|
Post by scientific method on Jun 6, 2013 19:02:23 GMT 9.5
Try the experiment and you may discover the answer. The thread is "Processes of science" so first publish YOUR results together with your protocols for peer review.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 7, 2013 13:48:02 GMT 9.5
This strikes me as a curious belief. It certainly simplifies the field of investigation but seems to me a rather mechanistic approach to the universe and perhaps dependent on a big bang approach.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 7, 2013 14:31:01 GMT 9.5
This strikes me as a curious belief. It certainly simplifies the field of investigation but seems to me a rather mechanistic approach to the universe and perhaps dependent on a big bang approach. atom -> planets -> Sun -> Sirius -> Alcyone wheels within wheels As below so above. Maybe this universe revolves around another... (going from West to East of course ... dpes West and East exist in space )
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 7, 2013 14:49:24 GMT 9.5
Does the isotropic belief require that the source of the universe is no longer active?
For example, in the process of emanation/formation of the universe there may have been density of energies in which the current laws (regularities) of physics were not present. Perhaps at very high energy densities what we call gravity may work in unexpected ways. If so, the commonly accepted regularities of physics might not be observed close to the emanating point of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Giordano Bruno on Jun 7, 2013 19:10:31 GMT 9.5
This strikes me as a curious belief. It certainly simplifies the field of investigation but seems to me a rather mechanistic approach to the universe and perhaps dependent on a big bang approach. Are you an astrophysicist now?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 7, 2013 20:31:37 GMT 9.5
I am a skeptic. Is that not sufficient?
|
|
|
Post by Harlan Ellison on Jun 8, 2013 2:07:04 GMT 9.5
"Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks."
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 8, 2013 2:32:27 GMT 9.5
i thumped my nose on uninformed opinion many a time myself (including my own). there r few things more annoying to a truth-loving person than seeing the effects of ignorance impacted on the world. imagine the cringe factor to some1 omniscient. being a god on earth must be devastating to moral. then again, being all knowing, it must know it will turn out alright in the end or it wouldnt have begun.
is it the love for truth that connects us, or hatred of the opposite?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 8, 2013 5:40:22 GMT 9.5
It seems that skepticism is not cool after all. Who would have guessed that?
|
|
|
Post by reason on Jun 8, 2013 16:53:07 GMT 9.5
Reason has two sides. Skepticism, especially with regard to extraordinary claims. And conditional belief based on credible and proportional evidence.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 8, 2013 17:18:53 GMT 9.5
Reason has two sides. Skepticism, especially with regard to extraordinary claims. And conditional belief based on credible and proportional evidence. So my statement that it was a "curious belief" does not meet your standards for skepticism. Skepticism is harder than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by reason on Jun 8, 2013 18:45:43 GMT 9.5
Get the facts and apply reason.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 8, 2013 21:29:00 GMT 9.5
..so if I see a ghost then it quite reasonable for me to assume that ghosts do exist?
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jun 8, 2013 21:45:36 GMT 9.5
i think the "right" question to ask would be: "what did i observe?" rather than: "did i just see a ghost?" the first question keeps an open mind, where the second is leading. for a scientist to say she saw a ghost, she must already be 99.9% sure it is a ghost. this renders your second question pointless.
if u observed a real ghost, ghosts must be real.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 9, 2013 8:52:06 GMT 9.5
.... I guess it might be better described as an apparition ... an appearance. I really am not in a position to further investigate. It certainly did not have the appearance or the energy field of an enlightened being ... nor an unenlightened being. Just an ordinary middle aged man wearing a green T-shirt, with a collar. What is the definition of a ghost? If they don't exist how can we define them?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 9, 2013 9:14:11 GMT 9.5
Rather than attempt to define ghosts it may be better to analyse the manifestation - using the mysterious ladder and "working tools" to identify on which rungs the manifestation exists and the nature of its connections to other entities.
What may be ghostly for one person may be invisible to another and relatively tangible to a third - depending on what planes and subplanes the observers can operate.
|
|
|
Post by Bertrand Russell on Jun 9, 2013 19:27:05 GMT 9.5
..so if I see a ghost then it quite reasonable for me to assume that ghosts do exist? Between whatever it was you experienced and your conclusion that you saw a ghost is an ocean of subjectivity. A more reasonable conclusion would be that you were mistaken, lying, duped or mad. " A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it." - Bertrand Russell.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 9, 2013 19:46:58 GMT 9.5
Mistaken, lying, duped or mad?
Nope, none of those.
|
|
|
Post by delusional on Jun 9, 2013 20:21:21 GMT 9.5
Mistaken, lying, duped or mad? Nope, none of those. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 10, 2013 11:57:59 GMT 9.5
I was watching a Sheldrake video: The Science Delusion
He proposes that mainstream science is based on the following beliefs:
- the universe is mechnical in its functioning & animals are also mechanistic, robotic in their actions - matter is unconscious - the laws of nature are fixed forever along with the various constants (Sheldrake recounts a decade when the speed of light was measured about 20km/sec slower than in the decades on either side. Does the speed of light vary?) - the total of matter and energy is fixed - nature is purposeless - biological heredity is material e.g. in genes - memories are material traces in the brain - mind is inside the head - psychic phenomena are impossible - mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works
No doubt other beliefs are possible but would they be acceptable in mainstream science?
Why not?
|
|