Because I have never seen a ghost I do not rule out the possibility that there are ghosts. In fact I have seen enough evidence to convince me that ghosts are something.

I would ask you the same question I asked tLD, above.

I was talking about ghosts and eyewitness who say they have seen ghosts. You are free to present eyewitnesses who say they have seen Zeus and Zeus captured on film and tape recordings and I'll try to keep an open mind.

A number of people all over the world have said they have seen things that would fit in the faery/elemental catagory. Are you saying they are all looney?

What you believe causes what you see is up to interpretation. If these people had more knowledge of the physical laws that make up the world (and many laws are yet to be uncovered), then interpretations would be different.

So bad or inaccurate interpretations can be caused by many things. Sometimes its a simple lack of knowledge. Other times its an actual chemical or physical defect in the brain. It doesn't mean that everyone who believes in a ghost belongs in an assylum.

Yet even though a large number of people have claimed to have seen ghosts and even though you were not there you can say absolutely that they all misinterpreted what they saw becuase either their beliefs are bad or their brain is bad? And do you think that the future knowledge/laws that are to be discovered all favor your current beliefs?

Yes, and perhaps the scientific explanation is that they captured beings or manifestations of beings on camera that you don't think exist.

If they don't exist in the physical world, then they cannot have a scientific explanation.

Who said they don't exist in the physical world? There are at least physical manifestations.

Paranormal investigators use various instruments to help detect disturbances across the electromagnetic spectrum and thermal imagers to detect temperature changes.

One idea (hey, I avoided the "T" word ) is that they draw upon existing energy to help themselves manifest and that is the reason for cold spots and EMF disturbances.

You may not accept them, but paranormal investigators are scientists.

Well, of course I have never heard anyone but you propse the existance of ice-cube overlords and your proposal in not serious.

*sigh* See above. Don't like my made up ridiculous extremes, use something you're more comfortable with. What about Ra?

Like I said about your Zeus proposal, you are free to present your serious proposals and eyewitnesses who say they have seen Ra and Ra captured on film and tape recordings and I'll try to keep an open mind.

So you catagorically rule out anything that you personally haven't seen even if many people say they have seen things that you have not? I mentioned things captured on camera (they were seen by different people and camtured as a thermal image) that were following the Ghost Hunter team. Now can I be sure the cameras were doctored for those and other instances. No, but you can't be sure they were either. There were other things that were heard (like footsteps that were captured on recordings) when nothing appeared to be around to cause the sounds.

So why leap to a supernatural explanation? I hear noises on a film and I don't suddenly think: "ghosts!" I think: "House settling". I see red blotches on a thermal image and I don't think: "Dead spirits!" I think "Hot pockets of air." Why are you so eager to assume that something supernatural is going on?

Hot pockets of air don't follow people around. The sound of footsteps is the sound of footsteps. And what appeared to be a face was also captured on film (and seen by another team member elsewhere.) The actual proposal in this instance was these were perhaps elementals rather than ghosts.

Why are you so eager to assume that there was nothing but misinterpretation or delusion going on and to dismiss the evidence captured on film and recordings?

Knowing what I know of physics, chemistry and biology, yes I'm fairly certain. Carbon is a special bird.

Scientists recently encouraged NASA not to only look for carbon based life. Check out this link.

Did you read the article?

Yes, I did. Let me give a link to the actual study online.It is by no means the first such proposal.


Here is a very relevant quote from the executive summary.

The long history of terran chemistry tempts us to become fixated on carbon because terran life is based on carbon. But basic principles of chemistry warn us against ter- racentricity. It is easy to conceive of chemical reactions that might support life involving noncarbon compounds, occurring in solvents other than water, or involving oxidation-reduction reactions without dioxygen.

I do not rule out the possibility - in fact it is entirely possible - that life on other planets may not use water, nor that they may not use RNA or DNA, or even amino acids. Who knows? But carbon has many properties that are really not found in any other element. I would think it very unlikely for complex life forms to be made of elements (primarily) other than carbon. Impossible? I guess not. But of course that is something that can be observed and tested, like any good scientific theory, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is if we insist that what we "know" is absolutely the truth we will miss out on what can be known that doesn't jive with what we "know."

"What is" is out there, but can we recognize "what is" if we don't even consider it to be a possibility.

So you'll have to find something else. tLD's "Aether" example was a much better example. But even so, it's not great. I'm not saying scientists (or science) are never WRONG. But scientists rarely say things like, "OK, this is a fact, no ifs ands or buts." They make theories, they test them, and they conclude that, based on available evidence, the theory is good or its bad. More evidence may come by later to show that the theory is not complete. But it has to be something that is testable in the first place.

I don't have to look for another example because you admited that there are examples to be found.

A research scientist should be willing to consider that there are things outside the box of prevailing "scientific" opinions or he may not recognize evidence that would prove those prevailing "scientific" opinions wrong.

GOW

[asandir]

Yep. Personal testimony by **lots** of people have to count for something. And the mounting evidence that is being captured by "paranormal" investigators.

does it? really? since when? there's a heap of crazies out there, plus those that wanna make a name for themselves and a lot of people who want to believe something .... it doesn't have to count for anything

[Corribus]

Yep. Personal testimony by **lots** of people have to count for something.

Actually it doesn't. As I've pointed out, that's a logical fallacy. And I could just as easily point out that lots of people believed in Zeus once as well. Does that count for something?

And the mounting evidence that is being captured by "paranormal" investigators.

It's not evidence for something if you can't logically make a connection. Again, the existence of lightning was not evidence for Zeus.

You talk about blobs of hot air. In the Ghost Hunter's episode I mentioned, there were three things following behind the team, not sitting in one place.

I cannot comment as I did not see the show, but I'm sure there's a better, more rational explanation than ghosts.

And the sounds weren't creaking of a floor. They sounded like footsteps. In other instances voices have been captured responding to questions in an empty house, more images, ect.

You do realize that sounds, which are vibrations, have to be caused by *something* don't you. They don't just spontaneously happen. Every force or action requires an energetic input of some sort.

I didn't think we were talking about religious beliefs. But if you seriously believe in Zeus put forward your proposals and I'll try to keep an open mind.

I'm not sure how there's any difference between believing in a god and believing in ghosts. Could you explain it to me if you feel there is one?

Yet even though a large number of people have claimed to have seen ghosts and even though you were not there you can say absolutely that they all misinterpreted what they saw becuase either their beliefs are bad or their brain is bad?

That is what I believe. It does not make me correct. I believe in empiricism and that everything in this world can be explained by logic, reasoning and science. Even if I cannot explain a certain observation, my experience and my conditioning leads me to believe that there *is* an explanation, and furthermore one that requires no invokation of paranormal or otherworldly phenomena. Given enough time, technology or thought, any observation or condition of this material world can be uncovered. That's my belief. I believe in the power of science.

You and other people may believe otherwise. And that doesn't mean you are insane, otherwise. Furthermore, as I've said many, many, many times, you cannot prove or disprove a belief. The only thing I *can* do is disprove the deduction that any certain event which you believe is paranormal is in fact not - although you may choose to discard logic and believe that my empirical proof is wrong. But, even then, such proofs would have to be done on a case to case basis and so it will be impossible ever for me (or anyone) to prove, unilaterally, that there is nothing extra-worldly out there, for such would imply that we know everything there is to know, and I also believe that the amount of attainable knowledge is infinite. That is why there will always be religion, and there will always be beliefs in things other than science and empiricism.

And do you think that the future knowledge/laws that are to be discovered all favor your current beliefs?

I believe that science will always explain everything, yes. That doesn't mean that I believe that today's science is infallable or will not change. But I believe there will always BE physical laws and everything must abide by them.

Who said they don't exist in the physical world? There are at least physical manifestations.

And then they must have a scientific explanation.

One idea (hey, I avoided the "T" word ) is that they draw upon existing energy to help themselves manifest and that is the reason for cold spots and EMF disturbances.

I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. How exactly do they "draw upon energy". Heat energy? Could you explain this "idea" further?

Like I said about your Zeus proposal, you are free to present your serious proposals and eyewitnesses who say they have seen Ra and Ra captured on film and tape recordings and I'll try to keep an open mind.

I'm sure there were thousands of them in ancient egypt.

Why are you so eager to assume that there was nothing but misinterpretation or delusion going on and to dismiss the evidence captured on film and recordings?

I already stated why, above.

The long history of terran chemistry tempts us to become fixated on carbon because terran life is based on carbon. But basic principles of chemistry warn us against ter- racentricity. It is easy to conceive of chemical reactions that might support life involving noncarbon compounds, occurring in solvents other than water, or involving oxidation-reduction reactions without dioxygen.

Thank you for the link. That's a lot of material to read, and I will look it over, and perhaps comment at more length on the topic later. In short, I find it most probable that life on other planets - if it exists (which it probably does) - is also based on carbon. That's a belief based solely on my intuition as a chemist. I do not completely discount the possibility for non-carbon based life.

What I'm getting at is if we insist that what we "know" is absolutely the truth we will miss out on what can be known that doesn't jive with what we "know."

I think you misunderstand me. I do not insist that what we know now is absolutely the truth. What I insist is that the truth can alwasy be discovered through scientific and empirical inquiry. The laws of science may (nay, will) change, the foundation of science upon empiricism will not.

May there be things out there beyond the realm of empiricism and science? Perhaps - I cannot say one way or the other, because I am only equipped with my senses and with logic. But if there *is* something out there beyond our capacity to explain through logic and scientific inquiry, we will never know it while we are among the living.

I don't have to look for another example because you admited that there are examples to be found.

You got me!

A research scientist should be willing to consider that there are things outside the box of prevailing "scientific" opinions or he may not recognize evidence that would prove those prevailing "scientific" opinions wrong.

Absolutely! But, if he steps outside the realm of empiricism, he ceases to be a scientist.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Yep. Personal testimony by **lots** of people have to count for something.

Actually it doesn't. As I've pointed out, that's a logical fallacy. And I could just as easily point out that lots of people believed in Zeus once as well. Does that count for something?

I think the illogical thing is presuming that you absolutely know that every person who has ever seen a ghost/faery/elemental is delusional or misintrepreting what they have seen.

And the mounting evidence that is being captured by "paranormal" investigators.

It's not evidence for something if you can't logically make a connection. Again, the existence of lightning was not evidence for Zeus.

No, but if you saw some guy flying around in the skies through no visible means throwing lightning bolts that might be something to consider.

Because you don't draw the line connecting some things that are clearly on camera doesn't mean that there is no logical connection to be drawn. Some of us have made the connection.

You talk about blobs of hot air. In the Ghost Hunter's episode I mentioned, there were three things following behind the team, not sitting in one place.

I cannot comment as I did not see the show, but I'm sure there's a better, more rational explanation than ghosts.

Why must there be a "more rational explanation" thatn ghosts or faeries? Don't automatically reject evidence because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.
What "rational" idea to you propose to explain such events?

And the sounds weren't creaking of a floor. They sounded like footsteps. In other instances voices have been captured responding to questions in an empty house, more images, ect.

You do realize that sounds, which are vibrations, have to be caused by *something* don't you. They don't just spontaneously happen. Every force or action requires an energetic input of some sort.

Yes, exactly. Something was speaking the words that were recorded. Something made the sounds of footsteps.

I didn't think we were talking about religious beliefs. But if you seriously believe in Zeus put forward your proposals and I'll try to keep an open mind.

I'm not sure how there's any difference between believing in a god and believing in ghosts. Could you explain it to me if you feel there is one?

I have seen evidence for ghosts on camera and tape recordings. I know people who told me they have seen ghosts. For example, one of my aunts saw her deceased husband and he spoke to her. I know what you are going to say. Halucination/delusion. You dismiss such things sightings from the possibility of being true because they are outside the box of what you consider reality.

If you seriously propose the existance of Zeus, put forward your ideas and I will give it my serious consideration.

That is what I believe. It does not make me correct. I believe in empiricism and that everything in this world can be explained by logic, reasoning and science. Even if I cannot explain a certain observation, my experience and my conditioning leads me to believe that there *is* an explanation, and furthermore one that requires no invokation of paranormal or otherworldly phenomena. Given enough time, technology or thought, any observation or condition of this material world can be uncovered. That's my belief. I believe in the power of science.

Yet you reject the evidence that paranormal investigators are obtaining for "paranormal" beings. Drop the word "paranormal" if it frightens you These are just "non human" intelligent beings. Or in the case of ghost, perhaps the spirits of human beings.

Who said they don't exist in the physical world? There are at least physical manifestations.

And then they must have a scientific explanation.

One idea (hey, I avoided the "T" word ) is that they draw upon existing energy to help themselves manifest and that is the reason for cold spots and EMF disturbances.

I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. How exactly do they "draw upon energy". Heat energy? Could you explain this "idea" further?

The idea of paranormal investigators is that ghosts in order to interact with the physical world have make use of energy that is already present in the location. There are EMF disturbances and cold spots associated with hauntings, which is why the idea developed. Instruments that measure electromagnetic fields may just around in sights of haunting and the fields move around sometimes and can be followed. Yes, paranormal investigators take electrical lines, ect into consideration and in some places such instruments can't be used.

The idea is that the ghost uses the energy to do things like make a visible presence, make objects move, cause sounds, ect. If more energy is available the ghost is able to cause stronger manifestations.

GOW

[Caradoc]

But you cannot observe quantum events as they occur. Just as you can't see the fairies, just the effects of their actions. All I know is that I put a tooth under my pillow when I go to bed and there is dime there the next day.

Eh? You can observe the effects of fairies? Are you just messing with me?

As to the fairies, like ghosts, the reports are too persistent and pervasive to conclusively dismiss them as lies or delusions.

That's a logical fallacy. Argument by popularity or belief does not work. Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it so.

It would seem there is some real phenomenon there, currently outside the realm of scientific explanation.

If it can be observed empirically, it can be explained using scientific laws.

There are many reports of the doings of fairies that have not been explained by science. Until then, the issue is open. Note that I am not arguing that because people believe in fairies they must exist. I am saying that when there are so many reports of fairie folk, there is reason to think that there may be some unexplained phenomenon at work. Possibly this will one day be validated and explained by science, but until then the fairie hypothesis stays on the table.

And yes, I am messing with you. And to continue in that endeavor, I would like to introduce you to a blog that may change the way you see things. I suspect that your exposure to 'otherworldly' phenomena has been with crackpot new wave ramblings. If you would partake of a serious, thoughtful discussion of this and related subjects, visit Rigorous Intuition: http://rigint.blogspot.com

[asandir]

I think the illogical thing is presuming that you absolutely know that every person who has ever seen a ghost/faery/elemental is delusional or misintrepreting what they have seen.

why is that? is it better one way than the other?