Serious dealings with supernatural/death?

[Scaryscarymushroom]

It sounds fun. I'd love to be there with you. But given my limited experience with your activities, I'm afraid I can't make any good suggestions.

Maybe try to get some time off work and see about a camping trip. 1 week or longer.

[Chaos and Evil]

Surely the correct term is "I believe ghosts don't exist"? I'm pretty sure it was statements like the above that caused the previous threads to dissolve into anarchy.

*shrug*
Ghosts don't exist, no matter how hard some people wish they did.

[BigbyWolf]

*shrug*
Ghosts don't exist, no matter how hard some people wish they did.

Good, I'm glad you cleared that up.

Personally, I don't believe in them, but I have an interest in the subject. I do believe in manners, and that helps me to not wander into a thread I have no interest in and just say "Nuh-uh".

[Oots]

Before Newton posed his (erroneous) theory of gravity, anyone could have said "Things fall because invisible gremlins pull them to the ground." And you know what? For anyone seriously exploring Quantum Physics, both explanations are equally nonsensical.

Newton wasn't erroneous, just less correct than modern theories. In the future we'll have better theories, probably, as in ones that predict reality even more accurately. Also Quantum Physics is weird and counter-intuitive, but that's not the same thing as nonsensical.

[Yodhrin]

Oh my, this might take a wee while.

Yes. Sorta. I tend to speak in rough analogies a lot. I wasn't trying to equate science and random speculation. I was trying to draw a parallel. Subtle distinction.

Personally, my own attitude towards "knowing things" is that it's all a crock anyway. Knowledge and proof won't bring anyone to a grand, wise, overarching understanding or comfort within their own lives, because nihilism. None of us really matter and the truth or falsehood of our own perceptions matters so little when compared to the cogs of the universe.

That's actually a subjective position. I, for example, take great comfort in my work, it fascinates me, and the thought that I might potentially contribute something of value to the sum of human knowledge is a primary motivator. As for reaching some kind of collective nirvana through knowledge of reality, I don't think that's ever been on the cards, and scientists don't generally deal in such concepts, we leave that to the Four Year Holiday'ers(philosophy graduates ).

Before Newton posed his (erroneous) theory of gravity

OK, going to have to stop you there. Newton's theory was not erroneous, it was incomplete, and it was the best interpretation of the best information which could be gathered at the time. There's a reason we still teach Newtonian mechanics in high school science classes, and that's because the equations still function within the scope of the original system, ie, large bodies(planets, spacecraft, people, most liquids and gasses) below lightspeed. Newton's work was not thrown out the window when Einstein and his compatriots came on the scene, it was modified by their new discoveries and some of the broader explanatory principles were reevaluated; the same thing will happen and has happened to Einstein's work thanks to the LHC at CERN, but E=MC2 will still be a valid equation, and the fact that we can now fairly reliably attribute mass to the Higgs in some fashion does not mean that spacetime ceases to be curved, nor does it change that F=ma. Science is an additive and corrective process, it does not replace old dogma with new revelation.

... anyone could have said "Things fall because invisible gremlins pull them to the ground." And you know what? For anyone seriously exploring Quantum Physics, both explanations are equally nonsensical. As a human race, we are far too willing to accept any explanation for whatever we can't understand; with the difference between science and random speculation being that the scientist finds more and more things that he can only-sort-of functionally explain (using "logic" or whatever you want to call it), and the random speculator tragically stops at gremlins.

I love science. It has given us some amazing tools. But if we don't stop to challenge what science has established every once and a while, we (as living beings) are robbing ourselves of a critical area in which we can develop our non-brain related understanding of the world around us; and even possibly overlooking some unexplored alternative explanations which could shake the foundations of scientific world.

Hnnng. I would politely suggest that you may need to revisit how the scientific process works, because I see this concept a lot, that we must "challenge" science, as if it is some monolithic entity which brooks no disagreement. The entire scientific process depends on science being challenged, constantly, at every stage, by every individual involved. If a scientist cannot show that they have sufficiently challenged their own work, it won't even make it to peer review let alone journal publication. I mean for the love of Pete, we built a multi-billion Euro atom-smashing particle collider that measures 17 miles around just to challenge one single aspect of Special Relativity, because there were problems with the mathematics in extremely specific circumstances; what more do you want?

Regarding your characterisation of scientists in the first paragraph, you do realise it's a little offensive? And inaccurate to boot. For a start, anyone "seriously exploring" the Quantum world will soon discover that the concept makes substantial sense when described in mathematical terms rather than linguistic terms, and if they're unwilling to learn the necessary mathematics required to achieve understanding, that can hardly be blamed on science now can it, anymore than you could blame "engineering" if someone's home-built car explodes because they weren't willing to put in the effort to learn how to properly comprehend the schematics. If the person who is seeking understanding was willing to spend more than ten minutes reading wikipedia entries or reading a couple of Pop-Science books, perhaps they would not have such trouble distinguishing between "gremlins" and "the result of the collective effort of several thousand very intelligent people and a few genuine geniuses over two centuries"

Also, "logic" is not the cornerstone of the scientific method, it is a fundamental component of traditional philosophical discourse, but any scientist who based their work in "logic" would be laughed all the way down the hall and right back to the Humanities campus(). I would urge you to do some serious reading on the scientific method, because one day you might run into a scientist who will not respond politely to having their work trivialised as "only-sort-of functionally explaining" things in a manner one step above random speculation.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

@Yohidrin

Sorry about the offensive characterization. As you can imagine, I am apparently quite confused about science in general.

At this point, all I really want to say is thank you for being polite while providing some good discussion. I feel informed, rather than 'put in my place' although as a proud arts major I'll be sticking by my perspective, which can comfortably be modified to include things I hadn't been well educated in before. Like science.

[New Cult King]

Wheres NCK? This is his sort of topic and hes very knowledgeable on the topic.

I've learned to hate the discussion of this topic on these forums.

[Meriwether]

At this point, all I really want to say is thank you for being polite while providing some good discussion. I feel informed, rather than 'put in my place' although as a proud arts major I'll be sticking by my perspective, which can comfortably be modified to include things I hadn't been well educated in before. Like science.

He was rather nicer than I'd be inclined to be.

Just as a small, small example:

As you can imagine, I am apparently quite confused about science in general.

Might I suggest that you refrain from speaking authoritatively about things you are quite confused about?

[kaulem]

@merry... Scary has been very polite in his discussions, while you have been not so much so.

There are ways to correct/ inform without telling the other person to figuratively "shut up".

Back on topic.

I liked the post about humans being the survivors of those who always saw the lion.

One must also be careful when interpreting what one sees or hears. As an anecdote, I am narcoleptic, and as part of my condition, I sometimes have waking dreams.

(basically, you wake up, and part of your dream seeps through for about a minute)

Having experienced them a few times, their realism can be very frightening... If someone doesn't know the scientific reasons behind it, he might think he's seeing ghosts/ visions or whatever.

[Meriwether]

@merry...

Who?

Scary has been very polite in his discussions, while you have been not so much so.

It's okay. I wasn't talking to you.

There are ways to correct/ inform without telling the other person to figuratively "shut up".

But I meant to tell him to perhaps not speak authoritatively about topics he is obviously confused about. The world at large (and more specifically Warseer) would be a much nicer place if everyone did that.

Seriously. Asking questions is always awesome. Making pronouncements is only awesome if you know what you're talking about. I'm a big fan of not filling the airwaves with misinformation, especially when it comes to science (physics in particular).

[theunwantedbeing]

Anyone here ever done any supernatural exploration? looked for evidence of ghosts or other stuff? seen anything?

As a skeptic, no.
It only seems to be the believers who see/experience things.

I'm sure going to a suicide spot will certainly help turn somebody into a believer for long enough for them to see/experience something though.

[Freak Ona Leash]

It's okay. I wasn't talking to you.



.

By that logic, he wasn't talking to you, so why pipe up, Mary? I disagreed with the Mushroom fellow myself, but he did take the criticism from me and Yodhrin and others quite well. I'm sure all of science, if it could, would thank you for championing its collective cause, but academic disciplines lack that capacity as a general rule and so any further critique is needless dog-piling at this point.

[Dylius]

... But I meant to tell him to perhaps not speak authoritatively about topics he is obviously confused about. The world at large (and more specifically Warseer) would be a much nicer place if everyone did that.

Seriously. Asking questions is always awesome. Making pronouncements is only awesome if you know what you're talking about. I'm a big fan of not filling the airwaves with misinformation, especially when it comes to science (physics in particular).

I think the problem is knowing when your information is wrong: how can you? I'm sure Scaryscarymushroom wasn't intentionally "filling the airwaves with misinformation" - in fact, he very graciously accepted that he was wrong. As far as he knew, everything he was saying was absolutely correct.

[x-esiv-4c]

Before this devolves into trolling and points being thrown about, I think we can all agree on one thing: Ghostbusters was an awesome movie.

[BigbyWolf]

It only seems to be the believers who see/experience things.

Or perhaps non-believers find it easy to explain the unexplained as something explainable? I know I'd find it easy to pass something off as a trick of the light, or my eyes playing tricks on me. Doesn't mean there's nothing out there.

Before this devolves into trolling and points being thrown about, I think we can all agree on one thing: Ghostbusters was an awesome movie.

I don't.

[Meriwether]

I think the problem is knowing when your information is wrong: how can you?

That's exactly my point. "How can you know when your information is wrong?" should not be a rhetorical question. I agree that he responded to the gong rather well -- well better than most on the internet -- and that's commendable. However, some basic due diligence on a topic should be a bare minimum before any of us decide to pipe up with anything even remotely authoritative. (And basic due diligence would indeed be a bare minimum. I'm not about to go making pronouncements on Italian art c. 1740, even though I have a coffee table book of exactly that next to me.)

[TheBigBadWolf]

I have visited a few haunted places, ruins, castles etc. Never experianced anything, dont think I believe in them, I think my family are psychic nulls anyway , my grandfather was a grave digger (dug by hand) and used to sleep in the cemetary.

[Yodhrin]

Or perhaps non-believers find it easy to explain the unexplained as something explainable? I know I'd find it easy to pass something off as a trick of the light, or my eyes playing tricks on me. Doesn't mean there's nothing out there.

If it's easy to explain it as something explainable, then why on earth would you intentionally try to convince yourself that it's actually something unexplainable? There's a reason no dowser, psychic, tarot reader, medium, conjurer, witch, wizard, warlock, or druid has ever managed to claim the many millions of dollars in prizes which are out there if they can prove their claims under scientific conditions; because it's nonsense.

"Oh well yes of course, I -could- be enjoying a slice of toast right now because an electric current was run through several evenly spaced wire filaments, resulting in those filaments radiating heat, which in turn toasted the bread, but you cannot DISPROVE my assertion that my toaster is actually inhabited by the Magic Toast Unicorn, who craps out fresh toast on command, so THAT is what I shall CHOOSE to believe!"

[Fizzy]

I think that people that don't belive in anything supernatural shouldn't be beating down on those who belive.

I am not sure what I belive. Many times I try to explain it by simple science like electronic fields from a generator or something. But when you go to places where awful things have happned most of us will fill a bit heavy knowing the horrors and pain those people had when they were alive. That could be a source for people to say: "I feel there are spirits with me".

I generally like the idea of having my mother all around me.

But some things like a microwave suddenly starts at one minute without you even touching the damn thing can startle you and play tricks on your mind.

[Meriwether]

I don't believe in ghosts, except once in a while, when I do.

(And that's not meant to be flippant. I've experienced a few things that I'm at an utter loss to explain with science--and some of those things were validated by others who saw/experienced the same thing.)