So here comes the current (updated) version:

1./ Nature. By definition (mine) everything that we can observe and/or be aware of is part of Nature. In this sense there can not be such a thing as ‘unnatural’ phenomena. The observed phenomena can be easily reproducible or intermittent, happening randomly, in an unpredictable way. If a phenomenon is not reproducible on demand, then we have to depend on eye-witness accounts. Frequency and consistency of these accounts on one hand, judgment of reliability of eye-witnesses on the other, give higher or lower weight to our assumption that the reported phenomenon exists.

2./ Science is a human tool invented to help us investigate nature. It is best defined by the ‘Scientific Method’ (described by The Random House) as: “a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data and the hypothesis is empirically tested”. Its essence is ‘empirically tested’. Without this crucial element, it is not science.

3./ The six steps of science are :

a./ Observation (experiencing, sensing, measuring, interviewing/evaluating eye-witnesses)

b./ Organization (describing, categorizing, statistical analysis, identifying pattern)

c./ Hypothesis (or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge.)

d./ Predictions (drawing logical and mathematical conclusions from our hypothesis )

e./ Testing (empirical verification of both the hypothesis and the predictions of hypothesis)

f./ Confirmation/Rejection of hypothesis, always allowing for possibility of error.

4./ There is a non-zero probability that there are parts of nature science may never be able to explain because both experiments and testability are beyond conceivable human resources (e.g. Big Bang, colliding galaxies, superstrings, etc.). Scientific explanation means the creation of an empirically testable hypothesis, or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge. However, hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically is, however minutely, grounded within previously observed phenomena. Also, from some untestable hypothesis it may be possible to draw logical/mathematical predictions that do fall into the scientifically testable domain.

5./ There is a non-zero probability that unusual (or para-normal) phenomena exists that appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of, our accumulated body of scientific knowledge. This phenomena (depending on its nature) have been called ‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, ‘telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’, etc. However, plausible descriptions can be made and knowledge may in the future progress to a point where an "unusual phenomenon" can be explained within the scientific method.

6./ If we assume 5./ to be true and there is no immediately available scientific tool to study these phenomena (most of them not necessarily reproducible on demand), then we may wait and see if one becomes available at a later time, or we may decide to use methods currently considered non-scientific to experiment and try to form a hypothesis.

7./ Dismissing the possibility for 4./ and 5./ and 6./ can unnecessarily limit humanity in our experiencing and understanding Nature and, as a consequence, unnecessarily reduce our tools for both survival and enjoyment of our existence.

8./ Attacking those who assume 4./ and 5./ to be true and seriously consider or practice 6./, is an unfair discrimination against, and abuse of, human beings, some of whom can be imaginative, creative, open minded individuals with full recognition of the value of science.

9./ There are, and have been, deplorable examples of sensationalism, charlatanism and fraud regarding both scientific and para-normal phenomenon. Some of it was innocent, much of it was deliberate attempt to take advantage of the easily credulous.

10./ Great care and critical thinking is required to differentiate between the rational approach to the para-normal, from the irrational, unjustified, fraudulent

11./ Science and 'para-normal investigation' (as suggested in 6./) are not 'either-or'. Unless we are dogmatic about our 'only true method', they can happily coexist, without hurting each other. Both methods can be used to study both groups of phenomena and both can fail or be successful in their endeavor.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

So here comes the original first post:

Clockwork asked me for a summary of my views on which I would like to reach consensus, before moving on. Here it is in a point form for easy reference. I tried to phrase it as carefully as I could, trying to say things I considered self-evident. I may not have done a good job and it may need change, deletion, addition, it is not cast in concrete.

However, I took great care to make every word count and I ask everyone to read it carefully, making sure that words like ‘may’, ‘can’, ‘possible’, ‘non-zero’, etc. are not missed. And please don’t ‘infer’ from it as clockwork does sometimes, or assume you know what else I think beyond which I said. If you are not sure, I will be glad to clarify.

If we are all (all who is interested) give it a serious, careful, honest and critical try, we may actually reach a consensus, instead of forever going around in circles.

Here it comes the Summary For Clockwork (or SFC):

1./ Nature. By definition (mine) everything that we can observe and/or be aware of is part of Nature. In this sense there can not be such a thing as ‘unnatural’ phenomena.

2./ Science is a human tool invented to help us investigate nature. It is best defined by the ‘Scientific Method’ (described by The Random House) as: “a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data and the hypothesis is empirically tested”. Its essence is ‘empirically tested’. Without this crucial element, it is not science, it is speculation.

3./ There are phenomena that are not suitable for hypothesis that could be “empirically tested”. The “Big Bang Theory” is one of these.

4./ There is a non-zero probability that science is not omnipotent, meaning that there are parts of nature that science will never be able to explain. Scientific explanation means the creation of an empirically testable hypothesis, or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge. (clockwork already agreed)

5./ There is a non-zero probability that unusual (or para-normal) phenomena exists that appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of, our accumulated body of scientific knowledge. This phenomena (depending on its nature) have been called ‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’, etc. (Apemantus and TP already agreed)

6./ If we assume, for arguments’ sake, that both 4./ and 5./ turn out to be true (science is not omnipotent and para-normal phenomena do exist), then we have to explore this phenomena with suitable non-scientific methods, if we want to try to understand them.

7./ Dismissing the possibility for 4./ and 5./ can unnecessarily limit humanity to be aware of, and benefit from, a smaller subset of natural phenomena and, as a consequence, unnecessarily reduce our tools for both survival and enjoyment of our existence.

8./ Attacking those who assume 4./ and 5./ to be true, is an unfair discrimination against, and abuse of, human beings, some of whom can be imaginative, creative, open minded individuals with full recognition of the value of science.

9./ There are, and have been, deplorable examples of superstition, sensationalism, charlatanism, fraud regarding para-normal phenomenon. Some of it was innocent, much of it was deliberate attempt to take advantage of the easily credulous.

10./ Great care and critical thinking is required to differentiate between the rational approach to the para-normal, from the irrational, unjustified, fraudulent

11./ Science and 'para-normal investigation' are not 'either-or'. Unless we are dogmatic about our 'only true method', they can happily coexist, without hurting each other. Both methods can be used to study both groups of phenomena and both can fail or be successful in their endeavor.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

People who press for acceptance of the existence of psychic or paranormal phenomena often hand-wave away the problem of replicability of results.

This is the single biggest thing that gives me hives about people who casually or not-so-casually insist that science will 'never' explain things that are currently thought nonexplainable.

Which is why I say "Well, hell, if you think that way we should all just go right back to where we started, since the progress of human understanding is precisely in determining how something works, why it does what it does, and being able to test that phenomenon repeatedly, getting the same results each time."

Bolts of lightning aren't formable at one's request, but that didn't stop Ben Franklin from applying the theories of electrostatics to figure out how to divert lightning bolts from damaging houses or churches - after all, it is possible to make mini-lightning bolts by holding two pieces of metal a given distance apart and rubbing one of them with a bearskin rug, until the charge builds up and jumps the air gap.

It is to be noted that churches these days no longer send someone up to the bell-tower to ring the bell during lightning storms. The bell, being metallic and generally at the highest point around, was often the attraction point for the lightning bolt, and the bell-puller would often suffer.

... or should we accept the "science will never explain anything" attitude and throw away our lightning rods?

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Doc, exactly which of the 11 points do you disagree with? All of them? Some of them? Is there not one thing I said you find true?

quote:

---

I am devastated.

---

I didn't think my paw was THAT big.

quote:

---

4./ There is a non-zero probability that science is not omnipotent, meaning that there are parts of nature that science will never be able to explain. Scientific explanation means the creation of an empirically testable hypothesis, or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge. (clockwork already agreed)

5./ There is a non-zero probability that unusual (or para-normal) phenomena exists that appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of, our accumulated body of scientific knowledge. This phenomena (depending on its nature) have been called ‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’, etc. (Apemantus and TP already agreed)

---

This is the part that bugs me. Claiming that science has some sort of inherent limit to what it can be applied to is tantamount to surrendering to those who would prattle the worst kinds of crap about paranormal phenomena.

In my experience, people who advocate that 'science will never explain this stuff' usually have an ax to grind with the impressive progress made so far in 2000 years of better and better application of the scientific method by all cultures that have used it (from the Greek to the Arabic to the European to the Chinese... - recall that the Greeks developed the integral, the Arabs the algebra, the Chinese, all sorts of technological inventions that were independently duplicated by Europe).

quote:

---

6./ If we assume, for arguments’ sake, that both 4./ and 5./ turn out to be true (science is not omnipotent and para-normal phenomena do exist), then we have to explore this phenomena with suitable non-scientific methods, if we want to try to understand them.

---

If I drop a ball, I can make up some big long explanation boiling down to "God willed it", or I can do the sensible thing and ask "what property of where I am causes this ball to fall to the floor?"

Galileo, Newton, and Einstein as well as others all asked this and came up with a flood of answers.

1. There's a force exerted by the Earth that pulls all things to its center. (Newton-Galileo)
2. The presence of earth causes a warping of space-time such that objects within the warp will tend to move towards the center. (Einstein)

quote:

---

In this sense 6./ is not meaningless -- it suggests that we should look for them (that is the next step I promised clockwork).

---

quote:

---

Dr. C: It is absolutely inconceivable to me that the scientific method is inapplicable in any circumstance warranting developing an explanation of how and why something occurs.

---

quote:

---

Andy: Well keep looking, and let us know when you've found one. Until then...

---

quote:

---

I don't have to keep looking, Andy, I found quite a few. But that is for the next step.

---

quote:

---

In the meantime I interpret your answer as saying that you agree with all 11 points...

---

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

6./ If we assume, for arguments’ sake, that both 4./ and 5./ turn out to be true (science is not omnipotent and para-normal phenomena do exist), then we have to explore this phenomena with suitable non-scientific methods, if we want to try to understand them.

---

I don't think 6 follows logically from 4 and 5.

Let's assume that there are natural phenomena that fall outside current scientific understanding. I can't imagine there wouldn't be. But that does not mean they can only be studied with non-scientific methods, whatever that means. After all, the examples of paranormal phenomena you suggest--‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’--have all been the subject of scientific study.

quote:

---

TJ: I don't think 6 follows logically from 4 and 5.

---

4./ specifically states that “there are parts of nature that science will never be able to explain”

5./ says that “appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of”

You are right, Terry, it was not phrased in a clear enough, airtight way. I will correct it momentarily. In the meantime, look at 11./ where I made the same point you did.

Now I have made these changes. At this time I only changed 6./ -- according to the feedback I got from TJ.

Please take a look and feel free to suggest other changes in wording, adding and/or deleting points. Let's see if it is possible to come up with something that most people would find true.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

I just read an article in the New Yorker on the scientific study of facial expressions. Some people are very good at judging other's emotions by reading their facial expressions

---

quote:

---

3./ There are phenomena that are not suitable for hypothesis that could be “empirically tested”. The “Big Bang Theory” is one of these.

---

Was life started by the spontaneous creation of animo acids (or whatever) in the chemical soup that was early earth? Our best guess is that's what occurred, but you can't test for it. He can try and recreate conditions to see if the buildings blocks of life occur, but we can't rerun the entire history of the earth.

I guess I agree with this, but the wording bugs me. Same here:

quote:

---

4./ There is a non-zero probability that science is not omnipotent, meaning that there are parts of nature that science will never be able to explain. Scientific explanation means the creation of an empirically testable hypothesis, or logical model, that shows how the phenomenon is created, what its internal mechanism/logic is and how it consistently fits into our accumulated body of knowledge. (clockwork already agreed)

---

quote:

---

5./ There is a non-zero probability that unusual (or para-normal) phenomena exists that appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of, our accumulated body of scientific knowledge. This phenomena (depending on its nature) have been called ‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’, etc. (Apemantus and TP already agreed)

---

quote:

---

6./ If we assume, for arguments’ sake, that both 4./ and 5./ turn out to be true (science is not omnipotent and para-normal phenomena do exist), and we also assume that one particular phenomenon (for example ‘sensing’ death in close family) could not be studied by the scientific method, then we have to try to find suitable non-scientific methods, if we want to understand them.

---

quote:

---

7./ Dismissing the possibility for 4./ and 5./ can unnecessarily limit humanity to be aware of, and benefit from, a smaller subset of natural phenomena and, as a consequence, unnecessarily reduce our tools for both survival and enjoyment of our existence.

---

quote:

---

11./ Science and 'para-normal investigation' are not 'either-or'. Unless we are dogmatic about our 'only true method', they can happily coexist, without hurting each other. Both methods can be used to study both groups of phenomena and both can fail or be successful in their endeavor.

---

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

quote:

---

3./... I guess I agree with this, but the wording bugs me

---

quote:

---

4./...while I agree that there are parts of nature which science may never understand but that is distinct from saying science will never understand everything.

---

quote:

---

5./...But this ignores two things: plausible descriptions can be made and knowledge can progress to a point where "unusual phenomenon" can be explained.

---

quote:

---

6./...I suppose, from the assumptions, I could agree with it, but it's a meaningless statement.

---

quote:

---

7./...Is this the back-door rationalization for believing anything you want?

---

quote:

---

11./ What's the methodology behind "para-normal investigation"?

---

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

In other words, what you are stating is that things happen now which are not explained by science. But this ignores two things: plausible descriptions can be made and knowledge can progress to a point where "unusual phenomenon" can be explained.

---

quote:

---

I've heard about this as well. The claim is that it's "scientific", but I think it's just the latest pop psychology trend, not unlike phrenology in the 18th and 19th centuries.

---

I'm surprised that people at work now always comment that I never look happy. I never smile. I was completely oblivious to this. Yes, I hate my job. Yes, I hate almost everyone in my job. But when people started to comment about me not smiling, it caught me off guard. I thought I was no different then before, outwardly. These people had "read" me. The kicker was when our shift went out after work because it was someone's last day (yes, we celebrate when someone leaves). Not ten minutes into our celebratory gathering a coworker made the comment, "Look, [clockwork] is smiling!" They cued into the fact, something I already know, that once I'm outside work, I'm happy and normal. But again, I knew this internally and got caught off guard again by the observation.

Anyway, it's one thing to state that certain people can read emotions and another to generalize that as a rule. I've watched enough programs on facial expressions to know that some expressions may be cultural. Although not a facial expression, apparently there is some native tribe in some island in the south Pacific that uses the side-to-side nod to denote agreement, whereas in most other places the up-and-down nod is used. What else is "learned"? Why is the comment, "You're so much like you're father/mother," common? [Edited: haha, mea culpa! Although the mother/father comment can be used to suggest learned expressions, it can also suggest hardwired expressions (genetics, you understand). I should have said: Is the comment about "You're so much like you're mother/father," prevelant because it stems from learned behaviour?]

To tie this into "science", I can make a hypothesis from this theory. The brain is a wonderful pattern recognition machine. So wonderful, in fact, that it sees patterns that aren't there. But this is how it learns as well. So say I think that, well, maybe facial expressions are a partially learned (the brains pattern recognition machinery collects a pattern of cues about emotions and then internalizes it), partially natural. If it's partially learned, then you might be able to design an experiment that shows one person can "read" emotions of peers within their culture and then compare that person's "reading" of emotions of people with completely different cultures (good luck, though, finding isolated cultures nowadays). If it happens that this experiment can be done (yes, double blind, peer reviewed and it gets repeated) and you get a statistically significant result you now have some evidence that facial expressions are cultural. It says nothing of the mechanics involved, or how facial expressions evolve, but it suggests that your hypothesis might be right. Then you turn around and apply for more research money to figure out the cause of this.

The flip side of that experiment is that if you find someone (well, multiple someones to be able to generalize) that can read emotions in a statistically significant way and find that you get the same result, statistically, about this person reading people from different cultures, you might conclude facial expressions are hardwired (or you can just stop this line of study because you found no one that that can read emotions in a significant, controlled way, but regardless). Say smiling is universal among cultures to signal happiness. You can theorize that there are happy chemicals in the head that certain muscles, or certain regions within the brain that control muscles, respond to. So, if you can find differences in the brain between happy states and sad states and then, somehow, recreate this difference artificially and see if the subject smiles and claims he's happy, then you have evidence that happiness and smiling is a hardwired aspect of the brain, and how it works. You'd probably have another illicit drug on your hands, but that is an ethical issue. Then you might study further and find that although the expression of happiness is natural, the triggers of happiness are not. In some people, the happy chemicals get released upon reading a joke. Others find that happy chemicals get released, say, when people assault other people. You then conclude expression of happiness is ingrained, but the causes of a happy state are not (and again, apply for more money to look into why happy triggers are not universal).

And, if this all sounds simple, or even self evident, well, you stumbled on a theory someone I know says about science itself: it's the study of proving that which is already known. Sound weird? It shouldn't. Ideas come from observation, seeing those "patterns" in nature or even just simple logic. You can't make an experiment without having a hypothesis and you don't make a hypothesis without having some suspicion that the hypothesis is right (the brain, remember, is a big pattern recognition machine).

To some, facial expression and emotional state correlation may sound like phrenology. And, it might be true. But that is the whole point of the open mind. Although I argue with Zatamon, and Zatamon is trying to claim stuff about open minds, this is what it's all about. It's not stupid to wonder if phrenology is correct, at least back then. It's not stupid to maybe see if there was something to it. It is stupid, after all the evidence has been collected, all the studies repeated, all coming to the conclusion that phrenology is a crock, to then still believe it. And I should be able to go back to the original studies and repeat them today to see that, wow, they are right, it is a crank theory. Obviously, no one is going to give me money to do that, but if I had the money, I could. That is science.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

quote:

---

5./ There is a non-zero probability that unusual (or para-normal) phenomena exists that appear to contradict, and/or fall completely outside of, our accumulated body of scientific knowledge. This phenomena (depending on its nature) have been called ‘miracles’, ‘ESP’, ‘precognition’, telekinesis’, ‘mind-reading’, ‘ghosts’, ‘life after death’, etc. (Apemantus and TP already agreed)

6./ If we assume, for arguments’ sake, that both 4./ and 5./ turn out to be true, and we also assume that one particular phenomenon (for example ‘sensing’ death in close family) could not currently be studied by the scientific method, then we have to try to find suitable non-scientific methods, if we want to understand them.

---

I'm not sure I quite see it this way; I don't agree that paranormal phenomena lie outside the purview of scientific method.

When something contradicts or falls outside the body of scientific knowledge, it means that we are lacking in knowledge, not methodology.

I do agree that there is a non-zero probability for the existance of phenomena generally called 'paranormal'. But this is tied to the difficulty of proving a negative.

But just because something can't empirically be proved not to be, doesn't bear on the likelyhood of it's existance.

The onus of proof lies with the person making the claim, in other words.

I've never claimed such things don't happen or exist, I just maintain-- correctly-- that they have yet to be proved.

The concensus we should be reaching not just at "Babble" but on the left is that we should have a certain standard for determining what is happening, and what activities work and which ones don't, what is likely to be true and what is yet to be proven.

So far, the only tool at our disposal for doing so is the scientific method combined with the tools of scepticism.

quote:

---

How would you change the wording, clockwork?

---

quote:

---

3./ There are phenomena that are not suitable for hypothesis that could be “empirically tested”. The “Big Bang Theory” is one of these.

---

quote:

---

You didn't read it carefully. 4./ in essence stated that "there is a non-zero possibility that science will never understand certain phenomena"
But you have a point and it is easy to change the wording to make it clear

---

quote:

---

This is true and 5./ does not imply the opposite

---

quote:

---

This statement means that if we are convinced that a phenomenon (at least for the time being) does not land itself to the scientific method, then we should not give up, but look for other than the scientific method to try to find answers. Much like Newton's 2nd law (F=m*a) in essence said: if there is acceleration, there must be a force causing it -- keep looking for the force.

---

quote:

---

6./ If we assume, for arguments’ sake, that both 4./ and 5./ turn out to be true, and we also assume that one particular phenomenon (for example ‘sensing’ death in close family) could not currently be studied by the scientific method, then we have to try to find suitable non-scientific methods, if we want to understand them.

---

quote:

---

[To my comment about 7./] I will just ignore this as a rhetorical question.

---

quote:

---

[In response to my comments about 11./] I will get into this (next step) once consensus is reached in this thread.

---

Anyway, TP here expands on what I have said and, in turn, what DrC has said. As such, I hope this critique is representative of all three of us since we seem on the same page.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]

I merged the original 3./ into 4./ as clockwork suggested.

I created a brand new 3./ to elaborate on the process of science a bit more.

I tried to address Doc’s concern about ‘repeatability’ and TP’s concern regarding proof of existence.

I incorporated nonesuch's suggestion (in the "Strange things may happen" thread, post August 11, 2002 04:38 PM) about rational approach to studying 'unusual' phenomena (interviews, assessment, looking for pattern, consistency, frequency, etc.)

I changed 9./ to include science as well, for fairness’s sake.

For the time being, I left 11./ there, because I gave it more meaning by changes I made to 6./

I think we are making progress, let’s see if we can keep it up.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

6./ If we assume 5./ to be true and there is no immediately available scientific tool to study these phenomena (most of them not necessarily reproducible on demand), then we may wait and see if one becomes available at a later time, or we may decide to use methods currently considered non-scientific (e.g. meditation, directed dreams, autohypnosis, drug-induced hypersensitivity, séances, sensory deprivation, etc., etc.) to experiment and try to form a hypothesis.

---

quote:

---

The other study looked at an isolated tribe in Ecuador that appeared to have the same ability to identify cheaters as Harvard undergraduates, though the researchers did use a different series of questions with the Shiwiar tribe than with the students. Tribe members understood, for example, that a man who refused to lend his boat to another man who had given him a basket of fish was not following the rules.

---

The New Yorker article on facial expression isn't online, but the principal subject of the piece--Paul Ekman--does have a web site, with links to much of his published work.

One of his research interests actually is deception, and how it affects facial expression. He says that even when you're trying to deceive another, you make fleeting but perceivable micro-expressions that betray your real emotions.

quote:

---

or we may decide to use methods currently considered non-scientific (e.g. meditation, directed dreams, autohypnosis, drug-induced hypersensitivity, séances, sensory deprivation, etc., etc.) to experiment and try to form a hypothesis.

---

What? Seances? Drug-induced hypersensitivity?

Why would activities like these give you a better understanding of an unknown natural phenomenon?

There are rational methods of investigation you can use that aren't strictly scientific. Like the methods of philosophy. They're useful in trying to understand problems that can't be investigated scientifically. The nature of consciousness, say.

Maybe, while meditating or chewing coca leaves or whatever you might gain some insight into this or that question. I've had some interesting thoughts while taking drugs. Really. But if your insight can't be tested, it can still be discussed and evaluated. In that case, the method of gaining such an insight isn't important, only the insight itself.

However, in this thread I do not want to discuss details of the non-scientific methods. What I would like to accomplish here is to see if a consensus can be reached on the 11 points we got so far.

I mentioned a few examples of 'other' possible methods that might be used to help study para-normal phenomena because clockwork would not accept 11./ without, and I think 11./ is very important.

quote:

---

Richard Feynman, when experimenting with sensory deprivation and out of body experiences, noticed that 'hallucinations' and out of body sensations occurred a lot quicker when he used marihuana at the same time.

---

Feynman should have tried ketamine. It interferes with the part of the brain that keeps you aware of where your arms, legs and body are. You kind of forget that you have a body. Oh. That hand. It's mine? Quite fun if you're into weird experiences, but it leaves you absolutely useless for 10 or 12 hours or so.

quote:

---

However, in this thread I do not want to discuss details of the non-scientific methods.

---

That kind of makes it hard to reach any real consensus. I mean, there's a big difference between saying that some natural phenomena are difficult to study scientifically but can still be investigated through other rational methods, and saying we should peer into a crystal ball or astral travel with Don Juan for answers.

I have a lot of details about non-scientific methods, but I feel it is pointless to go into them until and unless a consensus is reached on the 11 points I listed in the first post. If any one of those points is dismissed by the majority of those babblers who were discussing the topic, then I don't want to carry it any further, because it would be a waste of everybody's time (as far as I am concerned).

Those 11 points are so basic and fundamental in my mind that any disagreement on those make debate with specific non-scientific methods meaningless for me.

I am not saying that I think I am absolutely right, only that I am pretty sure I will not change my mind about those statements. As you have seen, I am willing to change the wording and accommodate everyone's suggestions, as long as the essence is not compromised.

So, if no consensus is possible, I am ready to drop the subject and do something else for fun instead.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Those 11 points are so basic and fundamental in my mind that any disagreement on those make debate with specific non-scientific methods meaningless for me.

---

That is not progress in my mind.

quote:

---

No! Not for a second! I immediately began to think how this could have happened. And I realized that the clock was old and was always breaking. That the clock probably stopped some time before and the nurse coming in to the room to record the time of death would have looked at the clock and jotted down the time from that. I never made any supernatural connection, not even for a second. I just wanted to figure out how it happened.

---

I had to change some of the other points you had not objected to, so I would address the concerns of Doc, nonesuch and TP. You don't expect only your concerns to be talked about, do you? That would not be consensus-building, it would be 'clockworking'

Yes, I have read what you quoted from Feynman, however, it has nothing to do with any of my statements in this thread.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think we can now answer the question posed in the title: Obviously, it is not possible to reach consensus on science on Babble. At least not with me participating. So, as of now, I am also gone from the debate.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

If you didn't understand before, then I'll give you a specific example here. I didn't not comment about point 1 before because I agreed with it. Yet, in making the changes I asked, you went ahead and rewrote everything, not the stuff I specifically asked to be changed. There is a very particular strain of thought here that I am trying to get rid of in your consensus and everytime I think I nail it down in one point you transfer it to another.

And, I might add, I wholly dismiss point 11 because you do not want to discuss it and yet you say it's one of the most important points there. That ain't consensus.

quote:

---

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think we can now answer the question posed in the title: Obviously, it is not possible to reach consensus on science on Babble. At least not with me participating. So, as of now, I am also gone from the debate.

---

Using other than scientific method I can deduce that concensus was not the desired outcome in the first place.

quote:

---

clockwork, I will be forever grateful for your generosity.

---

Whatever happened, it was GUARANTEED that Zatamon, gawd bless his cotton sox, would go off in a childish huff.

(And I reached this conclusion by using the scientific deduction method:

is it a topic close to his heart?
does he feel strongly about it?
is it likely he will want everyone to agree with him?

quote:

---

So, as of now, I am also gone from the debate

---

Now, an interesting experiment would be to see if anyone who claims to be leaving the debate ever actually does. Some may read and not reply (by which withdrawal of their contribution could perhaps be referred to as 'gone from the debate'), but what of the many (of which you are just one example in this thread, Zatamon) who claim to be 'gone' and lo and behold, a few posts later, there they are, still IN the debate!!!

Still, it's good for a chortle!

quote:

---

You misunderstood, Apemantus. I am not 'debating' any more. I am just having fun.

---

Isn't this known as the P. Popov defence?

So what was the point of this "experiment"? To find out if concensus could be reached or to find out if there is an alternative acceptable method of researching than the scientific method?

What I find interesting (using the scientific method of observing) is that the more Zatamon tried to coral people into a model that would orchestrate a predetermined outcome, the more resistent to being penned in things became.

I agree with all of your points. I am an avid amateur consumer/student of all sciences... well, except "Creationism", which some claim to be a science.

Actually, I'm listening to Quirks and Quarks right now. My magazines consist of National Geographic, Discover, Mother Earth News, Scientific American.... and Adbusters. almost all of my TV viewing is science-based, and I loved taking it in school. To me, there's nothing more fascinating.

One of the things that I love about science is that it allows us (most of the time) to rise above ourselves and really seek the truth. No matter where you're from, or what your gender is, or what you think of the U.S. president, the fact is ____________.

Fill in whatever you want. For example:

Birds are an animal that are found everywhere from 30 thousand feet in the air, to 565 metres below the surface of the ocean.

To me, that's amazing. I love hearing these things. It's truth. It cares not for the politics of humans. Refreshing and humbling.

However:

There are several things that have happened directly to me that I cannot explain and which current science has YET to explain. That doesn't mean that humans won't devise a way to explain it at some point, in fact, I'm entirely confident that open minded, rational, dedicated scientists will explain it in the near future.

Great post, Zat.

Edited to add:

Just realized this was a bumped thread... thought is sounded familiar. I wonder if Zat ever pops in here anymore.

I'm glad Babble was re-arranged, gives some of the other forums some breath.

[ 26 July 2003: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

As to the question, i doubt if full concensus is possible. There are some fairly entrenched, incompatible views. Maybe a different question is in order. I wonder...

Trinitty, it was your strange occurrances - if i remember correctly - that started the thread that inspired this one. I found the subject very interesting at the time and i still believe it's worth investigating, particularly as you are by no means alone and should not - nor should all the others who have experienced strange things - feel isolated or dismissed.
The problem with discussing these occurrances seems to be as much semantic as conceptual: we don't seem to have a language that can bridge the emotional rift between people who measure and people who envision. While both scientists and artists can be logical and imaginative, they can't seem to talk to one another.

[ 27 July 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I'm a big fan of Science.

[ 29 July 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

There is no such thing as para-normal phenomenon,
so it's not necessary to fit it into any
scientific process.

If you read stuff such as The Tao of Physics, the
Dancing Wu-li Masters, at the sub-atomic level
where the bubble chamber observes particles
arising from nothingness, and disappearing again,
science and "mysticism" intersect, and the
language we use to describe things is lacking.

[ 06 August 2003: Message edited by: butterhead ]

Butterhead, I watched a Nature of Things on sub-atomic particles, the smallest that could be currently measured (the name escapes me) which do indeed come in and out of space as we humans can currently see it. What fascinated me the most was that everything, this keyboard, the car outside, the planet Neptune, everything has these some free-moving radical particles at their very core. That was one of the most interesting science show's I've ever seen. Gamma Ray Bursts are a close second.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trinitty:
Just realized this was a bumped thread... thought is sounded familiar. I wonder if Zat ever pops in here anymore.

---

[ 09 August 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]