Sceptics vs. Science ... Like Kindergarten!

[Posquant]

Hard core "if it's not demonstrated it's not real" sceptics are like scared little children. Still don't get it? This is a point of logic, not science. You say: "Possible" and "measured" are not the same thing. Only the measured is real. I say: "Not measured" and "impossible" are not the same thing! You prove nothing other than your own limits, by pretending to prove as impossible what you can't measure that science says is possible. Examples: Quantum brain-based information effects. Quantum telepathy. The multiverse. Quantum non-local information effects connecting us to the multiverse through our dreams. Never studied logic? Yes. (And you were not taught. So it's not your fault, your little oversight.) Lazy sceptics. So devout. So confident? So fearful? Read an actual few hundred page book for a change. A book: http://www.amazon.com/Field-Updated-...DateDescending I am f****** tired of wanker pseudo-science sceptics denying the possibility of phenoma that the best science says is possible (even actual), and then assuming that their ungrounded denial of the same (based only on their own lack of knowledge and experience of such phenonena) proves the phenomenon's impossibility and nonexistence. You are not Gods. Easy sceptics. You are Wankers. Get real. Read something. Piss on possibility all you can - but only so far. What science says is possible, you can't disprove because you have not experienced. What's not demonstrated is not disproven. You're afraid of Ghosts? But they exist, if they do, whether or not you fear them, or your puny science can detect them. Fact is, your ignorance, your limits, don't exclude facts or possibilities themselves. Your fearful denial doesn't affect reality. You only limit your own grasp of it, engagement with it... NOT the thing itself. PQ

[SomeDreamer]

So how was last nights sleep? <_<

[♥Mark]

You wanna talk about wankers? Alright, let's talk about you. I made a thread just like this almost two years ago! Try getting your own material. PS In before lock.

[grasshoppa]

I am skeptical of your claim Mark, I need proof! Links please.

[SomeDreamer]

I am skeptical of your claim Mark I'm skeptical of YOUR skepticism

[Xei]

Who are these 'wankers' you're arguing with? :l If you've got something specific to say, just spit it out. But no rational person would believe that something must be demonstrated for it to exist. Nobody is arguing what you are arguing against. There are many things we will never know; for example, we'll never know anything about objects outside of the observable universe. Nobody would say that this proves that there is nothing outside of the observable universe. It's just that nobody has any reason to believe you if you claim of the existence of some specific object or phenomenon; e.g. 'there is an elephant at X location outside of the observable universe'.

[♥Mark]

I am skeptical of your claim Mark, I need proof! Links please. http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=40659

[Xei]

Strawman strawman strawman... Yeah just keep ignoring everybody.

[grasshoppa]

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=40659 You faked this somehow.

[Posquant]

You wanna talk about wankers? Alright, let's talk about you. I made a thread just like this almost two years ago! Try getting your own material. PS In before lock. Ok. But you didn't provide any material. Discuss.

[CryoDragoon]

"if it's not demonstrated it's not real" You know that nobody says that, right? The thing (most/sensible) sceptics say, is that if something is not somehow demonstrated, proven or if we don't even have any sensible reasons or clues to think something is real, then we shouldn't blindly accept that something as being real. Sure, it might still be real, but do we have any real reason to think so, really? That is what scepticism is all about. "Look, here's a picture of a UFO." In stead of going "OK, UFOs exist", sceptics would go "alright, what things do we really have to think UFOs exist. We have a picture. Is it a reliable source? Is it likely that this is a valid picture? What other leads do we have?" etc. etc. etc. Imagine I say gnomes exist. Why would anyone accept that claim? "Just because it's possible"? I think not. If we say that, then anything that someone says can be accepted as truth. (analogy warning!) But when there are twenty tiny little pointy red hats drying outside of your doorstep the next morning, then you at least have something to base your claims on. So, in short: sensible sceptics do not say that something 'is not real'. It might very well be real. The real question is whether we have good reason to assume something is real, and why. And what's one of the tools that we can use to see if it is? Exactly. Science. So, for example: do ghosts exist? Maybe. I don't know. All I know is that, right now, I have no real reason to believe that they do. So, indeed, they might still exist... But if you claim that they do, then give me some evidence. Why do you believe so? Show me reliable information from reliable sources. Show me that you have a good basis to have based that claim on. And the same thing applies to any other claim. The existence of God, the existence of elves, the existence of skyfish, the multiverse, whatever. Sure, they're possible, but how likely? Show me evidence, reliable info from reliable sources, and we can see just how likely they really are. If you have any objection to this way of reasoning and gaining of knowledge, please, please tell me why. Why can we assume something as being real without actually having reliable information about it from reliable sources. Why can we assume gnomes as being real without ever having any kind of reliable information from reliable sources? Just "because they can"? P.S. Please give me a short summary of that book, in stead of just being judgmental/borderline insulting about not having read the thing. The general message or something. Or at least tell me why I should read it or not. -_-'

[Posquant]

lOGIC / SCIENCE. Yes. Logic OVER science. A point of logic, I said. Not science. Friend, you're confused. It's not about what is. That simply ... is. It's about what might be... and what we can say cannot. So, what can you say is not, or cannot be? Tell me. And if you can say it in a particular circumstance, can you say it for all? One and all? You say: ---------- "Look, here's a picture of a UFO." In stead of going "OK, UFOs exist", sceptics would go "alright, what things do we really have to think UFOs exist. We have a picture. Is it a reliable source? Is it likely that this is a valid picture? What other leads do we have?" etc. etc. etc. Imagine I say gnomes exist. Why would anyone accept that claim? "Just because it's possible"? ---------- Facts are facts. The more facts the better. Try this. http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html Ok. Hoax? Read again. Point is, if they didn't accept that gnomes MIGHT exist, generally, even though scientifically possible... how deny t? Really. How? In theory? Based on what? Science? There's a fine line between crazy mystics and mundane sceptics. Both so devout! The issue, inchoate, lies at the border between "may be" and "is not"... and "what if"? Another critical devide is between the specific and the general. Disproof of a particular hoax does not disprove an otherwise plausible possibility... it only proves a particular hoax. See? "May be" means maybe. And if you can't say "cannot", you must entertain "what if". See now? No. You have not yet grasped the essence of the quantum. That is ... probability. For anything of "possibility over zero "0"", you cannot still validly assume "actuality = zero". Then what? If you can't assume "actuality = zero"... Bro... you gotta' somehow conditionally deal with it as real! If not here, then somewhere? See? If "possibility > 0" then one MUST assume "actuality > 0". That is ... the broad view. Something about empathy. Imperative. Undeniable. You wrote... ---------- "But if you claim that they do, then give me some evidence. Why do you believe so? Show me reliable information from reliable sources. Show me that you have a good basis to have based that claim on. I purposefully linked to constructive/critical comments on the book. ----------- What the f***? I gave you the link. Opened the door. What do I need to do to "give you some evidence?". Why ask me to reproduce that all here? Hyperlinks scare you? No wonder. Shit internet. Info fakes. Get over it. Try to be more discerning... to discern discerning posters. ThEre are a few of us. Anyway... click the bloody link and do your own research. Peace & Easy. You're on the right track. But I have seen such sceptics, deep in devout denial. So. I respect ghosts ... just because they might be...even if they might not. See? PQ

[CryoDragoon]

lOGIC / SCIENCE. Yes. Logic OVER science. A point of logic, I said. Not science. Friend, you're confused. It's not about what is. That simply ... is. It's about what might be... and what we can say cannot. So, what can you say is not, or cannot be? Tell me. And if you can say it in a particular circumstance, can you say it for all? One and all? You say: ---------- "Look, here's a picture of a UFO." In stead of going "OK, UFOs exist", sceptics would go "alright, what things do we really have to think UFOs exist. We have a picture. Is it a reliable source? Is it likely that this is a valid picture? What other leads do we have?" etc. etc. etc. Imagine I say gnomes exist. Why would anyone accept that claim? "Just because it's possible"? ---------- Facts are facts. The more facts the better. Try this. http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html Ok. Hoax? Read again. Point is, if they didn't accept that gnomes MIGHT exist, generally, even though scientifically possible... how deny t? Really. How? In theory? Based on what? Science? There's a fine line between crazy mystics and mundane sceptics. Both so devout! The issue, inchoate, lies at the border between "may be" and "is not"... and "what if"? Another critical devide is between the specific and the general. Disproof of a particular hoax does not disprove an otherwise plausible possibility... it only proves a particular hoax. See? "May be" means maybe. And if you can't say "cannot", you must entertain "what if". See now? No. You have not yet grasped the essence of the quantum. That is ... probability. For anything of "possibility over zero "0"", you cannot still validly assume "actuality = zero". Then what? If you can't assume "actuality = zero"... Bro... you gotta' somehow conditionally deal with it as real! If not here, then somewhere? See? If "possibility > 0" then one MUST assume "actuality > 0". That is ... the broad view. Something about empathy. Imperative. Undeniable. You wrote... ---------- "But if you claim that they do, then give me some evidence. Why do you believe so? Show me reliable information from reliable sources. Show me that you have a good basis to have based that claim on. I purposefully linked to constructive/critical comments on the book. ----------- What the f***? I gave you the link. Opened the door. What do I need to do to "give you some evidence?". Why ask me to reproduce that all here? Hyperlinks scare you? No wonder. Shit internet. Info fakes. Get over it. Try to be more discerning... to discern discerning posters. ThEre are a few of us. Anyway... click the bloody link and do your own research. Peace & Easy. You're on the right track. But I have seen such sceptics, deep in devout denial. So. I respect ghosts ... just because they might be...even if they might not. See? PQ Right... It's true that when we look at the world only throught the goggles of logic, everything is possible, everything that would be possible could potentially be true. However, that is just not how the world practically works. -It could be very well possible that that tree that's over there isn't there at all. Should I just ride through it on my bike? After all, it is a possibility. -Then there's the possibility that the tree actually is true, and it would therefore be very stupid to ride through it. -It could very well be that we're living in the Matrix, and that nothing is real. -(insert endless possibilities here) What should I do? Ride through it? Or not? It's a dilemma. It can't be solved by logic. So which of the two practical possibilities should we assume? When we look at it only through the goggles of logic, this is impossible to decide. We need a different method. What about science? We look at the tree, we go up to the tree and touch it, we might even smell the tree, just to get verification on as much sensory channels as we can. We might smash our bike in the tree to figure out what might have happened when we would've rode in it. If the bike smashes, and all our other senses tell us that the tree, in fact, is "real". We should out of practicality ASSUME that the tree is there. That's what science does. It doesn't make any claim about 'the truth'. It simply assesses through a methodology and through experimentation, verification, etc., what is very likely to be true, what has a high probability to be true. That way, we don't have to create logical dilemmas for ourselves. We can now depend on scientific rules and (to a degree) proven suppositions. Science provides us with postulates with which we can practically live our lives. Not with truths, not with definite answers, postulates based on scientific data, which have a high probability of being 'close to the truth', that are highly verisimilar. So sure, it could be very well true that, when I straighten my arm, fairies pull it out, in stead of my muscle fibres getting electric shocks and contracting. Is it very likely, though? Is it a practical viewpoint? Should we assume that first hypothesis to live our lives? Just imagine how a visit to the doctor would go like... So: should we assume the first hypothesis over the other? Based solely on logic? I think not. It's the same with ghosts or garden gnomes in the andromeda galaxy (or whatever you folks were babbling about ). It might very well be, logically speaking. But practically? Is it practical to assume it? How likely is it? Which brings up another question: if you insist, how do you practically entertain every logical possibility there is? There are endless possibilities in any situation or on any subject. How can you entertain possibilities when they are very different, or sometimes maybe even contradictory? Don't you need postulates to live your life? Don't you need a general guideline in living your life? I, myself, think you do. And that's what science is for. Making credible and highly likely postulates. If something cannot be proven to be a highly verisimilar postulate, then why follow it? (and again: how can you follow it with all other possibilities?) So, on the topics of ghosts, for example. It is possible that there are ghosts. It is possible there aren't ghosts. It is possible that there are demons. It is possible there aren't demons. It is possilbe that there are angels. It's also possible there aren't angels. These may all be applicable to those things we call 'ghosts'. While it's true that they logically can all be real, it is impossible to practically entertain all those possibilities at once. We have a logical dilemma. Conclusion? We need a postulate for practical conduct. Are there credible scientific sources, pieces of information and tested hypotheses and theories that somehow prove that angels, demons, ghosts, gods, hallucinations from other universes, whatever you can think of, are real? No. Should we therefore practically assume that ghosts, angels, demons, hallucinations, etc. are real? No. So yeah... You're on the right track. It's just that you've misunderstood the entire point of science and scepticism. Why? Because it. is. not. 'what's logically possible', that matters.