Have you experienced something science could not explain?

[JillSwift]

I know what it was.

 

It was an anecdote.

 

And, unfortunately, so it shall remain. There really are things that science will never explain - all of them incidents where it is impossible to gather careful evidence, impossible to do and repeat experiments, or anything else that would lead to an explanation that would have any degree of certainty.

 

In short, the event Dr. Syntax described can never be more than an interesting story to tell.

[StringJunky]

I worked for a time in an egg processing factory. Visuaiise a conveyor 3ft wide and 30ft long with mixed, unsorted eggs passing down it. Perpendicular to this conveyor at equal intervals, running underneath there are 12 lanes to which a specified egg size would drop into and be deposited into an egg box or tray waiting underneath.

 

At one end of each of these lanes is a denester where the egg boxes are loaded and at the other end is the packing person who puts them in to the boxes and pushes the filled box on to a conveyor and resumes to the next one.

 

It is the job of the packer to inform the person on the denesters when they are down to the last three boxes of that run so the other side has time to change to the next order (Sainsbury's' Tesco's etc).

 

On this particular day I was on the denesters loading them. Looking over to the other side a packer shouted "Last 3 boxes". I thought to myself, in jest: 'Last fifty boxes' and almost immediately a packer on the other side shouted, with a big grin on his face...." Last FIFTY boxes!"

 

The odds on this happening felt, at the time, so improbable that involuntary telepathy was the only explanation.

 

I put it down to incredible coincidence as this experience has not been repeated since.

 

It was a real 'WOW' moment though!

[tar]

dr.syntax,

 

I have one. Although I probably don't qualify as a scientist.

 

18 years old, in Pennsylvanian farmland, living with my cousins, my female cousin was housesitting while the owners were away at a home a couple miles away. She came home a bit shaken, saying that while she was feeding the animals in the kitchen, she heard the piano playing in the livingroom, went in and saw no one there. She was alone (other than the animals) in the house. Over the next couple days, she returned with stories of furniture being moved, SEEING someone at the piano and got to the point were she was afraid to return again to the house alone. A number of us brave, scientific minded 18 year olds accompanied her to the house, a few of us waited by the car, as others escorted her into the house to take care of the animals. They came out with an urgent need to leave, we piled into the station wagon, and it failed to start. We noticed at that point a rag doll on the hood of the car. (A car I had been leaning against, talking to a companion, and smoking a cigarette, while they were inside.) We opened the hood, and found the distributor cap completely off the distributor, laying upside down on the engine. We reattached it, started the car and left down the long driveway. Standing next to the end of the driveway as we turned on to the road, was a man dressed all in white, with a white brimmed hat, like a southern gentleman. This was not normal. No one like that lived around there and it was not an area where strange pedestrians would be. And he did not give me the impression that he was normal, he gave me only the impression that he did not welcome our presence.

 

In the following days, as we were trying to make sense of things and ascertain the identity of the man, an much earlier incident in a farmhouse a half a mile from our farm in the other direction came to light. A visitor, sleeping on the couch in the livingroom, woke in the early morning to see a man, dressed all in white, with a brimmed hat, walk down the stairs, silent, not responding to the visitor's "hello", through the kitchen, and out the back door, and across the field. (toward our farm.) When the visitor asked the owners about the man, they said "what man", the only bedroom upstairs, was theirs, and there had certainly been no man in there with them.

 

Further inquiries were made, the owners of the house that my cousin was taking care of returned, and history was investigated and shared. Turned out a man, who dressed often, all in white, had once actually lived in the second farmhouse, and had latter moved to the house my cousin took care of, and had hung himself from the lamp post at the end of his driveway.

 

Regards, TAR

[dr.syntax]

Dear The Clairvoyant, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Because that is what your claims are, and every answer that does not approve of your theory is considered as trash in your eyes. So it is really your own close-mindedness that is causing ppl to react the way they do.

 

descibed an incident in my life that I knew of no scientific explanation for. That is what the original posting asked for. Also I noticed you only partially quoted me.You left out the part about why do so called scientists seek out this section of the forum [ pseudoscience/speculation ] to find postings to ridicule. After all this is the pseudoscience/speculations section. What right does anyone have to demand the rigors of scientific evidence in this section. And why is it people such as yourself feel such a need to belittle and ridicule people such as me ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also in this merging process my responses are getting edited to the point of leaving out crucial portions of what I am saying. Such as I informed FUZZWORD that I had made no claims and offered no theory as he claimed I did. I responded to the original posting as requested by the original poster. ...Dr.Syntax

[insane_alien]

merging posts doesn't edit out anything. it just appends them to the previous post.

 

if you don't want posts merged then either post it all in the one post(like your supposed to) or use the 'edit post' button but you should leave some indicator that you appended something to the post as it has a chance of disrupting the flow of the conversation if you don't.

[JillSwift]

merging posts doesn't edit out anything. it just appends them to the previous post.

Unless you've used the "Title:" box. That gets discarded on a post merge. Dr. Syntax is in the habit of using that.

[insane_alien]

ah yes i forgot about that.

 

stop using the damn title box to convey information that should be in the body of your post.

 

the title should give a 1 sentence summary of the jist of your post and nothing more.

[iNow]

why do so called scientists seek out this section of the forum [ pseudoscience/speculation ] to find postings to ridicule. After all this is the pseudoscience/speculations section. What right does anyone have to demand the rigors of scientific evidence in this section.

Read the rules, dr syntax. Just because this is the P&S section does not mean that the requirement for logic and evidence gets tossed out the door.

 

People who participate here at SFN tend to read posts in all of the forums, and also tend to correct misconceptions and try to teach people more accurate explanations when they can. Just because you are in P&S does not mean people are not going to try to correct you, or help you toward finding a more likely explanation.

 

Calling it ridicule simply because it does not agree with your existing preconceptions is further evidence of how closed your mind has become on this issue, and how little you care about reality. It's plain to see that you are simply looking to reinforce a story line in your head, not find the true/most likely explanation.

 

And yeah... Please stop starting your sentences in the post title. It's a pain in the ass when trying to respond to you using a quote.

[dr.syntax]

Thank you Jill Swift, I did not realize that. I`ll keep that in mind in any future postings. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Read the rules, dr syntax. Just because this is the P&S section does not mean that the requirement for logic and evidence gets tossed out the door.

 

People who participate here at SFN tend to read posts in all of the forums, and also tend to correct misconceptions and try to teach people more accurate explanations when they can. Just because you are in P&S does not mean people are not going to try to correct you, or help you toward finding a more likely explanation.

 

Calling it ridicule simply because it does not agree with your existing preconceptions is further evidence of how closed your mind has become on this issue, and how little you care about reality. It's plain to see that you are simply looking to reinforce a story line in your head, not find the true/most likely explanation.

 

And yeah... Please stop starting your sentences in the post title. It's a pain in the ass when trying to respond to you using a quote.

 

I made no claims as to preconceptions. I offered no explanations for what occurred. In concluding that posting I stated: " I don`t know what to make of it to this day". Also, it was my girlfriend who thought it was a ghost. I never said I agreed with her. I didn`t and don`t know what to make of it. ...DS

Edited September 12, 2009 by dr.syntax
Consecutive posts merged.

[forufes]

love can't be explained by science, and so do emotions.

 

smoking can't be explained by science, it is harmful, and people have brains to avoid it, yet they don't, which brings us to the third:

 

free will, that's not explained by science.

 

science is a field like any other, it's not superior in any way, except that this is its age, i wonder when it'll end..

[ydoaPs]

love can't be explained by science, and so do emotions.

 

smoking can't be explained by science, it is harmful, and people have brains to avoid it, yet they don't, which brings us to the third:

 

free will, that's not explained by science.

 

science is a field like any other, it's not superior in any way, except that this is its age, i wonder when it'll end..

 

Where do I start? Pretty much your entire post is wrong.

[forufes]

uh, o~kay...

 

so...(uncomfortable silence)

[JillSwift]

love can't be explained by science, and so do emotions.

The parts of the brain that drive emotion are pretty well known. Same with love.

 

smoking can't be explained by science, it is harmful, and people have brains to avoid it, yet they don't, which brings us to the third:

Oddly, that has been explained too.

 

free will, that's not explained by science.

Um...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-vs-programmed-brain

 

science is a field like any other, it's not superior in any way, except that this is its age, i wonder when it'll end..

Science is the most successful epistemology man has ever invented. If you gave up everything science has given us, you'd be back to subsistence farming with very little in effective medicines. Good luck with that.

[Baby Astronaut]

Um...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-vs-programmed-brain

A quick interjection if you don't mind

 

To say that determinism exists 100% is much like saying that fate exists (also 100%). Because if the universe is deterministic, then life on Earth was meant to be from the very beginning...*

 

Science is the most successful epistemology man has ever invented.

And hopefully will remain so by staying unpolluted from popular claims that lack substantial evidence.

 

 

*and possibly, everyone will one day have a 100% accurate crystal ball if our maths improve enough to successfully determine what the population's every bitty future step is going to be. From the moment of looking into "the crystal ball" until the viewer's death....fate will be revealed in stark and utter detail.

 

Inexorably...

 

All reactions/movement by a viewer after witnessing their exact future is already pre-known by such viewer, and maddeningly, the crystal ball would've revealed that also.

[JillSwift]

A quick interjection if you don't mind

 

To say that determinism exists 100% is much like saying that fate exists (also 100%). Because if the universe is deterministic, then life on Earth was meant to be from the very beginning...*

"Meant" by whom? Really, that does not follow.

 

It's hard not to see deterministic elements in the human mind. People can be astonishingly predictable, especially in groups, strongly suggesting that at least some behavior is deterministic. At the same time, similar people in similar situations can make choices that are totally dissimilar. Either way, the article was only meant to demonstrate that science is perfectly capable of explaining free will - assuming we have free will.

 

It's a very basic exploration of what we know, and where that evidence is leading us, and how we're gathering evidence, and what those critical of the methods have to say. It doen't draw any conclusions outside of the comparisons of deterministic minds vs free will.

 

And hopefully will remain so by staying unpolluted from popular claims that lack substantial evidence.

Science is a method - an epistemology. It is not the accumulated information.

 

Also, as a method, it also re-examines the pool of information gathered for errors. Claims (popular or otherwise) that are in error would be, eventually, uncovered and rejected in favor of theory that actually fits known fact. It happens all the time.

 

 

*and possibly, everyone will one day have a 100% accurate crystal ball if our maths improve enough to successfully determine what the population's every bitty future step is going to be. From the moment of looking into "the crystal ball" until the viewer's death....fate will be revealed in stark and utter detail.

 

Inexorably...

 

All reactions/movement by a viewer after witnessing their exact future is already pre-known by such viewer, and maddeningly, the crystal ball would've revealed that also.

Should the evidence take us there. Or is this an argument from consequence?

[tar]

JillSwift,

 

"Science is a method - an epistemology. It is not the accumulated information."

 

Thank you, for that insight. And your post. Very nice.

 

It redirected my thinking a bit. I had been forming a false opinion of science, where I was drawing analogies between science and religion, viewing large bodies of accumulated information as dogmas, that scientists "believed" in. Falsely thinking that scientists were merely replacing the idea of God (or gods) with the belief in the objective view of "Science". Worshipping the atom, and math, so to speak.

 

This I see now, is not the case. Science has more to do with entertaining ideas and models that fit the facts. Good ideas fit reality and are entertained and improved upon. Bad ideas, are quickly debunked and discarded, cause they just don't fit reality. And as you point out, even widely held ideas are modified and corrected to fit new information about the real world, as it becomes available. Where there is cognitive dissonace, efforts are made to identify the irregularity and make the tie-in, that fits all the facts, and relates the facts that appear to be in conflict.

 

Reality can be surprising, fantastic, huge, tiny, fleetingly instantaneous, or immensely durable, but never wrong. And finding the truth, is what science does.

 

Regards, TAR

[forufes]

The parts of the brain that drive emotion are pretty well known. Same with love.

i know that, inject the blood with radioactive substance, tell the person his mother has died, take some x-ray picture of the most lit parts in his brain...ta da, explained grief.

 

ha ha.

Oddly, that has been explained too.

oddly, it has not, have you read more than the title of the link you gave?

 

you can make a million study on smoking, but none will tell me how can people intentionally harm themselves...when they have evolved so much, with most developed brains and logic..even animals run from smoke..

 

and i thought it ws because of their free will.

 

 

Um...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-vs-programmed-brain

i'm familiar with that theory, although the article was interesting.

 

but the theory means crap to non scientists, go tell a cook that he has no free will and tell me if he doesnt smack you with a pan.

 

some scientists can't see life out of science, in the same way some artists can't see life without art, and how some religious people explain everything by their religion, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME..but this is a science forum, so of course science is best, go to a religion forum, you'll have the same answer for sure:rolleyes:

 

so, can you tall me hoe science explains art?

what is the mona lisa? a scientific answer please.

Science is the most successful epistemology man has ever invented.

lol that's the point; man keeps inventing.

 

If you gave up everything science has given us, you'd be back to subsistence farming with very little in effective medicines. Good luck with that.

that was everything oneday.

 

people ages from now will say:"if you take away X, you'd be stuck with science..

 

good luck with that";)

[Baby Astronaut]

"Meant" by whom? Really, that does not follow.

Meant by the chain of events starting at the Big Bang (or even before then). If an observer were at that instant measuring data and performing the necessary calculations, they'd be able to say "Well, it looks as if the one star's third planet is going to have life which evolves into sentient beings, and they're going to make calculations about this episode in the Universe, like so..."

 

Thus it was all "meant" to be. Our existence is fated (since at least 12 billion years ago).

 

 

It's hard not to see deterministic elements in the human mind.

That I definitely agree with.

 

People can be astonishingly predictable, especially in groups, strongly suggesting that at least some behavior is deterministic.

And that.

 

Either way, the article was only meant to demonstrate that science is perfectly capable of explaining free will

I didn't get that from the article.

 

Science is a method - an epistemology. It is not the accumulated information.

 

Also, as a method, it also re-examines the pool of information gathered for errors. Claims (popular or otherwise) that are in error would be, eventually, uncovered and rejected in favor of theory that actually fits known fact. It happens all the time.

Good point. But I do sense gung-ho assumptions occasionally, never by all scientists though.

 

Should the evidence take us there. Or is this an argument from consequence?

Yes. Except the last paragraphs you quoted isn't argument, simply a fastforward to a possible outcome

[tar]

ut still, the question is "have you experienced something that science cannot explain?"

 

And here, after JillSwift's added insight, the question is not if scientists, or our current accumulation of the facts, can explain it. The question is, "have you experienced something that science cannot explain?"

 

And as such, any experience would have to fall into two basic catagories. Real and imagined. Considering as well, that elements of each, were involved in the experience.

 

Unsticking the real from the imagined is not easy for a human, considering that most of our thoughts are occurring inside our brain, where, in a sense, everything is imagined, built upon analogues of the external world, gathered by our senses, and our subsequent fitting together of the constant inflow of images.

 

Unsticking is hard, but not impossible. Hence with peer review, and experimentation, measurement, and repeatability, the facts can be separated from the falsehoods. The real can be separated from the imagined.

 

And it follows, that if it is real, then it is true and can be explained by science, which only deals with that which is true.

 

Hence one cannot have an experience which is not explainable by science.

 

The experience could have been partially illusion, misinterpreted, misremembered, partially imagined, or the experiencer could have been "fooled" in a myriad of ways, but the real parts of it, are explainable by science. And since it is also true, that we as experiencers are subject to the limitations and characteristics of our senses and brain and emotions, then the imagined portion of the experience can be explained by truth, as well.

 

Therefore reality and truth and science can be probably each be used interchangably, and the question becomes "have you ever experienced anything that wasn't true?" Or have you ever experienced anything that wasn't real?".

 

Regards, TAR

[JillSwift]

Meant by the chain of events starting at the Big Bang (or even before then). If an observer were at that instant measuring data and performing the necessary calculations, they'd be able to say "Well, it looks as if the one star's third planet is going to have life which evolves into sentient beings, and they're going to make calculations about this episode in the Universe, like so..."

 

Thus it was all "meant" to be. Our existence is fated (since at least 12 billion years ago).

My objection to "meant" is that it requires intent. The cosmos has no intent. Determined by initial structure, sure. Intended, not so much.

 

Before the big bang? Is that like what's further north than the north pole?

 

 

I didn't get that from the article.

The example is not in the article, it is the article. We're applying the scientific method to uncover the mind's mechanics. In this stage of the process, we're examining our meager evidence to try an ferret out if there is free will or determinism or some combination of the two. (Or something else entirely, though the article doesn't mention that.)

 

 

Good point. But I do sense gung-ho assumptions occasionally, never by all scientists though.

You sense that because it happens plenty often.

 

 

Yes. Except the last paragraphs you quoted isn't argument, simply a fastforward to a possible outcome

Or the only possible outcome, if so determined by that first millisecond of the big bang.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Therefore reality and truth and science can be probably each be used interchangably, and the question becomes "have you ever experienced anything that wasn't true?" Or have you ever experienced anything that wasn't real?".

Please pardon my pedantic-ness:

 

Science as a method isn't interchangeable with "truth". It's how we discover truth.

 

Science is actually incapable of explaining phenomenon that can't be rigorously studied, like individual experiences. As in Dr. Syntax's story, he had an experience that we can not study, and so can never be explained with the scientific method.

 

And that experience is definitely real and true (setting aside the possibility of a lie). What may not be real and true is the explanation of the events. For instance:

 

"A ghost moved the bowl." Is probably not true or real. This explanation is untestable, though.

"The bowl actually moved around the table." May be misinterpreted visual data. This doesn't change that the experience is real. This observation is also untestable.

"I wiped down the table." In the context of the anecdote, a good idea. However, depending on variables we'll never have the chance to examine, wiping the table may have made it possible for the bowl to move about on the wet surface with greater efficiency. Again, we'll never be able to test this.

 

So, the experience Dr. Syntax has was "real", insomuch as it was something he experienced, and for him perfectly "true". What actually happened to cause this experience, we can't ever know. The evidence is long gone.

[Baby Astronaut]

In a deterministic universe, seeing the future produces no reaction whatsoever.

 

For example, a person sees themselves walking nonchalantly into the path of a speeding vehicle, but how could that be if the person knew it's going to happen?

 

My objection to "meant" is that it requires intent. The cosmos has no intent. Determined by initial structure, sure. Intended, not so much.

Perhaps. But would you agree it's still fate? The dictionary's entry on the word makes it a good fit.

 

Before the big bang? Is that like what's further north than the north pole?

Well, before learning the Earth was younger than the universe, we didn't have a "before" the Earth. Still, people could imagine a before even if no science had pinpointed it. And they were correct.

 

The example is not in the article, it is the article. We're applying the scientific method to uncover the mind's mechanics. In this stage of the process, we're examining our meager evidence to try an ferret out if there is free will or determinism or some combination of the two. (Or something else entirely, though the article doesn't mention that.)

Ah, but the article does mention that something else. And focuses on it.

 

The article claims scientists are examining the relation between free will and morality. Also claimed is that many scientists discount free will. Hardly anything conclusive.

[JillSwift]

In a deterministic universe, seeing the future produces no reaction whatsoever.

 

For example, a person sees themselves walking nonchalantly into the path of a speeding vehicle, but how could that be if the person knew it's going to happen?

The structure of the determining events have to make sense. A person's survival instinct is part of that structure.

 

 

Perhaps. But would you agree it's still fate? The dictionary's entry on the word makes it a good fit.

No. "Fate" is not only fairly vague as a term, it comes with the baggage of intent. Connotation is as important as definition.

 

Ah, but the article does mention that something else. And focuses on it.

 

The article claims scientists are examining the relation between free will and morality. Also claimed is that many scientists discount free will. Hardly anything conclusive.

Why are you expecting conclusion? As I said, the point in pointing out the article is that the scientific method is being brought to bear on the mechanics of the mind. That is, science is perfectly capable of explaining free will, or discarding the concept, by way of evidence. I did not say that it already has made those explanations.

[Baby Astronaut]

The structure of the determining events have to make sense. A person's survival instinct is part of that structure.

I'll have to agree. But still, free will determinism is nothing more than speculation currently, and I feel it's being given preferential weight.

 

 

No. "Fate" is not only fairly vague as a term, it comes with the baggage of intent. Connotation is as important as definition.

True enough, I agree. Even so, have a looksy.

 

That is, science is perfectly capable of explaining free will, or discarding the concept, by way of evidence. I did not say that it already has made those explanations.

Really? If science hasn't yet made those explanations, how can we so certain it's able to explain or discard the concept?

[JillSwift]

I'll have to agree. But still, free will determinism is nothing more than speculation currently, and I feel it's being given preferential weight.

I acknowlege your feeling on the subject.

 

True enough, I agree. Even so, have a looksy.

Yes, people sure do use the word.

 

Really? If science hasn't yet made those explanations, how can we so certain it's able to explain or discard the concept?

Evidence thus far suggests it's not an unsolvable puzzle.

No evidence thus far otherwise.

That gives us a comfortable level of certainty.

[nahiyan]

well i read a book "many lives,Many masters" it said it is a true story and its writer is a psychiatrist . if it is true then it is pretty unexplainable. It has this girl who came to the writer the psychiatrist tells him that she is afraid of some things later through his sessions with her he finds out that she has reincarnated and because of her horrifying experiences in her past lives she has many anxieties related to those experiences in her present life.

you have to read the book to know the rest but most probably it is nonfiction