"Science" vs Metaphysics: The Definitive Debate

Now, granted, I may be no Bachelor of Science, but I've gone alot of places and seen alot of things. And while I respect the Scientific will to Want to Understand, I think that original will has become lost behind the (now overlying) Desire to Know Everything. Even this has broken into a smaller degree by the public masses as the Obsession with Making People Think I Know More than They Do. And it is with this downward spiral that Science is quickly turning into Just Another Religion.

I'd like to introduce exhibits A - Infinity.

The Debate between the possibility of metaphysical energies/occurances is older than alot of our sir names, yet is fought with as much conviction now, as it ever was. This is actually a three-way battle, instead of your basic two-sided-war, though most of the combatants themselves are so blinded by wartime-bravado, that they don't even know there are three parties fighting. Also known as: "f you're not with me, you're against me, and consequently Stupid."

We have:

Those who blindly believe whatever it is they hear in their scientific community, many times breaking their own moral code by Not Even Having the Evidence Themselves to prove their claim, getting by with parrotting an infinite cache of quotations by their favorite Intellectual Idol. These are the people who are usually enlisted in the same sciences they are blindly defending, therefore feeling they have more of a responsibility to 'liberate the incompetent by preaching the glories of science.'

Those who blindly believe whatever it is they are told in Contradiction to science, usually falling wholeheartedly into paranormal information, no matter what the subject matter, and believe that behind Every mainstream idea is a conspiracy. And though they may or may not be far from the truth in their assumptions, they allow whatever fantastic idea that they have come to them as the Truth Behind it All, and structure their beliefs accordingly.

And we have the undecided. Now, I may prove biased on this section, as this is the line that I fall under, but I believe I have good reason to. On this side, we have both scientist and the 'uneducated,' coming together with one simple revalation in common: "We Just Don't Know." It would seem to me, in regards to the other groups, "We Just Don't Know" is not acceptable. Either something is, or it isn't, it will, or it won't...the grey area is not a winner's circle. This is not true, but unfortunately, as with battles of religion, the fighters are usually the most blind as to what it is they are fighting over.

Everyone...skeptics....believers...open-minded.....Read This Debate linked.
As I have seen this conversation from an outsiders point of view Many times. And no matter how heated the arguement gets from both sides, I have Never seen an overall debate that didn't pretty much go the same way. Its lengthy, for some, but well worth it, and by the end you should be able to voice your own opinion on who you think was a better advocate for their belief, and why you think that way.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/con...athy_debate.htm

My vote?
Open-Minders: 1
Pseudo-Skeptics: Goose egg.

As per usual, the "metaphysicality cannot and will not exist" arguement was held up with a steady support of condescending phrases and a sort of pompous "what...you seriously believe in this crap?" And even while the other side presented an almost nauseating amount of evidence by way of scenarial statistics, they were shrugged off, dismissed mentally with either an aire of "they were hoaxed" or just ignored completely. (How many times do you think the skeptic will state in future speeches that there is still "No Evidence" of paranormality, even though he was just publicly exposed to about a half hour of recorded statistics?)

One of the attendees completely called Wolpert out when he noticed that Wolpert was first talking about how "Believers" don't try to "understand" why something works, and are thereby of a lesser class of 'explorers,' and then completely cornered him with the lack of understanding behind quantum physics...which is widely accepted in the scientific community.

Of all the 932894572+ examples of Scientific vs Paranormal theory....this article summerizes a very LARGE percent. Science is supposed to be about exploration, not building exploration around a certain belief structure, and refusing to think of the amount of possibilty that lies outside of that structure...

What good is exploration if you're only exploring areas you are Familiar with?

I look forward to seeing who all replies (or doesn't reply 8) ) to this thread.

Thanks for starting this debate, it might be quite interesting.
So far I have little to disagree with you about, and will read that thread on telepathy first.

What I particularly appreciate about your sentiments is that you try to understand the viewpoint of all sides. This multiplex attempt at understanding the situation is what is vastly lacking in arguments on the paranormal IMHO.

I vote for metaphysics. Why? Because things started happening, things science could not explain. Some curiosity and time later, I stumbled a site which makes one heck of a case for metaphysics (and the end of the world in 2012). It took the first half of the summer for me to read through the Convergence e-books (Shift of the Ages, Science of Oneness, Divine Cosmos) by David Wilcock. There was a link to a WILD tutorial on this site from that author, and that is what brought me here.

Information is power. Basically I see science as misinforming the masses, to keep them out of the know, so society stays subservient. Science and dogma are really terrible things that ruin people's lives. My dreaming led me to realize, my subconcious was polluted with fear, I was holding myself down. From now on, I like to question why. I have a feeling that most people will ultimately say "because that's the way things are" when actually getting to the bottom of an issue.

I really don't see any debate here. I feel like I understand now, I need to help others understand why our scientific foundation is wrong. I believe science has defended itself by not hearing others by saying "that cannot be right, it violates a principle of science". They never consider that maybe science is thoroughly flawed. Oh, BTW, I'm soon to have a bachelor of science (and engineering) at the end of the year.

Edit: Belisaurus, those are e-books which mean they are on the internet, and free of charge to read. Otherwise I would not have read them.

I don't think that the scientific method is a valid way to attain knowledge because it itself makes so many baseless assumptions that, while it's possible it's correct, it takes a leap of faith to bleieve that it is.

That being said, anyone who is proclaiming specific metaphysical theories as fact finds himself in an even more absurd position, as he doesn't even have a method by which he has arrived at his conclusions. However baseless the scientific method is, it is at least a uniform method. Most of these people are either rather illogical and delusional, or trying to sell something(as I fear the poster above me encountered).

So I guess that would put me in the "I don't know" category, and this is the only logically acceptable answer. The tools which we claim to use to understand the universe are by no means reliable, and so many things most people take for granted simply aren't granted. Whether you start with fundamental premises like science does, or you start with wild and complex ones as many metaphysical philosophies do, your premises are equally baseless and unsupported by logic. You can build a very tall tower of beliefs, but if the foundation isn't set in firm soil, it will not be able to stand, and in the world of man, there is very little firm soil.

Mmm this is an interesting topic indeed.

Firstly I will have to say that in this argument I am on the side of science. True science. What exactly do I mean by that? Well here's a little explanation:

To me science is the task of gathering information and experiences from the world around us and turing this information into knowledge, that is information that is useful and understandable. Science is a way of sorting out experiences, and trying to make them universally applicable through measurements and the use of variables, controls and various tested methods. Sound a little too 'cold and factual' for you? No, not at all, because the measuring and facts are only one part of science.

The facts and measurements make it so that other people can read, understand and use your results (Whoa, this variety of carrot grew 5 cm's in a week after using this fertilizer.) Through reading and understanding your results, someone else may decide to further that research, or even challenge it (ok, then how much will it grow using this other fertillizer) or (yes, ok, but how much water was it getting?) In this way, science makes one person's experience or information available to whoever cares to read it or learn about it.

Information/experience ----> knowledge.

Ok, so the other part of science is the exploring. The thinking, the wondering and pondering. The part of a person that thinks "why is the sky blue? why do I find fossils of seashells way up here in the mountains?" This part of science is the theories, things that might explain something, but it hasn't been properly researched or proven yet.

So what does this mean? It means that just because something might not be generally accepted in the wider scientific community (in the eyes of the public) it does not mean that science is somehow 'against' it. People who say "there are some things that science can never explain" to me are like conspiracy theorists. Some conspiracy theories might in fact be true, but many, when faced with evidence to prove against the thoery simply say "see? It's just a cover-up" or something along those lines (this is a huge generalisation, so dont' quote me on it). Science may not be able to explain some things currently, but the whole point of science is to attempt to explain them in the future.

A true scientist would not dismiss something without thought. A true scientist would look at it and think "well that seems strange... how does it work? How can I prove it, and if I genuinely think that it is impossible, how can I be completley sure of it?"

Here's a little trap with (some) metaphysical arguments:

"Some things just haven't been discovered by science yet. Just because telekinesis/telepathy/whatever hasn't been explained, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it means that it will be explained in the future. Look at all the things that people didn't think were true, and then got proven."

Well ok, this is understandable logic, but you have to be careful. Just because it isn't understood/explained now, doesn't always mean that it will be in the future. I'm not trying to say anything against metaphysics here, I'm just saying that people should be careful when using such reasoning. It might seem logical, but in fact it isn't.



Ok, so at the end of this rather long argument I'd like to say this: I am firmly, and most likely always will be on the side of science. Does this mean that I am against metaphysics? No. Do I beleive in metaphysics? No, beleif is a powerful thing, and shouldn't be thrown around so easily.

Metaphyics? I am curious about it, and willing to learn about it, try it and experience it. As a beleiver in scientific method, reasoning and the whole meaning of science itself I think that nobody should ever have a closed mind, yet nobody should accept things without experiencing them themselves.
Sorry about the rather long post, I might have contradicted myself a few times or tangled myself up in my argument, but let me know what you think anyways.

Length is of no importance. Very well said.

This would be an example of a truely scientifc mind, in my opinion; not putting the cart before the horse, just because the cart has a shiny new set of wheels. And while die-hard skeptics love to use the phrase "you can't disprove a negative" as a scapegoat to disproving metaphysics, they fail to note that most of the theories they insult those with open minds about also cannot be proven or disproven. They are simply more widely accepted by a "higher class" of intellect, and should be given a hypocritical Faith.

Great Topic Onieronaut.

I would like to offer up my two shiny Lincoln's,if I may.

I just graduated w/ a degree in electricty...one of the classes we were required to take was quantum mechanics.

I learned a lot in this particular class, to say the least. I left with a complete understanding of how electricty, and essentially all waves, act.

There's this concept in electricty that helps us understand waves and AC current and stuff. We view things through what is called the Frequency Domain...it's really deep, but you basically end up putting units of frequency [Hz]on the x-axis of a normal 2-D graph.

I'm leaving out a lot of necessary info, but the point is that electricty moves and acts the same as all waves in this universe. They just occur on different mediums w/ different frequencies, different wavelengths and yada yada yada. Any kind of telepathic energy transfer moves in a wave.

All energy is transferred through waves. All light we see got to us as a wave. There are waves traversing through us at all times.

The point is that there is math and science out there that makes is very easy to accept the existance of phenomena involving things like psychic energy. The best that pro-psychic energy people can offer up, as far as proof goes, is simply theoretical math that gives us thepossibility.

The current math's right now aren't able to accurately connect a few discrepancies that are currently stumping many badass scientists right now. This is part of what String Theory is hoping to achieve....accurately measuring objects smaller than what they call the "Plank" length. To give an idea, the best we can accurately calculate things could be around a million times larger than this elusive "plank length".

Psychic energy is probably the finest grade of energy any humans might be acutely aware of. It is absolutely essential to go as small or smaller than the Plank length in order to actually set up a real experiment that can prove the existance of psychic energy.

Again, I left out a lot, but I believe there is hope for those out there to have both their sceince, religion while eating it too.

Thank you for your time. Peace.

That was a good reading.
In the argument of science vs metaphysics I am on the side of metaphysics. I do believe that followers of "not traditional" ideas are underdogs in this argument and they have to keep a really open mind and provide the wealth of evidence that is being denied by accredited science.

PS. One of the interesting ideas coming from that debate was that science is acquiring almost a "religious" status with a specific dogma... I dont like that...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
We have:

Those who blindly believe whatever it is they hear in their scientific community, many times breaking their own moral code by Not Even Having the Evidence Themselves to prove their claim, getting by with parrotting an infinite cache of quotations by their favorite Intellectual Idol. These are the people who are usually enlisted in the same sciences they are blindly defending, therefore feeling they have more of a responsibility to 'liberate the incompetent by preaching the glories of science.'

---

I think, in general, you've got something with your characterization of the three standard ideologies represented during most discussions and arguments: The "True Believers," the "True Dissenters," and the "Skeptics" (I intend here the true meaning of that word, namely those who question).

However, I've got to disagree with your characterization of scientists. As one who has her bachelor’s degree in Physics and about a year and a half worth of research and laboratory experience, I can tell you that in my experience, most scientists are aware of what they don't know. They acknowledge the gaps in our understanding of the physical world and strive to fill them in, where possible. If you ask a physicist, "What is electricity, fundamentally?" you’ll probably get the answer, "We don't know." Ask that same question to some yahoo on the street and you'll likely be told with absolute certainty, "It's the stuff that comes out of the wall when you plug in the TV." No uncertainty there. No doubt. The scientists who work in a field, who are intimately familiar with its strengths, are also aware of its weaknesses. I’m not claiming that there are no dogmatic scientists, because there certainly are; however, I would argue that the majority are honest about the short-comings of their disciplines.

The most dangerous people are those who don’t know what they don’t know—those with limited knowledge who think they know it all. They’ll tell you that an electron is a little BB with a charge of 1.602*10^-19 Coulombs. They’ll cite all sorts of experimental evidence for their finding. And this evidence will likely be credible. Their opponent in this argument will claim that the electron is, in fact, a wave. They’ll cite slit experiments and diffraction patterns, and their evidence will be credible, as well. But both will be wrong—or rather, only partially correct, since anyone who has taken a course on electricity and magnetism can explain that the modern, quantum mechanical, description of the electron (and any physical object, for that matter) requires a wave-particle duality. The electron displays both wave-like and particle-like qualities, but is in totality, neither.

Those with limited knowledge are those who take extreme viewpoints and cling to them like a swimmer to a life-preserver in a roiling sea. They also look only for evidence that strengthens their position, disregarding all else. In this way, their beliefs become more and more polar. The voices of moderation, the skeptics, are those who either know nothing and know they know nothing, or those that know enough to know that they don’t know everything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
I don't think that the scientific method is a valid way to attain knowledge because it itself makes so many baseless assumptions that, while it's possible it's correct, it takes a leap of faith to bleieve that it is.

---

Actually, the point of the scientific method is to eliminate baseless assumptions. Go take some science classes before you make such blanket, baseless declarations.

Peregrinus said:

Quote:

---

The voices of moderation, the skeptics, are those who either know nothing and know they know nothing, or those that know enough to know that they don’t know everything.
[/b]

---

I once heard the quote. "The more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing." The way you put it sounds just as good.

Well said, on everything else, as well. :goodjob2:

I knew this would come back around, though, and I should have been more clear on the type of 'scientists' I was referring to. The concept of 'science' I've placed under the interrogation lamp is more or less the type that hides behind the facade of true science for the sake of being known as a "scientist" and giving props to the notion that their own logic is, in fact, the most logical. Again, I have nothing but the utmost respect for true science and its advocates. This respect has caused me to place True Scientists into the 'skeptic' catagorey, as opposed to the 'dissenters'.
True scientists are, fundamentally open-minded. Their recognition of 'not knowing everything' is in many respects the fuel that propels their explorative minds. And even in the face of a seemingly obvious solution, a true scientist will go that extra mile to discover any other possible variables or conclusions, even if they seem outlandish to the undisciplined eye; simply for the sake of exploration and discovery.
There is a certain ego barrier, I think, between the mind of a true scientist, or even that of an 'intellectual' so to speak, and the type of 'scientist' that I'm referring to with this topic. There has spawned (or quite apparently has always been) this race of dogmatism in the face of discovery that is counter-active to the sense of Discovery itself. A sort of shell has been placed over many facets of science, and it seems to revolve around the same, stable, playing field.
Now this is only my speculation from the outside. Again, I am no scientist. But even so, it seems it takes the sort of pioneers that are few and far between (at least in the public eye) to keep their focus upon the Real science. The type of exploration that extends beyond what your peers and colleagues (sp) would scoff at you for bringing to the table.
It also seems, unfortunately, that the Other side, the shelled, ego-centric (word?) side of science is the side that is more braizen (sp?) with their belief system. Just as Televangelists are some of the most passionate people about their work, many of them some of the most recognized people in the world, a lot of scientists make it a point to force their beliefs into the public eye, often resorting to insults and condescenscion to make their, usually unstable, points.
And its only my opinion,that the more negative side of the scientific yin and yang is bulldozing its way into the minds of society, that caused me to start this thread. Notice how that advocate for metaphysical possibility in the debate posted was so much more indifferent to the opponent's point of view. Even though he presented, in my opinion a wealth of supporting data that ran far beyond Wolpert's, he still took an "I'm just offering a different perspective" approach to the debate, even while his opposition discretely mocked his intelligence for doing so?
Insecurity spreads like wildfire, and it is this side of science that is praying on the public's insecurity of 'Not knowing.' They are shouldering their beliefs on others in feats of grandure and defamation of the opposition; the open-minded thinkers. And yet they seem to market themselves so much more, giving themselves so much more exposure to the world, trying to sway as many sheep as they can to their own field of perspective, giving them 'answers' to questions that yet to have answers. (much like religion)
It is only this side of science that I'm bringing under the gun with this topic. I give my full support to those venturing to dispell the myths placed by many 'mainstream scientists,' by way of Real, Unbiased science.

Ignorance is bliss, even in the minds of the intellectual, but forced upon the minds of the public, it is a weapon.

Hahhaaaa!
I love a good debate.
Oneironaut..... You are showing up where all the good debaters are.
I notice when a good debate arises all the good deabters come out of the woodwork.
I know enough that I don't know enough about this topic to reply with confindence.

But I did want to commend the debaters!!!!! :thumbup:

Thankya man. :cheers:
Its always nice to hear that someone actually gives a damn about my opinion. Hehe.

...and now that I actually pause to think about it...he royally Trashed religion in that book, dissecting how its a fabricated system of division and control no matter which belief system it preaches...but he did make some good, and some questionable opinions behind his reasons for believing so.

...so I'm not so sure about that J.C. thing?

Yeah I agree with you Peregrinus...

Damn this Philosophy forum has suddenly become so much more invigorating... it's like we're all sitting in some sort of... Gentleman's Club (with of course ample seats for the ladies) and we're all sitting around smoking tobacco pipes and quoting Descartes or something... I like it haha.

Where do you think the stigma of 'narrow-minded' scientists has come from? I'd be curious to know because it seems that somehow there seems to be a perpetuated image of scientists being stuck behind formulas and textbooks and mathematical equations and never bothering to step outside and look at the world. I myself used to kind of share this view... I'm more of an artistic person than I am a mathematical one, but recently I've kind of opened my eyes to science. I guess that was through learning biology... you suddenly see inside cells and start thinking of things that you never did before... you start to understand why things work, which I think is probably the most satisfying thing in the world.

Anyway... I think somehow in the media science has had a bit of an image-change. Personally I think it is because of some sceptics that don't actually research (or attempt to research) the science themselves, but try and use various scientific results to back up their arguments. Ok, it's a bit of a generalisation here, but I feel that there are some people that are... maybe afraid of thining of other things, and by using as many facts and figures as they can they say that some things are impossible, and that science somehow proves that it will never happen. They're not using science to proove their point, just facts and figures. Because of this I think that many people feel science is only the facts, figures and graphs, and that's when people start talking about materialistic science. Scientists aren't hiding behind facts and figures, the people that hide behind these are the people that somehow get the idea that the more cynical and factual they are, the more intellectually superior they become.

I also heard an interesting thing on the radio the other day. They were talking about just this kind of thing, and how the media has begun to turn away from facts and figures and towards a more supernatual theme. In Australia recently there have been a lot of shows on commercial tv stations with a supernatual theme, along the lines of "a true story!" or "do we really know what's out there" etc etc. While there is nothing wrong with wondering about the supernatural etc, they were talking about how some of these programs gave the impression that what they were talking about was 'the truth'. The reason behind it? Well, funnily enough it sells. The audience likes to be told that there is 'something else out there' or some kind of 'hidden truth', because it is a kind of fantasy. Everyone likes a good fantasy (look at the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars) in which they can escape from the world we live in, which sometimes can be seen as cold and factual.

Maybe this kind of thinking is why many people feel that science is too materialistic. I'm not saying that metaphysics or supernatural elements (I guess they're two completley seperate things though) are bad or wrong, just highlighting how sometimes they can be portrayed incorrectly in the media.

Maybe it's just people's fear of change. Maybe that "negative side of the scientific ying and yang" (nice description, Oneironaut) is because some people or scientists feel that if metaphysics were perhaps true, then it would somehow disprove science as they see it. That's probably the feeling people had when first confronted by Darwin's Theory of Evolution - that if it were true then it would disprove the whole of Christianity. Maybe it's just because the whole metaphysics issue has been clouded in a kind of mystical, 'new-age' or supernatural veil, and is therefore lumped in the same basket as tarot-card reading, horoscopes and other 'voodoo' stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Roller
Scientists aren't hiding behind facts and figures, the people that hide behind these are the people that somehow get the idea that the more cynical and factual they are, the more intellectually superior they become.

---

Well said. I think the source of much confusion in debates about science is a failure to recognize the difference between the culture of science and the scientific process.

The scientific process is that rigorous method of inquiry which seeks to isolate and then test a specific hypothesis, thus eliminating confounds in the data.

The culture of science is politics. It's what happens in department meetings at major universities, in the editing room of science magazines, during peer review of scientific journals, at congressional funding committees, at national and international science foundations, etc.

In popular media, sensationalism sells. "A Ghost Ate My Husband" is the stuff of front-page, Armageddon-font-size headlines. In scientific publications, it's quite the opposite. Because, as the adage goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," a scientific journal is going to be reluctant about being the first to publish an article that claims to have evidence that overthrows some established scientific understanding. One article against an entire history of articles—what’s the likelihood that that one scientist claiming a scientific revolution made an error somewhere compared to generations of scientists being in error?

The scientific organization (where the culture of science is born, incubated, and nurtured) does not want to take the risk of publishing such an article for fear of having to print a "whoops, we bad" retraction for not thoroughly investigating the article if it turns out to be in error. No established scientific organization wants to run that risk. So how does such a revolutionary finding get published? It requires a build-up of evidence, so much that it can no longer be ignored. One article won't do it. Of course, it's very difficult to get funding to do revolutionary research in the first place. If a surprising finding results from what was supposed to be fairly standard fare, that’s one thing, and more likely to be published if the surprise is a small one rather than a radical one. If a research psychologist were to go to his or her department chair and ask for funding for a project to investigate the existence of telepathy, s/he would likely get one of four reactions: 1) laughter, because clearly this must be some kind of joke 2) sent on early sabbatical because obviously the stress has become too much 3) sent to a shrink 4) dismissed because controversy is not what the university wants right now.

Even if an individual scientist is interested in a controversial or revolutionary subject, he or she will find it very difficult to finance and publish the research. Another problem is that some scientists who make their careers at status-quo oriented organizations become somewhat indoctrinated into the culture. They tailor their work to that which is culturally acceptable and can sometimes lose that curiosity for the radically new. Instead of hearing of some early revolutionary finding and saying, “Wow! I wonder if that’s true? I think I'll check it out myself.” they start to think, “Psh, yeah right – like that’s accurate.”

For a far better explanation of the culture of science and the inertia of the scientific-status-quo that resists revolution, I highly recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

To start, I will say I mainly agree Oneironaut. True scientists and metaphysicists ideally are one in the same. Consider physics and metaphysics, or nature vs. super-nature. I think this is wrong. I think this is a giant misnomer, because whomever coined these terms did not understand. Metaphysics should be named physics, and what we now call "nature" should be "sub-nature". The best way to fight this is to use their evidence against themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
As the adage goes, \"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence\"

---

Would this mean that less than ordinary claims would require less than ordinary evidence? I see metaphysics as ordinary, and physics as subpar. Logically, this proposition cannot be implied. But if we consider \"extraordinary evidence\" as standard, what choice do we have but to label ordinary evidence as sub-standard.

By the way, extraordinary things don't happen nearly as often as ordinary things. It is more difficult to collect data, and then they also want them to jump through more hoops? Talk about stacking the deck.

New topic. In general, it is better to know why things happen instead of what they are. I don't care if you can tell me what a tornado does, tell me why a tornado does what it does. For example gravity is an attractive force between two bodies. Wouldn't it be better if we could say why gravity is attractive, and not repulsive. Why gravity pulls directly toward the opposing body's center of mass. That is why Earth's gravity pulls straight down, towards the center of the Earth. Why does gravity decrease as we go towards the center of the Earth? If you can answer those, I'll give you more credit than someone who can define gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Roller
Where do you think the stigma of 'narrow-minded' scientists has come from?

---

I think a better question is \"Why are some scientists narrow-minded\"?
In the beginning, there were people who understood how the universe worked. They divided into two secret societies, one which wanted the truth to be known, the other which thought it had to protect it.
To make a long story short, those protecting the truth would kill anyone that challenged them. So, the second group, which wanted to teach all, had to stay silent so they could pass along their knowledge in secrecy. Who do you think did all the talking and founded science during this time? Certainly not those who wanted to tell the truth.
In a way, this is implying that science, not true science, has had an agenda since the beginning. I wonder how much Ev will like that declaration.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
...anyone who has taken a course on electricity and magnetism can explain that...any physical object...requires a wave-particle duality

---

I believe everything exists as waves, standing or propagating, and particles are also waves. On a bolder scale, I think the universe responds to the will of people. Also that things only exist when necessary. For example, if nothing is observing your trash can, how do you know it is really there? The quantum realm is tricky, because not many people care about how a singular "particle" behaves. It can be influenced by will, and if physicts want to find a particle, they'll find a particle. If they want to find a wave, they'll find a wave. Some suggest a particle as a wave with an amplitude that only briefly jumps high.
Amplitude(x) = _______________|¯|___________ * where the amplitude is mainly zero (along the x-axis).

I was going to go into why quantum mechanics is wrong. But I think I'll stop here, for now.

Um... all I can say is... what???

Quote:

---

In the beginning, there were people who understood how the universe worked. They divided into two secret societies[/b]

---

Umm... what are you talking about? Two secret societies? Those protecting the truth would kill anyone that challenge them? Sounds like you've been reading too much of the Da Vinci code...

Quote:

---

In a way, this is implying that science, not true science, has had an agenda since the beginning.[/b]

---

What exactly is that agenda? What is your definition of science, and how does that differ from 'true science'?

I'm a little lost here...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DistantClone
To start, I will say I mainly agree Oneironaut. True scientists and metaphysicists ideally are one in the same. Consider physics and metaphysics, or nature vs. super-nature. I think this is wrong. I think this is a giant misnomer, because whomever coined these terms did not understand. Metaphysics should be named physics, and what we now call \"nature\" should be \"sub-nature\". The best way to fight this is to use their evidence against themselves.

---

Oh man, not again. :roll: If an area of study cannot be discussed and investigated in a scientifically rigorous manner, it should not have the root-word of a well-respected scientific discipline. Period. \"Metaphysics\" is not physics. In its best forms, it is most akin to philosophy and spirituality. If its claims cannot be proven in a scientific manner, it is not science.

Quote:

---

Would this mean that less than ordinary claims would require less than ordinary evidence? I see metaphysics as ordinary, and physics as subpar. Logically, this proposition cannot be implied. But if we consider \"extraordinary evidence\" as standard, what choice do we have but to label ordinary evidence as sub-standard.[/b]

---

You are missing the point entirely. If you make a revolutionary claim, the burden of proof is on you to convince others of its veracity. The bolder and more revolutionary the claim, the bolder, more rigorous, and more convincing your evidence must be. If you claim you can roll a pencil across the desk with your mind, you’re going to have to do more than make a single internet video of a pencil rolling across a desk. If, however, you claim that by blowing on the pencil, you can cause it to roll across a desk, that one video is probably fine (mainly because no one is going to care, but also because it is well-established that moving particles of air exert a force on an object that, if sufficient to overcome any frictional forces, will cause the object to move).

Quote:

---

By the way, extraordinary things don't happen nearly as often as ordinary things. It is more difficult to collect data, and then they also want them to jump through more hoops? Talk about stacking the deck.[/b]

---

That’s not stacking the deck. That’s a logical requirement necessary to eliminate false conclusions drawn from coincidental or anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

---

I don't care if you can tell me what a tornado does, tell me why a tornado does what it does.[/b]

---

You want to know why a strong tornado levels towns and forests, rips up foundations and flings roofs like Frisbees, shoots straws through chickens’ necks and 2x4s through cars? Because, as mentioned before, 300+ mph winds and intense pressure gradients exert a force on standing structures which, if sufficient to overcome any chemical and mechanical bonds within the structure, destroy them and send the pieces hurling through the air at high speeds. The extremely high kinetic energy of the debris is what is responsible for the many strange and unusual sights observed after many tornadoes (e.g. straws stuck straight through a chicken's neck, etc).

Quote:

---

Wouldn't it be better if we could say why gravity is attractive[/b]

---

Because that is the nature of the gravitational force. Why do two like charges repel while opposite charges attract? That’s the nature of the electromagnetic force. Btw, there is currently ongoing research to verify the theoretically-predicted existence of the subatomic particle which is suspected to transmit the gravitational force (the graviton); however, as far as I know, sufficient evidence has not yet been found.

Quote:

---

Why does gravity decrease as we go towards the center of the Earth[/b]

---

This requires a diagram and a bit of calculus to explain, but if you really care and have the mathematical background, I’ll show you.

Quote:

---

Also that things only exist when necessary. For example, if nothing is observing your trash can, how do you know it is really there?[/b]

---

If a tree falls in the forest… I think this has been done before.

Quote:

---

The quantum realm is tricky, because not many people care about how a singular \"particle\" behaves. It can be influenced by will, and if physicts want to find a particle, they'll find a particle.[/b]

---

You want to explain where you got this idea and what evidence you have to back it up. It is not what the physicist wants that determines which properties, wave-like or particle-like, are displayed, it is the nature of the experiment. If I perform an electron diffraction experiment, it doesn’t matter how much I may want to have a big glob of particle-like electron BB hits show up on my phosphorescent screen, I’ll still get a diffraction pattern. Your claim is also completely illogical in the face of a changing understanding of the world. If what people expect determines what will manifest, then change would never occur, because people expect what has always been to continue being.

Quote:

---

I was going to go into why quantum mechanics is wrong. But I think I'll stop here, for now.[/b]

---

No, please do explain why the arguably most ubiquitously successful scientific theory of all times is incorrect.

DistantClone wrote:

Quote:

---

To start, I will say I mainly agree Oneironaut. True scientists and metaphysicists ideally are one in the same. Consider physics and metaphysics, or nature vs. super-nature. I think this is wrong. I think this is a giant misnomer, because whomever coined these terms did not understand. Metaphysics should be named physics, and what we now call \"nature\" should be \"sub-nature\". The best way to fight this is to use their evidence against themselves. [/b]

---

Hmm. Well while I appreciate the support, I just want to make it known that I made no declaration that they were the same. I only state that they must have the same sort of mind-set: The generally open-minded and critical-but-not-to-the-point-of-biased persuit of exploration. However they can apply that morale yet still work on two opposite sides of science. Wherever there is uncertainty, there is room for seperate teams. But both of these have to at least acknolwedge the successes and questions brought forth from the other side (in respects to those \"true\" scientists who both do and don't believe in metaphysics.) But even a metaphysician can show bias over science in favor to their undying belief in metaphysics. But crossing this line would take them, in my mind, out of the light of a \"true\" scientist, and into that of a 'dissenter'. Simply one that is opposite a 'pro-physics dissenter'. To say what you've said would be to imply that Nature Factually expands passed the dimensions and physics we now know. And while there may be evidence of this, it doesn't yet extend into the area of Truth in our collective mind. It's for this reason that I could not call our human understanding of \"Nature\" anything less than what it is. But I see where you're coming from.

DistantClone wrote:

Quote:

---

By the way, extraordinary things don't happen nearly as often as ordinary things. It is more difficult to collect data, and then they also want them to jump through more hoops? Talk about stacking the deck.[/b]

---

Peregrinus wrote:

Quote:

---

That’s not stacking the deck. That’s a logical requirement necessary to eliminate false conclusions drawn from coincidental or anecdotal evidence.[/b]

---

Unfortunately, this is subject to the opinion of the witness/judge, which is a vital turning point between "True" science, and the shut-in, pseudoskeptic applications. An observer of the event that is pathologically expectant of fraud will be much more persistant with changing variables in the experiment, focusing more on the failures under 'controlled conditions' than the 'coincedental' successes. The fact of the matter behind many metaphysical concepts are that they are applications of mental power. A relatively unfamiliar mental power, even to those who claim to have some confidence in their abilities. (though I'm not saying whether or not what they claim is true at all) The difference between an experiment done with physical variables in a physical environment, and those done on subjects like telepathy, telekinesis, and the like, is that the mind, in itself, is an unstable environment. Aside from the tangible, 'controllable' factors, there come into the mix that of the subjects mood, mind-state, anxiety, comfort, focus, dedication to the task, harmony with this 'ability' at that moment..and almost countless list of, often unaccounted for, variables. Coupled with that, any variable changed to further test the validity of a claim is (Potentially!) burdening the outcome of an already unstable experiment with the growing factor of Chance of Failure. This, in itself, proves that while the scientific method may be the most logical process we know of, its reliability falls considerably when dealing with such unfamiliar territory. (though again, I'm not rendering it useless, simply hindered) The harder your opposition to the metaphysical, and the more insatiable your appetite for proof, the easier this is to exploit. I think this is just one of many 'backdoors' hardcore skeptics use to further tip the scales of arguement in their favor.

My two cents

There is not really 'Science' vs 'Metaphysics'. It is just ignorance vs ignorance. They are subjects of truth and by themself are not wrong, but defined by those who use them. That is where the foolish debate comes from. I try to keep away from foolish discussions that result in arguments about 'knowledge'.

The problem with our society is subjects of truth are fragmented, and fight against each other. Interesting to note how effective this is in rendering those on both sides powerless.Since they become against each other. One can't help but consider if it was designed this way with a certain goal in mind.

Anyway You cannot fragment truth.

My advice is merely use your reasoning, intelligence, and everything you have. To learn the best way you can. Follow the highest you know. And build upon your understanding the best way you know. You will know because you will put it into practice. It will not be a copy from something else you will be living your truth. Stick to what you know and have faith in what you believe, which will allow you to know more in time.

I would not be a 'fence sitter'. It's better to be decided than undecided. If you are scared to go through the door in fear of being wrong, you will never make it through the door and you will be rendered neutral and weak and you will be tossed about by the 'waves' as they come. You need to take a stand and believe in something, and make an effort. Or you are not really living life to the fullest. Being decided and having some faith is more effective as it allows you to move forward, if done correctly. Overall I would say Never let anything get in the way of your truth as you find it. And do not be distracted or side with fragmented subjects of truth, fighting against each other. You need to take in the entire picture, and more energy and attention should be givin to supporting both sides and proving what you know, and having faith in what you believe, while you move forward. Rather than putting all your attention on what is not true and trying to prove who is wrong.

I'll address Roller to start. I'm not too informed, since what I read suggested I consult some books. A more specific, clear description about masonry can be read here. It's a long read, so search for "mason" if you want to get right to it. Basically they were enlightened, by higher forms of life. They knew how the universe worked, but wanted to keep this secret.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
Oh man, not again. :roll: If an area of study cannot be discussed and investigated in a scientifically rigorous manner, it should not have the root-word of a well-respected scientific discipline. Period. \"Metaphysics\" is not physics. In its best forms, it is most akin to philosophy and spirituality. If its claims cannot be proven in a scientific manner, it is not science.

---

It has been studied and discussed in a scientific, rigorous manner. All the evidence in research is there in the initial link I posted. The claims are immediately dismissed because they require the concept of \"(a)ether\" and that automatically gets them a \"No\".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
You are missing the point entirely. If you make a revolutionary claim, the burden of proof is on you to convince others of its veracity. The bolder and more revolutionary the claim, the bolder, more rigorous, and more convincing your evidence must be.

---

You are missing my point. There is nothing saying these claims are revolutionary, except those that want to make things more difficult. Realize that established theories are usually the first attempt to understand things. We usually know less about something the first time we try it, as opposed to the second time. Quantum mechanics and Relativity are good examples. It would make sense that newer theories are more complete. Especially when the new theories can explain problems that the original models cannot.

As far as convincing goes, realize that the majority of people don't understand physics, much less metaphysics. Sure they \"know\" F = ma, that doesn't make them an expert. How can a small percentage of society make the decision for everyone?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

That’s not stacking the deck. That’s a logical requirement necessary to eliminate false conclusions drawn from coincidental or anecdotal evidence.[/b]

---

No, it's an illogical requirement and unnecessary. Any claim that requires more evidence than another means there is an unlevel field. If things weren't wrong, people wouldn't have anything to hide, and it would be an equal opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

You want to know why a strong tornado levels towns and forests, rips up foundations and flings roofs like Frisbees, shoots straws through chickens’ necks and 2x4s through cars? Because, as mentioned before, 300+ mph winds and intense pressure gradients...The extremely high kinetic energy of the debris is what is responsible for the many strange and unusual sights observed after many tornadoes (e.g. straws stuck straight through a chicken's neck, etc).[/b]

---

I want to know why there are 300+ mph winds and why there are intense pressure gradients. Why is there extremely high kinetic energy?

Also I disagree with the straw and 2x4 going through the chicken or car. I think they are actually fused into each other, as one. My favorite example is the cow that was found half inside the house, half outside the house, part of the way up the wall. The cow was still in one piece, so was the house. They were not damaged in any way, except the cow was dead (no broken bones or framing).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
Because that is the nature of the gravitational force. Why do two like charges repel while opposite charges attract? That’s the nature of the electromagnetic force.

---

No, not good enough. Why do we stop trying to understand here? There is more to it. Push deeper.

Eventually, it will be necessary to stop, and define axiomatic laws of the universe. I think there are exactly seven, which govern the entire universe, from the quantum realm to the cosmic realm. Several of these include Cause and Effect, Karma, etc...I just looked for the article online, but I can't find it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus@
This requires a diagram and a bit of calculus to explain, but if you really care and have the mathematical background, I’ll show you.

---

I do have the mathematical background, but the answer I was looking for is more than the math model, it includes the concept of levity. It defines what the cause of gravity is.

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus
You want to explain where you got this idea and what evidence you have to back it up.

---

Again, it comes from e-book I read. See section 2.6 Here are some described experiments that show how emotion/knowledge can be transferred.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
Your claim is also completely illogical in the face of a changing understanding of the world. If what people expect determines what will manifest, then change would never occur, because people expect what has always been to continue being.

---

What you don't understand is that is anything conscious has a will, and the ability to influence things. Atoms, people, planets are all conscious and all capable of influencing things. It takes time, and a lot more will than just \"No things can't change\". It's not often people think \"Gee, I really want the world to stay exactly how it is\". It is about emotion and how strongly you feel. People really don't care that the world is going to stay how it is. You also need to concentrate your thought.

It's like water. When pressurized and concentrated, it can cut through diamond and stone with amazing preciseness. When not focused, like coming out of a low-pressure hose, it will hit an object and bounce off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
No, please do explain why the arguably most ubiquitously successful scientific theory of all times is incorrect.

---

I'll even throw relativity in as a bonus. Two assumptions made for Relativity are:
1. The speed of light is constant, and nothing can travel faster.
2. There is no center of the universe, all things are relative.

There are massless particles, like photons that can travel faster. Light sent through magnetic fields have had about 3 times the normal speed of light. Also, there has been investigation into the decrease of the speed of light (although from now and on it won't change more than the margin of error).

Second, the universe does has a center, according to me. Galaxies are relatively flat, like discs, in one dimension, that certainly brings this claim closer. What is this center you might ask? God, of course. I think an equal argument can be made that there is no center of the universe though.

On to quantum mechanics. Scientific experiments showed that an electron is outside the nucleus of an atom. Scientists assume there have to be quantized orbitals. Why? Because otherwise there would have to be some energy to keep them from being sucked in by gravity, the atom would collapse.

First, there is research that electrons are simply in probability clouds, which justifies Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. However it is my contention that there is a very source which gives atoms (and people and planets) this energy is inward flowing (into the body). This inward flowing, goes through the middle of a body, and right back out the other side. Further, this inward flowing is exactly what causes gravity, and levity, and inertia too. Einstein's Principle of Equivalence states that the magnitude of gravity and inertia are identically the same.

Conclusion
First it should be observed that this model of physics is incomplete. The conveniently stop explaining...when they can no longer understand. There are some things that are wrong, some are incomplete, and it will take a major overhaul. This has been done, it's all been collected into the Convergence e-book. All the science has been broken down into simple terms for the commoner to understand. Otherwise, how can we expect people to understand what scientists can't?

Eh... I need a cup of coffee to get through all this lol... :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus


Actually, the point of the scientific method is to eliminate baseless assumptions. *Go take some science classes before you make such blanket, baseless declarations.

---

The scientific method, relies on such baseless assumptions as "All things have a cause.", "My senses accurately depict the world to me.", and "My memory accurately depicts what my senses have shown me." These assumptions lie at the base of empiricism and the scientific method. The point of the scientific method may be to eliminate baseless assumptions, but in it's reliance upon the very sort of assumptions it seeks to eliminate, it shows itself to be a hypocritical failure.

http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/MINDOVER.htm

...mad circles