This is not a conspiricy thread i want real scientific feedback

[Guest Jadoa]

Let me start off by saying that i am a person that must have things proven to him before he can belive them. with that said i want to discuss some of those things that the scientific community would opp. to just say that "it is just not possible", and for referencce i have asked this on a little more err "mystic" forum to get some results as well i want feedback from both sides. So here is what i want to know peoples views on, and if you can't prove anything just go ahead and submit it and let everyone pick aprt, especially me, well here it goes: Telepathy, Telekinesis, Time-Travel, aliens etc:. please don't think i am some weirdo and that this is all i think about I just happend to be thinking about and wanted some other peoples views, cept for Time Travel i did my senior research paper on it, anybody is welcome to reply just be realistic I have heard all the "why are you asking me that" replies i need

[Mokele]

For the first two, there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support their reality. Every controled scientific test done on either failed to produce results beyond chance, or the "psychic" refused to be tested (wonder why).

 

Time travel, there's no evidence of it happening. There's equations that say we could, but frankly, given that we *know* physics needs a major re-write (hence all this Theory of Everything hoopla), I take those with a grain of salt.

 

Aliens, sure. Visiting us, again, no real evidence at all.

 

Basically, science requires empirical results, tests and evidence to work, and without any of that, none of the above can really be considered science.

 

Mokele

[Guest Jadoa]

So you take no belief, whoops i said it, that there could be such a thing as telepathy or you are saying that your neutral because there is no evidence?

 

Yeah major rewrite, no one knows anything anymore i have many views on Time-Travel

 

Aliens well i thought i'd just throw that in there, you know possibility of an infinite universe nad we are the only inhabited planet not likely, unless you are a creationist, and i'd like your views too BTW.

[j_p]

No good scientist would ever say, 'That's just not possible', about such phenomena.

 

I know that telepathy occurs.

I strongly suspect time-travel occurs.

I am willing to believe others on the matter of ghosts.

I am open-minded about telekinesis.

I think that people who claim to have interacted with aliens must be nuts [because, obviously, the 'aliens' are time travellers].

 

There is the reality we can measure; there is a reality beyond measurement. And there is a reality we can not measure, yet.

[thorN]

The idea of spooky "Aliens" having come and visited people really makes me think that it's all a product of the subconcious creating some entity as a cause for the paranoia and fear that we all exhibit, because it's an evolutionary advantage.

 

I imagine that the universe, however, is teeming with all kinds of beings. I don't know why they aren't here yet, but I'm sure we'll find out soon. I don't think that space will be similarly teeming with communication though, radio broadcasting is may be too wasteful for any advanced civilization to use. (We may have to stop once fossil fuels run out and energy becomes more expensive.)

 

As for time travel and telekinesis, they seem too .. fictiony? or too anthropocentric. Maybe they're too obvious/intuitive? I dunno, doesn't seem like they'll exist. I think the new discoveries will be things we're not expecting at all. Think how strange Quantum pheneomena are.

 

My Grandad did some research into psychic ability, last time it was in vogue. He did tests with different kinds of cards, and any psychics they did find were eventually found to be average after continued tests. We're of the shared opinion that while extra-sensory ability is certainly possible (and probable), it will manifest itself in a way that is completely perpendicular to the common conception of ESP.

 

The brain is massively complicated. However, I know it works by electricity, and has an induced magnetic field. What I know about magnetic fields is that they can influence each other at a distance - so by some leap of logic two brains can interact remotely.

[YT2095]

I personaly beleive that to NOT have Aliens exist somewhere in the universe would hardly be likely, in fact it would be REALLY Strange if we were the only life throughout, that in itself would raise some rather difficult questions!

 

as for Psychic ability, yes, I`m sure it could be possible, but as of yet, there`s been no "Beyond a Doubt" evidence shown publicly, I`ve had experiences myself that even I can`t explain away (and I tend to be fairly good at that), Coincidence is the only option left over, and it Does occur, else no one would ever win the Lottery twice

 

time travel, Hmmm... I can`t comment.

[Pangloss]

Why haven't you visited Grain-of-Sand#40,657,453,987 on Miami Beach?

 

And does your lack of having visited that grain of sand constitute proof that you do not exist?

[AL]

I am willing to believe others on the matter of ghosts.

I have a haunted bridge I want to sell you. It's a steal of a deal' date=' trust me.

 

I am open-minded about telekinesis.

Well I consider myself open-minded too, but probably not in the way you use the expression. Many people seem to think that being open-minded means entertaining weird, wacky beliefs and taking an agnostic, fence-straddling position. To me, open-mindedness is about giving weird and wacky ideas a fair hearing, but once the proponents of ideas like telekinesis have had their say and failed to make their case, there is no reason for me to continue straddling the fence instead of justifiably concluding that telekinetics is for loonies. This isn't closed-mindedness; to the contrary, it is effective use of one's mind.

[Phi for All]

So you take no belief, whoops i said it, that there could be such a thing as telepathy or you are saying that your neutral because there is no evidence?

No evidence is not proof of no existence. A good scientist retains some measure of skepticism about everything. The new physics teaches us that nothing is 100% probable.

 

Belief that something is possible is essential. Belief that something is absolutely, unequivocably true is dangerous. Not knowing is not as bad as it sounds. Uncertainty keeps us searching for knowledge.

[Guest Jadoa]

Wow this is some really great information I belive I about enough to prove my point, that people who think scientifically are just as likely to belive in something does not have have rock solid proof. As I said I also posted this same thread, with minor editing, on a less than down to earth forum and am sad to say that the moderators wouldn't even let me post it, don't know why. Thanks for your comments and please keep them coming this is moderatly interesting to talk about.

[swansont]

Wow this is some really great information I belive I about enough to prove my point, that people who think scientifically are just as likely to belive in something does not have have rock solid proof. As I said I also posted this same thread, with minor editing, on a less than down to earth forum and am sad to say that the moderators wouldn't even let me post it, don't know why. Thanks for your comments and please keep them coming this is moderatly interesting to talk about.

 

No, I don't think that's the valid conclusion. Scientists are generally skeptics - the burden of proof belongs to whoever is making a new claim, and the default position is that a claim is not true until sufficient evidence has been presented. So scientific-thinking folk are not just as likely to believe in something that lacks rock-solid proof. I think they are more likely to be skeptical about it, and more discriminating about what constitutes evidence.

[Phi for All]

Wow this is some really great information I belive I about enough to prove my point, that people who think scientifically are just as likely to belive in something does not have have rock solid proof.

Unbelieveable. You had a thesis, you asked for input, and didn't let any facts distort your belief in the original thesis.

 

Your assumptions are flawed. I think you need to define terms like "rock solid proof", "scientifically", and "believe" before you pole-vault your way to any more conclusions.

[Bio-Hazard]

If you can think it, it can be done. The downside is, people will stop others from doing it, so you have to get the technology developed yourself.

[-Demosthenes-]

No good scientist would ever say, 'That's just not possible', about such phenomena.

Unless it is impossible.

[swansont]

If you can think it, it can be done. The downside is, people will stop others from doing it, so you have to get the technology developed yourself.

 

No, that's not generally true. I can think perpetual motion and superluminal travel, but that doesn't mean it can be done.

[Glider]

Wow this is some really great information I belive I about enough to prove my point, that people who think scientifically are just as likely to belive in something does not have have rock solid proof.

I agree with swansont, this is not a valid conclusion. Al lot of it is about your use of language. It needs to be more precise.

 

People who think scientifically will generally accept something for which there is evidence, whilst knowing that no theory can be proved.

 

Accepting something is a long way from holding it as a 'belief'. Whilst they accept a proposition for which there is evidence, they are equally prepared to re-evaluate it when presented presented with evidence to the contrary or to drop completely should it be refuted. In general they won't defend a thing if that defence runs contrary to the weight of evidence.

 

This, essentially, is the difference between accepting a thing based upon evidence for it, and believing a thing as an act of faith.

[j_p]

I have a haunted bridge I want to sell you. It's a steal of a deal, trust me.

 

Is it that one on Old 66 in Missouri?

Well I consider myself open-minded too, but probably not in the way you use the expression. Many people seem to think that being open-minded means entertaining weird, wacky beliefs and taking an agnostic, fence-straddling position. To me, open-mindedness is about giving weird and wacky ideas a fair[/i'] hearing, but once the proponents of ideas like telekinesis have had their say and failed to make their case, there is no reason for me to continue straddling the fence instead of justifiably concluding that telekinetics is for loonies. This isn't closed-mindedness; to the contrary, it is effective use of one's mind.

 

That's exactly how I feel about alien abductions; but I don't know that I am right about that.

 

I disagree with you and Demosthenes on this; I am willing to believe just about anything is possible, but humans just haven't figure them out yet. Phi expressed this much better than I.

 

 

Telepathy could be either a vestigal or new ability; unpredictable because humans have no knowledge or skill in using it [a very loose analogy is infants developing motor skills; it takes a while before they can reliably get the spoon to their mouths.]

 

I don't see why time-travel would be anthropocentric; I am assuming that it occurs naturally with small inanimate objects with significant metal content, and that eventually we will discover the mechanism, probably while trying to develop teleportation. I further imagine that strict sanctions will be put in place against it being used for living beings, or, perhaps, that living beings will not survive time-travel or teleportation, which directly contradicts my theory that the alien abductors are time-travellers.

 

Ghosts ... Too many people I know have had strange experiences. I have had mildly strange experiences. Whispy figures in the middle of the night, low moans and other strange sounds, cold spots, sudden sensations of sadness or terror? All the time. I tend to live in old houses with poor insulation. Still, I have seen and felt things, literaly and methaphorically out of the corner of my eye, that keep me from dismissing ghosts.

 

I would say I have never seen evidence of telekinesis, but how would I know? When I manage to catch a falling glass that I was certain I was going to miss, maybe I am somehow pulling the glass into my hand. Maybe telekinesis occurs on this level all the time; the effect is so minor that no-one really notices it.

 

All this being said, when I can not find my keys, do I hold a seance and ask the spirits where they are? Do I stand in the middle of the house and try to pull the keys in my hand? No; that would be silly and probably fruitless.

 

I just putter around until I arrive at that point in time to which my keys have travelled.

[Mayflower]

Ghosts ... Too many people I know have had strange experiences. I have had mildly strange experiences. Whispy figures in the middle of the night' date=' low moans and other strange sounds, cold spots, sudden sensations of sadness or terror? All the time. I tend to live in old houses with poor insulation. Still, I have seen and felt things, literaly and methaphorically out of the corner of my eye, that keep me from dismissing ghosts.

[/quote']

 

What about the possibility that the mind isn't perfect at interpreting what it senses?

[j_p]

What about the possibility that the mind isn't perfect at interpreting what it senses?

 

Well, what about it?

 

I don't think any rational person would deny that interpretation at all levels is effected by expectations.

 

So, when, late on a dark and stormy night, alone in the house, pouring over a volume of forgotten lore, I hear a sharp crack, followed by a low moan, and see a dark shape move slowly out of the corner of my eyes, and suddenly sense a wave of bitter cold, acompanied by a deep despair, I think, 'Damn, I have got to get plastic up over those windows, or I'll never be able to afford heat this winter.'

 

Even if the wind is hitting the other side of the house, I have good drapes and storm windows, I just got a raise, and I put the plastic up last week-end.

[swansont]

"I can't explain it, so it must be a ghost" isn't a valid application of logic. And anecdotes aren't evidence.

[bascule]

Ghosts ... Too many people I know have had strange experiences. I have had mildly strange experiences. Whispy figures in the middle of the night, low moans and other strange sounds, cold spots, sudden sensations of sadness or terror? All the time. I tend to live in old houses with poor insulation. Still, I have seen and felt things, literaly and methaphorically out of the corner of my eye, that keep me from dismissing ghosts.

 

I went to what is, by all accounts, one of the "most haunted" places in the entire country, the Bingham Hill Cemetery, on the outskirts of an old pioneer town. It dates back to the early 19th century. Everyone talked of hearing the ghosts of dead babies crying, etc. etc.

 

Know what I felt? Nothing...

 

Maybe I'm just "spiritually numb"

 

Or perhaps because I accept that ghosts do not exist, I don't see them, whereas people who accept the opposite do?

 

If you swear off the existence of something that's real, is this likely to happen? (Hint: NO)