• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Supernatural

I have read a lot about quantum physics and I find it very interesting but very difficult to grasp. What information do you think the quantum realm could provide about the relation between science and the spiritual?

...?


I've been studying quantum mechanics a bit, off and on for years. I don't claim to understand it; I think very few in the world can really claim legitimately to fully grasp it.

There are some very interesting implications in it though. One being that reality seems to be somewhat observer-dependent... a photon can behave like a wave or a particle, but it seems to be nailed down only when observed... that is a lot of phenomena seem to be altered by observation, which makes no sense in common material reality. A zebra is a zebra whether you're looking at it or not, right? Well, whether certain particles are waves or particles apparently depends on whether/when you observe them. There's the phenomena that apparently you can't know an electron's exact position and exact speed/energy state both at the same time, only one or the other. Also the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and Shrodingers' Cat (sp?)... expressions that reality is observer dependent. The recent discovery that the fundamental substance of the universe is "grainy" (composed of discrete bits of spacetime) rather than "smooth", leading some to speculate that we live in a "simulation universe".

Quantum gets weird; some of its deeper issues are as much matters of philosophy as science, according to some of the leading researchers into the field.
 
I've been studying quantum mechanics a bit, off and on for years. I don't claim to understand it; I think very few in the world can really claim legitimately to fully grasp it.

There are some very interesting implications in it though. One being that reality seems to be somewhat observer-dependent... a photon can behave like a wave or a particle, but it seems to be nailed down only when observed... that is a lot of phenomena seem to be altered by observation, which makes no sense in common material reality. A zebra is a zebra whether you're looking at it or not, right? Well, whether certain particles are waves or particles apparently depends on whether/when you observe them. There's the phenomena that apparently you can't know an electron's exact position and exact speed/energy state both at the same time, only one or the other. Also the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and Shrodingers' Cat (sp?)... expressions that reality is observer dependent. The recent discovery that the fundamental substance of the universe is "grainy" (composed of discrete bits of spacetime) rather than "smooth", leading some to speculate that we live in a "simulation universe".

Quantum gets weird; some of its deeper issues are as much matters of philosophy as science, according to some of the leading researchers into the field.

I am so interested in quantum mechanics. Every time I have a conversation about it, I want to read more. I've read of all of the things you mentioned about it, except the 'simulation universe' part. Could you explain that?
 
I am so interested in quantum mechanics. Every time I have a conversation about it, I want to read more. I've read of all of the things you mentioned about it, except the 'simulation universe' part. Could you explain that?

I can't find the original article I read on that, but there's some discussion of it here...

Graininess of Space-Time found at GEO600?


Here's another quantum-related article I thought was interesting, if very esoteric...

Ground-breaking Theory Holds That Quantum Substances Form The Soul
 
Anyway, some researchers were trying to figure out the fundamental substance of space-time underlying all reality, and the idea was that "if it was a simulation" of some sort, there would be some grainy-ness or noise among the quantum-size packets of reality indicating this. Some researchers believe they have found such a thing.
 
We have had similar threads in the past, but as Goshin points out, they quickly devolved into dismissive snickering.

It is my belief that we all have supernatural abilities. But, early in life, the vast majority of us are taught by family and society at large to suppress those abilities - and so we do. Unless your abilities are/were especially strong and/or your parents especially supportive, it is likely that you have little or no memory of your early abilities. You can bring them back to a point, I think. At the same time, as adults we've lost so much time. Our skills will be more difficult to identify and much more difficult to develop. Then there is the question of what you do with them.

I am an empath. It's always been pretty strong, but it is not something I have developed or want to develop. It's not something you sit around talking about. I try to avoid it most of the time. Probably a lot of people who are strongly intuitive are likely to be empaths. I am a bit psychic, but again it isn't something I care to develop.

I did see my mom, briefly a month after she died. It was during the day, I was awake. Other than that I have never seen any ghosts, that I am aware of. Though I have seen shapes, especially at one time in my life. My ex-wife who was/definitely not interested in anything supernatural saw the shapes in our house too. I never told her about it. SHE brought it up to me because it was scaring the hell out of her. Only then did I tell her that I had been seeing them as well. She was less than pleased to hear that.

There is a thin veil, if you like, that separates us from the spirit world.

We are spirits in the material world. I believe that.
 
Last edited:
Science is material reductionist. Anything outside of the physical realm it typically will not look at, and thus a presumably large part of our universe is just ignored.

Like what? What exists in this universe that scientific thought (making determinations based on evidence and repeatable experiment) does not address? We have theories about the birth of the universe, the inner workings of stars, the transition of life from tiny microbes to human beings. We've unlocked mysteries of the human mind and psyche and plumbed the depths of our history.

What is in this "large part of the universe" that anyone is ignoring? What wealth of human experience is neglected? Feelings of awe and euphoria? Those aren't neglected at all. The mysteries of love? That's well within the realm of behavioral sciences. But even so, the scientific process is not just formal academia. It's little more than pattern recognition and large sample sizes. It is a scientific conclusion that people like holding hands. Lots of people say they like it, and exhibit signs of pleasure while holding hands, and we know this, even before the first time any of us ever do it. We take in the data and reach a conclusion, and then hold hands with someone we love, and then we smile. That's not divorced from science. That is science. Science is a process by which we learn, and pretty much the only process by which we learn. We use the scientific process when making friends. You're meeting new people, and you crack a joke that one of them doesn't like. You've taken in this observation that such a topic is a hot button for that person, and you conclude not to do that anymore. You don't think it was a random coincidence, or "mysterious ways" that moved your friend to get angry. It was cause and effect. You understood the pattern and applied it.

So please, give us an example or two. What does the scientific process preclude in the search for truth and understanding?

I looked at your "banned" video, which is available on YouTube and so not very effectively banned... It's pretty nonsensical. Why is the consensus that galaxies aren't conscious? Because there's no evidence to suggest that they are. That's not an idea being ignored. That's an idea being wrong. Or at least wrong by all the available information we have. If that information changes, then we'll adapt to that. Constant laws of nature? They act like they're constant. Again, strange and mysterious things could happen, and if they do, we'll observe that and make sense of it. Oh, and then alternative medicine. It's not that it can't work. It's that it doesn't. Millions and millions of tests show that. It's not a dogma. It's the results of hundreds of years of medical research.

A couple of his assertions are simply wrong. No one really tries to prove that we aren't conscious. Obviously not every single part of heredity is physical. Nurture is just as important as nature. Nor are our thoughts "contained entirely in our heads". Brainwaves extend beyond our skulls. And if they do something, we'll observe it and figure out how it works. There is no reason why something like telepathy is necessary impossible and certainly no reason why it would be mysterious and inconsistent.

Why must the laws of nature be fixed? It's not that they must. It's that by every observation, they are. We didn't decide that. We discovered that they are.

So, to return to my original question. What is there in the universe that the scientific method (which I repeat is observation > hypothesis > lots of testing > conclusion, no lab coats or microscopes necessary) ignores? It doesn't even ignore the question of god. Scientists have been trying to determine the truth about god for hundreds of years.
 
See, there are certain specific people on DP... I won't name them out of courtesy and a desire to avoid starting a conflict... who would just love for someone to speak of a spiritual or supernatural experience here, so that they can joyfully tear into that person, mock and deride them, and call their experience delusional and otherwise rip into them like a pack of wolves.

That doesn't exactly make for an atmosphere conducive to sharing such things.

But anyway, I'm still thinking on it...

You must be psychic. No sooner had you posted the above ^^^ and it starts.
 
I hear the argument of certain realms being supernatural and unreachable by science or any kind of observation. .

If they are unreachable by any kind of observation, how can we even suspect their existence?

"Supernatural" is a meaningless word. Nature is everything there is, known and unknown.

By the way, I have no problem with any particular idea usually assigned to the "supernatural" depratment.

For example, at this point, a human mind appears to be a system of neural connections sustained in brain. I don't see why an advanced civilization cannot reproduce, rewrite the mind in some different media. There you go, an "immortal soul". Maybe it already did or does this trick routinely, "God" being our nickname for the civilization or one of its agents.

All we need is evidence - something veryfiable, "scientific". And we don't have. Maybe because all such stuff is no more than fantasies, maybe because we haven't yet developed adequate tools of investigation.
 
It's both. There is a vested interest in preserving the material reductionist model because it originally arose as a counter-culture to religion and spirituality. In other words, there are real political reasons behind science staying the way it is - despite the fact that the quantum realm provides a greater possibility that the metaphysical gap between science and the spiritual may not be so large.

Exactly what I was going to say, an since studying the "supernatural", it's quite difficult to study something that represents a "minor influence", or an "intelligence" in a laboratory environment... However, the one effect that is proven is the feeling of being watched, as being accurate about 10%more than the p value based on meta-studies in the data...

Science has the potential to fully utilize the human imagination, as it has proven via technological means in the past 200 years. If science decides to undertake a genuine search into many paranormal claims, it could invent the means. Why? Because it has done so before. Unfortunately, many mainstream attempts at this are biased from the start. The observer changes what is observed, after all.

Well, those that DO study these things are considered pseudo scientists, and since the research is also rife with fraud, it tends to bury the legitimate aspects.

You have to understand the history of science to understand why it refuses to look at claims it deems non-material, despite the wealth of circumstantial evidence that has been collected over the years to demonstrate that there are other things happening in reality that don't conform to the current model.

I dunno, since the near death experience is a common experience that transcends race, sex, culture, age, and even religious beliefs... It suggests strongly that this reflects close to the truths of what happens when they die.

I do believe that there will come a time where science will be forced to confront the spiritual aspects of the universe... Some theories of quantum mechanics attempt to address this, but the scientific community hesitates to consider even that.
 
Like what? What exists in this universe that scientific thought (making determinations based on evidence and repeatable experiment) does not address? We have theories about the birth of the universe, the inner workings of stars, the transition of life from tiny microbes to human beings. We've unlocked mysteries of the human mind and psyche and plumbed the depths of our history.

Sheldrake mentioned one example in his talk: the ability to sense another's gaze. There are others, such as knowing who is about to call you on the telephone before they call, or even knowing when bad news is about to come your way. It's an incredibly common experience. I just re-watched the link I posted and for some reason this version has been truncated. In the original talk he mentioned the telephone experiment, as well as the rat training experiment. If you can teach a rat to do a new trick that no other rat has done before, each successive rat who is taught the trick will learn it slightly faster, despite not being in physical proximity to other rats. According to the material reductionist model, these things are not possible since consciousness is mechanistic and only residing in the brain. Yet experiments such as the above demonstrate that clearly consciousness could likely not be just in the brain, and that more investigation should be conducted.

These experiments can be found on Sheldrake's website. And no, they will not be peer reviewed, because the peer review process doesn't look at this data, which is the exact problem that Sheldrake is describing.

The other thing he mentioned which is more statistical, is that the "constants" are constantly fluctuating, yet we are expected to believe that the universe has fixed variables that never change, as defined by human laws. This is absurd. In the metrology archives, he discovered that the "fixed constants" for gravity and the speed of light have changed several times in the past 50 years, being redefined as "constants" each time. Each lab around the world investigating the constants had fluctuating results, so they averaged their results. Then the international metrology committee averages all the averages, and comes up with a constant... which doesn't make sense, given that there is so much variation.
 
Paschendale said:
I looked at your "banned" video, which is available on YouTube and so not very effectively banned... It's pretty nonsensical. Why is the consensus that galaxies aren't conscious? Because there's no evidence to suggest that they are.

According to science's understanding of consciousness, which is dogmatic. I don't really think you watched the video, or if you did you were doing so without an open mind. Did you not hear what Sheldrake said about the formation of crystals and substances? If morphic resonance is true, then it means all matter is interconnected based on similarity. A rock is not just a rock in isolation, it shares resonance with all other rocks of its kind, which is why the subsequent formation of new rocks is more efficiently possible. If that's true, then I would have no problem extending the notion of consciousness to inanimate objects, since it means that they have a group field that governs their existence.

Paschendale said:
If that information changes, then we'll adapt to that. Constant laws of nature? They act like they're constant. Again, strange and mysterious things could happen, and if they do, we'll observe that and make sense of it.

It doesn't matter what they ACT like to our perceptions, Paschendale. Your argument is disingenuous. What matters is their factual quality as measured in units. Those measurements are NEVER constant. Don't you think that's a huge discrepancy in the dogma? We are calling them fixed laws even though they're fluctuating, which is trying to force the universe to conform to our human egos.

Paschendale said:
Oh, and then alternative medicine. It's not that it can't work. It's that it doesn't. Millions and millions of tests show that. It's not a dogma. It's the results of hundreds of years of medical research.

Well, this statement is simply a bold faced lie. "Alternative medicine" could mean anything. There are thousands of medicinal modalities worldwide. Some work and some don't, but we cannot always rely on science to determine that because it has a vested interest in preserving its material reductionist dogma. Therefore it will ignore all claims that some forms of alternative medicine work, despite those claims being so numerous. If you were a real scientist and not a copout, you wouldn't just use umbrella terminology like this.

You make all the pitfalls of a pseudoskeptic right from the get go:

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established.

2. Double standards in the application of criticism.

3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate.

4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.

8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim.

You can't just be all like, "I'm a scientist, and you're wrong! So there." That doesn't work anymore. Science is no longer the authority, and people everywhere are questioning its dogmas. You don't get to just swoop in and call theories wrong with NO EVIDENCE of your own to put forward. That's not science, it's pseudoscience.
 
Yes, but I rarely speak of it. Skeptics merely roll their eyes and laugh into their sleeves, so why bother? Not to mention some of those experiences were very disturbing.

I'm with you on this one, Goshin. I have my Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering and--even as a person of faith--I tend to view the world from that perspective. However, I've seen and experienced things I simply am unable to explain and would never feel comfortable discussing for the very same reason you site.
 
i had a significant supernatural experience in college. i later learned that my situation was most likely sleep paralysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis#Signs_and_symptoms\

as for the experiences of others, i can't verify or dismiss them. there are a lot of things that we don't understand about life and death.
 
Sheldrake mentioned one example in his talk: the ability to sense another's gaze. There are others, such as knowing who is about to call you on the telephone before they call, or even knowing when bad news is about to come your way. It's an incredibly common experience.

Those seem like special abilities merely because we don't note all the times when we don't anticipate those things. We're gazed at constantly without being aware of it. Phone calls take us by surprise every day. And news, good or bad, come without warning. We only think that there's something mystical going on when we think about it first. We dismiss every instance when we don't think about it first.

I just re-watched the link I posted and for some reason this version has been truncated. In the original talk he mentioned the telephone experiment, as well as the rat training experiment. If you can teach a rat to do a new trick that no other rat has done before, each successive rat who is taught the trick will learn it slightly faster, despite not being in physical proximity to other rats. According to the material reductionist model, these things are not possible since consciousness is mechanistic and only residing in the brain. Yet experiments such as the above demonstrate that clearly consciousness could likely not be just in the brain, and that more investigation should be conducted.

These experiments can be found on Sheldrake's website. And no, they will not be peer reviewed, because the peer review process doesn't look at this data, which is the exact problem that Sheldrake is describing.

There is no conspiracy to ignore evidence in the scientific community. The goal of science is to determine the truth.

The other thing he mentioned which is more statistical, is that the "constants" are constantly fluctuating, yet we are expected to believe that the universe has fixed variables that never change, as defined by human laws. This is absurd. In the metrology archives, he discovered that the "fixed constants" for gravity and the speed of light have changed several times in the past 50 years, being redefined as "constants" each time. Each lab around the world investigating the constants had fluctuating results, so they averaged their results. Then the international metrology committee averages all the averages, and comes up with a constant... which doesn't make sense, given that there is so much variation.

Yeah, that's not actually true. Our ability to measure such things are refined. I went and looked for evidence of these instances of changes to the speed of light or gravity. I found no credible scientific documents reporting the changes he talked about. The force of gravity, on Earth, at sea level, has not changed in hundreds of years. That it varies based on elevation is something that we likely discovered after Newton, but that is a refinement of existing theories, not complete overhauls.

According to science's understanding of consciousness, which is dogmatic. I don't really think you watched the video, or if you did you were doing so without an open mind. Did you not hear what Sheldrake said about the formation of crystals and substances? If morphic resonance is true, then it means all matter is interconnected based on similarity. A rock is not just a rock in isolation, it shares resonance with all other rocks of its kind, which is why the subsequent formation of new rocks is more efficiently possible. If that's true, then I would have no problem extending the notion of consciousness to inanimate objects, since it means that they have a group field that governs their existence.

You can throw the word "dogmatic" around all you like. That doesn't make it true. Every scientific theory conforms to the evidence or is discarded. That is the opposite of dogma. And there are theories of resonance dealing with distant pairs of electrons. That doesn't mean electrons are conscious. By all means, show some credible studies. This one guy's ravings are not credible. If his theories were sound, peers WOULD review his work.

It doesn't matter what they ACT like to our perceptions, Paschendale. Your argument is disingenuous. What matters is their factual quality as measured in units. Those measurements are NEVER constant. Don't you think that's a huge discrepancy in the dogma? We are calling them fixed laws even though they're fluctuating, which is trying to force the universe to conform to our human egos.

See above. The discrepancies he's talking about aren't really there. I get that you want to take this guy at face value, but nobody, not even a scientist, gets that. Everyone is subject to a lot of criticism and review. I'm curious as to how this fellow's ramblings, which are attempts at conducting science within the scientific method, are examples of subjects that science ignores. New scientific theories come about all the time dealing with new phenomena. Black holes, photons, artificial intelligence, all formerly unimagined ideas and now the focus of brilliant minds.

Disagreeing with your pet pseudoscientist is not being closed-minded or dogmatic. If he had compelling evidence, he'd be listened to. But he doesn't.



I'm with you on this one, Goshin. I have my Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering and--even as a person of faith--I tend to view the world from that perspective. However, I've seen and experienced things I simply am unable to explain and would never feel comfortable discussing for the very same reason you site.

Why be content to be unable to explain something? Why not go out and find an explanation?
 
I've been studying quantum mechanics a bit, off and on for years. I don't claim to understand it; I think very few in the world can really claim legitimately to fully grasp it.

There are some very interesting implications in it though. One being that reality seems to be somewhat observer-dependent... a photon can behave like a wave or a particle, but it seems to be nailed down only when observed... that is a lot of phenomena seem to be altered by observation, which makes no sense in common material reality. A zebra is a zebra whether you're looking at it or not, right? Well, whether certain particles are waves or particles apparently depends on whether/when you observe them. There's the phenomena that apparently you can't know an electron's exact position and exact speed/energy state both at the same time, only one or the other. Also the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and Shrodingers' Cat (sp?)... expressions that reality is observer dependent. The recent discovery that the fundamental substance of the universe is "grainy" (composed of discrete bits of spacetime) rather than "smooth", leading some to speculate that we live in a "simulation universe".

Quantum gets weird; some of its deeper issues are as much matters of philosophy as science, according to some of the leading researchers into the field.

the simulation universe stuff is really interesting. it's especially fascinating to consider a scenario in which humans advance technologically to the point where we can make one, and then those residing in that universe do the same, and so on.

it's turtles, all the way down.
 
Those seem like special abilities merely because we don't note all the times when we don't anticipate those things. We're gazed at constantly without being aware of it. Phone calls take us by surprise every day. And news, good or bad, come without warning. We only think that there's something mystical going on when we think about it first. We dismiss every instance when we don't think about it first.

You're referring to confirmation bias, which is something the study has accounted for. Again, you are dismissing without even looking at the proposed evidence. That makes you a pseudoskeptic.

There is no conspiracy to ignore evidence in the scientific community. The goal of science is to determine the truth.

The heaps and heaps of circumstantial reports on paranormal phenomena world wide which are so numerous that we now have the emerging field of paranormal science to try and examine it proves you wrong.

Yeah, that's not actually true. Our ability to measure such things are refined. I went and looked for evidence of these instances of changes to the speed of light or gravity. I found no credible scientific documents reporting the changes he talked about. The force of gravity, on Earth, at sea level, has not changed in hundreds of years. That it varies based on elevation is something that we likely discovered after Newton, but that is a refinement of existing theories, not complete overhauls.

So Sheldrake is lying about his metrology investigation?

You can throw the word "dogmatic" around all you like. That doesn't make it true. Every scientific theory conforms to the evidence or is discarded. That is the opposite of dogma. And there are theories of resonance dealing with distant pairs of electrons. That doesn't mean electrons are conscious. By all means, show some credible studies. This one guy's ravings are not credible. If his theories were sound, peers WOULD review his work.

It's funny you mention Newton, because he along with Galileo and Darwin were all independent thinkers who published their discoveries outside of the approved processes of the authorities of their times. Their theories, at the time, were ridiculed, but were later vindicated.

The fact that you call the work of someone trained in the scientific method and who has dedicated his life to expanding the field "ravings" just goes to show you are a dogmatist and polemicist underneath your attempted rational veneer.

Peers CAN'T and WON'T review his work because it does not adhere to the material reductionist model. What part of that aren't you understanding? Sheldrake is simply putting forth that there are a lot of other things happening that have potential validity which science CAN'T examine because it refuses to change the model. Peer review pannels consist of scientists trained in material reductionist thought.

See above. The discrepancies he's talking about aren't really there.

Evidence of this claim?

Sheldrake is a PhD who did metrology research. It's time that you start providing evidence for your dismissals.

I get that you want to take this guy at face value, but nobody, not even a scientist, gets that. Everyone is subject to a lot of criticism and review.

His ideas aren't being reviewed, they are being rejected without actually looking at his evidence. Again, this is a point you are totally failing to grasp.

Disagreeing with your pet pseudoscientist is not being closed-minded or dogmatic. If he had compelling evidence, he'd be listened to. But he doesn't.

He is being listened to, by a lot of people worldwide. Here is the TEDTalk blog page addressing the censorship. Feel free to read through the comments section to see how many scientifically minded people were extremely appalled by how his material was removed from TED.

You're a dogmatist, plain and simple. And you're a pseudoskeptic on top of it. You've just decided that it's not real, without looking at any of the evidence. You've assumed that your doubts mean concrete conclusions.

He's not my "pet", but please by all means continue to troll me with ad homs. It just makes you look even more like a hack.

Why be content to be unable to explain something? Why not go out and find an explanation?

There is already one proposed, you just won't look at it. You are the micro-example of the scientific community.

You're dogmatic, plain and simple. The thing about dogmatists is that they don't think of themselves as holding a "belief". They think they know the truth which is why they keep arguing over and over again. But you can always debunk a dogmatist by going through the list of pseudoskeptic qualities I listed earlier, and point out that they're not actually being rational. So please, do me a favour, stop asking for "proof" when you don't have the authenticity or integrity to even look at it.

There are scientists out there beginning to do the real investigations into different phenomena that mainstream science dogmatically refuses to even LOOK at, yet alone scientifically dismiss. Sheldrake is one of them. He's not my "pet", he's just a respectable scientist who is part of the growing counter-culture that is tired of the current model and know that science could be investigating such a wider variety of other things.
 
So there's a world beyond our senses that is natural but unperceivable? What do you think exists in that world, and what do you think goes on? I'm interested.



We get what we need from where?

Well, in my perception, it is sort of like a parallel existence or world. I am also inclined toward believing that reincarnation is very likely, based on experiences of a few people I know, and a couple of scientific-minded individuals that I only know via reading. There is nothing I have concrete evidence of, merely intuitive impressions and taking the word of others at face value. Since I don't objectively "know", I don't tend to try and convince anyone else, but I am comfortable with whatever reality is.
 
Anyway, some researchers were trying to figure out the fundamental substance of space-time underlying all reality, and the idea was that "if it was a simulation" of some sort, there would be some grainy-ness or noise among the quantum-size packets of reality indicating this. Some researchers believe they have found such a thing.

I've heard similar theories concerning the speed of light. A simulated universe would likely have certain set parameters and boundaries in order to save on processing power.

The speed of light essentially fits this criteria to a "T." It is a seemingly completely arbitrary speed limit imposed upon the physical universe which exists for no readily discernible reason whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that things fall outside of nature. "Supernatural" is just a word for something we don't yet understand, yet is still part of the universe.

If science is the marker of what is known, then that's not very much. The amount of what is known is always going to be far less than what is unknown. My problem with modern scientists is that they have a hard time accepting that their field has its own natural limits of understanding that it either hasn't crossed, or refuses to cross. There is a wealth of other kinds of human experience happening that science dismisses because it does not operate within the paradigm to examine it.

Science is material reductionist. Anything outside of the physical realm it typically will not look at, and thus a presumably large part of our universe is just ignored.



Honestly, I wouldn't. I've decided not to.

Berating science for not addressing the supernatural is like berating football for not having baseball gloves and homeruns.
 
Berating science for not addressing the supernatural is like berating football for not having baseball gloves and homeruns.

That's not a valid analogy... Science claims to search for truth through evidence, but then refuse to examine evidence that is anomalous to their current model of belief.

This is not arbitrarily forcing asinine rules that do not apply for the topic.
 
That's not a valid analogy... Science claims to search for truth through evidence, but then refuse to examine evidence that is anomalous to their current model of belief.

This is not arbitrarily forcing asinine rules that do not apply for the topic.

Then you don't understand my analogy. Science is a discipline with its own set of rules. And one of the most important rules is that it can only deal with what is measurable and/or observable. No rules for the scientific process have been established for allowing it to deal with anything that cannot be observed, measured and independently tested. Why? Because those are the rules of the scientific process. If you want a discipline that is set up for addressing the unmeasurable, unobservable and un-independently tested, then you need a different discipline with its own set of rules. As it happens, we already have that: religion.

Likewise, if you want to deal with baseball gloves and homeruns, then you need to stop playing football and play baseball instead.
 
Then you don't understand my analogy. Science is a discipline with its own set of rules. And one of the most important rules is that it can only deal with what is measurable and/or observable. No rules for the scientific process have been established for allowing it to deal with anything that cannot be observed, measured and independently tested. Why? Because those are the rules of the scientific process. If you want a discipline that is set up for addressing the unmeasurable, unobservable and un-independently tested, then you need a different discipline with its own set of rules. As it happens, we already have that: religion.

Likewise, if you want to deal with baseball gloves and homeruns, then you need to stop playing football and play baseball instead.

Take the one effect that has been proven and published, and that is the effect that you can often "feel" when someone is looking at you, (which was proven to be an effect that is overall accurate to about 8% better than chance). It's taken countless repeated studies before the p value came to a level where a proper deduction could be made, and even still the effect is considered "hoaky"...

You are right, science is about creating a hypothesis, developing a test of the hypothesis and analyzing the data.

So, there are a whole litany of questions that could be asked as hypothesis to be tested. Examples;

Is there an immaterial consciousness that exists independent of the physical body?

How would you design a test?

How would you design a test to find some form of intelligence that exists, but exists in a form that at most can only influence current conditions? What if this is a consciousness that has no interest in entering laboratory conditions?

Then, when all measures are taken to test various hypothesis, it is exceedingly rare that it is accepted for publish.

How is interaction with intelligence going to be "repeatable"??
 
Take the one effect that has been proven and published, and that is the effect that you can often "feel" when someone is looking at you, (which was proven to be an effect that is overall accurate to about 8% better than chance). It's taken countless repeated studies before the p value came to a level where a proper deduction could be made, and even still the effect is considered "hoaky"...

You are right, science is about creating a hypothesis, developing a test of the hypothesis and analyzing the data.

So, there are a whole litany of questions that could be asked as hypothesis to be tested. Examples;

Is there an immaterial consciousness that exists independent of the physical body?

How would you design a test?

Not a clue.

How would you design a test to find some form of intelligence that exists, but exists in a form that at most can only influence current conditions? What if this is a consciousness that has no interest in entering laboratory conditions?

If it has no interesting in "entering laboratory conditions," then science is probably the wrong discipline for studying it.

Then, when all measures are taken to test various hypothesis, it is exceedingly rare that it is accepted for publish.

How is interaction with intelligence going to be "repeatable"??

If it won't enter "laboratory conditions"? No idea.
 
If you want a discipline that is set up for addressing the unmeasurable, unobservable and un-independently tested, then you need a different discipline with its own set of rules. As it happens, we already have that: religion.

It's not that black and white though. It's not like we have to choose science or religion, as though these are the only choices. It's possible to venture into grey areas as scientists and acknowledge that we have to leave the model a little bit flexible in order to open ourselves up to potentially new avenues.

For example... a common argument against paranormal phenomena like telepathy is that it's confirmation bias. This is *always* the go to argument for dogmatic scientists. But the experimental data demonstrates, statistically, that there is likely more going on than that. The telephone experiment is a good example, along with the bystander gaze experiment. The rates are higher than 60%.

But how do we investigate these claims if science is not willing to acknowledge ESP? So you see, there is a problem there. We either journey into the grey zone or we keep pretending that something that could be possible, is simply impossible -- not because we have proven it as such, but because we've decided material reductionism and mechanistic life are the "laws" and so those claims should be dismissed.

You and others keep asserting that if something is observable then science will be willing to test it. Sheldrake and others have demonstrated that the peer review circles are staunchly against even LOOKING at research. That's a BIG oversight.

The discovery of new phenomena that is beyond our testing range always starts with mere observation, and then circumstantially-repeatable experiments. Then theories are developed. Then, with enough interest, we develop the tools to look harder. But if there is refusal to do the initial observation, the succession of events doesn't happen.
 
I am definitely a Skeptic with a capital "S". But I wasn't always. And I have experienced numerous things that I considered supernatural at the time. A disproportionate number of them happened when i was a kid.

-Astral projection
-Seeing little fairies fly around my room
-Hearing my name called out when nobody is around (this still happens every now and then)
-Long bouts of Déjà vu
-Waking up to an alien or demon holding me down
-Having that "feeling" that something was wrong and then soon after learning a family member died
-My friend and I, when we were maybe 10 years old, were chased by a red eyed shadowy demon one night when we snuck out of our houses. It was very scary.

I am sure there are others. I had a very active imagination but I also suffer from regular bouts of sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis can cause some pretty trippy experiences. And it feels as though you are actually awake, because you are. But the dream world bleeds over causing vivid hallucinations. It can also cause "out of body" experiences and the like. Back in the day I didn't understand all of that so I attributed it to the supernatural. Now I understand it is biology.

The brain is a very complex organ and it determines what we perceive as reality. Sometimes the brain can "misfire" causing a misinterpretation of reality. All day our brains are making up crap to fill in the missing gaps in our perception. We usually don't notice it. I still have bouts of sleep paralysis. But since becoming a Skeptic the hallucinations that accompany it aren't supernatural in nature. I guess it is because I know who is behind the curtain now.

I still hear my name called out sometimes when nobody is around. And sometimes it is in a voice I recognize, like my best friend, who lives on the other side of the world. They are auditory hallucinations and happen to many people, even if only a few times in their lives.

I don't judge people who think they have experienced something supernatural. I believe their experience was real, I just think they are misinterpreting what happened. I also know it is usually futile to try and convince them otherwise. Most people are of the "I believe what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears", forgetting that our eyes and ears DO play tricks on us. Such experiences can bring a little excitement to one's life as well, and there is nothing wrong with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom