great show/interview 12-2-07

[CapnG]

Solve nothing, I want science to elimintate my beliefs. Beliefs are for children and Santa Claus, I want to KNOW things. If I can't know them, or they simply cannot be known to me for whatever reason, well too bad for me but I still consider it a better and more honest approach to life than just making shit up as I go along in order to provide self-delusional comfort or falling in line with some dogmatic structure because I'm too lazy to come up with things on my own.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Solve nothing, I want science to elimintate my beliefs. Beliefs are for children and Santa Claus, I want to KNOW things. If I can't know them, or they simply cannot be known to me for whatever reason, well too bad for me but I still consider it a better and more honest approach to life than just making shit up as I go along in order to provide self-delusional comfort or falling in line with some dogmatic structure because I'm too lazy to come up with things on my own.

So you want science to tell you what to believe? If you want your beliefs eliminated, have a lobotomy.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

...... I still consider it a better and more honest approach to life than just making shit up as I go along in order to provide self-delusional comfort or falling in line with some dogmatic structure because I'm too lazy to come up with things on my own.

Do you have any beliefs? Or have they already tampered with by religion.
Science is just another dogmatic structure with a limited set of beliefs trying to explain things it doesn't know or understand to people who need comforting and who can't figure things out for themselves.

 

[BrandonD]

What? More bizarre than you and Brandon arguing about what part of the brain a joke or humor stimulates?

Ha! I think that's just what I needed, a little jab in the humor zone.

 

[BrandonD]

What's with this anti-science kick I wonder? I thought it was limited to the bible-belt but evidently not...

What you take to be "science" is actually cultural mythology. And because I don't buy into your cultural mythology you think I'm anti-science.

But I'm actually more science minded than you, in my not-very-humble opinion. I take everything as an unknown, to the greatest extent that I'm able. Judging from your comments, your world consists of a collection of known items. That is not how a scientist looks at the world.

You say that humans are talking meat, which we might be, but I personally take it as an unknown and your position is FAR from proven.

 

[CapnG]

Do you have any beliefs? Or have they already tampered with by religion.
Science is just another dogmatic structure with a limited set of beliefs trying to explain things it doesn't know or understand to people who need comforting and who can't figure things out for themselves.

Naturally I have beliefs, I'm a human being after all but I don't really hold any of them sacred, I question them constantly. You and I seem to have very different opinions as to what science is and more importantly, what it's FOR.

What you take to be "science" is actually cultural mythology. And because I don't buy into your cultural mythology you think I'm anti-science.

Facts can't be myths Brandon, that's why their facts. Pick a team.

But I'm actually more science minded than you, in my not-very-humble opinion. I take everything as an unknown, to the greatest extent that I'm able. Judging from your comments, your world consists of a collection of known items. That is not how a scientist looks at the world.

I disagree on all counts. Science is a wall of knowledge built brick by brick through generations of experiments and failed theories. You make it sound as if things which are well known should be discounted as unknown anyway, just in case. That's ludicrous and that's not how science works.

You say that humans are talking meat, which we might be, but I personally take it as an unknown and your position is FAR from proven.

I could say "prove me wrong" or rather "construct a demonstrable means to convince me otherwise" but that would be pointless as it is, after all, my opinion. The difference here is that you CHOOSE to declare it "unknown" wheras I am taking it as a known (or at least evident likelyhood) until such time as I am convinced to the contrary.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Naturally I have beliefs, I'm a human being after all but I don't really hold any of them sacred, I question them constantly. You and I seem to have very different opinions as to what science is and more importantly, what it's FOR.

Not really. I know what science is and what it's for.
I just don't sit around pinning my hopes on the fact that "science", as such, will provide me the answers to everything, or anything, especially in the paranormal area.
Most scientists don't want to get involved in this area due to the threat of ridicule, loss of jobs or positions etc. (sounds heretical to me). And as long as science has been studying the paranormal they have not come up with any substantial evidence for anything, just more theories like Persinger's "god" helmet or ball lightning or some other theory that is just as wacked out as any from the lunatic fringe of this field.

 

[CapnG]

Not really. I know what science is and what it's for.
I just don't sit around pinning my hopes on the fact that "science", as such, will provide me the answers to everything, or anything, especially in the paranormal area.

Oh, I don't necessarily expect to see answers in my lifetime, I just tend to think it will provide answers eventually. For instance, we used to think the sun went away at night because a snake ate it, now we know better. We know it's really a hamster.

Most scientists don't want to get involved in this area due to the threat of ridicule, loss of jobs or positions etc. (sounds heretical to me). And as long as science has been studying the paranormal they have not come up with any substantial evidence for anything, just more theories like Persinger's "god" helmet or ball lightning or some other theory that is just as wacked out as any from the lunatic fringe of this field.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Ball lightening is random, Persinger's helmet at least delivers. What I'd like to see with Persinger though is a completely BIASED study. UNbiased studies are boring and inconclusive in a kinda-sorta way. I want people who claim to have had alien contact, OBEs, hallucinogenic "awakenings" and other paranormal experiences to don the helmet and tell us whether or not the experiences jibe. Do that and I'd say we'd get something valuable.

 

[Brian Now]

People spend their lives hoping that science can explain the mysteries of their life because it's easier than actually believing in the existence in something.

What a bizarre statement. It's actually much easier to just believe in something than it is to devise a hypothesis, create experiments and do research to try and see if what people believe is actually what's happening. It's called "belief" because it's not fact.

What's with this anti-science kick I wonder? I thought it was limited to the bible-belt but evidently not...

I hate saying stuff like this because it makes me feel like Mr Rogers..but you're both right! in my opinion. It's not difficult to find either type of person...though I suspect the majority find it easier to believe than to analyze.

 

[Brian Now]

I really hope Flaxman delivers and sends David those images from the thermal cam of the dancing little girl ghost and the man with his arms folded. We've heard this kind of claim by guests before and never saw the proof. I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Oh, I don't necessarily expect to see answers in my lifetime, I just tend to think it will provide answers eventually. For instance, we used to think the sun went away at night because a snake ate it, now we know better. We know it's really a hamster.

Yes eventually!
Funnily enough i agree....to a point! Eventually when science can break down its narrow mindedness and agree to look at events and subjects outside its limits and not vilify those who genuinely want to study phenomena in a credible and fair minded way, "we may eventually" see some decent scientific findings on the paranormal. Until then the bulk of research will done by the likes of the plumbers and part time, amateur researchers of TAPS and the like. (no disrespect intended to those of TAPS or their fans!).

p.s
By the way, the sun isn't eaten at night by a snake or a hamster, it's devoured by a giant, carnivorous wombat!!! crikey!!! lol

 

[BrandonD]

I disagree on all counts. Science is a wall of knowledge built brick by brick through generations of experiments and failed theories. You make it sound as if things which are well known should be discounted as unknown anyway, just in case. That's ludicrous and that's not how science works.

I would guess that we disagree on what is "well known" and what isn't. Your idea of what is well-known is based solely upon arguments from authority. And I happen to agree with Thomas Aquinas, arguments from authority are the weakest of all arguments.

We've run around the bush here trying to elucidate our points, but I could probably summarize the main point of my rant by referencing this comic I once read. It had this einstein-looking scientist writing at a huge chalkboard, which was covered top-to-bottom with a line of very complex equations. Somewhere in the middle of this line of equations was this sentence: "and then a miracle happens".

That is a perfect picture of science. Men can puff out their chests as much as they like and bask in their own intelligence, but a mystery is still lodged right in the middle of absolutely every subject because every subject is inescapably tied to human cognition, and that is because humans are the perceivers of this world.

 

[CapnG]

I would guess that we disagree on what is "well known" and what isn't. Your idea of what is well-known is based solely upon arguments from authority. And I happen to agree with Thomas Aquinas, arguments from authority are the weakest of all arguments.

Wouldn't that mean Thomas is making himself an authority on the relative strengths of arguments? Ack! Paradox! But I digress...

The thing is, that's only true up to a point. The beauty of science is you can do it too! Remember back in school, all those beakers and bunsen burners? You could do the experiments and see for yourself, no authoritative directives required!

Now, when it comes to certain areas yes indeed, I must bow to authority simply because I can't afford to build my own scanning electron microscopes and my own knowledge of physics is remarkably basic. I don't owe any allegience to that authority however because all it takes is a smarter scientist with a better experiment and presto-change-oh the books get re-written. I suppose you could say I'm infatuated with science but refuse to get married because science is self-correcting (at least in theory, when vital research is not being quashed by corporate overlords to maintain profit margins). Beliefs on the other hand are largely immutable.

 

[BrandonD]

I suppose you could say I'm infatuated with science but refuse to get married because science is self-correcting (at least in theory, when vital research is not being quashed by corporate overlords to maintain profit margins). Beliefs on the other hand are largely immutable.

Haha, that's a good way of putting it. I'm infatuated with reason perhaps, but contemporary science has been terribly perverted in my opinion.

I don't defer to Aquinas for my opinions on arguments, I just happen to agree with him. Here's an example of what I mean by arguments from authority: A few months ago I was listening to a talk radio station in my town, and they mentioned that Stephen Hawking recanted some statements he'd made previously about the nature of the cosmos.

What Mr Hawking says is gospel, at least to the science-infatuated. And so, in exactly the same fashion as the pope, with a few brief sentences Hawking managed to re-order the universe for all the lay-persons who kneel at his throne.

And on top of that, despite the claims of absolute objectivity, belief is unfortunately a VERY strong element within the scientific community. And it is sometimes even more insidious than religion because those within science have convinced themselves that they don't have belief-based motivations. And unfortunately, they obviously do.

Stephen Hawking himself has proclaimed his motivation to prove that a supreme being is not necessary for the creation of the universe. Perhaps that's the case, but this approach is entirely unscientific and a belief-based motivation for scientific research.

Now considering this example (one among many) of an imminent scientist with belief-based agendas and mistaken conclusions, I find it difficult to accept what science feeds us as "well known".

But we are definitely on the same page with regards to beliefs.

 

[CapnG]

Stephen Hawking himself has proclaimed his motivation to prove that a supreme being is not necessary for the creation of the universe. Perhaps that's the case, but this approach is entirely unscientific and a belief-based motivation for scientific research.

That's silly, Stephen should be well aware you can't prove negatives. Alas scientists are human too which is why when I say "science" you need to understand I mean the actual concept, not the convoluted, tenure ridden, politically confused, research dollar strapped mess that is the scientific "community".

In terms of my beliefs, I'm an agnostic deist: I'm not entirely convinced there is a supreme being(s) (supposition) but if there is, I'm fairly convinced it doesn't care about me/us (observation).

Now, if you want to talk "faith" on the other hand, that's an easy one: I put my faith in Blast Hardcheese!

[Youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=D5xhfCGcAYw[/Youtube]

 

[thegreenman]

I agree completely that this was a great show! It's refreshing to see people like Larry with a combination of an open mind and a scientific skeptical approach in the field of paranormal research.

This was my favorite interview to date, I'd love to see Larry come back in for the round table discussions with Ritzmann et. al.

One thing that was not mentioned, Does ARPAST do any testing for infrasound on their investigations? It's well documented that infrasound at certain frequencies can cause paranormal-like hallucinations.

If only the paranormal research field had one Larry Flaxman for every ten Eric Juliens. Oh, what a world it would be.

 

[DeeJay]

When I listened to this show, and Larry said, he will send the thermal camera footage to David, I started wondering about the process of making thermal camera recording. Obviously it is not enough to make only an infrared recording, because that does not prove that the 'object' was invisible. (In this case maybe it was just the thermal footage of a little girl dancing around an other person.) So you need a second footage from a normal camera done at the same time. That does only prove the phenomenon, if the recordings were done in the same time. I'm stuck here, because camera clocks can be manipulated, so I think if you get the two recordings with the same time tag, that still can't be taken as evidence.

I still would be intrested to see the footage though.

And by the way, there is still no country called Czechoslovakia.