Question for dB

[Rick Deckard]

years later i was to walk into the pathology dept of the royal hospital for women here in sydney and see a dead baby on a plastic kitchen breadboard, open from crotch to chin with its intestines spread out either side, one look at the lab technician slurping down hokien noodles from the malaysian takeaway next door , reminded me i just didnt have the stomach for that kind of work

I think you probably have to put aspects of your personality into another 'place' to cope with jobs of that nature. I wonder if people with those sorts of jobs develop psychological problems - perhaps you need psychological problems in order to cope with it.

 

[mike]

some of the storys i could tell you....
from carpenters being called to use wooden mallets to "realign" a body that hadnt been laid out before rigor mortis set in, to the two porters who were playing catch with a still born baby wrapped in foil, only to fumble the pass and drop it.........and have it start crying.
i once open the rear door of a car that had pulled up at the main entrance in time to watch a baby get born that same second, had another one in the lift or rather someone else did, i was in the lift too.
seen crazy old men run naked down the hall in the palliative care ward

happy times

ive worked for all sorts of business's even the swiss bank corp of australia, but the hospital is by far the most bizzare place ive been
those noodles got me though, they looked just like the babys intestines identical in shape size and colour, and for just a moment as my brain struggled to make sense of what my eyes were seeing..............

 

[swatcher]

years later i was to walk into the pathology dept of the royal hospital for women here in sydney and see a dead baby on a plastic kitchen breadboard, open from crotch to chin with its intestines spread out either side, one look at the lab technician slurping down hokien noodles from the malaysian takeaway next door , reminded me i just didnt have the stomach for that kind of work

:eek

WAY TOO MUCH INFO FOR ME!

 

[swatcher]

Re profession. Thanks guys!
I'm a composer.

 

[PamiP]

All of you should have been walking with me through the Pathology Department a few days ago. A tech passed me "marching" down the hall. The "rifle" over his right shoulder was a human leg, and he was holding the foot as the butt of the gun. Seeing strange stuff like this used freaked me out when I started working there, but I guess my senses have kind of numbed to it.

 

[mike]

Re profession. Thanks guys!
I'm a composer.

lol i cant read a note of music, but i play piano, flute , guitar and saxaphone. i only need to find the notes on the instrument and then i can play it by ear.

 

[mike]

I think you're original statement is entirely based on FAITH.

Your confidence that science will get to the 'truth' is almost entirely based on 'past performance'. Now, that's not an unreasonable stance to take (many live by it)

on this point while the "labels" faith and confidence appear to describe the same thing, a close inspection of the data subsets beneath each shows they are in fact diametrically opposed.

faith is belief without evidence
confidence is belief based on the evidence

so no i dont have FAITH in science, i am simply confident based on past performance
science has unravelled many a very complex mystery. im confident that it can bring us closer to understanding, on any topic its aimed at.

 

[Rick Deckard]

faith is belief without evidence
confidence is belief based on the evidence

so no i dont have FAITH in science, i am simply confident based on past performance science has unravelled many a very complex mystery. im confident that it can bring us closer to understanding, on any topic its aimed at.

But your confidence that science will close the gap on the UFO question is based on the past progress science has made collecting evidence on totally unrelated phenomena.

So, what you're really saying is that, assuming that UFOs CAN be explained by science (in other words, assuming that UFOs are similar in their nature to phenomena that has already been satisfactorily explained by science), you are confident that science can explain them. What about the possibility that science CANNOT explain the reality UFOs? Or is that 'heresy'.

 

[mike]

the only way for you to prove that science cant answer the question, would be for you to provide scientific proof it cant.



i cant loose

 

[Rick Deckard]

the only way for you to prove that science cant answer the question, would be for you to provide scientific proof it cant.

Use science to prove that science can't prove everything.

Well, that's just a paradox isn't it? That's like the 'God doesn't exist' logic from the "Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy".

My stance is that I'm not certain that science will solve the UFO question. It might do, but I have no way of knowing that.

You stance is that you are certain that science will solve the UFO question.

You are saying you are certain it can and I'm say I don't know. Surely it's up to you to prove that science CAN prove everything rather than for me to prove it can't.

But wait - you're just gonna say "past performance"...

...I don't think we'll get past this. Time to move on.

 

[mike]

Use science to prove that science can't prove everything.

Well, that's just a paradox isn't it? That's like the 'God doesn't exist' logic from the "Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy".

My stance is that I'm not certain that science will solve the UFO question. It might do, but I have no way of knowing that.

You stance is that you are certain that science will solve the UFO question.

Nothing is absolute, the human body and its workings were as great a mystery as the UFO question until only very recently. michelangelo was a grave robber.
its not so much that im certain, as i am confident to make my predictions based on the observed trends

lets just say i think its more likely that science will provide answers than the likelyhood that it doesnt. (based on observed trends in every field so far)

science is the only way we can understand it, its how we are built to test and navigate in our environment. the minute you say 3 foot grey, youve used science, youve measured its height and described its colour.

 

[Rick Deckard]

lets just say i think its more likely that science will provide answers than the likelyhood that it doesnt. (based on observed trends in every field so far)

That's something we can agree on.

science is the only way we can understand it,

Personally, I would never make such a bold claim.

the minute you say 3 foot grey, youve used science, youve measured its height and described its colour.

Well, I'm not questioning the usefulness of the scientific method, only it's ability to explain everything.

The crux of my argument is that while it's understandable that people marvel at the progress of the science and the benefits it has provided, we mustn't be complacent about it's ability to explain everything.

In my mind at least, there is a possibility that there are some things in this Universe that we may not be able to explain. Yes, you can say "well it's only a matter of time before science cracks the problem" and that's a reasonable stance to take and I've said many times before that things are only 'impossible' until they become 'possible'.

But, what if you have a phenomena, such as 'dark matter', that while appearing to be 'real' (we can observe it's gravitational effects) is totally undetectable due to it's very nature? What if we have a phenomena that is actually transformed into something else simply by observing it? What if there are phenomena that is able to consciously 'resist' scientific study?

Once again, science will probably give us the answers at some point, but I will never say I'm certain of that. And let us not forget, that at the end of the day, science is just a model of reality that is arrived at through observation of repeatable effects - it may or may not describe actual, objective reality.

I think I've exhausted my enthusiasm for this topic. While this thread has made me re-examine my stance, nothing that has been said has changed my mind.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Rob]

... What if we have a phenomena that is actually transformed into something else simply by observing it? ...

What exactly are you talking about?

 

[Rick Deckard]

What exactly are you talking about?

I'm not talking about anything in exact terms. I'm theorising about the possibility that there may be some phenomena that cannot be adequately studied by the scientific method due to the nature of their physical reality.

 

[Rob]

Can you give an example of a phenomena with a physical reality that cannot be adequately studied by the scientific method?

 

[Rick Deckard]

Can you give an example of a phenomena with a physical reality that cannot be adequately studied by the scientific method?

Of course not. I never claimed I could.

 

[Rob]

I never claimed you could either, but you did seem to suggest it.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I never claimed you could either, but you did seem to suggest it.

I'm not talking about anything in exact terms. I'm theorising about the possibility that there may be some phenomena that cannot be adequately studied by the scientific method due to the nature of their physical reality.

Okay, well we've clarified that point now. Thanks.

 

[Rob]

Alright.

Just to make sure then, when you said "What if there are phenomena that is able to consciously 'resist' scientific study?", you can't provide or imagine any examples of this either?

 

[Rick Deckard]

Just to make sure then, when you said "What if there are phenomena that is able to consciously 'resist' scientific study?", you can't provide or imagine any examples of this either?

Yes. That is correct.