Replication as a means of debunking...

[DavidRavenMoon]

In many fundamentalist 'communities' church goers who have been 'counseled' report a vast satanic cult which has sacrificed tens of thousands of babies per year to Satan, something the 'de-programmed' victims saw with their own eyes. It's just terrible, the depth to which Satan will go. And even here we have testimony that all you have to do is say 'Be gone in the name of Jesus' and the bad guy aliens will leave you alone (smething neither Hopkins nor Jacobs agrees with, btw.)

Satan didn't kill those kids... people did. The Bible is filled with stories of God killing thousands of people. How many did Satan kill in the Bible?

I'm a witch. I've been a witch since I was a pre-teen. People see a pentagram around my neck and ask if I'm a Satanist. I answer no, because there is no such thing as Satan! I also don't believe in Heaven or Hell. Those are purely human created fantasies.

As far as I have ever heard the only person who claimed that evoking the name of Jesus stopped an abduction was L.A. Marzulli. Hopkins and Jacobs has worked with a couple of hundred people each, and never once did someone say that. They did say that people tried saying it, and it didn't do squat.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I've always looked at the paranormal more like studying biology. If you happen to catch sight of a very rare tiger in the wild, but go back and can't see it in the same spot again, does that mean that tiger does not exist? Replication, to a point, is a valid scientific demand but it's become a very unrealistic battle cry of skeptics.
I've caught some very compelling EVP's in my ghost hunting days. Can I replicate them by going back to the same place and catching the same sound bits? Of course not, so, of course, it doesn't exist to them. It's something that people who believe or experience the paranormal just have to put up with from the other side of the rift.

 

[threed]

If you happen to catch sight of a very rare tiger in the wild, but go back and can't see it in the same spot again, does that mean that tiger does not exist?

As you say, the problem is that your subjective experience cannot be replicated. Now suppose there is a common scientific theory that precludes the existence of that same very rare tiger.

[The "light speed" issue is a case in point.]

Experimental evidence, in the form of mathematical models or directly observable phenomenon, exists that allows scientists around the world to duplicate the same subjective experience. So, here on the one hand, we have your unique encounter that no one can duplicate. There, on the other hand, we have a "theory" that anyone with the know-how can reproduce anywhere in the world at any time (and get the same results).

In the court of ideas, your side of the case comes up weak. So, as I said, you have an enormous burden of proof.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Science has its limits. It's very materialistic. You can't test things you know nothing about, because you either can't come up with a working test, or you can't even detect what you are trying to test.

The tiger example is a very good analogy and shows where "science" has failed in the past. There have been reports in the past of strange animals, and the experts would say it was folklore or mistaken identification. Then someone finally traps or kills one.. and look at that, we now have the gorilla! That was in 1901! Prior to 1847, the gorilla was the 'yeti' of Central Africa. It was dismissed as a "silly native legend". Now we are finding new plants and animals all the time.

Science is an important thing, but you have to accept that it has its limits. Plus the attitude of many scientists are that of skeptics, so they wont even accept paranormal events like the sighting of ghosts. But if 100 people see the same phenomena over and over, you can't dismiss it just because "science" can't test for it. Science just hasn't come up with a working hypothesis, or a way to test for it.

The same thing happens when they try and test for physic phenomena. The tests often break the phenomena, but that's a failing of the testing procedure and not the phenomena itself.

You really have to open your horizons a little and stop holding so tightly to our tiny view of reality. There are more things that we don't know, than we do, and science is always rewriting the facts.

Astronomy is a good example. It's purely observational for the most part. When I was a kid many of the "facts" in the astronomy books are different from the "facts" now. We learn new things, and former theories are shown to be wrong, and new ones are thought up. And every now and then you have the refreshing "We don't know" about something.

So history has proven that you can't discount things just because you can't hold them in your hands, or test them using the scientific method. If you don't understand the mechanisms behind something you can't test it.

People just don't want to admit that we don't really understand reality and we don't know everything. What you can see and test is only a tiny fraction of reality.

 

[threed]

Science is an important thing, but you have to accept that it has its limits.

It's really not the limits of science that pose the problem here. It's the limits of eyewitness accounts and subjective, unrepeatable experiences.

Scientific experiment and mathematical modelling are also subjective experiences. But they are subjective experiences that can be repeated again and again (and witnessed by many others who also understand how to perform the same experiments...).

 

[Stagger]

Thank you guys for this very interesting thread.

Personally, I too think that "stand-alone" replication in itself doesn't have much value. It can, however, be very significant when put into context.

Example: the sudden disappearance of my stapler could be easily replicated by having a colleague remove a second stapler from my desk while I'm distracted. Not only it produces the same result, it is a very "cheap" explanation in terms of assumptions because it fits with a frequent and well understood office "phenomenon"
I'd be in a pretty weak position if I wanted to prove that the disappearance of my original stapler was the result of an alien abduction. That would bring in a lot of very expensive (in terms of required proof) assumptions: the existence of aliens, invisible alien presence on Earth, aliens developing a morbid interest in my stapler, just to name a few.

OTOH it is a clear fallacy to assume that if an unknown process x has produced c and a known process p also produces c then x must surely be p.
I once had a Modula-2 compiler for the Amiga, it came with a demo program which could produce some pretty convincing (to my untrained eye, at least) reproduction of Piet Mondrian's famous compositions. Though interesting, it wouldn't have bought me a lot in the way of proving that Piet Mondrian was a Modula-2 program

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

It's really not the limits of science that pose the problem here. It's the limits of eyewitness accounts and subjective, unrepeatable experiences.

Scientific experiment and mathematical modelling are also subjective experiences. But they are subjective experiences that can be repeated again and again (and witnessed by many others who also understand how to perform the same experiments...).

OK, this is obviously what you believe, and you also sound like a skeptic (the type that doesn't actually study the subject, just debunks it).

Science and math absolutely do not guarantee repeatability. The same experiment has often been done by multiple groups with differing outcomes. Especially when it comes to quantum physics. Same thing with math. They can make the math work for anything, but it gets ugly. When you get into quantum mechanics, the math and a lot of other things break down. They can't fit gravity into any of the equations. That seems like a real problem, doesn't it? Once they figure out how to do that, I'd bet the rest of the theories will break, and then they will have to start over again! It wouldn't be the first time.

This is where all the M-theory and dark matter/energy stuff comes in. They need them to fix holes in the math. But the standard thinking wont prove the ideas, so it's theoretical physics. How do you prove other dimensions exists if you can never detect them? So they have to try new stuff, and in the end some answers will never be known, not at the quantum level anyway. Scientists are prevented from seeing certain things.

We can say that we can't break the light speed barrier, and then they end up doing it in the lab, and that's not even counting quantum entanglement, or what Einstein called "spooky action-at-a-distance".

Science is often educated guesses. Then they try to "prove" the hypothesis with experiments, hoping to end up with a theory. But that doesn't always work, unless you are talking about materialistic science.

Go back and listen to the August 26, 2007 show with T. Allen Greenfield and Jeff Ritzmann. They talk about the limitations of current science. Great show!

One last thing to think about is when it comes to UFOs.... no one is going to prove anything anytime soon. We know that thousands of people see these things. We know what they aren't. We can argue if a photograph or video is real or not, and that still doesn't prove or disprove UFOs.

In the end people will continue to see them, and some of those people are very credible and will include pilots, astronauts, and even scientists. Some might even take photos... and if they don't, it doesn't take away from the fact that they saw them.

So far current science can't prove everything.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Personally, I think science fails us at times simply because we are looking into something that seems to have a firm grasp on concepts, technology, science, and possibly even esoteric wisdoms that are simply miles ahead of us. I don't think that this means we should ignore our sciences when investigating these things as they act as a tool to not only grow our current knowledge but also to try to relate them to our current mindsets... but we should also be aware of its potential shortcomings when investigating things that operate outside of it... or at least our version of it.

That of course is likely stating the blindingly obvious but it is my stance on this science side of the discussion.

 

[threed]

OK, this is obviously what you believe, and you also sound like a skeptic (the type that doesn't actually study the subject, just debunks it).

I get the impression that there is a presumption being made here. :shy: It is assumed that if someone reads what "I" did, then how could they not come to the same conclusions about it -- how could they not also be convinced? So, they must not have read it.

I study the subject and arrive at different probabilities. When I see credible evidence, I will acknowledge it. I have no emotional need to believe or disbelieve it.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Example: the sudden disappearance of my stapler could be easily replicated by having a colleague remove a second stapler from my desk while I'm distracted. Not only it produces the same result, it is a very "cheap" explanation in terms of assumptions because it fits with a frequent and well understood office "phenomenon"

I'd be in a pretty weak position if I wanted to prove that the disappearance of my original stapler was the result of an alien abduction. That would bring in a lot of very expensive (in terms of required proof) assumptions: the existence of aliens, invisible alien presence on Earth, aliens developing a morbid interest in my stapler, just to name a few.

But... having someone take your new stapler does not explain what happened to the first one. You just made a new event with a similar outcome. For example, the first one might have fallen off the desk into the trash can, and went out with the trash.

But a missing stapler isn't the same as a personal experience someone might have. If you saw the stapler just vanish, then you can't blame a coworker. Conversely if you saw a coworker walk off with it, then you can't say it was paranormal.

I've had stuff go missing.. and I'll look everywhere, and eventually the object ends back up in some really obvious location that I looked at several times. What's up with that? I don't know.

People who have abduction experiences aren't loosing their staplers.

Now if someone wanted to propose some "rational" explanations to my various experiences, I'd guarantee they wouldn't be able to reproduce what I experienced using those ideas.

There just are things we don't know about, and science can't disprove either. They try, but they never do it. That's when you see the "professional" skeptics attacking the person making the claim, and not the data. Because they can't attack the data. But they also aren't open minded enough to admit that maybe they are wrong.

I profess to know the answers to anything when it comes to the paranomal. But I do know when an experience was real, especially if it has happened more than once. The fact that science can't test these things (like ESP) just shows the problem with the scientific method when it comes to these type of phenomena.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I get the impression that there is a presumption being made here. :shy: It is assumed that if someone reads what "I" did, then how could they not come to the same conclusions about it -- how could they not also be convinced? So, they must not have read it.

I study the subject and arrive at different probabilities. When I see credible evidence, I will acknowledge it. I have no emotional need to believe or disbelieve it.

If something walks like a duck and quacks, what is it? That's how one draws a conclusion.

You keep repeating about "credible evidence", and science and repeatability, but wont once stop to admit that science isn't up to solving these problems.

Please define your criteria for "credible evidence". And what exactly are you trying to prove or disprove?

Now do it for something purely observational, like astronomy. We can see certain things, far away, but we can only make educated guesses as to their nature. Then we get closer, like with the rings and moons of Saturn, and we discover we didn't have the ideas right.

And what subject are your studying and what are the "different probabilities"? It's all very vague.

Sorry, but I see your point of view too restrictive in the light of eye witness testimony, and all the physical trace evidence as well.

I don't believe or disbelieve anything. But some things are obvious, such as many, many people report strange things that science doesn't seem interested in. These people are not all wrong. And they have been doing it for a long time... read Book of the Damned by Charles Fort.

 

[threed]

But I do know when an experience was real...

Really?

Can you recall the first moment you became certain? What was it that convinced you?

 

[threed]

Please define your criteria for "credible evidence"..

Credible evidence is evidence that in the strongest probability can only be interpretted one way.

Sorry, but I see your point of view too restrictive in the light of eye witness testimony, and all the physical trace evidence as well..

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest of all evidence (for reasons I've already stated) and especially when that testimony is in conflict with scientific evidence (which I've outlined) that can be demonstrated.

It becomes far more probable that the eyewitness testimony is flawed somehow.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Really?

Can you recall the first moment you became certain? What was it that convinced you?

Now your questions are getting asinine.

How do you know that you are sitting in front of your computer typing? Or do you need science to tell you that you are? What color are your shoes? How do you know that?

In my case I know because I'm a critical thinker with a very good observational eye. Plus I'm not a moron. Do you want my IQ and SAT score? (150 & 1600)

Credible evidence is evidence that in the strongest probability can only be interpretted one way.

Wow, that the most circular logic I have ever seen! That's even more circular than "God wrote the Bible, because it says so in the Bible"

Nothing is that black and white, sorry. Everything can be interpreted in many ways. And pray tell, please give us some good examples.

So far you have been nothing but vague.

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest of all evidence (for reasons I've already stated) and especially when that testimony is in conflict with scientific evidence (which I've outlined) that can be demonstrated.

You didn't outline any scientific evidence. So are you saying that if an astronomer sees a TLP that s/he is not credible, even though the only hard evidence will be a hand drawing? Trained observers are very good eye witnesses.

It becomes far more probable that the eyewitness testimony is flawed somehow.

Somehow.... That's a good one. According to who? You? And because you don't believe what they saw?

That's what I said before about skeptics attacking the person making the claim, and not the data. So like I said... walks like a duck...

Sure, you don't see how it's possible, so the person's testimony is flawed. Maybe your view of reality is flawed.

Can you prove they didn't have that experience? That's how they do it in a court of law. If you are saying someone is not telling the truth you have to demonstrate that as a fact, otherwise it's conjecture on your part.

OK I'm done talking to you because you have really faulty logic at best. You give these circular arguments and back it up with zilch.

You know that old saying about the mind being like a parachute?

 

[Stagger]

But... having someone take your new stapler does not explain what happened to the first one. You just made a new event with a similar outcome. For example, the first one might have fallen off the desk into the trash can, and went out with the trash.

I couldn't agree more. My point is indeed that, when the luxury of certainties is gone, a weighted probabilistic approach is a good way to deal with an unexplained event. And I say weighted because, indeed, the trashcan, misplaced-somewhere, taken-by-coworker hypothesis are light-weight in terms of assumption, while the alien, divine and stapler-fairy interventions are heavy-weight.

People who have abduction experiences aren't loosing their staplers.

Ok, but I like to think that my abducted stapler misses me

There just are things we don't know about, and science can't disprove either. They try, but they never do it. That's when you see the "professional" skeptics attacking the person making the claim, and not the data. Because they can't attack the data. But they also aren't open minded enough to admit that maybe they are wrong.

Definitely, science still has gaps, and scientists have all sorts of personal flaws (like us, I would imagine ). But science also has a fantastic track record in terms of revising and correcting itself.
I remain optimistic, I think that the information available about some of the phenomena discussed in the show or the forums are just a few steps removed from giving scientists that "uuuuuuhm, waaait a minute" head scratching moment. Just for fun, I would invite you folks to listen to the June 8th episode of the "Are we alone" podcast , though far from having anything to do with the paranormal, there's an interesting discussion between Seth Shostak and Mark Frank about the Pioneer anomaly, At around ~41:30 Shostak says:

This is one of those small anomalies that crop every now and again in astronomy, where you think you understand something but the measurement doesn't quite agree and sometimes, maybe not often, that's a doorway opening to a whole new physics

Only in astronomy?

I profess to know the answers to anything when it comes to the paranormal.

"Do not"?

 

[threed]

DavidRavenMoon :

You are demonstrating a clear emotional need. I'm sorry that you cannot see how that colors your logic and alters your sense of reality. This is, as I said, the formula for religion.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I couldn't agree more. My point is indeed that, when the luxury of certainties is gone, a weighted probabilistic approach is a good way to deal with an unexplained event. And I say weighted because, indeed, the trashcan, misplaced-somewhere, taken-by-coworker hypothesis are light-weight in terms of assumption, while the alien, divine and stapler-fairy interventions are heavy-weight.

It was a very good point to show why replicating something does not show what the original cause was.

Some of this stuff is probably not quite in what we consider reality, yet it is. So we have to understand that aspect first.

"Do not"?

errr... yeah! I type too fast.

I don't know the answers to nothin'! I have some personal opinions though, but I we can't look for a simple answer, because it's not simple, and I honestly think we might not understand it anyway.

And I don't mean to sound like I'm ragging on scientist... I like science. But I get annoyed when I see the same lame answers, over and over, like the pyramids were tombs... There is no evidence to show they were ever used for that purpose. But they keep teaching that junk in schools. And the stupid dirt ramp idea...