White Powder Gold

[Saint Germain]

You're asserting something is true. If you're not "asking anyone to believe anything," then what is the purpose of the assertion? And how is asking for an explanation or any kind of evidence "trying to fight something you don't understand?" I think people here have shown themselves to be extremely open-minded, but you've treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution. What is that you want from people here?

 

I do not assert something is true - I share my experience, which is very different (cfr Gödel's theorem above).

 

The purpose is, as stated many times, to answer the original question with something more detailed than "everyone knows it is a scam".

 

I agree, some sincerely ask with an open mind, but most of the energy is spent in attacking and defending beliefs because "it must be impossible".

 

you've treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution. What is that you want from people here?

 

I think I have detailed my answers with sufficient argumentation, cited scientific sources and theories in answers to dry attacks - where do you feel I have "treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution"?

 

It seems it goes the other way around, the "prove it otherwise it's not true" mentality is a dogma that many seem to buy into here, and so this discussion seemed to have accepted cheap judgements.

 

What is that you want from people here?

 

I want nothing but help someone who asked a question.

 

Different things are true in different contexts, and I happen to work in a different worldview than materialism. A worldview in which rationality and critical thinking work together with intuition, and I happen to not agree with most of the judgements.

 

Of course, when someone shows up with a different opinion, it is perceived as "trying to convince", "advocate" or anything else - and must be defeated.

 

Cheers for science!

[Sisyphus]

I do not assert something is true - I share my experience, which is very different

 

You assert that your experiences occured as you describe them. Which happens to be an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims are not problematic in themselves, but unsupported ones are.

 

The support you claim to offer is not really that. You're citing godel's incompleteness theorem and vague allusions to quantum mechanics. Incorrectly, as it happens, but they're red herrings anyway, and totally separate discussions (which you're perfectly welcome to start in their own threads). Anyway, your assertion seems to be that these are examples of proofs that, essentially, nothing is knowable. While this is valid in a broad philosophical sense (though not for the reasons you give) under certain definitions of "knowable," it's really just a deflection from any actual discussion. I could just as easily assert that I am the Norse god Odin, and when challenged on my extraordinary claim just say you can't "prove" I'm not because your first axioms are unsupported. Alright. Agree to disagree...?

 

The point is that the number of potential extraordinary claims is infinite. It is not out of dogmatism that one rejects those with no support whatsoever, but simple practicality. It is literally impossible to accept everything.

 

But getting back to the support you claim to draw from modern physics - this makes no sense. You're talking about science. Is science bound by dogmatic "materialism" that seeks to invalidate everything not already understood, or does science show that dogmatism to be false? You can't have it both ways.

 

It seems it goes the other way around, the "prove it otherwise it's not true" mentality is a dogma that many seem to buy into here, and so this discussion seemed to have accepted cheap judgements.

 

You don't have to prove it. People are just asking for any support.

[Saint Germain]

You assert that your experiences occured as you describe them. Which happens to be an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims are not problematic in themselves, but unsupported ones are.

 

Yes, I assert this has been tested, and I gave links to references (see below) - and I agree it is an extraordinary claim.

 

The support you claim to offer is not really that. You're citing godel's incompleteness theorem and vague allusions to quantum mechanics. Incorrectly, as it happens, but they're red herrings anyway, and totally separate discussions (which you're perfectly welcome to start in their own threads). Anyway, your assertion seems to be that these are examples of proofs that, essentially, nothing is knowable. While this is valid in a broad philosophical sense (though not for the reasons you give) under certain definitions of "knowable," it's really just a deflection from any actual discussion. I could just as easily assert that I am the Norse god Odin, and when challenged on my extraordinary claim just say you can't "prove" I'm not because your first axioms are unsupported. Alright. Agree to disagree...?

 

Quantum Theory & Relativity have shown us the need to think of reality as relative to an observer - not as absolute. Goedel's theorem was offered to bring into awareness the limits of logic and rationality. The three of them were an answer to the video about open-mindedness - not to the claims made about the powder.

 

Agreed that you could assert that you are Odin, with no possibility to prove it, and why would one care? If someone asked, then you could come help with your perspective (which is the case here).

 

The point is that the number of potential extraordinary claims is infinite. It is not out of dogmatism that one rejects those with no support whatsoever, but simple practicality. It is literally impossible to accept everything.

 

Rejecting something because not proven is what scientism is (=a belief).

 

When meeting a claim, why restrict your possibilities to either accept or reject? You could as well stand back and decide that you do not have sufficient information to draw a conclusion, therefore not loosing curiosity for a quick judgement.

 

But getting back to the support you claim to draw from modern physics - this makes no sense.

 

Again, I gave no support with "modern physics" - I gave info about spectroscopic and thermogravimetric measurements.

 

I have even stated that it is not to be understood within a scientific context.

 

You're talking about science. Is science bound by dogmatic "materialism" that seeks to invalidate everything not already understood, or does science show that dogmatism to be false? You can't have it both ways.

 

To me, science is a way to progressively discover and understand our world - science has to accommodate to Nature, not make Nature accommodate to the current scientific model. Therefore, it is not to be considered as a measure of truth, but a useful tool that allows us to understand (not reject).

 

And yes, today's science has rendered materialism obsolete.

 

You don't have to prove it. People are just asking for any support.

 

It has been given here.

 

Ok, you deserve something.

Here you have both a video that contains many references to such studies - among which a spectroscopy study performed at Cornell University.

 

http://www.treasurealchemy.com/further-scientific-proofs-of-its-exotic-nature

 

And here some text presenting other results (also this Cornell study).

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/hudson2.html

 

Here's an additional link that you might find useful

Edited December 17, 2009 by Saint Germain

[iNow]

The video also suggests the existence of "supernatural" phenomena -

No, actually... It does no such thing. I am forced to question your comprehension and understanding based on you making such a profoundly inaccurate comment.

[Saint Germain]

No, actually... It does no such thing. I am forced to question your comprehension and understanding based on you making such a profoundly inaccurate comment.

 

Yeah, sorry, this wasn't the best way to put it (English isn't my mother language).

 

The actual context of this quote is:

 

The video also suggests the existence of "supernatural" phenomena - which is a perspective I don't share. To me, "supernatural" only means that something is not understood in the present scientific context, which again evolves through time.

 

What I meant to say is that the video labels phenomena that have no explanation for as supernatural.

 

I expressed my suggestion that supernatural is only not understood in the present scientific context, that they are an aspect of nature that remains unknown or misunderstood.

 

I was in no way saying that the video gives any support to supernatural phenomena.

 

But you can still question my comprehension and understanding, that's ok

[iNow]

What I meant to say is that the video labels phenomena that have no explanation for as supernatural.

Again, no. I am sorry, but that is ALSO inaccurate. I won't belabor the point, though.

[Mr Skeptic]

I do not assert something is true - I share my experience, which is very different (cfr Gödel's theorem above).

 

And no one argues that you don't believe what you say you believe. It's just that you may have misinterpreted it. I likewise would not believe someone who claims to have seen a monster when they went walking in the woods at night, because there is a much simpler explanation (shadows can look scary in a dark forest).

 

I think I have detailed my answers with sufficient argumentation, cited scientific sources and theories

 

Which peer reviewed (ie, scientific) source did you cite?

 

It seems it goes the other way around, the "prove it otherwise it's not true" mentality is a dogma that many seem to buy into here, and so this discussion seemed to have accepted cheap judgements.

 

You got it wrong, it is "prove it otherwise we have no reason to believe you". It could be true, but there's no evidence for it. So we can't assume it is true, which is what you seem to be asking. But just because we don't take your word for it that it's true, doesn't mean we say it is not true. Given that it goes against things we know, this seems unlikely to be true -- but we are open minded. We are still waiting for evidence -- real evidence, from a peer reviewed source or an experiment we set up ourselves.

 

Science just has a much higher standard than you.

 

Also, it's part of the rules here that if someone makes a claim it is up to them to support it.

 

Different things are true in different contexts, and I happen to work in a different worldview than materialism. A worldview in which rationality and critical thinking work together with intuition, and I happen to not agree with most of the judgements.

 

Science uses rationality and critical thinking and intuition. Science assumes objectivity and repeatability. Are these the principles you are rejecting? If so, then you can't expect our reality to be the same as yours, so what would be the purpose of sharing your experiences?

 

Of course, when someone shows up with a different opinion, it is perceived as "trying to convince", "advocate" or anything else - and must be defeated.

 

Well yes, you are making a claim. Why make a claim if you are not trying to convince people it is true? Why not just keep it to yourself?

 

If you cannot see that you have made a claim, then just look to see if everything you have said is a tautology. Anything that isn't, is a claim.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's an additional link that you might find useful

 

Well that explains it all.

 

In the process of recovering gold and silver, I began to recover something else, ... I am not a physicist or a chemist and had no idea what the stuff was.

[Saint Germain]

You got it wrong, it is "prove it otherwise we have no reason to believe you".

 

Again, as I have stated many many times already, I seek not to make you believe something. I am answering the initial question.

 

Science uses rationality and critical thinking and intuition. Science assumes objectivity and repeatability. Are these the principles you are rejecting?

 

No, as I have stated before, Alchemy is tangible and repeatable. But of course, you do need to learn it to try, so is not to be considered as an argument.

 

If so, then you can't expect our reality to be the same as yours, so what would be the purpose of sharing your experiences?

 

I understand that our perspectives are different - this is why it's interesting to exchange points of view. If everyone had the same opinion, then there would be no need of such a forum.

 

Otherwise, I tend to adhere to David Bohm's holographic model of reality - which takes into account quantum theory, consciousness, and provides a framework that includes and explains many previously called "supernatural phenomena" - it takes into account the enormous amount of energy contained in the vacuum - it considers a new order, the implicate order - instead of trying to accommodate quantum theory with the macro-world. It explains why Nature shows many self-repeating patterns (the geometry of Nature is one of fractals), and I find it a very elegant way to explain all those phenomena that remain a mystery for classical science (consciousness, entanglement, psychic phenomena, ...).

 

Well yes, you are making a claim. Why make a claim if you are not trying to convince people it is true? Why not just keep it to yourself?

 

Because my Dear Mr Skeptic, a question was asked in the first post, and I simply did not agree with the "scam" replies.

You do realize at this point that you are insisting that I am making a claim, and that you keep insisting about that, when I have many times said that it was only my perspective. I have also stated many times that it is not to be understood in the context of science. Not everything can be explained by science.

 

If you cannot see that you have made a claim, then just look to see if everything you have said is a tautology. Anything that isn't, is a claim.

 

The holographic model acknowledges that reality isn't objective. If it isn't objective, it is subjective, therefore it depends on one's view of reality.

 

Therefore, I say that it is my perspective, I do not claim "this is the absolute truth, people, believe what I say". I suggest this from my perspective, in which it is true.

 

Well that explains it all.

In the process of recovering gold and silver, I began to recover something else, ... I am not a physicist or a chemist and had no idea what the stuff was.

 

Why not mention that this is quoted from the guy who, because he was not a scientist, hired a PhD from Cornell to perform the analysis?

 

This is why this discussion goes round and round - there is an aim at debunking by taking quotes outside their context - with (it seems to me) a clear attempt to discredit.

 

The thing is there is nothing to discredit - I do not try to impose a view, I wanted to answer a gentleman asking a genuine question. I totally understand that this domain is very strange and I expect no one to buy into that stuff merely for intellectual purposes. I know I would have been in your place a few years ago.

 

If one is curious, he/she will investigate further to build a personal opinion.

 

But it's already an improvement, someone is replying about the sources. Maybe after reading it with the aim of finding some munition to come back in "debunk mode", someone might actually read the text with curiosity.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Saint Germain

[Mr Skeptic]

The holographic model acknowledges that reality isn't objective. If it isn't objective, it is subjective, therefore it depends on one's view of reality.

 

Therefore, I say that it is my perspective, I do not claim "this is the absolute truth, people, believe what I say". I suggest this from my perspective, in which it is true.

 

If you are making a subjective claim, then why do you expect scientists who by definition adhere to objective standards, to care? We can't accept that, not as scientists.

 

Why not mention that this is quoted from the guy who, because he was not a scientist, hired a PhD from Cornell to perform the analysis?

 

Because he is the one who is making these silly claims, not the PhD. Why mention someone who has nothing to do with this? If this was something interesting, why is not the PhD writing a paper about it?

[Saint Germain]

If you are making a subjective claim, then why do you expect scientists who by definition adhere to objective standards, to care? We can't accept that, not as scientists.

 

Not with this definition of science - forged in the 1600s, which is based on a hypothetical reality, independent of the "I".

 

This mindset was initiated by Descartes to allow science to progress free of religious dogma. This was called dualism.

 

Now, this hypothesis has been revealed as applicable only within a limited domain - and is not the nature of reality.

 

What has been called the observer effect shows that it has no sense to separate the observation, and the observer - and relativity shows that everything is different when looked from different referentials.

 

So science is a way to discover nature, but you work differently if you decide to look honestly at Nature, or if you work only within the "objectivity" of the world - since there is now a conflict between the two.

 

Anyways, what I meant to communicate with this idea is that I respect that one might not be inclined to accept it because it doesn't fit in their perspective, especially with the belief that reality is objective - but in my perspective, it is true. Just like someone might reject the principle of satellites turning around the earth when living with the belief that the earth is flat. The two ideas don't fit together.

 

Because he is the one who is making these silly claims, not the PhD. Why mention someone who has nothing to do with this? If this was something interesting, why is not the PhD writing a paper about it?

 

This is true, he is making the claims, and not the PhD guy.

 

About the paper, I don't know if such a paper has been published for peer-review, as again, it is not meant to shine as a scientific truth.

 

One can also speculate that results need to be interpreted, and no such satisfactory explanation motivated a paper.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Saint Germain

[Mr Skeptic]

Not with this definition of science - forged in the 1600s, which is based on a hypothetical reality, independent of the "I".

 

This mindset was initiated by Descartes to allow science to progress free of religious dogma. This was called dualism.

 

Now, this hypothesis has been revealed as applicable only within a limited domain - and is not the nature of reality.

 

What has been called the observer effect shows that it has no sense to separate the observation, and the observer - and relativity shows that everything is different when looked from different referentials.

 

So science is a way to discover nature, but you work differently if you decide to look honestly at Nature, or if you work only within the "objectivity" of the world - since there is now a conflict between the two.

 

So you believe observers are supernatural then? We here are scientists, not bad-science-fiction-scientists. Observers are never humans in the theories you describe.

 

Though this seems to be the basis of the misunderstanding here, it is nevertheless quite off topic so that is all I shall say on that.

 

This is true, he is making the claims, and not the PhD guy.

 

About the paper, I don't know if such a paper has been published for peer-review, as again, it is not meant to shine as a scientific truth.

 

One can also speculate that results need to be interpreted, and no such satisfactory explanation motivated a paper.

 

No, one cannot speculate that. If there was no satisfactory explanation, that would make it extremely interesting and exactly the sort of thing to write a paper about. My guess is that our non-chemist misunderstood what the spectroscopist said.

[Sisyphus]

Cartesian dualism is the idea that mind and body are separate. It is, in fact, specifically not materialistic.

 

The "observer effect" wrt quantum physics does not refer specifically to a conscious observer. An electron can be an "observer."

 

And I don't even know what point you're trying to make about relativity.

[Saint Germain]

So you believe observers are supernatural then? We here are scientists, not bad-science-fiction-scientists. Observers are never humans in the theories you describe.

 

Though this seems to be the basis of the misunderstanding here, it is nevertheless quite off topic so that is all I shall say on that.

 

On the contrary, observers ARE human.

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat

 

"Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg

 

"Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires

 

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

 

No, one cannot speculate that. If there was no satisfactory explanation, that would make it extremely interesting and exactly the sort of thing to write a paper about. My guess is that our non-chemist misunderstood what the spectroscopist said.

 

Oh, ok, I didn't know there were things on which one can speculate, and things on which one can not

 

You see, this is what I mean by knowing that things are relative, context-dependent. Different things are true in different contexts, so one can only speak in relative, not absolute.

 

Of course, in the objective reality world, things are absolute, so they true or not. In this world, speculations can be rejected, and claims can be termed silly - because there is the belief of absolute rightness.

 

And again, this powder is not meant to become a scientific truth - the desire is to know about the powder, not convince. Here, you have my best guess. Will you allow me to make it?

 

One more thing, scientists who make a publication attach their credibility with the paper they publish - not so many are ready to put their reputation on the line for such strange phenomena.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Cartesian dualism is the idea that mind and body are separate. It is, in fact, specifically not materialistic.

 

Who said dualism is materialistic?

 

It is what has originated the idea that Nature could be studied as an absolute, totally independently of the mind.

 

The "observer effect" wrt quantum physics does not refer specifically to a conscious observer. An electron can be an "observer."

 

I am not a specialist there, but my understanding is that an electron can be used as a means to make the observation. In the end, the observer is still human.

 

And I don't even know what point you're trying to make about relativity.

 

I have a friend who works in cyclotrons - he deals with high speeds, and therefore needs to include relativity.

 

He has told me that when he works with two different referentials, and needs to make conversions from one system to another, everything is different big time.

 

The point being that there is no such thing as absolute reality, no absolute time, no absolute space, ...

Edited December 17, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Who said dualism is materialistic?

 

Sorry, you're making a lot of claims about what science supposedly is and is not, I thought that's what you meant.

 

I am not a specialist there, but my understanding is that an electron can be used as a means to make the observation. In the end, the observer is still human.

 

That's not how it works, no. Observation just means interaction with something. You will be able to find some physicists who believe that consciousness has some special role, but that is a minority view. However, the fact that it is discussed disproves your claims that scientists are unwilling to do so. This is what I meant about you trying to have it both ways.

 

The point being that there is no such thing as absolute reality, no absolute time, no absolute space, ...

 

Yes, durations, distances, and relative velocities are frame dependent. I still don't know what point you're making. It's the same "reality."

[Saint Germain]

That's not how it works, no. Observation just means interaction with something. You will be able to find some physicists who believe that consciousness has some special role, but that is a minority view.

 

Actually, there is no consensus on the process of observation.

 

Some say consciousness collapses the wave-function, you seem to prefer the interpretation that interacting is observing.

 

I'm not sure you can reduce observation with interaction. Observation to me means interaction and perception of some form of information.

 

Anyways, quantum physicists tend to agree that observation and observer are inseparable, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

Yes, durations, distances, and relative velocities are frame dependent. I still don't know what point you're making. It's the same "reality."

 

Of course it's the same underlying reality - but perceptions are observer-dependent.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Saint Germain

[toastywombel]

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes the world around us, we can only ask if it works by predicting outcomes accurately.

[Saint Germain]

Ok, why can't we ask of science to make an attempt to describe the nature of the world in the most accurate way possible? Who/what is the authority that can limit science to "predict outcomes accurately", and determine we can and what we cannot ask of science?

 

There is none, only public opinion of what "science should be" make them act as if they were the authority.

 

Where does the idea of "science needs to predict" comes from?

 

It is rooted (again) in determinism - in the clockwork universe, which the idea that if one could know the state of the universe at a given time, one could in principle predict the future and reconstruct the past. This has been a central tenet of science, ever since Laplace's time.

 

But again, this idea has been obsolete for quite some time (we have been aware of this through scientific and mathematical theories such as quantum theory and chaos theory).

 

In an often quoted lecture to the Royal Society, on the three hundredth anniversary of Newton’s Principia, Sir James Lighthill even made a collective apology for science having promoted such ideas: ”We are all deeply conscious today that the enthusiasm of our forebears for the marvellous achievements of Newtonian mechanics led them to make generalizations in this area of predictability which, indeed, we may have generally tended to believe before 1960, but which we now recognize were false. We collectively wish to apologize for having misled the general educated public by spreading ideas about determinism of systems satisfying Newton’s laws of motion that, after 1960, were to be proved incorrect.”

 

And again, this mindset thinks in absolute, true and false, possible and impossible, and so allows the dogmatic attitude to forbid and limit someone in its scientific thinking with ideas such as

 

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes the world around us, we can only ask if it works by predicting outcomes accurately.

 

No one is to be blamed for thinking this way though, this is not the people's fault. Many of us are still being educated with these old mindsets, I know I have been trained to think this way by my University, and I would still be thinking that if I had not decided to expand my understanding of Nature a bit. It takes time for new ideas to permeate society, especially in the domain of science.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Saint Germain

[toastywombel]

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes the world around us, we can only ask if it works by predicting outcomes accurately.

 

That is the positivist approach by Karl Popper. It is funny you ridiculed it and used quantum theory in your defence of the criticism, because in-fact one of the champions of quantum physics, Steven Hawking, used the positivist approach in his "Origin of the Universe Lecture". I even "favorited" the video of this lecture on our youtube channel here.

 

So I guess Steven Hawking is one of these people trapped in their "old mindsets"?

 

Furthermore, public opinion does not determine what science is. It just does not work that way. Any sound scientist would cringe at that statement.

 

Next, I never talked about dealing with things in absolutes; where you derived that from, I do not know. The positivist approach never says anything about absolutes. Predicting a result is not necessarily an absolute. Your entire criticism of my post was really completely irrelevant.

 

Finally, Documenting something like the unfounded claims by monatomic gold or telepathy is great. Let's just say you are right and in a study of these things there might be strange things that baffle scientists, but if one cannot devise a theory predicting how these things happen then the studies are practically useless.

 

Say, if we studied fire all day: observed how it started, observed how it gave off heat, observed how it spread. If we are unable to find out why fire started and how fire started then the observations are of little use to us. We would simply be watching something we don't understand and just accepting that we don't understand it. However, if we did find out how it started, how it spread, how it gave off heat, we can make a hypothesis like, "Fire uses wood to burn." Then we can test that hypothesis, when we do we find out that it is obviously true. We can then make a prediction; to start a fire we would need wood.

 

Can we say without a doubt if the fire exists? Or if the wood exists? Or if any of it exists? Can we say without a doubt that another force isn't acting on the fire that causes it to appear as if it burns wood?

 

No we cannot, we can only go by our observations. We can only predict what we will observe. And a good theory will predict results with accuracy over and over again.

 

One more thing, don't talk down to me please.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just so you know, I posted the positivist approach, hoping you would try to take it and formulate it into an argument against me.

 

And you did just that. Without actually looking at the statement you turned it into determinism, which it is not, then formulated an argument against determinism.

 

By doing this you proved that you were more interested in formulating an argument against me than discussing the facts. That my friend is close minded.

[Saint Germain]

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes the world around us, we can only ask if it works by predicting outcomes accurately.

 

That is the positivist approach by Karl Popper.

 

It seems this is not the case.

Here: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/popper.html

 

Popper was heavily critical of the main tenets of logical positivism, especially of what he considered to be its misplaced focus on the theory of meaning in philosophy and upon verification in scientific methodology. He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title Logik der Forschung in 1934.

 

So permit me to drop the rest of your argumentation on this point.

 

Furthermore, public opinion does not determine what science is. It just does not work that way. Any sound scientist would cringe at that statement.

 

Actually, science has no clear strict definition.

 

From wikipedia:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.

 

There, we find what you seem to suggest.

 

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

 

"In its more restricted contemporary sense" - contemporary means "now", implying that it is somewhat different than "before" - the objective is gaining knowledge - no more to predict.

 

So it seems your opinion that you insist is correct - is no longer valid. So yes, in that sense, if you state that on a public forum, and people believe you, and adopt this definition, what you and many others will think of science is public opinion.

 

Finally, Documenting something like the unfounded claims by monatomic gold or telepathy is great. Let's just say you are right and in a study of these things there might be strange things that baffle scientists, but if one cannot devise a theory predicting how these things happen then the studies are practically useless.

 

Telepathy or other so-called "psychic phenomena" are NOT unfounded claims since many studies strongly suggest that they exists. Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" is a presentation of collections of such studies (and be reassured, they have been peer-reviewed).

 

Then ok, let's say this is true. Why is something useless if no theory to describe it exist? The real value is in its use, not the knowledge (as I have stated many times). I suggested this approach, that it is not to be understood in the context of science (= no theory exists) - but the use is the real goal.

 

Say, if we studied fire all day: observed how it started, observed how it gave off heat, observed how it spread. If we are unable to find out why fire started and how fire started then the observations are of little use to us. We would simply be watching something we don't understand and just accepting that we don't understand it.

 

You could still use it.

 

However, if we did find out how it started, how it spread, how it gave off heat, we can make a hypothesis like, "Fire uses wood to burn." Then we can test that hypothesis, when we do we find out that it is obviously true. We can then make a prediction; to start a fire we would need wood.

 

The knowledge about how fire starts doesn't burn, doesn't cook, doesn't warm you in the winter. The use of fire does. And there is no need to know the theory for fire to burn, and use its heat.

 

I agree it is true that the more we know, the better we can use, but it is not necessary to know about to use.

 

One more thing, don't talk down to me please.

 

Look, it is clear that our opinions are different - but just because I do not agree with you, and justify my answers doesn't mean that I "talk down on you".

 

I respect opinions, and I provide justifications to explain why I might not agree with some.

 

I apologize if you feel that way, but before making such a request, maybe you could check what you write yourself.

 

Saint Germain, since you seem to have misplaced your logic in the defence of "white powder gold". I will attempt to clear up your misunderstandings.

 

You sited Dean Radin doing an amazing job by researching telepathy and such. Now I won't completely touch on the obvious physical flaws of telepathy

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just so you know, I posted the positivist approach, hoping you would try to take it and formulate it into an argument against me.

 

First of all, I formulate arguments to illustrate why I tend to not agree with a particular opinion, not to formulate arguments "against you" - there is no need take things personally.

 

Then, if we take a definition of positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. - it is clear that I do not agree with this philosophy. And it is a philosophy, a point of view, not science. I don't see why we should restrict our understanding to only what can be proven? Now don't get me wrong, it is nice when something can be proved (or disproved) by experiments, it allows knowledge to progress, but in the end, I will not tag something as meaningless because it has no proof.

 

Without actually looking at the statement you turned it into determinism, which it is not, then formulated an argument against determinism. By doing this you proved that you were more interested in formulating an argument against me than discussing the facts.

 

Yes, I must confess, this is true.

 

In my covered attempts to answer a question asked by a member (not even by you) of this forum, in the attempt to know people's opinion about a subject - and who was receiving such detailed and documented answers such as

 

Honestly? It sound like a load of crap.

 

This was BS before

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7869&highlight=ormus

and it's still BS now.

 

All that I wanted was to formulate arguments against you. You got me.

 

You want a hug?

 

(now I'm a bit cheeky ;-) )

 

More seriously, unlike some here, I do not consider this as a fight that must be resolved with my opinion winning. There is no need to become angry because things are taken personally.

 

I have offered information - I have spoken about my experience - and if I am firmly grounded in my position, it is because I speak from experience, not speculation.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Saint Germain

[iNow]

Except, some of us actually care when people misrepresent reality. Yeah... we should be ashamed of ourselves.

[Saint Germain]

Except, some of us actually care when people misrepresent reality. Yeah... we should be ashamed of ourselves.

 

If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange.

 

If by that you judge that stating that those strange facts are true is misrepresenting reality, are you implying that your view of reality is so perfect that you can tell what is a correct interpretation and what is not?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Saint Germain

[swansont]

I have a friend who works in cyclotrons - he deals with high speeds, and therefore needs to include relativity.

 

He has told me that when he works with two different referentials, and needs to make conversions from one system to another, everything is different big time.

 

The point being that there is no such thing as absolute reality, no absolute time, no absolute space, ...

 

The latter two are true, but the first does not follow from that. It is true that simultaneity is not fixed; length and time depend on the observer's reference frame. But if an event happens, it happens in all frames. If two people shoot guns, "who shot first" or whether those shots were simultaneous may depend on the reference frame of the observer. But everyone must agree on whether they hit the target.

[Sisyphus]

The latter two are true, but the first does not follow from that. It is true that simultaneity is not fixed; length and time depend on the observer's reference frame. But if an event happens, it happens in all frames. If two people shoot guns, "who shot first" or whether those shots were simultaneous may depend on the reference frame of the observer. But everyone must agree on whether they hit the target.

 

Also, person A and person B will both agree on what person A is experiencing, as long as they both know how relativity works. It's not subjective in that sense.

[Saint Germain]

The latter two are true, but the first does not follow from that. It is true that simultaneity is not fixed; length and time depend on the observer's reference frame. But if an event happens, it happens in all frames. If two people shoot guns, "who shot first" or whether those shots were simultaneous may depend on the reference frame of the observer. But everyone must agree on whether they hit the target.

 

I agree.

 

I'm sorry, but I do not follow what you mean about "the first one" - you mean my friend working in cyclotrons and needing to deal with high speeds, therefore relativity?

[toastywombel]

Wow, St. Germain you are some piece of work. This should be it for me in this thread unless you say something even more outlandish than the likes of, "Karl Popper doesn't believe in positivist approach."

 

Furthermore, I doubt you watched the video, but I hope you enjoyed picking out the semantics. I also liked how you totally ignored that Stephen Hawking used the positivist approach in his "Origins of the Universe Lecture". I could imagine one would feel funny ridiculing a statement and then finding that the statement is from one of the most brilliant philosophers. You must have felt worse when you realised the statement was also cited in one of the most famous lectures of all time by one of the most brilliant minds of our time.

 

Finally, when you said, "If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange."

 

You should have used a semi-colon between "all" and "they" at the end of that sentence, or you could formulate them into two separate sentences. However, what you did was a comma-splice. Just thought I would point that out for you.