How Can Gods Existence Be Proven?
fiveodezyn
existence can be proven through historical events, current events and
science, you might find this website www.provesgod.org an interesting
read.
Martin Ambuhl
And what is the relevance to English usage? Was there some infelicitous
phrase that you wondered about perhaps?
Derek Turner
The usage of apostrophes (or not) would seem to be an issue?
bob
Gives me a 404. Seems appropriate to me.
Robin
Stephen
It worked for me. It was fun to leave scathing comment about their
malevolent god.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
the Omrud
The ICL VME operating system (a mainframe computer, M'Lud) had a
standard error response, which meant that if you typed:
GOD
it would reply:
GOD DOES NOT EXIST
--
David
Bertel Lund Hansen
> And what is the relevance to English usage? Was there some infelicitous
> phrase that you wondered about perhaps?
Not that I mind that we have a thread about this message, but
that kind of people seldom (or never) follow up on their spam.
My text raised a language question:
Should I have written:
Not that I mind that we have a thread about this message,
but that kind of people seldom (or never) follows up on his
spam.
There's one kind but many individuals. The plural form seemed the
best to me.
--
Bertel, Denmark
the Omrud
"that kind of people" is uncomfortable. Better to say "that kind of
person". "people" can be singular but has a different meaning (a tribe
or group).
So my preferred rendering is this:
- That kind of person never follows up on his spam.
you could use "his/her" or "their", but I think we can suspect that this
is a person of the male persuasion.
--
David
Peter Moylan
I had a quick read through, but couldn't find the part that included the
proof. Would you mind pointing to the paragraph I missed?
Or are you just talking about predictions of things that have already
happened? Anyone can do that. How about a prediction of something that
has not yet happened? It's striking that the Bible predicts the Asian
tsunami of 2004, but has not the slightest mention of events in Japan in
2011.
(The wayback machine couldn't find your web site, so I couldn't check
what the pre-2004 versions said about the 2004 tsunami.)
By the way, you left out an apostrophe: Gods' existence.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> So my preferred rendering is this:
> - That kind of person never follows up on his spam.
Thanks.
> you could use "his/her" or "their", but I think we can suspect that this
> is a person of the male persuasion.
A agree. I am aware of the controversy that some people feel
about "he/his", but nevertheless I use it in a general sense.
--
Bertel, Denmark
the Omrud
> the Omrud skrev:
>
>> So my preferred rendering is this:
>
>> - That kind of person never follows up on his spam.
>
> Thanks.
Glad to be of service. Now, what everybody in the UK wants to know is
this: Does Sarah Lund get a new sweater for the next case?
I can follow a lot of Wallander by reference to German and northern
British English, but spoken Danish is completely incomprehensible,
except for a few imported French words mostly ending in "tion".
Sometimes, the characters seem to mumble a single syllable which is
translated by the subtitles into a whole sentence.
--
David
Stephen
Those kinds of people never follow up on their spam.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
> fiveodezyn wrote:
>> To those who choose to open their minds to the possibilities that Gods
>> existence can be proven through historical events, current events and
>> science, you might find this website www.provesgod.org an interesting
>> read.
>
> I had a quick read through, but couldn't find the part that included the
> proof. Would you mind pointing to the paragraph I missed?
>
> Or are you just talking about predictions of things that have already
> happened? Anyone can do that. How about a prediction of something that
> has not yet happened? It's striking that the Bible predicts the Asian
> tsunami of 2004, but has not the slightest mention of events in Japan in
> 2011.
>
> (The wayback machine couldn't find your web site, so I couldn't check
> what the pre-2004 versions said about the 2004 tsunami.)
>
> By the way, you left out an apostrophe: Gods' existence.
>
Go to the site and comment. There's a chance they'll read that.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Glad to be of service. Now, what everybody in the UK wants to know is
> this: Does Sarah Lund get a new sweater for the next case?
I'm sorry, but I don't remember, and I haven't bought the series
(yet). I have the first one.
> I can follow a lot of Wallander by reference to German and northern
> British English, but spoken Danish is completely incomprehensible,
> except for a few imported French words mostly ending in "tion".
Don't worry. It is a major problem that we Danes cannot properly
pick up what the actors actually are saying. I was mocking my
daughter because she wanted subtitles on "Rejseholdet" (an
earlier series. "Unit one" I think is the English title), but
when there was a critical remark that I missed, I had to swallow
my pride.
The brand new series ("Den som dræber" - "He who kills") is even
worse.
> Sometimes, the characters seem to mumble a single syllable which is
> translated by the subtitles into a whole sentence.
Swallowing syllables is an ability that we practise with great
expertise. I believe that I have previously told about three
Danish teenage girls where I understood less than half of what
they said. And I am used to pupils and small kids with very
varying levels of language mastery.
In the Danish language group we sometimes joke with the word
"So-cial-de-mo-kra-ti-et" (a political party) which can be
pronounced with only three syllables: "sjalmkrtid". This is no
exaggeration though the most common pronunciations have more
syllables than that.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> By the way, you left out an apostrophe: Gods' existence.
> Go to the site and comment. There's a chance they'll read that.
I doubt it. They don't think that God can make spelling mistakes.
--
Bertel, Denmark
MC
Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:
Any messages for me?
-God
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Roland Hutchinson
Seems to be the first spam we've had from a polytheist missionary.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Lewis
> By the way, you left out an apostrophe: Gods' existence.
Maybe he's a polytheist?
--
this is not a signture
Lewis
The "proof" of a god's existence requires a suspension of logic and an
acceptance of a faith. It usually comes down to some variation of "the
universe is too complicated" and *really* stems from most people's
assumption that they themselves are important and therefore some super
being must also think so.
You can take the exact same argument in favor of 'god' and substitute
anything into them and they will be exactly as valid as you choose to
believe they are.
A I've told my kids on numerous occasions: Reality is everything that is
still there when you stop believing in it.
tony cooper
A more appropriate subject title, in my opinion, is: Why should God's
existence need to be proven?"
If you want to believe, do it. If you don't want to believe, that's
OK, too.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
the Omrud
I knew a Christian who didn't want to believe in God, but did.
--
David
Robert Bannister
Or "those kinds of people".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
...but either way, please keep it to yourself.
--
Rob Bannister
Stephen
That's not very useful. I want a way of discriminating between my
beliefs and reality. Your definition implies there is nothing but the
material. I think there is more going on than what we can see, which
means I may be fantasising and you may be missing out. I'm not talking
about seeing God, but such phenomena as ESP and psychic ability, which
seem to require mechanisms at some level other than the physical -- the
level of imagination, for want of a better word.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> By the way, you left out an apostrophe: Gods' existence.
>
> Maybe he's a polytheist?
>
location of the apostrophe.
Skitt
> Lewis wrote:
>> A I've told my kids on numerous occasions: Reality is everything that is
>> still there when you stop believing in it.
>
> That's not very useful. I want a way of discriminating between my
> beliefs and reality. Your definition implies there is nothing but the
> material. I think there is more going on than what we can see, which
> means I may be fantasising and you may be missing out. I'm not talking
> about seeing God, but such phenomena as ESP and psychic ability, which
> seem to require mechanisms at some level other than the physical -- the
> level of imagination, for want of a better word.
ESP and psychic ability? Oh, you believe in that. Never mind, then.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Stephen
That's what I expect from scientists. They're just as good at ignoring
the evidence as anyone else. Even when they could investigate and
discover physical mechanisms for the phenomena. I'm agnostic about ESP
-- as I said, it could be a fantasy.
You, on the other hand, have closed your mind. Never mind, then.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Skitt
Oh, I don't ever close my mind. I just haven't seen proof of ESP and
psychic ability. I have seen a lot of hoaxes in that area, though.
Stephen
Are you actually interested? You mean hoaxes like those two clowns show
on TV? Have you read any of the literature strongly suggesting that
psychics have access to alternative information sources than the usual?
Is your standard of proof set so high in terms of measurment and success
rate that any ESP phenomena that might occur are routinely excluded?
If "Oh, you believe in that" doesn't mean "I don't believe it and you
are unlikely to convince me" what does it mean? People with closed minds
are rarely willing to admit it.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Lewis
> That's what I expect from scientists. They're just as good at ignoring
> the evidence as anyone else. Even when they could investigate and
> discover physical mechanisms for the phenomena. I'm agnostic about ESP --
> as I said, it could be a fantasy.
ESP and paranormal and psychic abilities have been extensively investigated
by science. They are all fantasy or hoaxes..
Lewis
> I'm not talking about seeing God, but such phenomena as ESP and psychic
> ability, which seem to require mechanisms at some level other than the
> physical -- the level of imagination, for want of a better word.
Right, ESP and psychic abilities is just as real as flying unicorns,
invisible pink ponies, honest politicians and yes, god. Same for astrology
and homeopathy. Imagining something is real doesn't make it so.
Skitt
That's OK. Stephen has the straight dope from the little green men that
came in a UFO. He even got probed.
Stephen
I don't think so.
References, please.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Arcadian Rises
wrote:
> fiveodezyn wrote:
> > To those who choose to open their minds to the possibilities that Gods
> > existence can be proven through historical events, current events and
> > read.
>
> I had a quick read through, but couldn't find the part that included the
> proof. Would you mind pointing to the paragraph I missed?
There is no such proof.
I believe God's existence cannot be proven or disproven, therefore the
issue of his (or His) existence is irrelevant, apud logic positivists.
Stephen
Now that is a closed mind. Ridicule does not promote reason.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Arcadian Rises
I do believe that many phenomena are not (yet) scientifically
explained.
Stephen
Imagining something is real doesn't make it so, that's true. But every
improvement in our human condition from subsistence to civilisation
happened first in the imagination. And every scientific advance meant a
painful admission that previous models were wrong. Although there was no
apparent mechanism for it 200 years ago, nor possibility that it could
happen in the scientific minds of the time, rocks do fall from the sky.
What about acupuncture? No scientific basis? Quackery?
What about chiropractic? No scientific basis? Quackery.
Both these views were prevalent --especially among doctors -- 50 years
ago. Naturally, doctors had the most to lose from their acceptance. Now
their line is that they knew they were effective all along.
It's a primitive mind that ignores evidence.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
apud? What is that?
You mean logical positivists?
In physics, a multiverse theory is proposed that cannot, at present, be
proved or not. Is it irrelevant?
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Arcadian Rises
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right, there are many crooks in any field, including, for example
psychiatry. But the existence of crooks do not invalidate the science
of psychiatry,
OTOH, one century ago it would have sounded like a phantasy,
witchcraft, or even plain hoax our communication on a newsgroup: I
type this message now and possibly in a few minutes someone on the
other side of the earth would answer it.
Arcadian Rises
Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
Arcadian Rises
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:28:27 -0700 (PDT), fiveodezyn
>
> >To those who choose to open their minds to the possibilities that Gods
> >existence can be proven through historical events, current events and
> >read.
>
> A more appropriate subject title, in my opinion, is: Why should God's
> existence need to be proven?"
>
> If you want to believe, do it. If you don't want to believe, that's
> OK, too.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
That's the logic positivism's position, God's existence is irrelevant.
Either way, April 15 is just around the corner.
Lewis
> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
sure.
As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
Lewis
> What about acupuncture? No scientific basis? Quackery?
Jury is certainly out on on that one still. There's ctainly no scientific
explanation of it, but it also, as far as I know, fits the bill for
relatable results.
> What about chiropractic? No scientific basis? Quackery.
Erm. I have no idea. Is chiroprachery considered quackery?
> Both these views were prevalent --especially among doctors -- 50 years ago.
Far as I know the is no scientific explanation yet for acupuncture. What
here is, is repeatable results. Repeatable results do not exist for ESP,
ghosts, astrology, or religion. Ot many other things.
> Naturally, doctors had the most to lose from their acceptance. Now their
> line is that they knew they were effective all along.
Professional doctors are not scientists, however.
> It's a primitive mind that ignores evidence.
As soon as there is evidence of invisible pink unicorns I will gladly
accept that evidence. Until then, they are as imaginary as the bearded guy
on the clouds.
Lewis
> Right, there are many crooks in any field, including, for example
> psychiatry. But the existence of crooks do not invalidate the science
> of psychiatry,
I've seen absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe psychiatry is a
science. Does it hve value? Maybe, but a lot of things have value that
aren't science. Poetry and dirty jokes, for example.
That said, there might be a lot of psychiatric theory that I don't know
about that would make it more reasonably a science.
Lewis
Stephen
> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/03/2011 1:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That's what I expect from scientists. They're just as good at ignoring
>>>> the evidence as anyone else. Even when they could investigate and
>>>> discover physical mechanisms for the phenomena. I'm agnostic about ESP --
>>>> as I said, it could be a fantasy.
>>>
>>> ESP and paranormal and psychic abilities have been extensively investigated
>>> by science. They are all fantasy or hoaxes..
>>>
>>
>> I don't think.
Funny only because it's demeaning. I don't accept your
characterisation. Your attempt to insult me failed.
>
> Fixed that for you
>
>> References, please.
>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=esp+scientific+studies
>
The problem is, scientific studies in this area tend to be inherently
flawed, setting up standards for success which cannot be passed under
laboratory conditions. In the wild, psychics appear to have access to
information from sources that do not rely in the direct evidence of the
senses.
The Google search gives a hotchpotch of articles that mostly reflect the
innate bias in the scientific community against looking at the evidence.
There is actually evidence in favour of ESP in some of the hits on that
list.
See Michael Talbot, The Holistic Universe.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
>
>> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
>
> In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
> sure.
>
> As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
>
See what I mean? You expect ESP to work like the other senses, and when
it doesn't, you completely discount it. Maybe it's more like weather
prediction -- sometimes more accurate than others, depending on conditions.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
>> What about acupuncture? No scientific basis? Quackery?
>
> Jury is certainly out on on that one still. There's ctainly no scientific
> explanation of it, but it also, as far as I know, fits the bill for
> relatable results.
>
>> What about chiropractic? No scientific basis? Quackery.
>
> Erm. I have no idea. Is chiroprachery considered quackery?
Absolutely it was, in the 1960s. Medical authorities thundered about it.
>
>> Both these views were prevalent --especially among doctors -- 50 years ago.
>
> Far as I know the is no scientific explanation yet for acupuncture. What
> here is, is repeatable results. Repeatable results do not exist for ESP,
> ghosts, astrology, or religion. Ot many other things.
>
>> Naturally, doctors had the most to lose from their acceptance. Now their
>> line is that they knew they were effective all along.
>
> Professional doctors are not scientists, however.
So there is no scientific evidence that says heart surgery is effective?
I'm glad you weren't around to stop my doctor performing an unscientific
procedure. Of course doctors are scientists. Science is the whole basis
of their practice.
>
>> It's a primitive mind that ignores evidence.
>
> As soon as there is evidence of invisible pink unicorns I will gladly
> accept that evidence. Until then, they are as imaginary as the bearded guy
> on the clouds.
>
You know a priori that pink unicorns don't exist, right? You're just as
determined to "know" that "ESP cannot exist." Yet there are people who
seem to be getting good results with it practising every day.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
>
> Far as I know the is no scientific explanation yet for acupuncture. What
> here is, is repeatable results.
So "no scientific explanation" doesn't mean "it can't be happening."
Repeatable results mean "it must be happening."
Science has had to change its opinion about acupuncture. Its results
aren't automatically repeatable. There is skill involved.
The fact that science can't repeat psychic results in the laboratory
with boring, mundane stimuli like symbol cards is seized upon as
scientific evidence that no psychic phenomena are ocurring, when logic
should tell you that is not necessarily so.
You even have a sense of being stared at, if you're willing to look at
evidence from Sheldrake. Of course Sheldrake is one of these "mad"
scientists whom the rest laugh at because he is prepared to look at
theories that run counter to the scientific consensus.
Scientists are just as hidebound as the church was in ignoring evidence
that doesn't suit them.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
James Hogg
> Lewis wrote:
>> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> By the way, you left out an apostrophe: Gods' existence.
>> Maybe he's a polytheist?
>>
> The only difference between a polytheist and a monotheist is the
> location of the apostrophe.
I thought that was the difference between a grocer and a greengrocer.
--
James
Jared
Do you mean psychotherapy?
Psychiatrists prescribe pills.
James Hogg
> In message <5Mykp.14620$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
>> On 30/03/2011 2:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> Arcadian Rises<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
>>> In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
>>> sure.
>>>
>>> As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
>>>
>
>
>> See what I mean? You expect ESP to work like the other senses, and when
>> it doesn't, you completely discount it.
>
> there is for Leprechauns.
I knew you were going to say that.
--
James
Stephen
> In message<5Mykp.14620$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Arcadian Rises<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
>>>
>>> In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
>>> sure.
>>>
>>> As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
>>>
>
>
>> See what I mean? You expect ESP to work like the other senses, and when
>> it doesn't, you completely discount it.
>
> there is for Leprechauns.
>
>
Two Australian psychics impressed a hard-nosed New Zealand police
officer by coming up independently, with the name of a suspect that they
had no way of knowing beforehand. They independently wrote down the
first name correctly, with a slight variation, but still a good phonetic
representation, of the second name.
But of course, that's not evidence, is it?
Nor are hundreds of eyewitness accounts by serving military officers of
UFO sightings. Not worth a scrap, right?
Photographs and eyewitness accounts of crop circles? Not evidence.
I note that there are NOT hundreds of eyewitness accounts or sightings
of leprechauns, pink elephants, unicorns or crop circles with English
words spelt out.
Or even of fairies, though sightings of those used to be more popular.
Something has to explain the phenomenon of hundreds or thousands of
people experiencing the same hallucinations.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
> In message<qPykp.14456$MF5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/03/2011 2:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> Professional doctors are not scientists, however.
>
>> So there is no scientific evidence that says heart surgery is effective?
>
>
>> I'm glad you weren't around to stop my doctor performing an unscientific
>> procedure. Of course doctors are scientists. Science is the whole basis
>> of their practice.
>
> is the basis of the bricklayer's practice. Bricklayers are not
> architects.
Christiaan Barnard was a bricklayer in this sense?
>
>>> As soon as there is evidence of invisible pink unicorns I will gladly
>>> accept that evidence. Until then, they are as imaginary as the bearded guy
>>> on the clouds.
>
>> You know a priori that pink unicorns don't exist, right?
>
> Anything that is not proven to exist does not exist. It's a very
> simplistic, and I suppose somewhat philosophic rule, but it's served me
> well.
You can't prove love exists. You can't measure how in love you are.
>
> For example, the Higgs-Boson is thought to be a particle that will
> explain how matter, comprised of sub-sub atomic particles with no mass,
> can have mass. It is sometimes referred to as The God Particle, and a
> good deal of our understanding of quantum mechanics is built on
> assumptions that this particle exists. If it doesn't exist, we will have
> to come up with some new theories of quantum mechanics that will
> explain, for example, how cell phones work since right now our theories
> require the Higgs-Boson to explain mobile phones.
>
> And I am fine with this. The theory seems good that the Higgs exists and
> that scientists are n the verge of discovering it, and that will be
> great when they do. But if they don't, that is potentially even more
> exciting because it means a complete rethink on how the most fundamental
> building blocks of the universe/multiverse interact.
>
> Contrast this with religion, in which everything was written down a few
> centuries ago and is unquestionable, unalterable, and will continue on
> no matter how ridiculous, forcing any adherents to reject logic,
> science, intelligence, or sometimes the evidence of their own eyes.
You dragged religion into this, not me. It's completely irrelevant to
ESP. Religion is a bunch of fairy tales, but ESP might not be.
>
> A few years ago there was a man who bought a telescope. A rather
> expensive, high-power telescope. He bought it specifically because he
> wanted to track a comet and checked to be sure that the telescope was up
> to this task.
>
> A few days later, the man returned the telescope, quite angry. When
> asked why eh claimed the telescope didn't work. Now the principals of
> how a telescope works were established centuries ago, so when pressed
> further he admitted that the telescope showed the comet just fine, but
> ti didn't show the spaceship behind the comet.
>
> A couple of weeks later, the white tennis-shoed man and several dozen of
> his fellow cultists committed suicide so they could catch a ride on that
> spaceship. The one that wasn't there, and that they SAW was not there,
> but which their religion told them HAD to be there.
You're tilting at a windmill.
>
>> You're just as determined to "know" that "ESP cannot exist."
>
> Cannot? I never said cannot. Prove it exists and I will accept that
> proof. People have been trying to prove ESP, telekinesis, and various
> psychic powers for *centuries* and no one has ever done it. Ever. Not
> once.
Not to your satisfaction, obviously. And any evidecne there is, you
dismiss. "Just not scientific." But are you interested and willing
enough to actually investigate with an open mind? No, not worth the
trouble to you because it's in the same category as unicorns.
>
>> Yet there are people who seem to be getting good results with it
>> practising every day.
>
> Who? How many Powerball jackpots have they won?
>
The assumption is that a psychic ought to be able to see all of the
future, all of the time.
Like we can predict all of the weather, all of the time.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
> In message<8_ykp.14459$MF5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Scientists are just as hidebound as the church was in ignoring evidence
>> that doesn't suit them.
>
> elements and trying to create the philosopher's stone and are completely
> obsessed with turning lead into gold.
>
> And, of course, we live on a planet that is the center of the universe,
> and the sun and the moon and the planets and the stars move about is on
> celestial spheres.
>
More derision in place of actual argument.
You've never heard a story of a scientist so bent on proving his theory
that he ignored the evidence. Are you saying this never happens?
Scientists are not open-minded in general. Dawkinns, who makes a lot of
good points in his strident, derisory way, is like you: what can't be
measured cannot exist.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
the Omrud
> On 30/03/2011 12:04 PM, Skitt wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>> A I've told my kids on numerous occasions: Reality is everything
>>>> that is
>>>> still there when you stop believing in it.
>>>
>>> That's not very useful. I want a way of discriminating between my
>>> beliefs and reality. Your definition implies there is nothing but the
>>> material. I think there is more going on than what we can see, which
>>> means I may be fantasising and you may be missing out. I'm not talking
>>> about seeing God, but such phenomena as ESP and psychic ability, which
>>> seem to require mechanisms at some level other than the physical -- the
>>> level of imagination, for want of a better word.
>>
>> ESP and psychic ability? Oh, you believe in that. Never mind, then.
>
> the evidence as anyone else. Even when they could investigate and
> discover physical mechanisms for the phenomena. I'm agnostic about ESP
> -- as I said, it could be a fantasy.
>
Are you also agnostic about the existnce of the Omniscient Fairies which
live in my holly bush, and who get a mention here from time to time?
They got quite agitated last week when the gardeners trimmed all our
bushes back, until they remembered that they already knew it was going
to happen.
--
David
the Omrud
> In message<imun9b$6o7$1...@dont-email.me>
> James Hogg<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> In message<5Mykp.14620$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
>>> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2011 2:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> Arcadian Rises<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
>>>>> In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
>>>>> sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
Oy.
>>>> See what I mean? You expect ESP to work like the other senses, and when
>>>> it doesn't, you completely discount it.
>>>
>>> I discount it because there is exactly as much evidence it exists as
>>> there is for Leprechauns.
>
>> I knew you were going to say that.
>
> ZOMG! You're psychic!
>
> :)
I was beginning to wonder if he's a leprechaun.
--
David
the Omrud
> On 30/03/2011 6:22 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message<5Mykp.14620$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
>> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2011 2:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>> Arcadian Rises<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
>>>>
>>>> In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
>>>> sure.
>>>>
>>>> As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> See what I mean? You expect ESP to work like the other senses, and when
>>> it doesn't, you completely discount it.
>>
>> I discount it because there is exactly as much evidence it exists as
>> there is for Leprechauns.
>>
>>
>
> Two Australian psychics impressed a hard-nosed New Zealand police
> officer by coming up independently, with the name of a suspect that they
> had no way of knowing beforehand. They independently wrote down the
> first name correctly, with a slight variation, but still a good phonetic
> representation, of the second name.
>
> But of course, that's not evidence, is it?
Correct. it's an anecdote.
> Nor are hundreds of eyewitness accounts by serving military officers of
> UFO sightings. Not worth a scrap, right?
If there are aliens buzzing around the Earth, they're nothing to do with
the supernatural.
> Photographs and eyewitness accounts of crop circles? Not evidence.
I've seen crop circles. I don't disbelieve that they exist.
> I note that there are NOT hundreds of eyewitness accounts or sightings
> of leprechauns, pink elephants, unicorns or crop circles with English
> words spelt out.
>
> Or even of fairies, though sightings of those used to be more popular.
>
> Something has to explain the phenomenon of hundreds or thousands of
> people experiencing the same hallucinations.
Yep, but it doesn't have to be supernatural. 200 years ago, the same
sorts of people who now see aliens used to see succubi, incubi and the
like. They didn't see aliens because aliens hadn't yet been invented by
Science Fiction.
--
David
the Omrud
Peter Moylan
>>> [ESP] practising every day.
>>
>> Who? How many Powerball jackpots have they won?
>
> The assumption is that a psychic ought to be able to see all of the
> future, all of the time.
>
> Like we can predict all of the weather, all of the time.
If a weather forecaster was able to make bets on his forecasts, he would
make a tidy profit on it. He might be wrong some of the time, but the
correct predictions would more than compensate for the mistaken ones.
Of course, nobody's going to take his bets, because everyone knows that
weather predictions do better than random chance. We don't require that
he be right every time. The fact that his methods do better than blind
guesses is enough to let us know that there's something in it.
By the same token, we don't ask for 100% perfect prediction from
psychics. We'd sit up and take notice if they did even better than blind
chance. All the evidence so far suggests that no self-styled psychic is
doing better than someone who blindly guesses.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Stephen
>
>> You dragged religion into this, not me.
>
> No I did not. This thread (note the subject) STARTED with god, and it
> did not start with me.
You're talking to me as if I were a religious adherent. I'm not.
>
>> It's completely irrelevant to ESP. Religion is a bunch of fairy tales,
>> but ESP might not be.
>
> "Might not be" is perfectly acceptable. You're right, it might not be.
> But right now, it's on equal footing with the Easter Bunny.
And everyone who reports an experience gets treated as if they were
talking about the easter bunny. Pardon my skepticism; I don't think
science is up to the task of looking at
>
>>>> You're just as determined to "know" that "ESP cannot exist."
>>>
>>> Cannot? I never said cannot. Prove it exists and I will accept that
>>> proof. People have been trying to prove ESP, telekinesis, and various
>>> psychic powers for *centuries* and no one has ever done it. Ever. Not
>>> once.
>
>> Not to your satisfaction, obviously. And any evidecne there is, you
>> dismiss.
>
> What evidence have I dismissed?
Talbot. Though he gives reference after scientific reference of studies
that back up what he says.
>
>> "Just not scientific." But are you interested and willing
>> enough to actually investigate with an open mind? No, not worth the
>> trouble to you because it's in the same category as unicorns.
>
> Who says I haven't investigated it? I can pretty much guarantee you that
> I've spent more time on this than you have.
How many psychics or practitioners of ESP did you talk to?
>
>>>> Yet there are people who seem to be getting good results with it
>>>> practising every day.
>>>
>>> Who? How many Powerball jackpots have they won?
>
>> The assumption is that a psychic ought to be able to see all of the
>> future, all of the time.
>
>> Like we can predict all of the weather, all of the time.
>
> Please, you only have to predict Powerball a couple of hours ahead of
> time, and only once. Uncle Walt's bum knee is better than that with the
> weather.
>
"Psychics cannot predict the lottery results. Therefore there are no
such things as psychic powers."
I think that's too much of a leap. Psychic reception of information. for
example, seems to often occur in situations of emotional stress or when
the information is needed for decisive action, for example someone in
danger.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Moylan
> On Mar 29, 6:39 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>> fiveodezyn wrote:
>>> To those who choose to open their minds to the possibilities that Gods
>>> existence can be proven through historical events, current events and
>>> science, you might find this websitewww.provesgod.organ interesting
>>> read.
Every so often Google Groups does strange things with spaces, but this
is the first time I've seen a reference to www.provesgod.organ.
Stephen
>
>> Photographs and eyewitness accounts of crop circles? Not evidence.
>
> Crop Circles are a well known hoax. You can get the directions on how to
> make one on the Internet in a seconds searching. Bower and Chorley are
> famous for it.
No. The photographic evidence is indisputable in this regard. They
cannot all be man-made hoaxes, although some of them are. The man-made
ones are clumsy and crude in comparison.
See Lucy Pirngle's collection of aerial photographs.
>
>> I note that there are NOT hundreds of eyewitness accounts or sightings
>> of leprechauns, pink elephants, unicorns or crop circles with English
>> words spelt out.
>
> There are stories of many hundreds of leprechaun sightings over many
> centuries. We call these "Irish mythology", similarly, pink elephants
> are quite commonly observed by drunkards, if we can believe the evidence
> of our own eyes when watching Dumbo. I have no idea if anyone's made a
> crop circle with words, but I wouldn't be surprised.
>
>> Or even of fairies, though sightings of those used to be more popular.
>
>> Something has to explain the phenomenon of hundreds or thousands of
>> people experiencing the same hallucinations.
>
> Yes, we call that mythology if it's a dead religion and religion if it's
> not. People see things that aren't there all the time. eye witnesses are
> the worst evidence there is.
I'm not convinced. Eye-witness accounts do vary, but when 200 military
officers sign sworn statements, are we to assume they're all deluded or
colluding in a hoax?
>
> Police at the scene of a car accident will interview 10 eye witnesses
> and get 11 descriptions of the accident.
>
But if they all say they saw an accident, then they probably did.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Leslie Danks
> On 30/03/2011 7:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
>>
>>> Photographs and eyewitness accounts of crop circles? Not evidence.
>>
>> Crop Circles are a well known hoax. You can get the directions on how to
>> make one on the Internet in a seconds searching. Bower and Chorley are
>> famous for it.
>
> No. The photographic evidence is indisputable in this regard. They
> cannot all be man-made hoaxes, although some of them are. The man-made
> ones are clumsy and crude in comparison.
>
> See Lucy Pirngle's collection of aerial photographs.
How do you know which are which? Your argument is also circular.
[...]
--
Les
(BrE)
Bertel Lund Hansen
> See Lucy Pirngle's collection of aerial photographs.
And see here how to make them:
--
Bertel, Denmark
Stephen
We know which is which because we know how the man-made ones are made.
The ones whose making are inexplicable are also those too large to have
been completed accurately by man-made methods, and appearing overnight.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
> Stephen skrev:
>
>> See Lucy Pirngle's collection of aerial photographs.
>
> And see here how to make them:
>
> http://www.circlemakers.org/
>
Well that settles that. All the scientists can now safely go back to sleep.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Well that settles that. All the scientists can now safely go back to sleep.
... a sleep undisturbed by poltergeists and aliens.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Mike Barnes
>OTOH, one century ago it would have sounded like a phantasy,
>witchcraft, or even plain hoax our communication on a newsgroup: I
>type this message now and possibly in a few minutes someone on the
>other side of the earth would answer it.
If someone a century ago claimed that near-instant world-wide
communication existed at that time, it *would* have been a fantasy. So I
don't see the parallel with modern belief in the supernatural.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Cheryl
> On Mar 29, 11:40 pm, Lewis<g.kr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Arcadian Rises<Arcadianri...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Right, there are many crooks in any field, including, for example
>>> psychiatry. But the existence of crooks do not invalidate the science
>>> of psychiatry,
>>
>> I've seen absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe psychiatry is a
>> science. Does it hve value? Maybe, but a lot of things have value that
>> aren't science. Poetry and dirty jokes, for example.
>>
>> That said, there might be a lot of psychiatric theory that I don't know
>> about that would make it more reasonably a science.
>
> Do you mean psychotherapy?
>
> Psychiatrists prescribe pills.
Yes, but the theories explaining the illnesses for which the pills are
prescribed are not always of the same solidity as some of the basic
theories in the physical sciences.
Psychiatry has come a long, long way in the last hundred years or so,
but it's still a long way from having good, solid scientifically-proven
theories of what psychiatric illness is, why some people get psychiatric
illnesses, and why some pills, in some cases, help deal with the symptoms.
Still, there are lots of people studying things like brain chemistry,
and no doubt more progress will continue to be made.
--
Cheryl
Leslie Danks
> On 30/03/2011 9:45 PM, Leslie Danks wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/03/2011 7:18 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Photographs and eyewitness accounts of crop circles? Not evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Crop Circles are a well known hoax. You can get the directions on how
>>>> to make one on the Internet in a seconds searching. Bower and Chorley
>>>> are famous for it.
>>>
>>> No. The photographic evidence is indisputable in this regard. They
>>> cannot all be man-made hoaxes, although some of them are. The man-made
>>> ones are clumsy and crude in comparison.
>>>
>>> See Lucy Pirngle's collection of aerial photographs.
>>
>> How do you know which are which? Your argument is also circular.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>
> We know which is which because we know how the man-made ones are made.
Because, in every case, the perpetrator has provided a signed affidavit
claiming to have done it and describing the method used.
> The ones whose making are inexplicable are also those too large to have
> been completed accurately by man-made methods, and appearing overnight.
How do you know that? Perhaps someone has found a way of doing it and is
keeping it to him or herself. IMO this is a more likely explanation than
intervention by some mysterious unknown force or entity.
--
Les
(BrE)
Stephen
Except that on close examination they could not have been made in the
way described or in the time in which they appear (in seconds, according
to witnesses who are of course mad) and in such sizes, proportions and
of such complexity that man-made is extremely unlikely.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
> Stephen skrev:
>
>> Well that settles that. All the scientists can now safely go back to sleep.
>
> ... a sleep undisturbed by poltergeists and aliens.
>
And no footage of actual circles being created by the hoaxers.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Leslie Danks
or lying
ObAUE: I think you need a comma after witnesses - or were there other
witnesses who were sane?
> ) and in such sizes, proportions and
> of such complexity that man-made is extremely unlikely.
More unlikely than supernatural forces or little green men from Mars?
--
Les
(BrE)
CDB
> Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> fiveodezyn wrote:
>>
>>>> To those who choose to open their minds to the possibilities
>>>> that Gods existence can be proven through historical events,
>>>> current events and science, you might find this
>>>> websitewww.provesgod.organ interesting read.
>>
> Every so often Google Groups does strange things with spaces, but
> this is the first time I've seen a reference to www.provesgod.organ.
>>
J. J. Lodder
In the early days of grain circlology I saw
a perfect illustration of Einstein's
"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not"
happening in it.
Some self appointed grain circle guru
had proclaimed that all grain circles must be counter-clock wise.
(as they had been up to then)
Soon after that a clock-wise one was found,
as if ordered.
So there was clearly a malicious creator at work,
who must by Einstein's dictum be a human one.
The circle nutters didin't get the hint of course,
Jan
Bertel Lund Hansen
> And no footage of actual circles being created by the hoaxers.
You have footage of the poltergeists making them?
--
Bertel, Denmark
Stephen
Those are not the only alternative explanations.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
> Stephen skrev:
>
>> And no footage of actual circles being created by the hoaxers.
>
> You have footage of the poltergeists making them?
>
What I'm asking is much easier than what you ask if the hoaxers are
telling the truth.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On 30/03/2011 2:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> Arcadian Rises<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Except for the ones that are not. Have you ever heard of telepathy?
>>
>> In fantasy stories and fantasy stories masquerading as science fiction,
>> sure.
>>
>> As a measurable and testable phenomena? Nope.
>>
>
>
>See what I mean? You expect ESP to work like the other senses, and when
>it doesn't, you completely discount it. Maybe it's more like weather
>prediction -- sometimes more accurate than others, depending on conditions.
But we understand why weather prediction is of varying accuracy. We can
look at what actually happened and can see why it differed from the
prediction.
The problem with attempting a scientific investigation of the alleged
phenomenon of ESP is that the field is overrun with believers in ESP,
people whose belief is religious in nature rather than scientific,
people who have firm beliefs based on, at the best, very weak evidence.
And then there are the hoaxers.
Most scientists are frightened of getting involved in something that
might be fantasy or delusion.
A scientific investigation of ESP must involve carefully designed
experiments, that is, experiments designed so that is no possibility of
perception via the usual senses. It is also essential that the
experiments be repeatable so that chance results can be ruled out.
A different study would be a psychological study of the phenomenon of
belief in ESP. Why do some people have such a firm belief in ESP on the
basis of, what seems to others, to be at the best flimsy evidence.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Bertel Lund Hansen
>>> And no footage of actual circles being created by the hoaxers.
>> You have footage of the poltergeists making them?
> What I'm asking is much easier than what you ask if the hoaxers are
> telling the truth.
You haven't, I take it. So your demand for proof is a bit
onesided.
There are several pictures that shows how the circles were made.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Katy Jennison
> A scientific investigation of ESP must involve carefully designed
> experiments, that is, experiments designed so that is no possibility of
> perception via the usual senses. It is also essential that the
> experiments be repeatable so that chance results can be ruled out.
>
Sadly these conditions are virtually impossible to achieve, since ESP
seems most frequently reported in circumstances of extreme stress -
seeing an apparition of one's father and subsequently learning that he'd
died at that exact time, for instance. Not a condition that can be
easily replicated.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <5gBkp.14637$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>
> Stephen <cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nor are hundreds of eyewitness accounts by serving military officers of
>> UFO sightings. Not worth a scrap, right?
>
The problem is not with the fact that something was seen but with the
interpretation of what was seen.
It's been said before and it will be said again: The U in UFO stands for
Unidentified. Why do true-believers jump to the conclusion that
something that is unidentified is definitely an alien spacecraft? That
is a totally illogical thing to do.
>Oh crap, we're on psychics *and* UFOs, really?
>
>OK, I'm not doing UFOs, sorry. Been down that road too often, and I'm
>just not going to do it again. Similarly, I'm not going to waste my time
>on JFK assassination scenarios, the faked moon landing, or the massive
>9/11 conspiracy.
>
>> Photographs and eyewitness accounts of crop circles? Not evidence.
>
>Crop Circles are a well known hoax. You can get the directions on how to
>make one on the Internet in a seconds searching. Bower and Chorley are
>famous for it.
There have been documented cases of crop circles being created by named
people. They have been photographed and filmed doing this. The believers
in crop circles being created by UFOs then completely reject the
evidence that those crop circles were man-made.
I recall a case shown on TV of a man in the US who stood in the dark
near a rural road wearing a hat shaped like flying saucer with lights on
it. Passing motorists saw it and the UFO-believers among them were
convinced it was a UFO and rejected the evidence that it was a hat on a
man's head.
Leslie Danks
Can you suggest a few that are more likely than the doings of naughty
people?
--
Les
(BrE)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 30/03/2011 12:26 PM, Skitt wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A I've told my kids on numerous occasions: Reality is everything
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> still there when you stop believing in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not very useful. I want a way of discriminating between my
>>>>> beliefs and reality. Your definition implies there is nothing but the
>>>>> material. I think there is more going on than what we can see, which
>>>>> means I may be fantasising and you may be missing out. I'm not talking
>>>>> about seeing God, but such phenomena as ESP and psychic ability, which
>>>>> seem to require mechanisms at some level other than the physical -- the
>>>>> level of imagination, for want of a better word.
>>>>
>>>> ESP and psychic ability? Oh, you believe in that. Never mind, then.
>>>
>>> That's what I expect from scientists. They're just as good at ignoring
>>> the evidence as anyone else. Even when they could investigate and
>>> discover physical mechanisms for the phenomena. I'm agnostic about ESP
>>> -- as I said, it could be a fantasy.
>>>
>>> You, on the other hand, have closed your mind. Never mind, then.
>>
>> Oh, I don't ever close my mind. I just haven't seen proof of ESP and
>> psychic ability. I have seen a lot of hoaxes in that area, though.
>
> Are you actually interested? You mean hoaxes like those two clowns
> show on TV? Have you read any of the literature strongly suggesting
> that psychics have access to alternative information sources than
> the usual?
Not recently, but I have read a bit (including things like Puthoff and
Targ's "remote viewing" experiments at SRI) and a fair bit more taking
apart things that believers claim to be demonstrations.
What I recall from my days when I did look into such things is that
they pretty much uniformly fell into one of two classes: (1)
experiments in which the protocol was set by the test subject claiming
to have such powers and (2) experiments in which the goal was to
demonstrate that the phenomenon occurred at a level barely
significantly above chance.
The first sort of experiment tended to produce spectacular
results--and results that were readily duplicated by stage magicians
under the same protocol. The subjects were pretty much uniformly
unwilling to be tested under more reasonable protocols.
The second sort of experiment tended to either produce nothing or to
produce individual subjects who scored just significantly above
chance, revealing that the experimenters either didn't really
understand that if you test 20 people, you'd *expect* to find one
that, strictly by chance, scored significant at the 5% level[1] or
else that the experimenter hoped that their readers didn't understand
that cherry-picking the retrospectively-determined "talented" subjects
and then pretending that you had just tested them isn't kosher.
I guess there's a third sort: the survey that comes to the conclusion
that "all of these anecdotes must add up to something".
> Is your standard of proof set so high in terms of measurment and
> success rate that any ESP phenomena that might occur are routinely
> excluded?
All I know is that James Randi still has a million dollars on the line
to anybody who can demonstrate their talent under a mutually-
acceptable protocol with mutually-acceptable success criteria. Many
have tried. The criteria were such that the subjects predicted that
they would have no trouble passing, but which would have been wildly
improbable by chance. None passed.
This is the sort of test where if a person, in a blind society,
claimed to be able to "see", they'd have absolutely no trouble
passing. Ditto proving "color vision" or "hearing" or "taste".
> If "Oh, you believe in that" doesn't mean "I don't believe it and
> you are unlikely to convince me" what does it mean? People with
> closed minds are rarely willing to admit it.
"You are unlikely to convince me" doesn't mean "I have a closed
mind". It means I am very skeptical that you have the sort of
evidence that would cause me to believe it. But I'm willing to read
one or two papers. What would you say are the most convincing
controlled studies? (Not reports on them, the studies themselves.)
[1] There's an adjustment called the Bonferroni correction that needs
to be applied to determine that one of a number of independent
tests is statistically significant. It makes the bar a fair bit
higher.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Never ascribe to malice that which
SF Bay Area (1982-) |can adequately be explained by
Chicago (1964-1982) |stupidity.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Mar 29, 9:04 pm, Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>> > Lewis wrote:
>> >> A I've told my kids on numerous occasions: Reality is everything that is
>> >> still there when you stop believing in it.
>>
>> > That's not very useful. I want a way of discriminating between my
>> > beliefs and reality. Your definition implies there is nothing but
>> > the material. I think there is more going on than what we can
>> > see, which means I may be fantasising and you may be missing
>> > out. I'm not talking about seeing God, but such phenomena as ESP
>> > and psychic ability, which seem to require mechanisms at some
>> > level other than the physical -- the level of imagination, for
>> > want of a better word.
>>
>> ESP and psychic ability? Oh, you believe in that. Never mind,
>> then.
>
> I do believe that many phenomena are not (yet) scientifically
> explained.
"Explained" is one thing. We're talking "demonstrated" here.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |To express oneself
SF Bay Area (1982-) |In seventeen syllables
Chicago (1964-1982) |Is very diffic
| Tony Finch
evan.kir...@gmail.com
John Varela
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
> April 15 is just around the corner.
And I've been procrastinating reading news groups instead of making
my sacrifices to the gods of the IRS.
For a good time, try Form 6251, and if that doesn't satisfy you try
2210.
--
John Varela
David Hatunen
> Imagining something is real doesn't make it so, that's true. But every
> improvement in our human condition from subsistence to civilisation
> happened first in the imagination. And every scientific advance meant a
> painful admission that previous models were wrong.
Rubbish. Since the advent of modern science for the most part each
advance has just meant modification of previous models. Special
relativity was certainly a game changer in physics, but cars, airplanes,
ships and rockets are still designed with Newtonian mechanics. Nor do
they use quantum mechanics in these designs (although QM plays a
significant role in the electronics).
> Although there was no
> apparent mechanism for it 200 years ago, nor possibility that it could
> happen in the scientific minds of the time, rocks do fall from the sky.
So what was the model that was wrong? And what science was it part of?
> What about acupuncture? No scientific basis? Quackery?
>
> What about chiropractic? No scientific basis? Quackery.
Yes and yes to me.
> Both these views were prevalent --especially among doctors -- 50 years
> ago.
For acupuncture, Chinese doctors maybe, although it might be the
definition of "doctor" is being stretched here. Fifty years ago was 1961;
neither acupuncture nor chiropractic was prevalent among doctors then.
Certainly not chiropractic, which is and was prevalent only among doctors
of chiropractic (and perhaps to a limited extent amon doctors of
osteopathy), who scarcely deserve the title of "doctor" at all.
> Naturally, doctors had the most to lose from their acceptance. Now
> their line is that they knew they were effective all along.
Rubbish. "They" don't think it's effective at all (maybe a bit of placebo
effect for acupuncture).
> It's a primitive mind that ignores evidence.
Did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Arizona, out where the cacti grow
David Hatunen
> On 30/03/2011 6:25 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message<8_ykp.14459$MF5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
>> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Scientists are just as hidebound as the church was in ignoring
>>> evidence that doesn't suit them.
>>
>> I guess that explains why scientists are still going on about their
>> four elements and trying to create the philosopher's stone and are
>> completely obsessed with turning lead into gold.
>>
>> And, of course, we live on a planet that is the center of the universe,
>> and the sun and the moon and the planets and the stars move about is on
>> celestial spheres.
>>
>>
> More derision in place of actual argument.
Only because the derision is well-deserved.
> You've never heard a story of a scientist so bent on proving his theory
> that he ignored the evidence. Are you saying this never happens?
Sometimes. Scientists are human, after all. Sometimes they even make
stuff up. Burt how would you even know about it if science itself hadn't
self-policed itself?
> Scientists are not open-minded in general. Dawkinns, who makes a lot of
> good points in his strident, derisory way, is like you: what can't be
> measured cannot exist.
Ah. I have been looking for some fairies and leprechauns to measure, but
have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, you assure me they must exist so my
search is unnecessary.
David Hatunen
> On 30/03/2011 2:40 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> Stephen<cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> What about acupuncture? No scientific basis? Quackery?
>>
>> Jury is certainly out on on that one still. There's ctainly no
>> scientific explanation of it, but it also, as far as I know, fits the
>> bill for relatable results.
>>
>>> What about chiropractic? No scientific basis? Quackery.
>>
>> Erm. I have no idea. Is chiroprachery considered quackery?
>
> Absolutely it was, in the 1960s. Medical authorities thundered about it.
>>
>>> Both these views were prevalent --especially among doctors -- 50 years
>>> ago.
>>
>> Far as I know the is no scientific explanation yet for acupuncture.
>> What
>> here is, is repeatable results. Repeatable results do not exist for
>> ESP, ghosts, astrology, or religion. Ot many other things.
>>
>>> Naturally, doctors had the most to lose from their acceptance. Now
>>> their line is that they knew they were effective all along.
>>
>> Professional doctors are not scientists, however.
>
> So there is no scientific evidence that says heart surgery is effective?
> I'm glad you weren't around to stop my doctor performing an unscientific
> procedure. Of course doctors are scientists. Science is the whole basis
> of their practice.
There are tow kinds of MDs: practitioners who don't generally function as
actual scientists but rather more like sophisticated mechanics (cue
Doctor McCoy, "Damn it Jim, I'm a scientist not a plasterer!), and there
are researchers who do function as scientists. There are some MDs who
merge both functions, since at some point new theories have to be tested
on humans. There are also medical research scientists who don't have MDs,
but have PhDs in Medicine; they don't do surgery on humans.
>>> It's a primitive mind that ignores evidence.
>>
>> As soon as there is evidence of invisible pink unicorns I will gladly
>> accept that evidence. Until then, they are as imaginary as the bearded
>> guy on the clouds.
>
> You know a priori that pink unicorns don't exist, right?
How does he know that? How do *you* know that?
> You're just as
> determined to "know" that "ESP cannot exist." Yet there are people who
> seem to be getting good results with it practising every day.
No there aren't.
JimboCat
>
> You can't prove love exists. You can't measure how in love you are.
You've latched on to a bad example there. It's all norepinephrine and
dopamine, with a side of oxytocin. There are no commercial love
detectors on the market at this time, but I don't doubt the
possibility.
I think your other examples all fall into two categories: things that
we don't know enough about yet to measure, and things that don't
exist. I won't try to sort them, though.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Anyone who believes in astrology *should* trust their horoscope.
Chance is likely to yield better results than their own
judgement." [unknown]