|
Post by slappy on Dec 25, 2010 23:51:24 GMT -5
Being able to recall what has happened in your own life is different than telling someone what might happen in theirs. It is also different from being able to guess someone's name correctly or a past event that happened to them.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Dec 26, 2010 0:17:12 GMT -5
If psychics do indeed have special powers, then why have they failed testing over and over again? because you can't condition it? seems simple enough. you can't 'prove' or 'disprove' it because it does not fit within the limits of science - it's outside of it.
|
|
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 26, 2010 8:41:36 GMT -5
Being able to recall what has happened in your own life is different than telling someone what might happen in theirs. It is also different from being able to guess someone's name correctly or a past event that happened to them. actually it being something to dowith ones mind and it being "supernatural" trait because it does not follow the natural order of things. what im saying is if such things are possible, which until just recently science would have said no, then why is it not possible that one man or woman at some time or another has been able to do what people use now as a means to make money and cheat the weak. I have stated I dont trust in the "commercial or conventional" psychic but if a definition fits a trait then it fits the conversation. I was only making my point till I was told that "facts" made my view invalid...so now where I was only stating I could not deny the possibility or plausibility, I now have to defend the idea that there are no facts to prove me absolutely ignorant of what I am saying. I stated to each his own opinion, and was told that there was no opinion, only fact. Yet, in truth, there are no certainties about man or his mind. Just limitations science sets and then has to say (we dont know) if something occurs but then tell us science says its ok to believe so now it is....but everybody who interacted with the person before the proof would have been considered false. Science falls just like faith, to mans imperfections. Your believe is an opinion....and what I believe is as well. I was only defending uncertainty, not the psychics themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 26, 2010 9:57:05 GMT -5
Being able to recall what has happened in your own life is different than telling someone what might happen in theirs. It is also different from being able to guess someone's name correctly or a past event that happened to them. actually it being something to dowith ones mind and it being "supernatural" trait because it does not follow the natural order of things. what im saying is if such things are possible, which until just recently science would have said no, then why is it not possible that one man or woman at some time or another has been able to do what people use now as a means to make money and cheat the weak. I have stated I dont trust in the "commercial or conventional" psychic but if a definition fits a trait then it fits the conversation. I was only making my point till I was told that "facts" made my view invalid...so now where I was only stating I could not deny the possibility or plausibility, I now have to defend the idea that there are no facts to prove me absolutely ignorant of what I am saying. I stated to each his own opinion, and was told that there was no opinion, only fact. Yet, in truth, there are no certainties about man or his mind. Just limitations science sets and then has to say (we dont know) if something occurs but then tell us science says its ok to believe so now it is....but everybody who interacted with the person before the proof would have been considered false. Science falls just like faith, to mans imperfections. Your believe is an opinion....and what I believe is as well. I was only defending uncertainty, not the psychics themselves. This is where you are failing. It has nothing at all to do with opinion. Again, you might have the opinion that the Earth is flat. That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're still wrong though. The Earth is round whether you believe it is or not. It's a matter of fact not opinion. The absurdity of what you're asking is ridiculous. You are saying that the only way to prove something is false is to prove beyond all doubt that it has never, ever, ever, ever happened in the entire history of humanity. You know that it is impossible to prove a single thing with that criteria. Heck, I can't even prove that gravity works based on that. You are also displaying your ignorance on how science works. Science doesn't go out trying to disprove stuff. Science goes out trying to prove stuff. You know how you prove the Earth is round? You present evidence that the Earth is round (like the fact that people have sailed/flown all the way around it or that it looks round from space) and have other people attempt to recreate the evidence. That's how we know the Earth is round. You with no scientific training can get in an airplane, start flying and will eventually end up back where you started. You want to prove that psychics are real? Just bring one single psychic into a laboratory and do testing. The claims of psychics are all testable hypotheses. Can this person read minds? Can they tell me what playing card is in front of someone in the other room? Can they predict what's going to happen in the future? Psychics predict things every single New Year. The vast majority of what they predict never, ever happens. Why don't psychics win the lottery more often? Why don't they make millions betting on the Super Bowl? I'm not saying science is perfect, I'm just saying that it is based on testable facts and hypotheses. Psychics have been tested over and over again. Not a single scientific study has found any validity to them. They've been disproven over and over, so it's not a matter of opinion any more than it is whether the Earth is round or not.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 26, 2010 10:01:30 GMT -5
actually it being something to dowith ones mind and it being "supernatural" trait because it does not follow the natural order of things. what im saying is if such things are possible, which until just recently science would have said no, then why is it not possible that one man or woman at some time or another has been able to do what people use now as a means to make money and cheat the weak. You have a very weird idea of what qualifies as "supernatural." I can remember the past. Henner can remember far better than I can. I can lift a bike. There are guys in the WWE who can lift cars. I guess they have "supernatural" abilities? We've seen Shane McMahon jump clear across the ring. I guess that's a "supernatural" ability. These abilities are amazing, but aren't supernatural in the least. They're easily explained by natural processes. You claim that someone at some point in time really was able to read minds or predict the future. Fine. Prove it. Point to that person. Show us who that is. Otherwise, you've got no proof at all for your extraordinary claim. If you're making an extraordinary claim, then you need extraordinary proof to back it up. How do you define "psychic" then?
|
|
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 26, 2010 11:43:04 GMT -5
My definition of psychic psy·chic –adjective Also, psy·chi·cal. 1. of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental ( opposed to physical). 2. Psychology . pertaining to or noting mental phenomena. 3. outside of natural or scientific knowledge; spiritual. 4. of or pertaining to some apparently nonphysical force or agency: psychic research; psychic phenomena. 5. sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. and just so we have a grasp on our words su·per·nat·u·ral –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. Im just using words for what they are...and your world is round theory....bull...we all know its flat lol....seriously if thats your best then I find you relying on little to no real info or word knowledge...maybe pop culture knowledge but actual data is something that is what it is. before science finds something as what they deem as true, they tell us its false. They cant explain away certain situations but since they have tested something...it has to be correct. no, your right, you shouldnt have to prove something without a doubt, only I must pony up that sort of info. I'm sorry if my way of thinkin doesnt fall in line...but let me say that a fact is fact –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. Da Vinci will be my final point....cuz you cant riddle the universe with a rationalist. www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/watchtheskies/04oct_leonardo.htmlThe point I'm making is, what he thought up was so far ahead that one could even say...dum dum dum...he was a witch or a psychic because his science was untested data and no way to prove it. Then when we finally understood it, we said "he was ahead of his time." you know, if you dont have to disprove without a doubt, then that means your mind relys on what it already believes, which is fine, but like you said...just because they believed and tested a world, to their best, and made a fact of itbeing flat..did not make it so...But we flew to the moon...and the world is a more tangeable and knowable item. The human mind is not as tangeable....and not as explained as easily away. but like I said...its my opinion and you may find me a fool or eccentric but then again most people who think outside the box have to be for this world to make its greatest steps...while science tests for years and years and still want more data for certainty...
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 26, 2010 18:25:57 GMT -5
My definition of psychic psy·chic –adjective Also, psy·chi·cal. 1. of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental ( opposed to physical). 2. Psychology . pertaining to or noting mental phenomena. 3. outside of natural or scientific knowledge; spiritual. 4. of or pertaining to some apparently nonphysical force or agency: psychic research; psychic phenomena. 5. sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. and just so we have a grasp on our words su·per·nat·u·ral –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. Im just using words for what they are...and your world is round theory....bull...we all know its flat lol....seriously if thats your best then I find you relying on little to no real info or word knowledge...maybe pop culture knowledge but actual data is something that is what it is.Would you like me to cite the double-blind studies that have been done on psychics? Are you just ignoring the fact that I've referenced them over and over. These studies are actual data. Apparently you seem to think that we should test psychics without using the scientific method. Yeah, the scientific method uses the null hypothesis. Apparently you have an issue with a method has been used for hundreds of years and has been proven to be effective for 100s of years as well. No, science can't explain everything. I'm not saying it's perfect. But you make a huge assumption. You assume that if science can't explain something it is therefore a supernatural phenomena. I'm sorry, but that logic is ridiculously flawed. Besides that, to this date, psychics haven't produced a single event that cannot be explained by science. Not a single one. James Randi has offered $1 million dollars for anyone who can prove they have psychic powers. No one has claimed it. Why would you say DaVinci was a psychic? That's an utterly ridiculous statement. Because he drew airplanes before there were airplanes? Jules Verne wrote a book about space travel to the moon during the middle of the Civil War. I suppose that makes him a psychic too. The Jetsons had a society of flying cars during the sixties. Now we've got working prototypes. Jetsons creators were psychics. Star Trek in the sixties had people carrying around hand communicators. Now everyone has cell phones. Roddenberry was a psychic. I guess by your definition anyone who predicts anything that ends up happening has psychic powers. Nice prediction. I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Again, science doesn't try to disprove things. Science sees if you can prove things. You form a thesis. You see if you can prove your thesis. If you can't, you assume it's false. I say people don't have psychic abilities. I've got studies that back up my assertion. You say there are people who have psychic abilities. Fine. Prove your claim. Point to your evidence. And once again, it's not a matter of opinion. It's fact. Science is not about opinion. It's about fact. It's about what you can prove or disprove. There's no opinion in science.
|
|
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 26, 2010 20:42:19 GMT -5
wikipedia
Certainty and science Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science works under a fallibilistic view.
So if science is not a language of certainty...then its not what...thats right ...its not a fact....always up to tests, always to change
they thing I love about people who quote science and scientist, is the people quote there studies as fact, when the scientist is merely making an observation that could surely change and they know this. Thats why they are called scientific theories and not scientific facts.
like I said....opinion
ps: you keep thinking Im saying there is psychics when I more so am saying that you cannot say factualy that there is not always a plausibility...and just because I dont accept the media definition of psychic and rely on the actual one, does not make my point invalid but only furthers it....think, read, open your mind a little and realize that nothing is for certain....its all open to observation and opinion...yours just happens to be one of the many.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 26, 2010 20:44:39 GMT -5
How many theories do we have going today that have been around for hundreds of years?
I guess gravity is opinion by your standard.
|
|
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 26, 2010 20:57:19 GMT -5
How many theories do we have going today that have been around for hundreds of years? I guess gravity is opinion by your standard. no its not, its called keeping an open mind to life. I believe that science is an important step in our evolution as man BUT I do not believe that science can explain everything and when they say they cant figure it out...well then it is considered disproved and filed for the population under "facts" I dont believe that people can read minds to say that I cannot confirm the fact I dont believe it...I can quote studies all day but if there was a person, I would think them to have ended or dulled out there lives and their senses and eventually would drive one mad because it wouldnt be like a motor function, it would be a genetic anomaly. I dont believe in what im arguing for here, I am only believing that man is fallable and so is science. And the idea that science is our end out to life management and knowledge just limits the true gifts that minds do hold. such as hulk and you, slappy, so resolve in your minds, I know your not basing it off anything but the facts which is great. Its just when it comes to what pontential we have as human beings and what possibilities and odd traits that have been tested, for there to have been ones that actually existed or do...maybe in a lesser way. I can use science as a guide for the things around me...but to use science as a guide to the mind I think is a foolish thing to be trying to do....but illl just say im wrong if winning is truly what one is interested in and not accepting that seeing isnt always believing and sometimes were shown things that we live the rest of our lives without an answer for.....but then again science is your end all and so it shall end this convo... science proves theories, theories are well based but have been known to change, but then again I keep getting told its all the truth and what you two say are facts so then it must be true...since majority rules I had fun with this...thanx for the discussion ;D
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 26, 2010 21:00:04 GMT -5
If we cannot take science as fact. What do we use then to prove things? What would we use as proof or as facts?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 26, 2010 22:52:23 GMT -5
wikipedia
Certainty and science Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science works under a fallibilistic view.So if science is not a language of certainty...then its not what...thats right ...its not a fact....always up to tests, always to change they thing I love about people who quote science and scientist, is the people quote there studies as fact, when the scientist is merely making an observation that could surely change and they know this. Thats why they are called scientific theories and not scientific facts. like I said....opinion ps: you keep thinking Im saying there is psychics when I more so am saying that you cannot say factualy that there is not always a plausibility...and just because I dont accept the media definition of psychic and rely on the actual one, does not make my point invalid but only furthers it....think, read, open your mind a little and realize that nothing is for certain....its all open to observation and opinion...yours just happens to be one of the many. It saddens me that our education system has failed you to such an extent that you think a scientific theory is the same as an opinion. That almost makes me want to weep a little bit. Saying that Obama is a good or bad President is an opinion. It cannot be proven 100% either way. I can say that he sucks because we're still fighting in Iraq. Slappy might say that the fact we're fighting in Iraq proves that Obama is a great president. It's an opinion. Relativity is a theory. However, it's accepted as a scientific fact. It's been proven. People have tested it and tested many, many, many corollaries that come from accepting the premise of relativity. It's not a hypothesis. It's a theory. It's not an opinion. It explains how things work. If someone comes up with a better idea that explains things better, then the scientist has an open mind and tests the new hypothesis. You're confusing the term "theory" with the term" hypothesis." They're not opinions.
|
|
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 27, 2010 15:30:31 GMT -5
I was going to leave this alone, but I cant sense you feel the need to insult instead of discuss.
You are discussing a topic in a typical way...with "factual data."
I'm sorry that I am an existentialist, and for me truth is more fluid then the boundaries that life permits. Many great writers, philosphers, and men and women in general have felt as I do and done great things. The quote to da vinci was to merely up hold the fact that science is ever evolving, but in time it still knows very little about the human mind, not the brain itself, the mind...and is constantly at odds with human spirituality.
I never said I didnt have a grip on science, far from it, actually I own Hawking just like I own Hesse and Kirkagaard. Both of which were always thinking about the mind and its potential in there world and in the future.
I've given you respect this convo, and all you have done is further antagonize which would not fly in an actual debate. your ad hominem attacks are mostly unjust and more so uncalled for. you assume my ignorance due to what I think or believe. Well then your either a god or just a man with an ego who has no room for people who might actually have a point on the opposite end.
Let me lay this out plain for you because your personal remark have overlapped a, otherwise, well educated discussion, or so I had originally given you credit for. Why is it great men have believe as both of us do and yet, you feel the need to be "right" when actually its the battle of discussion that is truly worth its weight in gold.
Atleast I can respect those I publicly debate with and those I discuss with because afterwards, they give me as much creedence to my view as I do theres. your not a skeptic, your an antagonist and you wont win with me. I know the games.
you dismiss the studies in my favor and rightfully so, you took a side and I would say to you that that is great. I have thanked you for your time in this discuss and both respected and held you to a level that I wished to discuss.
if your only valid points are either repeating yourself or attacking me then you have show how young you are as a skeptic and I will go back to those I know who have the comprehension to know, that skeptics do not facts, they only state well assumptions.
Have a wonderful day, I wont be bothering discussing such matters of any sort again with you due to your blatant childish attitude toward what you dont understand about life yet.
Slappy, still cool with ya. I dont have to agree to know you merely made points and never tried to assure me that I was foolish, only mislead in your eyes..
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 27, 2010 15:44:42 GMT -5
You haven't cited a single study in your favor. Please cite one study of psychics that showed any validity. Cite it. I'm still waiting. You haven't cited one single solitary study. Please cite a double blind study backing up psychic phenomena. I don't know of a single one. Perhaps I am the ignorant one here. If I am, please educate me. Point to the double blind studies proving psychic phenomena.
And I'm sorry, but when you state that science is an opinion, then you don't have a grip on what science is. You can claim you do, but you don't. Science is fact. It's not opinion. The fact that you think science is an opinion proves you have no idea how science works.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Dec 27, 2010 16:20:45 GMT -5
Not to dumb down the dicussion here, but if Psychics are real, then why can't they predict and help prevent terrorist attacks and such? I really hate to make one of those "dumb Americans" statements, but my question still stands. It's along the same lines as why these "spiritual healers" can't walk into a hospital and clear out all the sick people.
|
|
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 27, 2010 16:26:20 GMT -5
Not to dumb down the dicussion here, but if Psychics are real, then why can't they predict and help prevent terrorist attacks and such? I really hate to make one of those "dumb Americans" statements, but my question still stands. It's along the same lines as why these "spiritual healers" can't walk into a hospital and clear out all the sick people. I actually never said they existed...hulk just reads what he wants in what I say and anything over his headhe resorts to insults and talks about the world being round when we all know its flat. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Dec 27, 2010 16:36:12 GMT -5
Not to dumb down the dicussion here, but if Psychics are real, then why can't they predict and help prevent terrorist attacks and such? I really hate to make one of those "dumb Americans" statements, but my question still stands. It's along the same lines as why these "spiritual healers" can't walk into a hospital and clear out all the sick people. I actually never said they existed...hulk just reads what he wants in what I say and anything over his headhe resorts to insults and talks about the world being round when we all know its flat. ;D I'm not saying you said they existed. That's always been a question of mine. Despite the debate you two are having, my question still stands.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Dec 27, 2010 16:42:20 GMT -5
You haven't cited a single study in your favor. Please cite one study of psychics that showed any validity. Cite it. I'm still waiting. You haven't cited one single solitary study. Please cite a double blind study backing up psychic phenomena. I don't know of a single one. Perhaps I am the ignorant one here. If I am, please educate me. Point to the double blind studies proving psychic phenomena. And I'm sorry, but when you state that science is an opinion, then you don't have a grip on what science is. You can claim you do, but you don't. Science is fact. It's not opinion. The fact that you think science is an opinion proves you have no idea how science works. People shouldn't have to cite sources to back up their beliefs. The fact you think that proves you have no idea how a belief works. Not to dumb down the dicussion here, but if Psychics are real, then why can't they predict and help prevent terrorist attacks and such? I really hate to make one of those "dumb Americans" statements, but my question still stands. It's along the same lines as why these "spiritual healers" can't walk into a hospital and clear out all the sick people. I may be wrong on this, but I'd guess it's cause their abilities are limited.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 27, 2010 17:11:24 GMT -5
It is ok to have beliefs, but it is kinda ridiculous to hold those beliefs if they can be proven wrong. There are things that are a matter of opinion, that is fine.
It's not ok to believe the sky is green and go out and tell others that it is green when you can be proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 27, 2010 17:18:19 GMT -5
It is ok to have beliefs, but it is kinda ridiculous to hold those beliefs if they can be proven wrong. There are things that are a matter of opinion, that is fine. It's not ok to believe the sky is green and go out and tell others that it is green when you can be proven wrong. This is my point exactly. Believing the sky is green, believing the earth is flat, believing that psychics are legit are all the same thing. They have been proven false over and over again. Also, SPN claims that he has cited studies that prove that psychics are legit, but that I've simply ignored them. I can't find anywhere where he's cited them. If you make the statement that there are studies to back you up, then it's fair to ask to see those studies.
|
|