by SM62 197 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Rem:
This is backwards, pre-scientific thinking.
Believe it or not, science isn't the be-all and end-all of existence, my friend
There is a myth out there that science doesn't know much about such things. This is untrue!
Agreed.
It has been exhaustively studied.
I disagree on this one, though.
If that were true, there would be no unexplained phenomena.
Xena,
Because they are the ones that don't believe it, therefore the burden of proof or lack thereof is up to them.Boy oh boy - you've got that completely backwards!
An example: I tell you that my dog flies around my living room with violet flames coming out of his ass while he sings opera.
You believe me, right?
You don't?
Who has the burden of proof - me for making a claim that goes contrary to observable reality, or you, because you refuse to accept such silliness?
According to what you just said, YOU have to prove me wrong.
Sorry to be taking over this thread! :)
LT,
::When I was last around a few folks who claimed the ability to see auras, I asked them what colours they were seeing (I now wish I'd asked them to write them down, without comment). They were unanimous in their observations.
That is why controls are important. Now if all auras are just a shade of yellow, then all observations will be unanimous, bot not exactly insightful. :) But what I'm really getting at is that there are many factors that have to be controlled - maybe all fat people have a certain colored aura, or sad people or bald people or women, etc. That's why it's important for everything to be random. If there is still a positive correlation then that's great - we've learned something new and can contribute it to society and others can expand upon it. If not, then it's just another failed theory... one of millions.
:Was the joke at my expense, or your own? Personally I think you are an intelligent guy
My pitiful attempt at self-depricating humor. Look, I did it again! hehe
Thanks for the compliment - I think you are quite intelligent too.
::::Can we get at least one such accomplishment from the paranormal? Even tiny effects, if they exist, should be able to be harnessed and engineered into something worthwhile to society.
::Like we do from art?
I think that's a bit of a red herring. Are we not talking about real phenomenon? If people could really see auras, the security line at the airport could go a lot faster! There would be real applications for such things. Sure art could be a side benefit, just as the technology that came up with the invention of the telephone also led to modern stereo recording and playback equipment - leading further to modern pop music. Is pop music art? Now that's a head scratcher. :)
But I think you get my point... art and science are not mutually exclusive. They can borrow from each other. Red paint on a canvas can also paint your house, or keep your boat from rusting. There is a corrolary application that can be made. I have not seen any such contribution from the paranormal camp.
rem
No if I claim not to believe you I have to prove you wrong....if you want to convince me then the burden of proof rests on youl
From what I could see on this thread no one was trying to convince anyone of anything, they were relating experiences. If you chose not to believe them and challange them, you need to prove them wrong, they have nothing to prove. Or conversely if they aren't hurting you or anyone else, you could just leave them alone.
I don't mind skepics, but I do mind intolerance and ridicule.
Rem:Your comment about "sad"ness, in contrast to fatness, etc., was nearer the mark. Mood affects certain layers of aura.
In the case of the test I invited, there were several different specimens.
Your comment about paint was the real red herring. Whilst a red house may well be a work of art, a Rembrandt is in a different league
LT of the, "I'm in a good, albeit goofy, mood today - but now have to leave for a three day road trip" classTake care, seezyas laters...
LT,
::Believe it or not, science isn't the be-all and end-all of existence, my friend
I know what you mean and in that sense I agree... but in a practical sense you may be completely wrong. Think about it. If science did not exist, there is a high probability that you would not exist. Science may very well be the be-all and end-all of both of our existence. :)
::I disagree on this one, though.
::If that were true, there would be no unexplained phenomena.
Not necessarily. Just because unsolved murders still happen doesn't mean that the science of murder investigation isn't backed by an exhaustive study of thousands of murders. But perhaps I'm using the word "exhaustive" in a more hyperbolic way.
rem
Little Toe,
Believe it or not, science isn't the be-all and end-all of existence, my friend
What is a more useful tool than the scientific method and rational analysis? The simple, demonstrable fact is that as man's mind has acquired an increaingly accurate understanding of the way the world really works, man's life has improved.
We have not "fallen" from a perfect state, we are instead moving up from eden, leaving superstition and ignorance behind, and benefiting as a result.
For example: strangely enough, prayers today are as effective a way of influencing reality as they were seven thousand years ago, and that effectiveness is near zero with no impoving trend. Apparently "prayer technology" was at its zenith long long ago. It has made no progress since Adam , Eve and Lucy came down from the trees they were living in.
How about some examples of metaphysical "technology" that works beter than science. You wouldn't want someone to get the idea that you were making baseless claims, would you?
Rem:
Think about it. If science did not exist, there is a high probability that you would not exist. Science may very well be the be-all and end-all of both of our existence. :)
So before scientific method evolved, there was no existence? Maybe that comment needs placing on Bradley's thread about "Why are we here?"
Couldn't resist - but now I really have to get going...
Take care - Byeeeeeeeeeeee
LT,
The house paint was not meant to be a work of art - it was to contrast a practical application (painting a house) with art (paint on a canvas) using the same medium (paint).
Xena,
Your statements about burden of proof are incorrect. Asking for evidenc is not trying to prove something wrong. So far the claimants have not provided any real evidence for their claims. This has been going on for over 100 years now. In fact, a $1 million dollar reward has been published for anyone who can prove a paranormal claim. So far nobody has claimed the million. Seems like it would be gone by now if it were so easy.
http://www.randi.org
rem
LT,
I thought my comment about science and our existence was self evident, but let me explain. The fact that science has improved infant mortality, prolonged lives, and increased the standard of living means that we may have never been born if science did not exist. Our parents may have died of some disease or our grandparents may not have lived long enough or through the birth of our parents, etc. It was more a point about contingency and that the existence of scientific method has a real contribution to our very existence.
rem
