Evidence of Supernatural Ability (page 6)

GromitSK

You are incorrect .

EP a bit more detail would be interesting lol :)

EntirelyPossible

EP a bit more detail would be interesting lol :)

Let's work for this. First, what is color?

'What Tart claims is contradictory and the scientific community have not taken his ideas seriously. If psi is non-physical then it would be metaphysical and outside of the realm of empirical science to study. Tart is one of those parapsychologists who misuses science to try and appeal to a wider audience and sell more copies of his books.'

This is what is odd because Tart has found ways to study what people label as paranormal and he has done it empirically. This wikipedia contributor says that the scientific community have not taken his ideas seriously. What does that mean? I assume it means that no one wants to try and reproduce his experiments and put their reputation and funding on the line. So he/she has come to the conclusion that Tart is trying to sell lots of books. Interesting opinion.

InterestedOne

Xanthippe wrote:

... the scientific community have not taken his ideas seriously. What does that mean? I assume it means that no one wants to try and reproduce his experiments and put their reputation and funding on the line.

Your assumption unfairly characterizes the scientific community.

cofty

I assume it means that he has failed to publish a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal.

Getting the scientific community to take new ideas seriously takes a lot of work - as it should.

Lynn Margulis' hypothesis on endosymbiotic theory was rejected for lack of evidence for years. She didn't take shortcuts. She continued to publish and experiment and deliver lectures at conferences.

Eventually she proved her point.

Tart and others still have all their work to do and claiming bias is cop-out. If they are right they will be able to prove their ideas.

GromitSK

@ EP - I'd prefer to you explain why you say the poster was wrong. If you don't want to that's up to you. I think a long discussion about what colour is will take us even further off the topic. The statement on it's own didn't really help.

Sir Williams Crookes; Sir Oliver Lodge;John Logie Baird; Prof William Barrett;Prof Phiilippe Bottazzi;William Brown (Harley Street specialist);Thomas Edison;Prof Theodore Flournoy;Prof David Fontana;Paul Gibier;Prof Erlender Haraldsson;Prof Robert Hare;Prof William James;Prof Enrico Morselli. You might add Gary Schwarz - I would say he was eminent in his field - he is mentioned above; Charles Tart too. I am sure I am not doing the list justice but trying to make the point that many scientists have investigated the phenomena and found substance to it. They could all have been deluded, fraudulent or incompetent I suppose.

A list of researchers (not by any means all scientists, not exhaustive) but it will give you an idea. You can then look up their research for yourself if you have an interest. It is quite a useful website generally for those with an interest : http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/investigators.htm

@Xanthippe - I am not sure I would regard Wiki as an authoratative source. I have seen comments on there that I know to be incorrect in the past. It might be worth checking if Tart has rebutted any of the criticisms directly. Though this too will take us off into the wilderness potentially.

@Cofty - thanks for your comment re Remote Viewing. FWIW I agree :) - what kind of controls do you have in mind? (it's fine if you're bored with this and don't want to spend too much time on it lol)

So back to the questions: what would you consider to be supernatural and what would satisfy you it is genuine?

GromitSK

@Cofty

Getting the scientific community to take new ideas seriously takes a lot of work - as it should.

I think this must be correct. At the end of the day one would be asking people to risk their working careers and reputations on researching something that seems often, at best, very difficult to reproduce. I guess looking for Bosons is difficult too but at least there is a scientific framework underpinning it.

It would be a brave person indeed to take that step although a few have in the past. In addition, there seem to be very very few people who even claim to be able to demonstrate phenomena that would be worth a professional scientist committing time to.

off to bed :)

cofty

what kind of controls do you have in mind?

Good question. I wonder how somebody like Blackmore would set up an experiment like that? I'm off to bed but I will think about it - if the world doesn't end before morning :)

Xanthippe

Gromit, had to get some sleep that's why I didn't reply.

You said @Xanthippe - I am not sure I would regard Wiki as an authoratative source. I have seen comments on there that I know to be incorrect in the past. It might be worth checking if Tart has rebutted any of the criticisms directly. Though this too will take us off into the wilderness potentially.

I wasn't quoting Wiki as an authorative text. Cofty was. I was replying to his quote from Wiki.

I have replied directly to your questions, I just haven't put them in to a two answer formula.

I will rectify that now for you. You asked:-

1) What would you consider to be supernatural?

I would consider telepathy to be 'supernatural'. Although all physical phenomena seems 'supernatural' or at the very least weird without evidence, eg have you seen a Higgs-Boson particle?

2) What would satisfy me it is genuine?

I would require evidence that a psychic is reading my mind. Specific names. Specific facts. Not generalisations. That they wouldn't fish for information from me but give me the facts. Why, because this would show that there is more to mind than brain. That without speech or written words information is being transferred.

Gromit, if you look back this is what I have discussed from my first post on this thread.

So, Gromit, why do you ask? If that is not off topic or going in to the wilderness.

If I don't reply it is because I am going to work shortly.

Fernando

Hey GromitSK!

The point I was making is:

Where there is physical blindness it is difficult to provide proof of colour and light.

Where there is spiritual blindness it is difficult to provide proof of faith, spirituality, dimensions above space and time, and spirit beings.

I know I was born spiritually blind and kept that way by the Watchtower. I also know I have experienced a profound awakening over the last 7 years after an encounter with the full or unabridged gospel. My progress accelerated dramatically when I turned my back on any and all forms of religion in favour of the gospel map in scripture. I know I now can "see" (discern) many things I was simply unable to before. I know this and more is available to any that would find and pursue the same map hidden in plain sight in scripture.

"Religion is a bureaucracy between God and man." - Bill Maher

Evidence of Supernatural Ability

Share this