|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 28, 2010 15:09:04 GMT -5
What science has shown us through NASA is that life is possible on other planets. Maybe not aliens like Hollywood has shown, but bacteria for sure.
Hard to replicate that as they have to go so far to do it and it costs so much.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Dec 28, 2010 15:18:22 GMT -5
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘set up a straw man’ or ‘set up a straw-man argument’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. ... It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument." / "One can set up a straw man in the following ways: 1) Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. 2) Quote an opponent's words out of context — i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions. 3) Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. 4) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 5) Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked."
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 28, 2010 15:18:39 GMT -5
this does not take away from my point - the flaw in his logic is he is a doubting thomas, which is fine, but it's just that. there is the human element to this, the obvious problem that it is humans studying humans. optical illusions exist, our brains can be easily dooped. to discount the possibility of it based on science is foolish in my opinion, as it isn't something that is perceivably controllable.
once again, why would the american government, airforce and military at different times have teams and fund the research of esp? there's gotta be something to that more than classic human superstition, non?
just sayin'.
edit: thank you revvie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 15:24:16 GMT -5
no, you can't discount it. i thought we clarified that. using your logic, there is no other forms of life in the universe because there is no evidence to support their existence. this is not true. their existence cannot be verified, but the same can be said for their non-existence. secondly, as i already stated, there appears to be varying factors as for those who are susceptible/who aren't. they found a particular individual in the 80s who essentially succeeded in dreaming an image 'sent' to him on every occasion. you cannot discount it. you can say things that support a claim, but it's still 'i think ______". not fact. First of all, life on other planets is different because there is a scientific basis for it. We know how life started/evolved/exists on this planet. We know of other planets with similar conditions. Therefore we can hypothesize that life might exist on those other planets. It's a hypothesis formed on the basis of known scientific evidence. Based on what we know, we can say there is a good chance that there is some form of life on some planet out there in the universe. It may be nothing more complex than mold growing on a rock, somewhere, but it's still life. There are scientific principles and laws that back up that hypothesis. Let's say we discovered proof of life on another planet. This would be incredibly ground breaking, but not necessarily surprising. There are underlying scientific principles that show what is necessary for life to exist. Finding that these principles are true on another planet would not be surprising. You can't say the same for psychics. Let's assume that John Doe over here really has psychic powers and can predict the future. He does this based on what? What underlying scientific principles do we have that explain his ability? In fact, his ability flies in the face of several scientific theories and turns science on it's ear. Not saying that psychics are false based on that, but it would be completely shocking and surprising if they weren't. There are no scientific principles that would explain their abilities. So, yes, we can discount something for which there is no proof and no underlying principles of support either. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 28, 2010 15:33:32 GMT -5
What underlying scientific principles do we have that explain his ability? In fact, his ability flies in the face of several scientific theories and turns science on it's ear. Not saying that psychics are false based on that, but it would be completely shocking and surprising if they weren't. There are no scientific principles that would explain their abilities. So, yes, we can discount something for which there is no proof and no underlying principles of support either. so you are saying what science cannot prove does not exist, essentially. do i really need to point out the flaw there? i already stated that what science cannot explain is labeled phenomena. if it does indeed exist and defy science that is how it would be treated. science doesn't really have anything to do with this then, does it? so endlessly cycling back to the same argument of 'science can't prove it' is only serving to be a redundance. there are other forms of 'evidence', such as endless documented claims from people throughout our existence of such an idea. gypsies were synonymous for having dream capabilities. the twin brothers from the bee gees had infamous moments of psychic ability. yes, all of this has not been proven - but it also has not been disproven. so one can not say for absolute if there is truth to it or not. there has been documented times when people have levitated throughout history. can it be explained? no. scientifically? absolutely not. did they actually happen? who knows, but it certainly is not us. |
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Dec 28, 2010 15:39:46 GMT -5
What underlying scientific principles do we have that explain his ability? In fact, his ability flies in the face of several scientific theories and turns science on it's ear. Not saying that psychics are false based on that, but it would be completely shocking and surprising if they weren't. There are no scientific principles that would explain their abilities. So, yes, we can discount something for which there is no proof and no underlying principles of support either. so you are saying what science cannot prove does not exist, essentially. do i really need to point out the flaw there? there are other forms of 'evidence', such as endless claims from people throughout our existence of such an idea. gypsies were synonymous for having dream capabilities. the twin brothers from the bee gees had infamous moments of psychic ability. yes, all of this has not been proven - but it also has not been disproven. so one can not say for absolute if there is truth to it or not. you know...there is a reason I just let it go...he sees no flaws...i have talked too two of my skeptic buddies and they are well versed in what hes trying to do it and its just a straw man argument...hes a tree stump...he will never budge...i just dont want you to waste time...but i mean if you go it to blow then I will enjoy reading your responses....since they corralate in some way with mine |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 28, 2010 15:43:14 GMT -5
for example, hulk...
'god does not exist because science cannot prove it.'
is that really fair?
also, i think you're forgetting that science in itself is theories, not concrete. it is the best explanations we can form for how the world operates around us. it has it's flaws. just because science cannot efficiently explain something, by no means does it not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 15:54:03 GMT -5
What underlying scientific principles do we have that explain his ability? In fact, his ability flies in the face of several scientific theories and turns science on it's ear. Not saying that psychics are false based on that, but it would be completely shocking and surprising if they weren't. There are no scientific principles that would explain their abilities. So, yes, we can discount something for which there is no proof and no underlying principles of support either. so you are saying what science cannot prove does not exist, essentially. do i really need to point out the flaw there? there are other forms of 'evidence', such as endless claims from people throughout our existence of such an idea. gypsies were synonymous for having dream capabilities. the twin brothers from the bee gees had infamous moments of psychic ability. yes, all of this has not been proven - but it also has not been disproven. so one can not say for absolute if there is truth to it or not. No, I'm saying that what science can test and verify or falsify is true or false. If you want to say you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's fine. He's an invisible being. He's not a testable hypothesis. Science cannot test the hypothesis that the FSM exists. It's a matter of belief. When you talk about psychics, you have a verifiable hypothesis. A guy claims he can read minds. That's something we can test. Another guy says he can predict the future. That's a testable hypothesis as well. Someone else says they have remote viewing powers. Again, this is a testable hypothesis. Furthermore, these hypotheses have all been tested and have all been falsified. This is how science works. Science deals with testable hypotheses. There are many things in this world that aren't testable hypotheses. Science doesn't touch those and it shouldn't. Psychics are testable. They've been tested. They have failed. End of story. Please tell me you aren't going to use the fact that the government has tried to use psychics as proof they work. You'd be arguing based on the idea that the government only tries things that work. We all know that's not true. **cough***airport scanners**cough** |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 28, 2010 16:07:31 GMT -5
No, I'm saying that what science can test and verify or falsify is true or false. If you want to say you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's fine. He's an invisible being. He's not a testable hypothesis. Science cannot test the hypothesis that the FSM exists. It's a matter of belief. When you talk about psychics, you have a verifiable hypothesis. A guy claims he can read minds. That's something we can test. Another guy says he can predict the future. That's a testable hypothesis as well. Someone else says they have remote viewing powers. Again, this is a testable hypothesis. Furthermore, these hypotheses have all been tested and have all been falsified. This is how science works. Science deals with testable hypotheses. There are many things in this world that aren't testable hypotheses. Science doesn't touch those and it shouldn't. Psychics are testable. They've been tested. They have failed. End of story. and i've said several times that said studies probably aren't applicable to such a concept of psychic ability, something that if were true we do not have enough data to accurately test in proper environments. if it were to exist, as many psychics claim, it has a direct relation to energy. energy which can be affected by such conditions. rather you believe that or not is up to you, but it does not mean that it is 'false' or not. science cannot prove psychic ability just as much as it cannot disprove. it's like putting someone who claims to be a median into a graveyard and saying "now! let a passed soul speak through you in the next 15 minutes or else there is no way it's true!".. science cannot explain many things, the obvious example being the true purpose to existence. on this basis, it is known that science cannot explain everything. perhaps the shoe fits here. we do not understand enough what we're dealing with to conduct proper tests...it's like grading how well someone wrote an english report based on how the amount of letters mathematically correspond. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 16:12:49 GMT -5
for example, hulk... 'god does not exist because science cannot prove it.' is that really fair? No, it's not because it's not a testable hypothesis. God - A divine, supernatural and spiritual being. Science can't test the divine or the spiritual. By definition supernatural does not obey any physical laws. It's not a testable hypothesis. Whether one does or does not believe in god(s) becomes a matter of faith. It's not testable at all. When you can define god in terms that can be proven or falsified, then your statement is fair. No, science is facts, not hypotheses. I'm not saying it's perfect and flawless. I'm just saying that believing in something that has been proven over and over to be false is ridiculous. It literally is the exact same thing as believing the Earth is flat. "I believe the Earth is flat." "Umm, people have flown airplanes and sailed ships all the way around it." "I still believe it's flat." "But people have flown into space and taken pictures of it and it looks round from space." "I still believe it's flat." "I believe psychics are legit." "Stage magicians can do the exact same thing psychics can and they don't claim to have special powers. They will show you exactly what they do too." "I still believe psychics are legit." "But they've been tested in double blind studies in all sorts of settings and have shown no special abilities." "I still believe they're real." What's the difference between those two? |
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Dec 28, 2010 16:14:05 GMT -5
he never said they were real....
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 28, 2010 16:18:00 GMT -5
this does not take away from my point - the flaw in his logic is he is a doubting thomas, which is fine, but it's just that. there is the human element to this, the obvious problem that it is humans studying humans. optical illusions exist, our brains can be easily dooped. to discount the possibility of it based on science is foolish in my opinion, as it isn't something that is perceivably controllable. once again, why would the american government, airforce and military at different times have teams and fund the research of esp? there's gotta be something to that more than classic human superstition, non? just sayin'. edit: thank you revvie. Because whoever is in charge is insane and was easily fooled. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 16:22:38 GMT -5
and i've said several times that said studies probably aren't applicable to such a concept of psychic ability, something that if were true we do not have enough data to accurately test in proper environments. if it were to exist, as many psychics claim, it has a direct relation to energy. energy which can be affected by such conditions. rather you believe that or not is up to you, but it does not mean that it is 'false' or not. Where is this "energy"? Why do we have no proof it exists? Do you see where your claim falls apart? The psychic reads "energy"? You might as well say he reads pixie dust and unicorn farts. There is no evidence that such "energy" exists. You would have to prove that a) this "energy" exists and that b) people (at least some people) have the ability to detect changes in it and c) they can interpret those changes in meaningful ways. BTW, it's been tested whether people really have "energy" or not. Also been proven false. A high school student took people who claimed they could manipulate and sense energy and put them behind a wall. They stuck their hands through the wall and rested them on a table. She had people randomly pass their hands over the hands that were on the table. She asked the people on the other side of the wall (who couldn't see if anyone was near or around their hands) to indicate when people's hands were above there's and when they were not. Shockingly these "energy" readers were right only half of the time which was identical to those who tried it out and didn't claim any "energy reading" powers and also what would be predicted by statistics. No, it can. Once again psychic ability is a testable hypothesis. One guy claims he can read minds. Ok, I'll put him in a separate room from you so he can't see you. Then I'll show you pictures. All he has to do is tell me if you're looking at a car or a tree or whatever. I can even be in the same room as he is so I can't even see what you're seeing or I can be in another room altogether. It's a testable hypothesis. A guy claims he can predict the future. That's testable as well. All of these claims are testable. Your example of the medium reminds me of the story of Houdini at a seance. Houdini's mother (whom he was close to) had just died. Houdini went to a seance in an attempt to contact her. He was shocked and appalled to find out that his mother who never spoke a word of English in her life suddenly spoke it fluently. The reason we exist is not a testable hypothesis. It's not something science has the ability to explain. Science does have the ability to explain psychics and it has over and over and over and over again. It's not subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 28, 2010 16:28:19 GMT -5
The Houdini thing is hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 28, 2010 16:33:00 GMT -5
for example, hulk... 'god does not exist because science cannot prove it.' is that really fair? No, it's not because it's not a testable hypothesis. God - A divine, supernatural and spiritual being. Science can't test the divine or the spiritual. By definition supernatural does not obey any physical laws. It's not a testable hypothesis. Whether one does or does not believe in god(s) becomes a matter of faith. It's not testable at all. When you can define god in terms that can be proven or falsified, then your statement is fair. wait, what? you just made my point. i'd say that psychic abilities would more than pass for 'supernatural' and that it 'doesn't obey any physical laws'. you certainly put your foot in that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 18:44:16 GMT -5
No, it's not because it's not a testable hypothesis. God - A divine, supernatural and spiritual being. Science can't test the divine or the spiritual. By definition supernatural does not obey any physical laws. It's not a testable hypothesis. Whether one does or does not believe in god(s) becomes a matter of faith. It's not testable at all. When you can define god in terms that can be proven or falsified, then your statement is fair. wait, what? you just made my point. i'd say that psychic abilities would more than pass for 'supernatural' and that it 'doesn't obey any physical laws'. you certainly put your foot in that one. So if a psychic claims he can read minds you can't come up with a single way to test that? |
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Dec 28, 2010 18:53:46 GMT -5
wait, what? you just made my point. i'd say that psychic abilities would more than pass for 'supernatural' and that it 'doesn't obey any physical laws'. you certainly put your foot in that one. So if a psychic claims he can read minds you can't come up with a single way to test that? what if someone is and doesnt claim he can read minds...and acts average and normal because he prefers it....? is there a way to test that? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 19:00:31 GMT -5
So if a psychic claims he can read minds you can't come up with a single way to test that? what if someone is and doesnt claim he can read minds...and acts average and normal because he prefers it....? is there a way to test that? What ability does he have? He says he is psychic. Fine. I am not a psychic. What can he do that I cannot do? |
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Dec 28, 2010 19:04:46 GMT -5
what if someone is and doesnt claim he can read minds...and acts average and normal because he prefers it....? is there a way to test that? What ability does he have? He says he is psychic. Fine. I am not a psychic. What can he do that I cannot do? you really are that dense arent you....im saying what if one exists and doesnt attest to his abilities and chooses to stay away from any sort of limelight or attention...can you test him no... so you dont know if people can do these things if they dont submit to testing or anything of that nature..and why would someone want anything to do with that sort of testing and attention if they really could? you say we cant disprove a supernatural entity but we can disprove a supernatural ability even if a true one never decides to get tested... your logic is flawed...sorry to tell you |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 28, 2010 19:12:42 GMT -5
What ability does he have? He says he is psychic. Fine. I am not a psychic. What can he do that I cannot do? you really are that dense arent you....im saying what if one exists and doesnt attest to his abilities and chooses to stay away from any sort of limelight or attention...can you test him no... so you dont know if people can do these things if they dont submit to testing or anything of that nature..and why would someone want anything to do with that sort of testing and attention if they really could? you say we cant disprove a supernatural entity but we can disprove a supernatural ability even if a true one never decides to get tested... your logic is flawed...sorry to tell you How is my logic flawed? You're telling me a guy says he's psychic. Fine. My next question to him is what can he do with his psychic powers. Can he move things with is mind? Predict the future? Guess the number I'm thinking? What can he do? Your logic is just ridiculous. I should believe something because it's possible that it happened somewhere, sometime, some place on the pages of history and I just don't know about it. Therefore I should reject scientific truth. That is just preposterous. Like I said earlier, DNA evidence is unique to everyone. They've tested millions of people and have yet to find any that weren't identical twins who had identical DNA. They have not tested all 6 billion people on the planet though. So, according to you, we can't say that DNA is unique to everyone. They have tested many, many people who have claimed to have psychic powers. They've all failed tests. According to you, this is absolutely meaningless. |
|
