• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Crystal Skulls - May 3oth 2011

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Oh....I'm chill and I sincerely hope that Lance and "Trained" are, too. This is engaging conversation and debate! It's not personal nor attacking and I think it's constructive and useful in it's content.

Getting back to the Skulls........well.....I think they're bunk.

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------
Angel of Ioren said:
Jeff, that's a horrible example to use. He's a ufologist, not a scientist.
Click to expand...

Um.......Stanton "The nuclear physicist" Friedman? I'm pretty sure physicist = scientist unless I'm missing something?
 
Sandanfire said:
Oh....I'm chill and I sincerely hope that Lance and "Trained" are, too. This is engaging conversation and debate! It's not personal nor attacking and I think it's constructive and useful in it's content.

Getting back to the Skulls........well.....I think they're bunk.

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------



Um.......Stanton "The nuclear physicist" Friedman? I'm pretty sure physicist = scientist unless I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

This seems to be a totally chill discussion.

He was a scientist when it came to that. He has completely abandoned the scientific method when it comes to UFOs. There is no convincing him of anything but what he thinks of UFOs.
 
Sandanfire said:
Again, I disagree. I've seen many scientists cling, quite desperately, to their edicts, say, Mr. Friedman?
Click to expand...

I think you confuse Science, The Scientific Method, and individual scientists. They are discrete and cannot be described or spoken about as though they were the same things.

Sandanfire said:
... including the narrow-minded and singular "scientific method."
Click to expand...

How do you see the scientific method as being narrow-minded and singular? Also, you said it was faulty. How is it faulty?

Sandanfire said:
Science and religion are 100% interchangeable. There can, and does, exist faith in both, and that faith can be misplaced in either.
Click to expand...

I cannot help but think that your understanding of what science and religion are is radically different than mine.

For the sake of the discussion can you tell me what you believe the scientific method and religious faith to be?

Sandanfire said:
As far as religion not being able to change it's mind, I point out Martin Luther and it's 96 theses, ..
Click to expand...

Point taken. However, I am talking about religious faith(s) rather than individual practitioners. Christianity does not have as one of its basic principles to question and change its teaching on the basis of new information. Most fundamental religious thought views its concepts of how the world works as immutable because they come from an immutable source. Science on the other hand has as fundamental principles things called uncertainty and doubt.
 
Yeah it is a good discussion and I didn't mean to infer it was nasty. Just some general observations from many debates I've seen and engaged in. :-)
 
trainedobserver said:
Christianity does not have as one of its basic principles to question and change its teaching on the basis of new information.
Click to expand...

However, as a former evangelical I have indeed found the freedom to change my acceptance due to new information. :-) I also tried on the ole athiest hat and it didn't work for me. I tried the ole agnostic hat and to be honest it fits pretty well except that I still have an inner prayer life which I plan to only abandon at the point of death (if then.) :-) I guess I can honestly say I lean toward reincarnation because of some past life memories and experiences but I don't beleive in it. I just think it makes as much or as little sense as anything else I've heard and I've had some things happen that give me reason to consider it. I have been amazed at the faith of hospice workers and terminal folks and the stories of laughter that they share at times in the face of apparent hoplessness. The human spirit is amazing and no I don't think you can measure that. These folks look to science and pray to God and they don't seem to have near the problem that religous and non religous people do with that. :-)
 
trainedobserver said:
I think you confuse Science, The Scientific Method, and individual scientists. They are discrete and cannot be described or spoken about as though they were the same things.
Click to expand...

Exactly. See my next point.


trainedobserver said:
How do you see the scientific method as being narrow-minded and singular? Also, you said it was faulty. How is it faulty?
Click to expand...

The scientific method cannot be applied to the all-of science, nor all of our understanding of reality. In that case, it is flawed in that it is not universal.

trainedobserver said:
I cannot help but think that your understanding of what science and religion are is radically different than mine.

For the sake of the discussion can you tell me what you believe the scientific method and religious faith to be?
Click to expand...

Scientific method, a linear process consisting of observation, statement of observation (hypothesis), testing of the statement (experimentation), results, conclusion of the testing, evaluation, modification, or discarding of the statement. Usually the break down occurs during the interpretation of the results (due to poor data (drink!!), preconception going into the experiment, etc...) and the conclusions. X = Y when the equals is corrupted in some fashion and leads to a falsification of science.
As an analogy to religious faith; an earthquake strikes Haiti and a religious fundamentalist (who we all know and hate) proclaims that the reason why the earthquake struck the island was because the inhabitants defy God. Again X = Y when the equals is corrupted and leads to the falsification.

trainedobserver said:
Point taken. However, I am talking about religious faith(s) rather than individual practitioners. Christianity does not have as one of its basic principles to question and change its teaching on the basis of new information. Most fundamental religious thought views its concepts of how the world works as immutable because they come from an immutable source. Science on the other hand has as one its fundamental principles things called uncertainty and doubt.
Click to expand...

As far as this last point, please go back and read my post a bit more thoroughly. I discuss not just Martin Luther, but denominations and the principle of reincarnation within Christianity. Both of these points address your last concern.
 
Sorry Lance, I posted right after you did but wasn't trying to "deflect" what you said. I think only Chris can answer your question. I understand you get frustrated but I also can relate. I have often posted about people doing research and other things and had people take a word such as "atheist' or "christian" or some other flash point and go way off from where I was trying to go. It happens. But, still good discussion so far. :cool:
 
Angel of Ioren said:
This seems to be a totally chill discussion.

He was a scientist when it came to that. He has completely abandoned the scientific method when it comes to UFOs. There is no convincing him of anything but what he thinks of UFOs.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat, but stick by my example that Stanton is a scientist who "swayed the path" when it comes to science and as a practitioner of such.
He is convinced of his stance regarding UFO's because he's shifted to faith in what HE saw as a scientific review of, say, the MJ12 documents, and clings to the faith regarding their legitimacy. I"m sure if you were to ask him if he considered those documents in a semblance of scientific review he would give a fairly convicted answer of "Yes."

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------
trainedobserver said:
Can you give me an example where it cannot be applied?
Click to expand...

Um.........again, please see above in my discussion's with Lance in this same thread. I've already addressed such things.
 
Gentlemen,

It's been a truly engaging conversation throughout the day! My hats off to Lance, Trained, Tyder, and Angel. Unfortunately I'm heading home for the night and may not be able to discuss anything else for the rest of the day....too busy for computer time tonight.

I truly hope you all have a great night. Stay safe.

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------
lancemoody said:
For me, your examples don't show what you seem to suggest they do (indeed, they seem the opposite).

Lance
Click to expand...

Then we clearly view them in difference. My examples show deviations from the straight-line scientific method, that cannot be tested in many real-world situations involving either animals or human beings. I also do not see how the scientific method can be applied to philosophy at all.

But at this point it's clear we're not to change one anothers' minds. Agree to disagree?
 
‎"Incoherencies in Matter, and Suppositions without Proofs put handsomely together in good Words and a plausible Style, are apt to pass for strong Reason and good Sense, till they come to be looked into with Attention"
-John Locke
 
If it wasn't for our two hosts, this could have been aired on Project Camelot.The guest seems like a nice guy, but ..
 
dyingsun said:
If it wasn't for our two hosts, this could have been aired on Project Camelot.The guest seems like a nice guy, but ..
Click to expand...

There was the part where he talked about "the blue skull" that he saw in the vision or dream that he thought may or may not be real that hooked me. I was listening from then on for the next incredible statement or revelation. Gene had this astonished resignation in his voice at a couple of points that I related to completely. All in all for a subject like Crystal Skulls could they have found a better guest? I don't think so.
 
If you care to read an article about crystal skulls that will not insult your skeptic sensibilities, try this one, written by Philip Coppens.

Philip also contributed to an article about the Mitchell-Hedges skull for the Darklore anthology (vol. 2). Pretty interesting, considering how he pointed out that, prior to the skull's 1st 'official' appearance in London, Frederick Mitchell-Hedgeswrote a novel titled The White Tiger --in which the protagonist is shown an ancient cache of Aztec treasure, including "crystal heads"...
 
red_pill_junkie said:
If you care to read an article about crystal skulls that will not insult your skeptic sensibilities, try this one, written by Philip Coppens.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not I've already read that back down the road somewhere.

That the things are mysterious and interesting is a given. That quartz crystal in such a form could have any real significant electromagnetic or any other properties freely attributed to them is pure pseudo-science however. (Any electrical engineers or IC guys in the crowd?) The whole bit about crystals and crystal skulls in particular being attributed properties of highly engineered and doped materials is really silly in my book. These things appear to ornamental and ceremonial in nature and they are apparently being used as bizarre objects of worship today by some people who indue them with all sorts of mystical and pseudo-scientific properties. Any real phenomena surrounding them, if there is such, would seem to be buried under a large cartload of bullshit.
 
He totally lost me and not only me it seems, very frigging early on. I feel a sort of pity for this man, unlike I did feel for Dr. Sauder. If it makes him happy and he apparently spend much of his adolescent Life on it, I'm all for it. If he gets something out of it, cool. Hope he was aware that most people think of it as new-age bullshit. Now let's meditate on that one.

(It was utter bullshit)
 
Back
Top