Thread: Hey, all you skeptics!

Im quite sure hes joking hes one of the most skeptical people on these boards
Not read his SHC thread?

Originally Posted by ThePhilosopher

The Matrix is just the Hollywood version of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

except in this version, the freed prisoner comes back with guns and kills a bunch of his fellow bondsmen.

yea i hate when people start looking for scientific stuff to prove if it is real...fuck it

just try it and see it by your self

Personal experience is the best proof in my opinion, so I really like that above post.

what you see can be biased you know.


Guy1: I can make up wind.
Guy2: Then show me please!
Guy1: I cannot do it indoors...




That's a perfect allusion of the psiwheel you guys believe so much. Try t odo it without imagining things and putting mental effort: just mvoe your hands. Stactic eletricity is what moves it.


if static eletricity is psionics, then it is proven by science, you know xDDD

Haha, then it is? But ?sadly? it is not static. I will be the first to admit, the psi wheel is more of a belief builder then a sound showing of telekinesis for the obvious reason, and those that you stated.

But there are those of us who have moved objects a bit bigger than that. Of course, you would never believe that any way, so why should I even write it! :p

if you cannot prove it, don't even mind mentioning it.

Saying something without proof is as bad as lying to my eyes.

Can I please have some proof of that statement?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Saying something without proof is as bad as lying to my eyes.

Saying something withotu sources is like gossiping. It is like making up something and stating it as real without knowing if it really is. That is not moral at all. Like it if you want, it's not such a good thing to do.

So, I compare saying an unproved truth to saying a lie. Without proof, the truth is pretty much as meaningless as a lie. Science should not believe lies; science should not believe unverified truth.

I agree. You should not believe, yet. I believe, because I have proof. You shouldn't. I see that theory...seems to fit what I believe as well. I guess it's up to you to get proof now, if you really wanted it.

check the last PM I sent you

Alrighty. Going to check right about now.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Is that absolutely true?

Yes

Originally Posted by Mark75

Yes

lmao

Modern science is the culmination of metaphysics. It talks about a reality which we can't see with our senses, all the modern scientific statements rely on facts our eyes can't see, nor our ears can listen. However, it claims to be the only discipline to rely on facts, thus everything else being nonsense unless proved with those objects and instrument which show us part of the physical reality.

Science's vision is that of a mechanical/dead vision. It supposes to rely on "our senses", but its statements then deny what we "sense" from the outside world. When we taste something delicious, which give us tremendous pleasure, science then says, "actually, that wonderful feeling you get is nothing more then some substances that react with some nerves and your brain does some things as a consequence", or when you listen to a beautiful song, science says "actually, this feeling you get is nothing more than some mathematic waves which bounce onto some nerves, etc."

I think this cosmos is such a mystery, that there's no way we will ever find an absolute truth of what reality is. So science is nothing more than another "way of talking" about a reality we don't understand, and never will as a whole. So it's all about the perception and every unique point of view.

With that, I don't mean you have to believe or have faith in any stupid tale just because someone (or a lot of people) told you its the truth, and that it is as valid as any other thing. That's wrong. In order to believe in something I do think you have to have proved it. But it doesn't specifically have to be proved in the scientific way. You can experience things and prove things in ways science wont ever be able to, it's about "living" and experiencing in a subjective way. For instance, enjoying delicious taste of an ice cream, or knowing that Beethoven's music is much more harmonious than the noise of a turbine (scientifically, you can't say that because its just the size of the wave and its frequency what changes, and the rest is brain's fool "ilusion").

Exactly. Everyone's views on the universe are equally valid.

Originally Posted by polmc

It supposes to rely on "our senses", but its statements then deny what we "sense" from the outside world. When we taste something delicious, which give us tremendous pleasure, science then says, "actually, that wonderful feeling you get is nothing more then some substances that react with some nerves and your brain does some things as a consequence", or when you listen to a beautiful song, science says "actually, this feeling you get is nothing more than some mathematic waves which bounce onto some nerves, etc."

First of all, you are making science into something it's not. Science is something you use every day to make decisions and discover information. For example, if your flashlight stops working - here's what you will do, guaranteed
1) Hypothesis - maybe batteries died
2) Control - doesn't work with current batteries
3) Independent Variable - batteries used
4) Dependent Variable - functionality of the flashlight
5) Experiment - try new batteries
6) Result - it doesn't work, still
7) New hypothesis - broken bulb?

You should not limit science so much. Science is not some alien thing which only scientists do, it is the very essence of rational thought and feedback from experiments.

Secondly, you only see the explanations science provides as 'dead/mechanic' because you don't comprehend the beauty and elegance behind their functions. If you really take the time to study these phenomena, you will see that the waves propagating through your cochlea, the outer hair cells actuating, amplifying the vibrations, the network of neurons interpreting and reporting the sounds, are all just as magnificent as the music you're actually conscious of.

Originally Posted by polmc

I think this cosmos is such a mystery, that there's no way we will ever find an absolute truth of what reality is. So science is nothing more than another "way of talking" about a reality we don't understand, and never will as a whole. So it's all about the perception and every unique point of view.

With that, I don't mean you have to believe or have faith in any stupid tale just because someone (or a lot of people) told you its the truth, and that it is as valid as any other thing. That's wrong. In order to believe in something I do think you have to have proved it. But it doesn't specifically have to be proved in the scientific way. You can experience things and prove things in ways science wont ever be able to, it's about "living" and experiencing in a subjective way. For instance, enjoying delicious taste of an ice cream, or knowing that Beethoven's music is much more harmonious than the noise of a turbine (scientifically, you can't say that because its just the size of the wave and its frequency what changes, and the rest is brain's fool "ilusion").

To deny absolute truth is foolhardy - what's left then? Nihilism is a pointless venue. I agree with you that science will probably never discover absolute truth. But science is not about truth. Science is about modeling the world in ways which we can use to predict future phenomena in a way which is helpful to us. This may not sound much like 'truth' to you, but it's really the most 'truth' mankind is capable of understanding.

I also agree with you that you must prove something - at least to yourself - before believing it. However, I don't think you understand just how far the definition of science goes. For example, if you use the flashlight example above to discover that your batteries had died, you may think that you've proven to yourself that it was the batteries which malfunctioned, but that you didn't prove it 'scientifically'. But you did. Likewise, many 'proofs' which seem personal may well be scientific. The problem is not 'personal proofs', just inadequate proofs.

A great example of this is someone who has convinced themselves that they can make wind. They go outside and 75% of the time, when they think of a direction, the wind goes that way. They may consider this 'proof' and think that they don't need it to be 'scientifically' proven. However, they're not using something other than science, they're merely using bad science - they have no control experiment. A more rational person might make a computer program to think up a random direction every two minutes and see how often the computer is correct - it may well get it right 75% of the time as well, and it was just a coincidence.

Also, science does not contest that Mozart is more harmonious than a foghorn. The concept of 'harmonious' has a neurological basis.

Basically, what I'm saying is this - you seem to think that 'personal proofs' are somehow NOT science. However, I can't think of any that aren't... some are just BAD science - incomplete proofs which people accept without thinking too hard. Sure, science cannot necessarily discover the ultimate truth - but you sure as hell won't by just making stuff up and believing it, either. We NEED to use science in order to have rational communication of ideas.

Science, like math or logic, is just reason distilled. Anything done "for a reason" shares an essential connection with science, regardless of what those specifics reasons are (religious, superstitious, etc).

This connection is rationale, or the underlying reasons behind a thought or action. What makes science so unique is the way in which it attempts to "purify" its rationale in hopes of ridding it of any false connections or causalities.

The thing is that we do this on a daily basis, just not nearly as thoroughly as science does. Our actions are based off of the "experiments" that are our experiences.

I apologize for not specifying what I said. I was in fact not talking about science as a whole, I was talking about the attitude of the people who use the word science to deny what they don't think is true just because it doenst fit to their schemes.

Science can be beautiful or extremely interesting and the scientific method can be extremely useful, I'm not saying the contrary. But bare in mind that its not the only method.

Then there are people who believe it as the only truth (ironically, just like many religions). The word science is to a lot of people, like God is to christians, you get my point?

And about the absolute truth, it's not about whether we can actually attain it or not. We will never know we have attained it, right? It's about we being humble. We are like small ants trying to uncover the mysteries of Universe, we have to know our limits to avoid falling in prejudices and prepotence. And that attitude doesn't have to lead us to nihilism, not at all.

What I complain about the 'dead/mechanical' scientific perception of most of those people is this: "life is nothing more than just some atoms and eletrical/mechanical/magentic reactions, so we are free to exploit it since dreadfulness, pain and sorrow are just some chemical things which don't matter, and since we were "luckily" gifted with more neurons (intelligence) we can become the rulers of all".

And perhaps you dont think it so, but unfortunately it is a perception spread in the whole world and those hide behind the "science" to excuse their egoism, lack of sensibility and devastating attitude towards other beliefs and towards the magic of life itself. That is what I meant when I said science's perception

Originally Posted by polmc

Science can be beautiful or extremely interesting and the scientific method can be extremely useful, I'm not saying the contrary. But bare in mind that its not the only method.

My point is that it IS the only method. There are no other viable methods. These 'other methods' are really just incomplete examples of science, like my aerokinesis example.

I'd love for someone to give me an example of a truth arrived at without using science.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I'd love for someone to give me an example of a truth arrived at without using science.

Quoted.

You mean there are no other viable methods than the ones which follow:

Hipothesis, Control, variables, etc. in this order?

You mean all what we've discovered is thanks to this method?

If by science you don't just mean this method, but any kind of system that helps us prove something, then I'd agree with you of what science is...

by science we mean the scientific method I guess

It definitely crosses out a lot of unlikely theses

The only difference I see between sceince and reasoning is that one is more thorough than the other. Both are the same process, one just happens to be more refined. I can't think of a way in which we can learn something without making use of reason, can you?