View previous topic | View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have to learn to think 'outside the box' DB - IMO life after death will be proven in the future. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | You have to learn to think 'outside the box' DB - IMO life after death will be proven in the future. |
How come all the people who have died and who said that when they're dead (such as Harry Houdini) they will 'come back' and prove that life after death is real - have not come back - just once?.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just because they haven't come back doesn't mean their spirit isn't still alive in another place, just not in this pyhsical world anymore. But again, if some did come back, which has been reported all over the world throughout history and the evidence is only anecdotal, you wouldn't consider it anyway. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
flossy Moderator
Joined: 17 Oct 2006 Posts: 4921 Location: UK tyne/wear (geordie land)
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maybe there not aloud to come back |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's true flossy - there are rules that govern our world such as gravity, so there may well be certain rules in the next - and the ones that do somehow come back (ghosts) - well rules are made to be broken |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Iain Lawrence
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Posts: 419
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It may indeed be a end of everything, but if it isn't I would like to think that I am inquisitive enough to attempt to solve the equation. DB you know that all science is no more than excepted theory and science doesn't have all the answers, which basicaly means anything is possible. But on one hand I tell myself to use common scence when considering these things, but on the other common scence who mean applying known variables and we are not in the known variable ball part here. We have to comprehend an equation and when it doesn't add up we have to consider other idealism in order to make the variables fit. Thats how science progress's. One day the situations we ponder will have more exeptable explanations and we will have advanced and adapted our rules, but till then, open minded analysis and comprehension is the order of the day. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iain Lawrence wrote: | DB you know that all science is no more than excepted theory and science doesn't have all the answers, which basicaly means anything is possible. |
This argument goes something like – as science cannot explain everything and does not have all the answers, it follows that:
Science is limited; and
other answers from other knowledge systems could be true (i.e., belief-systems and pseudoscience).
Or to put it another way, science is limited and those very limitations stop it from answering specific questions concerning certain issues. This is then typically used to gain leverage for claiming a ‘truth’ via these other knowledge systems (typically ones that don’t employ the principles of science). Common examples would be debates on psychic abilities, the existence of an after-life and the existence of apparitions from areas like parapsychology and popular science.
There are a number of reasons for why this argument is a falsehood. Firstly, science never claims to have all the answers – just a reliable and useful method for revealing them. So attacking science for not having all the answers is something of a straw-man argument in the first place (blaming science for not being able to do something – it never claimed to be able to do in the first place!). Secondly, the argument is based in the assumption that the limitations of science actually have any implications for what is being proposed. Although science is indeed limited, it does not automatically follow that these limitations have any implications for the existence of certain phenomena (i.e., of paranormal phenomena). The problem here relates to the idea that the limitations of science have any bearing whatsoever on the failure to find any evidence for, say, paranormal phenomena. However, if Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP) exists, a relatively simple science of mathematical probabilities, chance expectancies and well controlled experiments would be able to demonstrate its existence. The same would hold for other claimed abilities (mind reading, psycho-kinesis, mediumship, dowsing, remote viewing, etc). Science has had techniques and methodologies at its disposal for many years that are more than suitable to test and refute (or establish) such claims.
A relatively basic and simple well-controlled science would be more than sufficient to establish the truth of these claims. Thirdly, the limitations of one knowledge system do not, by default, add credence or support to any alternative. That is, although science may well be limited, this does not mean that alternative knowledge systems have any additional merits by default. For instance, gaps in knowledge from Astronomical science do not mean we should abandon it for Astrology. For Astrology to be a viable alternative it would need to demonstrate its own credentials for knowledge and understanding, independently of the limitations of any other system. The fact that science does not have all the answers, does not mean that pseudoscience has any answers at all (or is indeed capable of ever producing any)
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Iain Lawrence
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Posts: 419
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is indeed true to say that science can not explain many aspects of the paranormal world not because of its methology or ability, but known science cannot explore areas of interest of which it can not document. Within our investigations as you will by now have seen, we employ the use of scientific equipment to document and assess phenomenon and environments. The problem with such situations is that if we do document anything of which we can not explain, we have a very difficult problem in re-creating that situation in order to back up our findings. This is why we use meta-analysis, in order over time to come to a happy medium as does standard science. It is important though to note that I do not attack main stream science in any way, I sometimes become slightly defensive when heavly skeptical people attack sudo-sciences, simply because I am a strong believer that no stone should be unturned and all beliefs should be added into the situation of research. You will also have noticed that we do not use psychic mediums during events and only use what I refer too as base line equipment in order to document evidence. This removes the confusion from investigations and allows us to concentrate on the main and important aspects of documentable evidence. There are many thngs which science is striving to explain, the advancment of scientific equipment produces more tools in our tool kit. I have never made any conclusive points conserning any aspect of what we do, but there are always going to be people who are quick to judge and I suppose thats just part of the job. You though are open minded as well as skeptical which makes for a healthy mix. There are too many people in the paranormal world who arrogantly strut around telling people that what they beleive is real, that ghosts are everywhere and when we die we go to heaven. My concept of this is very different, you can see this if you read my BIG post lol. Even though these people associate with the paranormal world there concepts are fixed firmly in the atomic, they make reference to places and situations on the other side and yet have no real concept of energy or advanced theoretics or indeed the conection between the scientific world and the paranormal aspect, even though they use the word energy rather freely to explain the continued existance of interactive/armbient life after death. The world beyond the atomic as for as after death continuation is conserned I beleive as no baring upon anything we can comprehend due to everything we think and our entire imagination being a product of the atomic world. The ability to comprehend what we have not experienced is impossible. But hopefully by working together in all sciences and beliefs we can jointly begin and continue to attempt to contemplate the questions presented.
Thanks for that DB great conversation sir. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | Just because they haven't come back doesn't mean their spirit isn't still alive in another place, just not in this pyhsical world anymore. But again, if some did come back, which has been reported all over the world throughout history and the evidence is only anecdotal, you wouldn't consider it anyway. |
Quite right Cactus but it also doesn't mean that their spirit isn't still alive in an empty shoe box under my bed .
If spirits have been coming back since the dawn of history how come not a single one has not hung around long enough to be properly measured and tested?.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
flossy wrote: | maybe there not aloud to come back |
Maybe they're chained to big bowls of ectoplasmic pasta as well
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Iain Lawrence
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Posts: 419
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe they are?
Maybe you're not telling us something. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iain Lawrence, I do like your outlook, and the fact that you never make any conclusive points etc... unlike others who claim it is all very black and white, although for example people who claim to be able to contact deceased - I guess they would have a black and white perception as they believe they know exactly what happens when we die; heaven, hell, ghosts etc... but the only problem then is, are they in fact communicating with the dead?
D B Sweeney, what did you say your opinion was of the Enfield Poltergeist case again? |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Iain Lawrence wrote: | Maybe they are?
Maybe you're not telling us something. |
Maybe you're right
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: |
D B Sweeney, what did you say your opinion was of the Enfield Poltergeist case again? |
An interesting case, subject to a biased and flawed investigation that will remain inconclusive is my current opinion of the Enfield case.
Why do you ask my prickly friend?
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
D B Sweeney, just your last point about no spirits sticking around long enough to be properly tested lol I remembered you saying Enfield could have been authentic - the old man talking through Janet for hours etc, false vocal cords etc
got to go now - back later |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
|