8-23-09 / Eno show

[Apocalypto]

The video I reference is here:

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/interesting-ghost-pictures-videos-t714.html?&highlight=ghost+video

Things start at 34:00, but the killer clip is at 34:27.

dB

YOWZER! That's one crazy orb.

 

[inuk2600]

FTR... Number Four, Bethink Avenue: World's Scariest Ghosts - or World's Least Convincing Ghosts?

I was disappointed that the guest was so eager to pin the blame for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome on demons. He said "parasites", but if you listen to his show he says parasites are demons. So here we go again, back to the dark ages. And since I suffer from CFS symptoms, I guess I got me a demon. No problemo, I'll just go see some Eno paranormal standup, and laugh it up. Exorcism has never been easier.

 

[conor]

I thought these guys were a mass of contradictions, flighty and mixed up thinking, and things spoken as fact that were seemingly made up out of whole cloth. (poltergeists are parasites, ancient cultures KNEW these things, and other "facts")

I always find it humorous when people "oppose" the scientific method while they talk about their radio show, while using their computer and skype to make a podcast. Surely, they realize that same scientific method has made the modern western lifestyle possible. Surely it's good for something...not to be discounted completely!

I also find it interesting when people constantly say "we know nothing" while regaling us with what they "know".

I dunno... I listened to the whole show, but I threw my pencil down a lot.

I don't think it was that bad.

 

[dyingsun]

Holy crap...ok, seems there are Orbs and 'Orbs'...

 

[Invading the fridge]

I'm coming right out and typing it out, I was not a fan of this episode; which pains me since I like listening to radio (podcast) shows hosts interviewing other hosts of radio(podcast) shows. I was floored by the logic the guests (Well Mr Eno), I paraphrase:

"science is a belief system"
"we don't know anything"
"They are parasites from the multi verse they live in families and sometimes they go into wars to feed but sometimes they just pick on one person"
"scientific method is only limited to our five senses"
"Quantum Physics explains all my beliefs"
"we have photographic evidence"
"Ancient wisdom > modern thinking"
"The Ancient people were right all along The Sun isn't a star we orbit around it's really a god and the earth is a disc not a sphere shaped object that's sitting on a giant turtle"

What else can I say? Not my favorite episode, they didn't make me think about anything bar the fact that Paul eno is pretty much anti science, then again I'm using my western thinking and I'm not attuned to the ancient eastern ways and I'm blind to God because of all my modern comforts that I have.

That orb video was something else, pretty trippy.

 

[Ezechiel]

I was floored by the logic the guests (Well Mr Eno), I paraphrase:

"science is a belief system"
"we don't know anything"
"They are parasites from the multi verse they live in families and sometimes they go into wars to feed but sometimes they just pick on one person"
"scientific method is only limited to our five senses"
"Quantum Physics explains all my beliefs"
"we have photographic evidence"
"Ancient wisdom > modern thinking"
"The Ancient people were right all along The Sun isn't a star we orbit around it's really a god and the earth is a disc not a sphere shaped object that's sitting on a giant turtle"

Science builds up a solid framework held up by rules from which real world working applications can be built from. With unchecked belief systems you can only build sects.

Scientific rules are always open to scrutiny and can possibly be amended (peer review).... thus never absolute (100 years and still holding ).

Being exposed to 'para-normal' phenomena is compelling and this show convinced me that Mr. Eno initially sought a solution in religion/priesthood. Once that road was blocked, propagating his interpretation using the media was the favored vector.

I would highly recommend Mr. Eno encourage his son to pursue studies in sciences (especially physics) in order to get a better perspective of the high strangeness of what quantum physics is all about

Cross-discipline links between religion and science tend to lead to stuff like intelligent design which is not to everybody's liking.... The road to knowledge is filled with intelligent designs however would you sit on a bench built by Newton or Rael ?

 

[DrLogic]

I think the consensus among inquiring minds is that, as nice as some people can be, dismissing avenues of inquiry without giving it much thought can be as frustrating and unproductive as dogmatically believing one has all the answers.

David's term intellectually dishonest is fitting, but not in a conceited way. A natural bias toward mythology over common sense, coupled with many a contradictory statement thereafter.

For instances blaming the human propensity to 'box' and 'label' things as one of the reasons the average Joe cant get a handle on the paranormal, then going on the say well this group here we call 'poltergeists' and that type there are 'parasites' ya see, in fact i have a whole shelf of them at home (in alphabetical order of course ).

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I liked this episode. I don't agree with all their ideas, but I welcome new ideas. Even though I've witnessed ghosts and poltergeist activity, it's never been a topic that's held much interest with me. But lately I'm seeing it as all interconnected to something larger, including UFOs.

Regardless of the existence of a "multiverse", I think we are dealing with things outside of our normal perception. Just as we can't see radio waves, we can't detect various things around us. Until we have a better understanding of the nature of such a situation, we cannot use scientific method as it currently stands. I'm all for science, but you can't test something that you don't understand. You have to have an idea of the mechanism behind something before you can devise a test.

We have to concede that we just don't understand some things. We don't understand gravity, for instance. They think there is a graviton, and that makes some of the math work, but they have no proof at all. And they can't make gravity fit into standard physics. That's a big problem. Think about that for a moment. We know gravity exists, you can't deny that, but we know nothing about it, and it doesn't fit into our laws of physics.

We also don't understand consciousness at all. Not a tiny little bit. Several quantum physicists feel that consciousness is the basis of all of reality, and not matter. Matter is only our perception of the actual state of things. Not only is matter mostly empty space, but science has never even proven that it's made up of atoms! What they do know is it's made up of wave functions, and they don't contain any real particles until you collapse the wave function, at which point you see a particle. But in the actual state, it's a bunch of frequencies, harmonic nodes, and interference patterns.

So before people start getting on the materialistic scientific method bandwagon, we have to stop and look at how primitive our current understanding of the quantum reality is. The larger view of reality that we see is pretty much an illusion. It's how our brain interprets the quantum world around us. And that's normal. But until science can answer some of the big questions, it's incomplete. And that's what science is all about... learning about the world around us. But some main stream scientist won't accept anything they can't test in a lab.. even though some of those things are experienced every day, like gravity and consciousness.

To think that science and the scientific method is the answer to everything is terribly naive. That's not to say let's not be scientific, but it needs some new frameworks to deal with some of these subjects. Just sweeping them under the scientific rug doesn't make them go away.

That's nothing new either... look at the "Book of the Damned". Fort was talking about the stuff science didn't want to deal with way back then. Not much has changed.

 

[Rocketsauce]

I just finished listening to this episode. 2nd half was def better than the first!

I wish the son had spoken more, I was interested in hearing his opinion on this stuff since he's of a much younger demo than we normally hear in this space. I feel like although his father was nice enough, he spoke a lot without really having much substance to really nail anything home.

I think we all agree our understanding of modern science has serious limitations particularly when it comes to understanding/documenting the paranormal. I 100% agree that there is a ton to be learned from studying ancient traditions and their beliefs. But..... I think in terms of being practical, being able to really learn about this phenomena in a way we can possibly start to understand, recognize patterns, cause and effect, or even make it possible to exchange information with other people, you gotta use some modern science when it's possible. Even if it's having someone like David analyze your pics or videos, it's important to establishing something happened outside of your subjective experience.

 

[Invading the fridge]

We have to concede that we just don't understand some things. We don't understand gravity, for instance. They think there is a graviton, and that makes some of the math work, but they have no proof at all. And they can't make gravity fit into standard physics. That's a big problem. Think about that for a moment. We know gravity exists, you can't deny that, but we know nothing about it, and it doesn't fit into our laws of physics.

DavidRavenMoon, I don't want to get on your case but I have to, we do know a lot about gravity a lot about physics, an argument from ignorance isn't a valid reason to say noone understands gravity or physics.

Regardless of the existence of a "multiverse", I think we are dealing with things outside of our normal perception. Just as we can't see radio waves, we can't detect various things around us. Until we have a better understanding of the nature of such a situation, we cannot use scientific method as it currently stands. I'm all for science, but you can't test something that you don't understand. You have to have an idea of the mechanism behind something before you can devise a test.

So, what discovered Radio waves? I strongly disagree with the statement we can't use the scientific method to discover new phenomena, you are just using special pleading.

 

[Ezechiel]

To think that science and the scientific method is the answer to everything is terribly naive. That's not to say let's not be scientific, but it needs some new frameworks to deal with some of these subjects. Just sweeping them under the scientific rug doesn't make them go away.

Science offers an excellent methodical framework and I think it has shown its effectiveness time and time again. Its the best tool we have.

We are not Gods, however it seems we are evolving towards that status. As our knowledge grows, scientific discoveries may eventually uncover spiritual, multi-verse entities or other abstract constructs which cannot be measured by current technologies.

One of my core beliefs: There is more to life than meets the eye and the current limits of human experience.

However, bridging our limitations with new untestable frameworks leads to stuff like 'the exopolitics movement' where you have to immediately swallow absolute truths such as the presence of ET's. A little wind comes around and the whole house of cards falls down.

 

[MrChud]

I find it revealing that when the light of science is shown upon paranormal claims, they often shrink back into the shadows. I am not saying there can not be something to some claims of the paranormal, maybe they are so fleeting that they have never been observed in a controlled enviroment. Who knows?

It's just funny when a scientist or skeptic pokes around looking for evidence, there is none to be found. Ahh well, I remain hopeful still that some real empirical evidence will be found in my lifetime.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

DavidRavenMoon, I don't want to get on your case but I have to, we do know a lot about gravity a lot about physics, an argument from ignorance isn't a valid reason to say noone understands gravity or physics.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. We know a lot about gravitation in Newtonian physics, but it doesn't fit into quantum mechanics. It might if we discover a graviton, but we haven't as of yet. The LHC might solve that riddle though. But currently we don't know that such a particle exists.

From Wikipedia: (Italics added for emphasis)

Gravity and quantum mechanics

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics. It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length, where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory, or more currently M-theory, and, on the other hand, it may be a background independent theory such as loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation.

So we ain't there yet. It may be if they get M-theory working, and that brings us back to multiple dimensions.

So, what discovered Radio waves?

WHAT discovered radio waves? That doesn't even make sense. Do you think they made a device that some how discovered radio waves?

Also from Wikipedia:

Radio waves were first predicted by mathematical work done in 1865 by James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell noticed wavelike properties of light and similarities in electrical and magnetic observations. He then proposed equations, that described light waves and radio waves as waves of electromagnetism that travel in space. In 1887, Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory. Many inventions followed, making practical the use of radio waves to transfer information through space.
Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi are credited with inventing systems to allow radio waves to be used for communication.

So Maxwell figured that since light had wavelike properties, maybe there were other forces that also had wavelike properties. Now we know that light, electricity and magnetism are all aspects of the same phenomenon, the electromagnetic spectrum.

So Hertz made up a contraption that produced a spark, and a short distance away a receiver picked up a click from that spark. So he knew there was some form of radiation traveling though space. What did he think of this?

Hertz did not realize the practical importance of his experiments. He stated that,
"It's of no use whatsoever[...] this is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right - we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there." Asked about the ramifications of his discoveries, Hertz replied,
"Nothing, I guess."

So, it wasn't quite what we think of "radio" yet. It was known as "Hertzian waves" or "aetheric waves." "Aetheric" referred to what was known as "luminiferous aether" which was though to be the medium for the propagation of light. Newton thought light was made up as particles, but that didn't explain its wavelike qualities, so they figured light traveled though an invisible medium know as aether. When the theories including special relativity were formulated, they left out the aether.

My point about radio waves were that you can't see them. And you can't even detect them without the right equipment. And even then, your equipment might not work because they are a higher (or lower) frequency than you are capable of detecting. Now before they knew about electromagnetic waves in that frequency band, it just didn't exist. So what if they were to discover a different form of radiation that we don't know anything about, or at frequencies that we have no way of detecting.

Now keep in mind that matter also vibrates at a frequency. There could be whole planes of reality beyond what we see as visible light, or detectable matter or radiation. To us, they just wouldn't exist. But surely they would have mass, right?

Do we know of unaccountable mass in the Universe? We sure do. They can't see it, but expect it exists, and the place holder name is "dark matter".

I strongly disagree with the statement we can't use the scientific method to discover new phenomena, you are just using special pleading.

You haven't given any examples on how this would be possible. It can happen, but only as we discover new things. Let's take Marconi. Here he is in 1895 transmitting simple radio signals about 1.5 kilometers. But what was he transmitting? And what could he receive? If there were "modern" radio signals like FM or VHF TV signals, would he know they were there? Not a chance. So even though he had equipment to produce and detect radio waves, it was of very limited use.

If you really study science, you will see that you can't just use the blanket statement of "scientific method". When you get into tricky science, like quantum mechanics, you have to devise a test that will actually give usable results. Some things just can't be tested, or the test changes the outcome.

So what new phenomena have been discovered by scientific method? Many new things were discovered by accident, and others by observations leading to theories, often based on observable phenomena. We have a lot of observations of things that science can't explain, or just doesn't care to even try. But someone has to ponder these things and then come up with testable theories.

But what we generally have is people just wanting to debunk things. Until you look at something odd, like the double-slit experiment, and then try to figure out what's really going on, no science will be done.

The double-slit experiment discredited Newton's "corpuscular" theory of light, and then light was considered to be waves until the early 20th century, when it was discovered it is also particles. So a scientific test only shows what is interpreted by the knowledge of the time.

So for everyone yelling "scientific method" and giving thanks to fridge's post without REALY studying this stuff, you are just having a knee jerk reaction to someone questioning what we know as science. It's wonderful, but has limitations, and every scientist worth his degree will tell you the same thing.

Don't just watch Nova or the Discovery channel and think that's all there is to science. Those people will tell you we know everything there is to know. It's way deeper and stranger than that. There is lots of new things to be discovered.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

It's just funny when a scientist or skeptic pokes around looking for evidence, there is none to be found. Ahh well, I remain hopeful still that some real empirical evidence will be found in my lifetime.

First off, you are just saying that off the top of your head with zero research into the subject, right?

Skeptics are often not scientists. Real skepticism is not debunking.

Responding to Skepticism

Consider, to take an old example, the scenario Descartes describes in First Meditation, in which he is the victim of very powerful and very deceitful "evil genius" who "has directed his entire effort to misleading" Descartes. This hypothesis could explain how Descartes has come to have any number of false beliefs. On this supposition, "the heavens, the air, the earth, colors, shapes, sounds, and all external things" are, Descartes writes, "nothing but the deceptive games of my dreams, by which [the evil genius] lays snares for my credulity."

What becomes of Descartes's supposed knowledge of the existence of his hands? Descartes makes it clear that his evil genius hypothesis has cast this belief into doubt when, in keeping with his resolution to regard as false anything for which he finds a reason to doubt, he reacts: "I will regard myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, no senses, but as nevertheless falsely believing that I possess all these things" (Descartes 1980, p. 60).

We have skeptics that say the earth is flat, and is only 4,000 years old!

Most of the debunking skeptics have an agenda, and are very closed minded and biased. And as I said, people like james Randi and Michael Shermer are not even scientists. Randi is a stage magician, so he feels everything is a trick. If he can figure out a trick that looks like a paranormal claim, then it must be a trick. That's poor logic and is a circular argument. I wont even get into Penn Gillette, but he has the same lack of logic.

Shermer studied Christian theology, later switching to psychology. So to him it's all psychological. Forget the fact that: "After years of practicing acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, negative ions, rolfing, pyramid power, fundamentalist Christianity, and "a host of weird things" (with the exception of drugs) to improve his life and training, Shermer stopped rationalizing the failure of these practices." So he didn't get anything out of those things, so they have to be false. He picked some stuff that shows he just wasn't very bright, and now he is bitter and has a chip on his shoulder. Oh, he wont ever be gullible again! He will show all those bad pseudoscientists! More agenda and bias.

So much for the skeptics. You ant to put them up on a pedestal? Be my guest.

Do you even understand what "empirical evidence" is? Empirical is defined as "information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment." We have a lot of observation and experience when it comes to the paranormal. As far as experiments, it depends on the type of phenomena. Some stuff can't be tested, but data is gathered al the time. If you see an apparition, how do you test for it? Do you want some skeptic to tell you that you are lying or crazy? You saw it, they didn't. If you see it with a group of people, are they all lying or is it "mass hysteria"? Either way, it can't be tested or proven, but should not be discounted.

The thing is there ARE scientist that do real research in the paranormal and come up with very convincing evidence that a certain phenomenon exists.

For a very good example of this, read the book "Unbelievable" by Stacy Horn. She studied the research by J. B. Rhine, who founded the parapsychology lab at Duke University in the 1930's.

Ms Horn writes:

But when I went down to Duke University and started going through the 700-plus boxes that comprise the lab archives I realized, good God, these scientists were serious. There were thousands and thousands of meticulously conducted, recorded and evaluated experiments (millions in the end). They were not kidding around. I focused on the lab scientists’ correspondence because that was where the real battle for parapsychology—and there was a tremendous battle—was played out. Who knew scientists could be this venomous?

Every time the lab published their results there was an outcry and a flurry of letters from other scientists around the country who were not happy with their findings. For every letter from an offended scientist however, there were thousands more from people all over the world who had experienced something strange that demanded an explanation. A certain percentage of them can, in fact, be explained away by fraud, delusion or wishful thinking, but not all.

So this shows that while scientist at a prestigious university were doing meticulous experiments, and getting positive results, other scientist that had nothing to do with the studies, but just didn't believe in it, criticized them.

And as is typical with skeptics, when you can't attack the data, you attack the source. So now J. B. Rhine and his wife, who both held Ph.D.'s, were not real scientist, because they were botanists!

 

[MrChud]

First off, you are just saying that off the top of your head with zero research into the subject, right?

NO

Do you even understand what "empirical evidence" is?

YES

Whats wrong with debunking? If something has bunk in it, it should be exposed and discarded. Thats one of the reasons I listen to the Paracast, they do a fine job of exposing the BS, especially in the ufo scene.

As for the rest of your rant, if it was meant for me then it made little since. Just a bunch of assumptions and hand flailing, which was hugely disproportionate to my meager comments.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

NO

I'm debunking you! If you really did any reading on this you would see that your claims are false. Otherwise show some data.

YES

Once again, there is plenty of empirical evidence.

Whats wrong with debunking? If something has bunk in it, it should be exposed and discarded. Thats one of the reasons I listen to the Paracast, they do a fine job of exposing the BS, especially in the ufo scene.

Because debunking is not science. Period. Debunkers don't look at the facts, they use opinion.

Take away all the BS in the UFO field, and guess what? People are still seeing UFOs and interacting with non human entities. You can also debunk it all you like, and it hasn't gone away.

David and Gene don't debunk, and they will be the first to say so.

As for the rest of your rant, if it was meant for me then it made little since. Just a bunch of assumptions and hand flailing, which was hugely disproportionate to my meager comments.

It wasn't a rant, and apparently you didn't understand it. And that's not my problem. I did no assuming or hand flailing. Can you read?

But what I did do is showed that you were blowing hot air out of an orifice, and little more than that.

 

[Drew UK]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. We know a lot about gravitation in Newtonian physics, but it doesn't fit into quantum mechanics. It might if we discover a graviton, but we haven't as of yet. The LHC might solve that riddle though. But currently we don't know that such a particle exists.

Don't hold your breath.
We are talking about two unique theories here - macro and micro.

Wishing that Quantum Physics will explain gravity is like asking cellular biology to explain how a organised living society co-exists.


At some point the micro physical calculations and formulaes will eventually break down at the macro level and we will need to revert to good old classical mechanics. The wave functions through charged polarisation become mass - and then we create an entity which obeys different rules to the sum of its parts/waves.

Until there is more concise understanding of the quantum realm, which is massively open to conjecture and hypothetical thought - and driven by competing and contradictory theories without any formal evidence, i don't see that we can use it as a tool to prop up any of the paranormal topics.
Hell, it can't currently even explain the "normal" world.

I am not a qualified quantum physicist and although intrigued I am comfortable delegating this task to them - once we have a concise breakthrough, I may develop it - but for now, I don't intend to look at this subject which can be detected by our senses and is projected at a macro level in favour of looking at it through an expensive complicated microscope (LHC) that we don't even know really what we expect to find at a billionth (poetic license) of an angstom.

 

[Invading the fridge]

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

Alright, I agree and disagree with your post in general. Radio waves were theorized first then a working experiment was developed and presto change o radio waves are real. Now how did they do it? Surely they would of had to rework the scientific method because the scientific method is only limited to our five sense and has nothing about things we can not see or feel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

refreshed myself on what it is... I'm still right.

If you really study science, you will see that you can't just use the blanket statement of "scientific method". When you get into tricky science, like quantum mechanics, you have to devise a test that will actually give usable results. Some things just can't be tested, or the test changes the outcome.

If you ignore the real world functions of Quantum mechanics. Also Quantum mechanic is heavily reliant on mathematical formations

Last thing about Quantum mechanics, is I'm a laymen at it, all I know is it's really weird really deep with the numbers and the crunching of the numbers I feel this is no excuse for paranormalists to grab it as THE answer to everything they talk about.

rerailing this thread to the orignal topic, I'm still amused that the guest would like you declairs this is above the scienfitic method then he talks about photographic evidence of 'ghosts' and how he heard a stage cart ride past him and he's son. Yet he can't devise a test to prove his hypothese?

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Don't hold your breath.
We are talking about two unique theories here - macro and micro.

Right, they are two unique theories because they are incomplete. They are not separate in reality, right? Theories are not concrete. When we learn new things, theories can change.

The fact that they can't fit something as basic as gravitation into the equations without using particles either shows that there is a graviton, or the theories are incorrect. Maybe both.

Wishing that Quantum Physics will explain gravity is like asking cellular biology to explain how a organised living society co-exists.

Without cellular biology, there would be no societies. It's like looking at an elephant and saying it must be entirely made of wrinkly gray stuff! If we didn't start looking on a smaller scale we wouldn't have our understanding of any of the things around us. But a lot of scientist seem to get uncomfortable when the quantum stuff doesn't match things in the macro world, and then want to keep it separate from classical physics. But it's not separate, it is what everything is made of.

So either you get the two to reconcile, or you need two laws of physics, and that, to me, sounds like one of them is clearly wrong and needs to be updated.

It goes back to the discovery of light as a wave superseding light as a particle, and then the two were reconciled and now we have light (and all matter) as both particle and wave.

At some point the micro physical calculations and formulaes will eventually break down at the macro level and we will need to revert to good old classical mechanics. The wave functions through charged polarisation become mass - and then we create an entity which obeys different rules to the sum of its parts/waves.

Classical mechanics implies things are moving... and we get the old view of electrons orbiting the nucleus. But they don't do that.

Until there is more concise understanding of the quantum realm, which is massively open to conjecture and hypothetical thought - and driven by competing and contradictory theories without any formal evidence, i don't see that we can use it as a tool to prop up any of the paranormal topics.
Hell, it can't currently even explain the "normal" world.

If we don't understand quantum reality at it's most basic form, how much of the macro reality do we also not understand?

I am not a qualified quantum physicist and although intrigued I am comfortable delegating this task to them - once we have a concise breakthrough, I may develop it - but for now, I don't intend to look at this subject which can be detected by our senses and is projected at a macro level in favour of looking at it through an expensive complicated microscope (LHC) that we don't even know really what we expect to find at a billionth (poetic license) of an angstom.

Sorry, but what does that have to do with anything? You are not qualified, but you want to comment on the subject in some seemingly "official" manner? Thanks, but we already have quantum physicist working on this stuff. A lot of them have some very forward thinking ideas. Some of them even write papers and books.

Our macro level is made from the quantum stuff, which does not behave as classical physics says it should. That should send up red flags... but it also steps on egos. We have a long history of scientist not wanting to look at a subject, because quite frankly, they don't know enough about it. People are just people. You learn things, and then someone might get a title, but at the end of the day we don't know everything. As much as an expert as something thinks they are, someone else knows something they don't. That's life. And that's why we keep looking. We have fancy telescopes too, and should we not bother with them because we keep seeing the same stars and stuff?

So should we stop looking at the nature of reality just because we don't know what we are looking for? Or because it doesn't behave as we think it should? That's absurd.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Alright, I agree and disagree with your post in general. Radio waves were theorized first then a working experiment was developed and presto change o radio waves are real. Now how did they do it? Surely they would of had to rework the scientific method because the scientific method is only limited to our five sense and has nothing about things we can not see or feel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

refreshed myself on what it is... I'm still right.

Right, but my point was there could be things as basic as the electromagnetic spectrum that we have not yet discovered, and is important to reality as we know it. One such thing would be what Rupert Sheldrake called the Morphic Field. This is also akin to what Carl Jung called the collective unconscious. Sheldrake showed in one test that the London Times crossword puzzle was easier to do later in the day than in the morning. So he had them make up a new puzzle that was not published. He found that the more people did the puzzle, the easier it got for people after them, as if the knowledge of the answers were available to the people who had done the puzzle later in the day.

We don't yet understand consciousness, so how do we know that it can't "pool" together and be accessed from time to time. Like the idea that some ghost phenomenon is a "recording" playing back, while others can be interacted with. Thoughts are energy. Perhaps this energy can linger on independent of the source that created them. That would explain a lot of what people experience.

The problem with ideas like this, even if you can statistically show a pattern, they are considered unfalsifiable by some, and therefore can't be tested in the usual manner.

I've always been highly interested in science, and had I not become a working musician, would have gone in that path. However I'm often appalled by the way some scientist treat new ideas. It clearly gets into an area of ego more than anything else.

A lot of paranormal stuff is very transient. We can capture images of UFOs and ghost, or we can all have our own personal experiences with various paranormal events, so many of us know this stuff is real, but it eludes being tested in a scientific manner. That doesn't mean it's not real however, just that it can't be tested in the usual manner. So which is at fault, the data or the test? Scientist will invariably say the data, and I feel that's incorrect. Also these scientist that wont accept that people see UFOs, haven't seen any themselves. When they do, they change their view, such as happened with Jacque Vallee.

If you ignore the real world functions of Quantum mechanics. Also Quantum mechanic is heavily reliant on mathematical formations

Yes it is, and it's a lot of the same math that also underlies general physics. But at the present time, math is all we have for some of it. But math also predicted things like radio waves, etc. And that discovery was inspired by observations of light.

Last thing about Quantum mechanics, is I'm a laymen at it, all I know is it's really weird really deep with the numbers and the crunching of the numbers I feel this is no excuse for paranormalists to grab it as THE answer to everything they talk about.

I listen to the Astronomy Cast podcast, and I'm always amused when Dr. Pamela Gay calls a lot of the math "ugly". She points out that you can often get anything to work if the math gets convoluted enough!

But we get to a point where we can no longer test for things... or even see them. It's almost as if we aren't allowed to see how things work.

We don't have an answer for paranormal events. But it doesn't hurt trying to think of answers. We may never have an answer either. And the events will continue to occur. Just as we don't know why there is a universe and all, and it continues on in our ignorance.

I like a lot of the conjecture by some quantum physicists that consciousness might be the basis of reality. Like the old saying, I think, therefore I am.

rerailing this thread to the orignal topic, I'm still amused that the guest would like you declairs this is above the scienfitic method then he talks about photographic evidence of 'ghosts' and how he heard a stage cart ride past him and he's son. Yet he can't devise a test to prove his hypothese?

I'm not saying it's above scientific method, just that if you don't understand something, you can't test for it. You have to come up with a theory first, and then test for that. That's how it's done. Where are the theories? Some of it is likely beyond our current understanding of things. You have to admit there are things we don't yet understand. Any scientist of any discipline will tell you this.

Some examples:

13 Things We Don't Understand

Ten things we don't understand about humans

So, how do you test for these things? What's the theory behind something like ghosts? Let's say they are "spirits". How do you define a spirit, and how do you test for it? What if they are some kind of time anomaly that plays back an event. How do you test for that? What if they are something that effects only our consciousness, like they are an idea or a concept. How do you test for that? First you have to try and figure out what they are.

See the problem? We are possibly dealing with things that don't fit into our present knowledge of reality, but nonetheless keep happening to people. Observations are being made, and sometimes tangible evidence is obtained (photos, EVP, instrument readings). But still, no one has devised a test for such things. The phenomenon persists though, so a lack of tests doesn't prove it doesn't exist. I had an experience with about 6 other people 30 some years ago where we all saw the shadow of a person, and things were being thrown across the room. It was in a basement and the only unlocked entrance was behind us. We didn't have direct line of sight, but we saw a shadow cast on the wall by a light bulb. And what had happened was a woman died in an apartment in the house a week earlier, and something had removed stuff piled up on a steamer trunk that belonged to her!

We all saw this, and physical things moved. But there was no one there. Now if we had a camera, we could have captured an image of the shadow, and even video of stuff being thrown. So the six of us know this happened... but what was the underlying cause behind it?

But I'm with you... lets get some good minds on this subject and do some testing...

Keep in mind that these people (the Enos) aren't scientist, and it would be great to have some scientist testing for this stuff. But who's going to do it? As I pointed out in an earlier post, there has been serious scientific study into paranormal topics, and as god as the science and testing is, and with positive results, other scientist will attack them. Even if they can't find any errors in the testing or data. It comes back to egos... they don't believe it, so it can't be true. It happened with the Duke University program, and with Rupert Sheldrake too.

I'm sure tests could be formulated to test these things... it's already shown that during ghost sightings that instruments can show some change in the environment.

Lastly, what if we are dealing with something so strange that we have yet to have even thought of the idea. If there is no inclination to study such things, who's going to even stop to put serious thought into it? On the show, David often states that he feels we are dealing with something we probably can't comprehend. We are still trying to figure out the fabric of reality... and we find really weird things that make us scratch our heads.

Then we have stuff like consciousness. Brain scientist don't know what's going on yet. If we are going to talk macro, why are we even here? Sure, it's a philosophical question, but it's a valid question, and you can't answer it or test it in a lab.

So we have to be open minded enough to accept that we don't know many things, and we need to keep looking. You can't sweep people's experiences under a rug because science can't tell you why they happen. But scientist don't always want to say "We don't know", and instead will say the data was at fault... the people were mistaken, or hallucinating, or lying. That's not science either. That's egotism.