Thread: What is Science?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As I understand it, positivism says that it's impossible to say what's "real" and what's not. What we can do is demand that statements that we make conform to sensory experiences which we have. It's a lot like Buddhist metaphysics up to here. Beyond that, it adjoins the assumption that rational and mathematical descriptions of that sensory experience constitute knowledge as well.

I'm still not very clear on what positivism means... to me, this description essentially just delineates science in general. Are you saying it exists mainly as a contrast to the idea that science deals with 'actual reality' rather than just good models?

This question is interesting, and ties in to what you said above; what is the ontological status of a model of reality?

In my opinion the question is literally meaningless. I've gradually come to the conclusion that there is no such a thing as a 'real mechanism' behind observations; it's a delusion of the human mind that this makes any sense, or refers to anything. If two models have the same consequence, they share ontological statuses; for example, force carrying particles versus forces acting at a distance. Whether one or the other is 'right' doesn't make any sense. The statements 'everything is just one particle' and 'everything is not just one particle' are both as right and as wrong as each other.

Also, while we we never say that evolution is caused exclusively by natural selection, our current model of the evolutionary "tree of life" as a whole is falsifiable, e.g. we could dig up a rabbit from Precambrian rocks to use a classic example. This would falsify that model because that model calls for rabbits to appear later.

Yes I know, I was careful to talk about natural selection rather than evolution.

With respect to evolution... from my preliminary reading I've gotten the impression that falsification is the main focus of positivism, but I'm not totally clear on how that works, epistemologically. It seems to me that all an observation can really falsify is the converse of that observation. A precambrian rabbit only falsifies the lack of precambrian rabbits. Perhaps they evolved separate from our tree of life; perhaps they just popped into existence one day. Maybe the universe works like that. But on the whole things work by evolution. A positive (as opposed to the negative statements of positivism), inductive statement is necessary to doing science.

Are you suggesting that an inductive step between the presence of a Precambrian rabbit and the current model of the "tree of life" is required - otherwise we'll be in limbo: 'did it pop into existence or did it evolve separately or...?'

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm still not very clear on what positivism means... to me, this description essentially just delineates science in general. Are you saying it exists mainly as a contrast to the idea that science deals with 'actual reality' rather than just good models?

That's part of it. I guess I did a bad job of explaining. The root of it is an insistence on positive verification of theories, i.e. if measurements taken at the start of an experiment constitute valid input to a theory then the measurements at the end of the experiments should coincide with those predicted by the theory. The coincidence or non-coincidence of theory with experimental results is the only valid scientific knowledge from the positivist view point.

This question is interesting, and ties in to what you said above; what is the ontological status of a model of reality?

In my opinion the question is literally meaningless.

Precisely.

The statements 'everything is just one particle' and 'everything is not just one particle' are both as right and as wrong as each other.

On one level, absolutely. On another level, assuming that everything is one particle is an, as of yet, completely useless assumption and hence constitutes precisely the sort of metaphysical baggage that positivism, and science in general, seek to avoid. I was referencing the attitude that led my friend to accept that assumption as fact rather than the validity of the assumption itself. Also, the fact that he just decided that they were all one particle instead of one of each type, which is what Feynman/Wheeler actually proposed as possible. I guess he did it because he liked the way it sounded.

With respect to evolution... from my preliminary reading I've gotten the impression that falsification is the main focus of positivism, but I'm not totally clear on how that works, epistemologically. It seems to me that all an observation can really falsify is the converse of that observation.

Not quite. An observation falsifies all theories that predict the converse of that observation. Our current model of the evolutionary tree includes detailed information on the evolution of rodents and so the whole thing would be invalidated by the observation of a Precambrian rabbit. It's possible that a new model could be cooked up that had enough in common with the old one to seem like a simple modification. However I think it's cleaner to regard it as an entirely new model in the same way that x² + 1 is an entirely different function than x² even though it results from a simple modification.

Interesting in this regard is an idea from the philosophy of science, the name of which I can't remember at the moment. It pertains to falsifiability and notes that it is, in principle, impossible to falsify a statement. Suppose we want to falsify S and we construct and experiment to do it. Then that experiment requires theories, {T1, T2, T3, ...}, beyond S. For example, if the experiment requires looking through a lens, then we need a theory of optics to explain any spurious optical effects. Hence the experiment is actually testing {S, T1, T2, ...}. A failure of the experiment is therefore not necessarily a failure of S but may result from a failure of any of the T.

A positive (as opposed to the negative statements of positivism), inductive statement is necessary to doing science.

I disagree with this. It's necessary to have confidence in the engineering that results from science and it's necessary for science to be taken as a description of actual reality. Perhaps I'm missing something. Inductive thought does help resolve the problem I alluded to in my last paragraph in that we can just say that we've falsified S because the T have always worked in the past. I really don't like the pattern of physical induction though. The fact that it's essentially the same as an argument from ignorance very much disturbs me. This seems to be the fundamental distinction between empiricism and rationalism, whereas the one embraces that form of argument as its very foundation, the other dismisses it as a fallacy.

Of course it (and arguments from ignorance) can be essential in real life. But let's leave real life out of this, shall we?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I really don't like the pattern of physical induction though. The fact that it's essentially the same as an argument from ignorance very much disturbs me.

In essence, I think this is what I was trying to say before.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Are you suggesting that an inductive step between the presence of a Precambrian rabbit and the current model of the "tree of life" is required - otherwise we'll be in limbo: 'did it pop into existence or did it evolve separately or...?'

What I mean is that science deals with general theories based on finite observations. For example, necessary to the scientific understanding of gravitation, is an inductive step from all observations of dropping stuff, to dropping any object in general. Science regards a precambrian rabbit as complete disproof of the evolutionary tree of life. But what is happening here is that we are asserting that the tree of life, like all scientific statements, is a general principle about reality, and thus susceptible to disproof by a single counterexample. Because in itself, a precambrian rabbit actually disproves nothing (except the nonexistence of precambrian rabbits); it could be that the precambrian rabbit is a singular anomaly, and all other life did evolve through a branching process. It's like the no true Scotsman thing.

My point is that positivism, which I think tries to put science on an indubitable foundation, seems in fact to be just as based on induction as anything else; either that or positivist knowledge is completely useless, and does not resemble what we actually call science. It would just be a collection of disparate facts without any theories.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

On one level, absolutely. On another level, assuming that everything is one particle is an, as of yet, completely useless assumption and hence constitutes precisely the sort of metaphysical baggage that positivism, and science in general, seek to avoid.

I think utility is basically subjective, though. In cases where you can literally cut an entire section of the model out with zero consequences, okay, it's pretty obvious that you should do that, although I wouldn't say it's 'mandatory' for validity in any sense. But in most cases you will have two different descriptions of the same thing, which may both have their own appealing features, due to simplicity or intuitiveness. I guess this is splitting hairs though, I think we see pretty much eye to eye here.

Not quite. An observation falsifies all theories that predict the converse of that observation. Our current model of the evolutionary tree includes detailed information on the evolution of rodents and so the whole thing would be invalidated by the observation of a Precambrian rabbit.

Refer to the first paragraph of this post... my point was that the theories that are logically falsified are extremely specific, and so the method is totally impotent without some sensible assumptions about induction.

The fact that it's essentially the same as an argument from ignorance very much disturbs me. This seems to be the fundamental distinction between empiricism and rationalism, whereas the one embraces that form of argument as its very foundation, the other dismisses it as a fallacy.

Well, I am a empirical puritan. It is disturbing, but the simple truth of the matter is that all arguments are fundamentally baseless and ignorant. Apart from tautologies, there is literally not a single statement you can make about reality with logical certainty; this is pretty obvious when you consider Descartes' sceptical arguments. Descartes tried (rather poorly) to botch himself out of that hole, as did Kant (via utterly opaque language), but they have been thoroughly repudiated; rationalism is pretty much a dead philosophy. As Hume said, although it is apparently completely baseless, you would be a madman to reject induction. All we can do is shrug and go along with it.

Originally Posted by Xei

What I mean is that science deals with general theories based on finite observations. For example, necessary to the scientific understanding of gravitation, is an inductive step from all observations of dropping stuff, to dropping any object in general. Science regards a precambrian rabbit as complete disproof of the evolutionary tree of life. But what is happening here is that we are asserting that the tree of life, like all scientific statements, is a general principle about reality, and thus susceptible to disproof by a single counterexample. Because in itself, a precambrian rabbit actually disproves nothing (except the nonexistence of precambrian rabbits); it could be that the precambrian rabbit is a singular anomaly, and all other life did evolve through a branching process. It's like the no true Scotsman thing.

I still disagree. I don't believe that the inductive step is necessary for a scientific model of gravitation. It is only necessary when we want to assert that that model accurately describes reality. This is useful to do for things like engineering and it is good motivation for a lot of scientists. However if we accept a model of gravity as a system of equations which correspond to experiments, then we are not interested in what constitutes reality. I happen to believe that every scientific model ever proposed will fail eventually and hence I would never presume to make a statement about dropping any object in general. I would just say "If this behaves like every system with which we've experimented...." This is a fundamentally different statement from "This is how reality operates."

Of course I'm being a purist here and in actual practice, I do believe that science does a pretty good job of describing those aspects of reality which submit to experimentation. That is coincidental and besides the point to me though.

Also, the existence of a Precambrian rabbit would disprove the statements that no mammals existed before the Mesozoic, that no rodents existed before the Cretaceous, that there are no spontaneous appearances of living organisms and that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor. Among others that could be cooked up with no too much work. I feel as if one of us is missing something here.

Originally Posted by Xei

As Hume said, although it is apparently completely baseless, you would be a madman to reject induction. All we can do is shrug and go along with it.

I agree with that on a practical level. On a philosophical level, we can attempt to find a less disturbing foundation for science. I think that the dependence on induction ultimately stems from how evolution shaped our brains. It's a very practical way of looking at things.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I still disagree. I don't believe that the inductive step is necessary for a scientific model of gravitation. It is only necessary when we want to assert that that model accurately describes reality. This is useful to do for things like engineering and it is good motivation for a lot of scientists. However if we accept a model of gravity as a system of equations which correspond to experiments, then we are not interested in what constitutes reality. I happen to believe that every scientific model ever proposed will fail eventually and hence I would never presume to make a statement about dropping any object in general. I would just say "If this behaves like every system with which we've experimented...." This is a fundamentally different statement from "This is how reality operates."

So by a model, you just mean a pattern that applies, and only applies, to all the instances that have been recorded experimentally of things falling (but not the vastly greater number of objects that we didn't/don't/won't actually observe or measure)?

Could you give a brief account of how falsification would in practice generate a theory of gravitation?

Of course I'm being a purist here and in actual practice, I do believe that science does a pretty good job of describing those aspects of reality which submit to experimentation. That is coincidental and besides the point to me though.

What do you mean by coincidental?

Also, the existence of a Precambrian rabbit would disprove the statements that no mammals existed before the Mesozoic, that no rodents existed before the Cretaceous, that there are no spontaneous appearances of living organisms and that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor. Among others that could be cooked up with no too much work. I feel as if one of us is missing something here.

What I think you're missing is that these are very narrow statements with basically no insightful value. The rabbit disproves that there were 0 mammals before the mesozoic, but it says nothing at all about the idea that there was only 1 rabbit before the mesozoic, or only 2, and so on. Likewise, it disproves that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor, but it says nothing at all about the idea that all but 1 living organisms descended from a common ancestor, or all but 2, and so on. What we have is an extremely narrow range of facts with no trace of the thing that makes facts important, that is, meaningful conclusions. It doesn't help us build up a picture of evolution or anything; the falsification doesn't do anything useful. It could still be the case that the important picture we have of common descent, and the theory of natural selection and everything else that goes with it is correct. What we really wanted falsification to do is rule out the entire conceptual structure of evolution, but it's had no effect on it at all.

We need assumptions of homogeneity (the condition for valid induction) for falsification to actually have any meaning.

I agree with that on a practical level. On a philosophical level, we can attempt to find a less disturbing foundation for science. I think that the dependence on induction ultimately stems from how evolution shaped our brains. It's a very practical way of looking at things.

Yes, that is completely right. Induction is essentially pattern recognition, and in fact that is basically the defining element of all levels of cognition in organisms. But in addition, I don't think we can do anything beyond that; I don't think that anything other than pattern recognition makes any sense. The entire idea of logical proof is a specious illusion... the only thing we can do as creatures bound by our biology is pattern recognition. We don't have any intuitive sense of reason; intuition is just another word for familiarity. Rather like dualism, rational faculties are a kind of magical, inexplicable idea that don't really make any sense. Pattern recognition on the other hand is easily reducible to physical bases.

Originally Posted by Xei

1. That's a terrible example, Galileo was not dogmatically written off as 'pseudoscience' by rational people, or other scientists. He was told to shut up by a bunch of despots in the Catholic Church who didn't have any aspirations towards truth through rational argument.

Look I understand that you are still a kid that has poor interpersonal skills due to a lack of life experience. You are right it was a poor example from a purely scientific viewpoint, which I was fully aware of when I made it, but I am certain many of the lurking viewers of this thread would have agreed competely with the essence of the point I was making. I was pointing out very clearly that what at one time was considered to be preposterous on an esoteric scientific level is now, today, an exoteric scientific fact.

Originally Posted by Xei

2. Even if you had chosen a competent example, your attempt to imply that historical cases of fringe ideas becoming mainstream proves that any stupid idea you have is legitimate is quite pathetic.

What I find pathetic is that you are so imbecilic to have missed the whole point of the thread. Was it a mistake that Omnis Dei put this thread in the Philosophy sub-forum instead of the Science & Mathematics sub-forum? I am confident enough to say obviously not. I cannot speak for him, but I presume that he placed it here because, as I have pointed out in post #19, that science has its limitations and should not be the arbiter of explaining reality and dictating the truth about any aspect of the manifested universe.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's quite unbelievable to me that people like yourself still exist in the modern age; people who don't understand the basic tenets of rationality, like impartial, sound arguments, and the presentation of physical evidence.

Again you are completely missing the point. You are an intelligent and educated but you are extremely arrogant and narrow minded. Have I not pointed out several scientists, that I presume have far more knowledge and understanding of science than yourself, who have studied areas of the natural universe and made discoveries about the occult nature of the natural universe that were at one time were considered non-existant or could not have valid quantitative empirical data to support a new scientifc theory. Your arrogance and narrow-mindedness blind you to cultivating the characteristics of a good scientist. You are clearly intelligent and well educated but you do have a lot to learn sunshine which goes back to the first sentence in my thread. I was reading Einsteins general and special theories of relativity just out of pure interest probably before you were born.

Hey kid I like you, that is why I sent you a friend request, which you still haven't accepted. I may not have the same level of knowledge and understanding as yourself but I have made some very good, valid points in this thread backed up by good scientific methods. I have pointed out out that you really are 'off the bat' at times. So calm yourself a little and help this sub-form forum to become more interesting and debatable rather than a subforum that often displays a great deal of egomaniacal competitiveness.

I am going to have to double post as there is so much to write about and I wanted to adress you seperatley

Originally Posted by Marvo

Originally Posted by mcwillis

The most important stage in the process of gapping the bridge between science and spirituality is to recognize that there are some domains in which science cannot go.

No. Science covers everything in our world. Anything that cannot be investigated through science, cannot influence our universe in any way. It's as simple as that. Your "esoteric science", if it were to exist, it would simply be a subset of science.

If you want a better understanding of science, think of the Danish word for it; "videnskab", it literally means "creation of knowledge".

Ah yes, the 'creation of knowledge' and the incorrect idea that science does covers and explain the nature of eveything in the universe. I would like to elborate on that. Lets go back to professor Baranowski. As a physicist many in the scientific community would ridicule him for saying that the human aura exists. Why? Firsty because there isn't a mechanical or electronic instrument that can provide a quantitative set of experimental data to support the theory that the human aura exists. Secondly, ot cannot br proved mathematically. Science won't go into this area and cannot go into certain areas in general because it is too rigid and narrow-minded at present.

However, professor Baranowski, has scientifically trained himself to see the human aura. He has esoteric empirical proof that it exists. It would be very simple by experiment under controlled laboratory conditions to prove beyond reasonable dount that the human aura exists and thus further scientific understanding of this phenomenon. Now, some people in this discussion of this thread would say that such an experiment couldn't be carried out and wouldn't have any scientific validity. Let's see what thay say...

Originally Posted by Xei

What I mean is that science deals with general theories based on finite observations. For example, necessary to the scientific understanding of gravitation, is an inductive step from all observations of dropping stuff, to dropping any object in general. Science regards a precambrian rabbit as complete disproof of the evolutionary tree of life. But what is happening here is that we are asserting that the tree of life, like all scientific statements, is a general principle about reality, and thus susceptible to disproof by a single counterexample. Because in itself, a precambrian rabbit actually disproves nothing (except the nonexistence of precambrian rabbits); it could be that the precambrian rabbit is a singular anomaly, and all other life did evolve through a branching process. It's like the no true Scotsman thing.

My point is that positivism, which I think tries to put science on an indubitable foundation, seems in fact to be just as based on induction as anything else; either that or positivist knowledge is completely useless, and does not resemble what we actually call science. It would just be a collection of disparate facts without any theories.

I'm interested in what you think would actually happen if a Precambrian rabbit was discovered - how scientists would deal with it. Do you think its presence would falsify the tree of life, or do you think scientists would do their utmost to generate ad-hoc hypotheses so as to defend the model and incorporate this anomaly?

It raises questions as to whether heavily substantiated models are clearly falsifiable by one counter-example (as is often said) - can one say it's more scientific to accept the falsification rather than generating further ad-hoc hypotheses? As an example, there are many who still believe in the flat earth theory, and despite the 'shift' away from this, attempt to incorporate all counter-examples into their model through these ad-hoc hypotheses.

Is there a line here, between scientific and non-scientific, or am I generating a false dilemma?

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I am going to have to double post as there is so much to write about and I wanted to adress you seperatley



Ah yes, the 'creation of knowledge' and the incorrect idea that science does covers and explain the nature of eveything in the universe. I would like to elborate on that. Lets go back to professor Baranowski. As a physicist many in the scientific community would ridicule him for saying that the human aura exists. Why? Firsty because there isn't a mechanical or electronic instrument that can provide a quantitative set of experimental data to support the theory that the human aura exists. Secondly, ot cannot br proved mathematically. Science won't go into this area and cannot go into certain areas in general because it is too rigid and narrow-minded at present.

However, professor Baranowski, has scientifically trained himself to see the human aura. He has esoteric empirical proof that it exists. It would be very simple by experiment under controlled laboratory conditions to prove beyond reasonable dount that the human aura exists and thus further scientific understanding of this phenomenon. Now, some people in this discussion of this thread would say that such an experiment couldn't be carried out and wouldn't have any scientific validity. Let's see what thay say...

You would do yourself a huge favour by not saying such things as a method of persuasion.

If you can provide a simple laboratory condition that would allow demonstration of this feat, then outline it. First of all, an experiment involving 'qualia' is difficult to conclusively measure because direct observations are impossible, and thus the claim will inevitably be largely subjective. To mitigate this, it would be imperative that more than one subject existed - in fact, you'd need a good 200-300 subjects similarly trained in 'aura perception' (and 200-300 untrained). Thirdly, the instructions for training would have to be independently examined to determine that they're not some complex pattern or code, which would allow higher correlations of perception between subjects.

And I hope you're not referring to the following phenomenon:

If you fixate on either of these colours, you'll begin to see a coloured outline form. For the green block, you'll see a purple aura, and for the purple block you'll see a green aura. If you have a person stand against a white background, you'll get similar 'aura-type' effects, with blends of different overlapping colours; however, this can be explained by colour opponent process theory, and also explains why particular colours compliment each other (e.g., green and purple). Basically, fatigue of the pathways promoting purple produce an illusion of green, and vice versa. This is similar to being on a train, watching motion in one direction, and then becoming stationary....sometimes, it will produce an illusion of moving in the opposite direction. There is also a Physics explanation, but I can't remember it.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Look I understand that you are still a kid that has poor interpersonal skills due to a lack of life experience.

Personal and irrelevant insults, how enlightened. You realise you could have just berated an autistic person? Not that you did, but shouldn't one be 'open minded' towards other people..?

You are right it was a poor example from a purely scientific viewpoint, which I was fully aware of when I made it, but I am certain many of the lurking viewers of this thread would have agreed competely with the essence of the point I was making. I was pointing out very clearly that what at one time was considered to be preposterous on an esoteric scientific level is now, today, an exoteric scientific fact.

It was never preposterous on a scientific level. I don't have any clue what 'esoteric science' is.

What I find pathetic is that you are so imbecilic to have missed the whole point of the thread. Was it a mistake that Omnis Dei put this thread in the Philosophy sub-forum instead of the Science & Mathematics sub-forum?

Philosophy is not a bunch of 'anything is true' crap, it is an extremely stringent analysis of the limits of what we can know. No true philosopher would accept something without evidence.

I am confident enough to say obviously not. I cannot speak for him, but I presume that he placed it here because, as I have pointed out in post #19, that science has its limitations and should not be the arbiter of explaining reality and dictating the truth about any aspect of the manifested universe.

Science just means physical evidence and reasoned argument. So in other words, no I don't have any evidence, but you should believe me anyway.

No.

Again you are completely missing the point. You are an intelligent and educated but you are extremely arrogant and narrow minded.

Ad hominem, and, incidentally, wrong. I am open to literally anything you could tell me. It's just that I require you to provide some kind of justification before I believe in it, and you have failed.

Have I not pointed out several scientists, that I presume have far more knowledge and understanding of science than yourself

Ad hominem, appeal to authority, also likely wrong.

who have studied areas of the natural universe and made discoveries about the occult nature of the natural universe that were at one time were considered non-existant or could not have valid quantitative empirical data to support a new scientifc theory.

What are you talking about?

Your arrogance and narrow-mindedness blind you to cultivating the characteristics of a good scientist. You are clearly intelligent and well educated but you do have a lot to learn sunshine which goes back to the first sentence in my thread. I was reading Einsteins general and special theories of relativity just out of pure interest probably before you were born.

Congratulations, you get 10 debate points for being able to read before I existed.

Hey kid I like you, that is why I sent you a friend request, which you still haven't accepted. I may not have the same level of knowledge and understanding as yourself but I have made some very good, valid points in this thread backed up by good scientific methods. I have pointed out out that you really are 'off the bat' at times. So calm yourself a little and help this sub-form forum to become more interesting and debatable rather than a subforum that often displays a great deal of egomaniacal competitiveness.

I like you too but after all this we're still not any closer to seeing some evidence.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I'm interested in what you think would actually happen if a Precambrian rabbit was discovered - how scientists would deal with it. Do you think its presence would falsify the tree of life, or do you think scientists would do their utmost to generate ad-hoc hypotheses so as to defend the model and incorporate this anomaly?

I do think it would essentially destroy the idea, as it clearly should. The point is that I am only able to do this because I base knowledge on induction.

It raises questions as to whether heavily substantiated models are clearly falsifiable by one counter-example (as is often said) - can one say it's more scientific to accept the falsification rather than generating further ad-hoc hypotheses? As an example, there are many who still believe in the flat earth theory, and despite the 'shift' away from this, attempt to incorporate all counter-examples into their model through these ad-hoc hypotheses.

Is there a line here, between scientific and non-scientific, or am I generating a false dilemma?

It's a good and... messy question. I think a lot of it is about the meaning we ascribe to facts. The rabbit clearly disproves that all organisms are on a tree of life. But on the one hand you can view this as meaning that it is false that 0 organisms are not on the tree of life; on the other hand you can view it as disproving the general principle (inductive pattern) that organisms are on the tree of life. The latter seems to be the sensible view.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I am going to have to double post as there is so much to write about and I wanted to adress you seperatley



Ah yes, the 'creation of knowledge' and the incorrect idea that science does covers and explain the nature of eveything in the universe. I would like to elborate on that. Lets go back to professor Baranowski. As a physicist many in the scientific community would ridicule him for saying that the human aura exists. Why? Firsty because there isn't a mechanical or electronic instrument that can provide a quantitative set of experimental data to support the theory that the human aura exists. Secondly, ot cannot br proved mathematically. Science won't go into this area and cannot go into certain areas in general because it is too rigid and narrow-minded at present.

However, professor Baranowski, has scientifically trained himself to see the human aura. He has esoteric empirical proof that it exists. It would be very simple by experiment under controlled laboratory conditions to prove beyond reasonable dount that the human aura exists and thus further scientific understanding of this phenomenon. Now, some people in this discussion of this thread would say that such an experiment couldn't be carried out and wouldn't have any scientific validity. Let's see what thay say...

Yet you bring zero proof of any of your claims. You say it would be a simple experiment, yet it hasn't been done. What does this tell us? That what you are saying is bonk.

Originally Posted by Xei

Congratulations, you get 10 debate points for being able to read before I existed.

Tensor analysis too if s/he was rocking GR. That deserves at least 15 debate points if it's actually true.

Jesus, all this time and I meant fking Abductive Reasoning.

I hate it when that happens.

Science is the quest for unity among the eclecticism of experience.

science can only prove science. spirituality can only prove spirituality. as long as people dont believe in one or the other there are no answers. or maybe since there are no answers then im wrong and there are answers and spirituality and science can/do coexist peacefully and help eachother. Maybe maybe maybe.