|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 23, 2014 9:36:22 GMT -5
- ghosts: no fossil, no contemporary evidence, no requirement for our universe to function, and even worse: the necessity to develop a whole new way of explaining things for them to be possible. How is a ghost supposed to have a fossil if it's intangible in nature? It is supposed to leave actual evidence, which for the coelacanth (the example we were talking about) came in the form of a fossil. Ghosts, if they exist and if we can see, hear or feel them in any way, can be subjected to actual measurements. Obviously I wouldn't expect of fossil from a ghost any more than I would expect one from a soft-bodied animal (even if we do have some fossils of even those!) but I'd expect some undoctored bit of film showing its ectoplasmic majesty. Photons are intangible and we can measure them just fine. Neutrinos are intangible, and because they interact so little with solid matter it's almost as if they didn't exist, but we can measure them too. Emotions are intangible, fleeting and of a still mysterious nature, but we can measure how they are connected with the activity of certain areas of the brain. For ghosts? All we have are ghost stories. I love ghost stories, I really do! But they're stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 9:52:32 GMT -5
Supposedly, there have been various field & even laboratory measurements related to various alleged paranormal phenomena. Whether those have held up to analysis, I can't recall -- probably not. Whether they've proven repeatable, which I gather is a large part of the scientific process, I highly doubt. Ditto with various radar analyses, atmospheric calibrations, etc. regarding alleged UFO appearances.
(I've read a fair amount on the subject over the years, but it's not my field per se, so I wasn't exactly taking notes.)
Of course, AFAIK, much the same holds true for what I think is now generally (if not universally) considered a genuine, if bizarrely erratic, natural phenomenon -- ball lightning --after several decades of uncertainty & skepticism.
I could be 100 percent wrong on that, though -- my previous parenthetical observation obtains here as well, of course.
RR is the guy with the science background here, obviously. If we're after a rundown of various takes as found in literature, movies or music, & maybe comics as well, I suppose I'm your guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:32:51 GMT -5
Obviously I wouldn't expect of fossil from a ghost any more than I would expect one from a soft-bodied animal (even if we do have some fossils of even those!) but I'd expect some undoctored bit of film showing its ectoplasmic majesty. There have been photos of ectoplasm in some paranormal books which feature mediums. Unfortunately, the field is littered with quacks, to the point that it's become a farce. It's hard to separate the 'possible' from the 'rubbish.' The mediums I know stay low key. By the way, I was chatting with one, on-line, who never saw my place but described it to a tee. I'm just saying...I don't think these things can be discounted just because 2014 science doesn't substantiate it... |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 23, 2014 11:46:49 GMT -5
I always thought the scientific community was too indignant and dismissive over concepts that didn't fit into their theories of the universe. The SF trope of parallel universes for example was thought to be as outlandish as ghost or after-life stories. That is until string-theory physics opened up the possibilities of parallel dimensions. Ghosts and after-life occurences might be manifestations of parallel universe convergences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 11:58:28 GMT -5
Jez & I don't exactly see eye-to-eye on many things, to put it lightly, & AFAIK we've got each other blocked, but we're sure pretty close on this topic ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 23, 2014 12:51:16 GMT -5
I always thought the scientific community was too indignant and dismissive over concepts that didn't fit into their theories of the universe. The SF trope of parallel universes for example was thought to be as outlandish as ghost or after-life stories. That is until string-theory physics opened up the possibilities of parallel dimensions. Ghosts and after-life occurences might be manifestations of parallel universe convergences. I really fail to see the link between ghosts and string theory, Ish. String theory is a scientific construct that physicists developed to try to reconcile things like gravity and the strong nuclear force (among others) and arrive at the famous "theory of everything". Due to certain considerations that are way beyond my meagre capacity to comprehend, it demands that space and time contain eleven dimensions instead of the four we are used to. Heady stuff! String theory is based on physics and mathematics, and it is an answer to actual observations and to some problems we have, such as the difficulty to reconcile quantum physics and classical physics. Meanwhile, ghosts are creatures from folk tales. There is no particular reason for them to exist, no particular reason to develop a theory that could explain what they might be, and accordingly there is a remarkable dearth of physicists interested in the study of ghosts (unlike string theory). This does not mean there is an unfair bias against ghostly studies, because paranormal phenomena were quite popular in the late XIXth century. It's just that science having evolved since then, scientists see no more reason to study ghosts than they see it fit to quantify black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm to determine the health status of a patient. It's a bit like mermaids. There have been tales of mermaids for basically ever. Why aren't biologists studying mermaids? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 23, 2014 13:04:39 GMT -5
Obviously I wouldn't expect of fossil from a ghost any more than I would expect one from a soft-bodied animal (even if we do have some fossils of even those!) but I'd expect some undoctored bit of film showing its ectoplasmic majesty. There have been photos of ectoplasm in some paranormal books which feature mediums. Unfortunately, the field is littered with quacks, to the point that it's become a farce. It's hard to separate the 'possible' from the 'rubbish.' The mediums I know stay low key. By the way, I was chatting with one, on-line, who never saw my place but described it to a tee. I'm just saying...I don't think these things can be discounted just because 2014 science doesn't substantiate it... I would suggest to any medium with genuine supernatural powers to apply to the James Randi Foundation Challenge, where a controlled demonstration of their gift will earn them one million dollars. Of course, in all the years the challenge has existed, nobody won it. Psychics, telekinetics, mediums and dowsers, all are mysteriously unable to perform under controlled conditions. Some mediums, when told of this challenge, say that they don't want to take part because they're not in it for the money but merely want to use their gift to help people. That doesn't keep them from charging an outrageous price for their services, so their motivation seems a bit suspect to me. I never heard of a dentist, a car mechanic or a plumber who was afraid to see his competence tested. Caveat emptor, as always. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 13:29:50 GMT -5
Randi, of course, is such an insufferable crank that any number of capital-S skeptics have disavowed him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 23, 2014 14:32:27 GMT -5
Randi, of course, is such an insufferable crank that any number of capital-S skeptics have disavowed him. Really? I didn't know that. His Santa Claus-like appearance makes him look so sympathetic! Of course, not all skeptics see eye to eye on everything; I find Sam Harris' opinion on gun ownership to be quite abhorrent and I don't much care for Richard Dawkins equating all religious education with child abuse. Skeptics have in common that they usually don't believe in stuff that doesn't seem to make sense and is unsubstantiated, but that's pretty much it overall. I personally find Randi to be a little full of himself, but he's very honest about his "magic": it's not supernatural. When he tells you what you're thinking, what card you've chosen, how he caused a pigeon to appear in a hat, he admits that it's all a trick. And when he oversees a "magical" demonstration as a critical expert, for some strange reason it doesn't work (and that includes the infamous Jacques Benveniste experiment which was supposed to give scientific backing to the concept of "water memory"; that debunking even made it into Nature). Uri Geller's "paranormal" powers, that earned him a lot of money and caused him to appear in an issue of Daredevil, mysteriously ceased to function when Randi made a few suggestions to TV host Johnny Carson ("change the spoons and don't leave Geller alone with them for a second"). Randi did a lot to promote a skeptical approach to strange phenomena, and if his only contribution to society had been to warn people against frauds like Sylvia Browne it would have been plenty.His challenge is also a neat idea! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 14:53:01 GMT -5
Can't quote chapter &/or verse, but I do know his supposed willingness to fudge things to make his cases (more) airtight have driven away more than one scientist from CSICOP, or whatever it was called (I believe the name, & hence the initials, have changed).
When the skeptics become as rigidly dogmatic & fanatical as the true believers, a line has been crossed, IMHO. And not a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 23, 2014 17:23:42 GMT -5
When the skeptics become as rigidly dogmatic & fanatical as the true believers, a line has been crossed, IMHO. And not a good one. Dogmatism is never good, I'm with you on that! (Unless it's when dealing with basic tenets like "dogmatism is never good", I suppose). Fanaticism is another thing I deeply fear and dislike, and the fruit of that particular tree is there for us all to see... and what a poisonous fruit it is. (And no, it's not a banana!) |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 24, 2014 9:22:05 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. Yeah. Like coelecanths, which of course science knew damned well had been extinct for millions & millions of years. Until they started turning up in 1937. Oopsie. Many more people have died than there are coelecanths in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 24, 2014 9:26:04 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. I don't think it works that way. Bernadette, for example, claims she saw an apparition of Mary while crowds which grew to 20,000 looked on and saw nothing. Should she have been sent to Arkham Asylum? No, I don't think that makes her a criminal. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 24, 2014 12:36:29 GMT -5
When the skeptics become as rigidly dogmatic & fanatical as the true believers, a line has been crossed, IMHO. And not a good one. Dogmatism is never good, I'm with you on that! (Unless it's when dealing with basic tenets like "dogmatism is never good", I suppose). Fanaticism is another thing I deeply fear and dislike, and the fruit of that particular tree is there for us all to see... and what a poisonous fruit it is. (And no, it's not a banana!) But fanatical hatred of bananas is ok, right? Because if it's wrong, I don't want to be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 12:46:42 GMT -5
Yeah. Like coelecanths, which of course science knew damned well had been extinct for millions & millions of years. Until they started turning up in 1937. Oopsie. Many more people have died than there are coelecanths in the world. Ummm ... do you have a point here? I'm missing something, obviously. |
|
