-
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!
Question for dB
- Thread starter swatcher
- Start date
Free episodes:
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Rob said:
Re-read the entire thread for the answer to your question.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Rob said:
Arrrghhh, the energy is being drained...This...is...the...last...time...must...stay...concious...
The major part of this thread is a conversation between Mike and myself about his statement that he was certain that science could 'close the gap' on the UFO phenomena based on the 'past performance' of scientific endeavour, which has made progress in some areas (how much progress is debatable).
The only real difference between Mike's position and my own is that I don't think you can be certain that science will be able to explain EVERYTHING (including the UFO phenomena). To re-enforce that argument, I am making the suggestion (okay, perhaps 'theory' was too grand a term) that there may be phenomena that, for whatever reason, defy scientific explanation.
I hope that helps, because I can't put it any clearer terms than that.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Rob said:
I could sense you were building up to this sort of response by the tone of your previous posts. I don't think you do 'get it', because that's not what I'm saying at all. Why would I want to 'bolster UFO accounts'? My issue is with the rejection of the possibility that science may not be able to explain everything.
If you reject the possibility that science may have it's limits, then in my eyes, that's no better than the position of a religious zealot who refuses to entertain the idea of an 'imperfect' God.
How many more times do I have to spell this is out?
BTW, 'making shit up' is a scientific principle - it's called 'hypothesizing' - see the theory supporting 'Dark Matter', which is the current scientific hypothesis to account for the missing 80% of all known matter in the universe. Scientists have been trying for nearly two decades to detect a 'Dark Matter' particle, even though their own theory states that it's very nature makes it undetectable. Now, who's 'making shit it up in an attempt to strengthen their own position'?
Rob
No UFOs
Tricky, Tricky, Tricky.
I'm not disputing your statement "... my rejection of the possibility that science may not be able to explain everything" since I never said you did (and please lay off the /b, it comes out condescending), but I do get the clear and distinct feeling that you're swerving on the issue here. You were referring to UFO sightings, not Dark Matter (which incidently isn't just pulled out of one's arse but based on quite a lot of evidence than can be observed and measured).
You're not being coherent in your posts.
I'm not disputing your statement "... my rejection of the possibility that science may not be able to explain everything" since I never said you did (and please lay off the /b, it comes out condescending), but I do get the clear and distinct feeling that you're swerving on the issue here. You were referring to UFO sightings, not Dark Matter (which incidently isn't just pulled out of one's arse but based on quite a lot of evidence than can be observed and measured).
You're not being coherent in your posts.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Rob said:
Well, this is the problem, isn't it Rob? You haven't said much at all, so I've no idea what you are or are not disputing.
As far as this thread goes, I 'peaked' at post #72 - it's been downhill since then. My enthusiasm for this topic is diminishing with every additional post I have to make on the 'down slope' that follows the 'peak'.
So far, all I've had from you are several request to repeat or clarify points. You've made no attempt to express your views on the topic in hand. Until you do, I feel increasingly less inclined to respond to your posts.
I keep using bold because you seem to be consistently overlooking the main thrust of my position in favour of 'straw man' arguments. I'm sorry if that appears condescending to you, but I am just trying to get your attention focused on the points I'm trying to make.
Rob
No UFOs
I honestly don't see what difference it makes whatever my position is since my questions have been perfectly clear. You didn't have to answer them if you didn't want to...
My views? Well, not a kick in the balls that far from your own as it happens, probably closer to Mike's, and I don't like to stray into fragile territory for position bolstering (like QM... Not that I'm saying you did... Well, almost...)
My views? Well, not a kick in the balls that far from your own as it happens, probably closer to Mike's, and I don't like to stray into fragile territory for position bolstering (like QM... Not that I'm saying you did... Well, almost...)
The Pair of Cats
a.k.a Philip Deane
Rob said:
Psychiatric illness.
Define "adequate".
The Pair of Cats
a.k.a Philip Deane
Rob said:
The effect of gamma rays on man in the moon marigolds.
The Pair of Cats
a.k.a Philip Deane
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Rob said:
Looks like a young Peter Cook to me, but I could be mistaken...
Rob
No UFOs
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yYfNh8S94l0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yYfNh8S94l0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Peter Cook, in one of his last sketches on TV.
Peter Cook, in one of his last sketches on TV.
Rob said:
Current science is only accurate with worldly phenomena so mundane that they are the same in every circumstance. There is a reason why repeatability is such a major factor in the scientific method.
The scientific method is all great and la la la, but perhaps there are worldly phenomena that don't fit into the neat little package that our human "understanding" expects of this world.
Random story:
Once a young scientist was proposed to by a young lady. He had seen other men follow their hearts and foolishly enter into marriage, so he decided to take the scientific route in order to reach an answer.
He took out a sheet of paper, and on the left side he wrote reasons why he should marry this particular woman, and on the right he wrote reasons why he should not. After this, he took each individual reason and quantified it with a value from 1 to 100. He consulted all the marriage experts he knew so that he was certain to be completely thorough.
He tallied up the numbers in each column. After having done all this, the results were: Marry her: 525, Don't marry her: 474.
The results were in, and they were unambiguously in favor of marriage. And so he married her.
3 months later they were divorced and she walked away with half his estate.
BrandonD said:
thus scientifically proving his methods were flawed, he tested to see if he should get married and did. the test doesnt mention scores for long term suitability and duration.
he would have been better to have considered both sides of the equation and had her provide the same data.
he only took into consideration his data...........excluding her thoughts and feelings in regards to the equation.
it doesnt take Dr phil to predict the results of that approach
the experiment was a sucess, though perhaps the results were disapointing from his pov.
mike said:
It's a short story. I could lengthen it and include every bit of additional jargon you mentioned, and it wouldn't change the point of the story at all.
One of the points of the story is this: The test of successful science is in its ability to predict phenomena. And yet all the worldly phenomena of actual significance in the human experience are unpredictable. There are absolutely no scientific means of predicting them, because they exist outside the realm of science.
Science is an extension of thought. The world cannot be encompassed with thought alone.
(Maybe I should write fortune cookies ha)
BrandonD said:
well then its more in the nature of a fairy tale fable than it is a depiction of science.
but even if you did that, and changed the original parameters to include tests for long term suitability, and both persons respective perspective on it, all the results show is that the criteria used DO NOT provide one with a method of calculating the potential sucess of the union.
moving the goal posts doesnt change the principle. the original "test" was to see if he should get married, which he did. the original "test" was not for long term suitability.
if your going to modify the "story" to include data for long term durability, then i put it to you that this is not a case history so much as a fable.
none the less the story is one of tests and results, and from that perspective its good science, just because the results were not as predicted doesnt invalidate them or the process
mike said:
Call it whatever and pick whatever nits you like, it proves the point I was trying to make. It's my opinion that there are things in this world that cannot be scientifically predicted, no matter how much one wishes that man's brain can swallow the universe.
mike said:
Are you saying that a test that is unable to predict anything is still good science, simply because it's a test?