Crystal Skulls - May 3oth 2011

[The Pair of Cats]

LOL. I listened to the show. Chris did a good job as I said above of asking the guest for proof.
But hilariously Chris made a claim of his own that was EXACTLY like the kind of claim that the guest made (as I clearly detail above).

Lance

My God! Are you trying to say you don't believe him, Lance?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Just so I am clear, whenever someone makes an easily testable claim that would conclusively prove the existence of a paranormal claim (something that heretofore has never been done), the correct response is to not request proof but just accept the claim blindly?

The problem with this is that they will create all sorts of excuses to explain why testing is impossible.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If Chris says he is "sensitive" and can feel energy from certain skulls, i have no reason to doubt him.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Yes, yes Phillip. The scholarly approach as always.

The bible says it
I believe it
That settles it


Why is it that the paranormal field is the subject of laughter and ridicule? Look no further than this kind of thinking.

Lance

In before the edit, lol
I don't know about Chris but there is certainly some kind of energy coming from your skull, Lance. Maybe Chris is a Phrenologist. I'm sure there are some bumps and ridges on your skull he could read.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I enjoy the Phil and Lance arguments - they usually end in a friendly enough way.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I also wanted to mention that Chris's knowledge of these matters is very impressive. He really does know his stuff in an encyclopedic way.
It is his adherence with the scientific method that I feel is quite lacking.

Lance

Not that I'm disagreeing with you completely, Lance, but I would like to point out that there are many things that are True that cannot be proven with the scientific method. In fact, in several areas of study, the scientific method proves to be quite lacking in verifying observations and facts.

 

[trainedobserver]

If Chris says he is "sensitive" and can feel energy from certain skulls, i have no reason to doubt him.

Well, that being true we still don't have any reason to believe that the apparent explanation, "that he is sensitive to energy from certain skulls" is what is actually going on do we? What does that mean? "What is this 'energy' are we talking about?" and "Can it be verified?" are very valid and very interesting questions to pose in response to hearing that claim from anyone. How is the energy perceived? A physical rush, a tingling, an emotion, or an impression? I think those questions are fair and should be expected.

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

...but I would like to point out that there are many things that are True that cannot be proven with the scientific method. In fact, in several areas of study, the scientific method proves to be quite lacking in verifying observations and facts.

I second what Lance posted above.

I read this kind of statement often in these types of forums but I have yet to see anyone actually propose an alternative. Exactly what are you talking about as a viable alternative and please provide some examples. I've been wondering about the answer to this question for years.

 

[spanmexguy]

Sorry, Gene & Chris, I could not get through the first 10 min of this week’s show. What a crazy wacko this guy is. I know this is supposed to be a paranormal and fringe science show, but this guy was beyond that. But kudos to you guys for keeping cool with comments like “my crystal skull told me to go out to the woods and meditate on this song since I like it” lololol

How about we bring back AJ Gevaird (spelling??) or give an update on the Varjenia case on an upcoming show????

 

[trainedobserver]

know this is supposed to be a paranormal and fringe science show, but this guy was beyond that.

Ha, ha! I am a fan of this type of stuff like I'm a fan of old 50's "B" science fiction movies. I try to enter into the spirit of thing and take it all with a grain of salt realizing I'm not listening to a CSPAN version of the National Academy of Sciences or some such. The guest's unrelenting nature and the host's good humor about it kept me going until the end of this show. I would venture to guess that this fellows attitudes and beliefs reflect those of a larger number of people interested in these subjects than not but it is hard to tell. Certainly if you read forums like the Avalon or Camelot project forums you see a lot of it. youTube is simply overflowing with these types of pseudo-scientific beliefs and attitudes that are on the fringe of fringe beliefs. .

And that begs another question. If they don't have a certain number of these types of folks on the Paracast just how representative of the field could it be? You can't interview the same "A list" people over and over before it gets boring. Besides these "A list" individuals are in the minority! There are certainly more "B list" and "C list" individuals out there with some wacky but interesting ideas and experiences. It only stands to reason that we'd get these on the show. I commend the hosts for their gentle handling of this guest. There is a point where it really isn't necessary to dismantle someone's else's faulty thinking when they do it for you. At which point I am all for letting them run with it. I enjoyed this episode and look forward to some more "way out there" guys interspersed along the way in the future.

For the connoisseur of the strange, weird, and kooky. The Kooks Museum.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Thanks Sandafire,

Can you name one?

And even better, can you outline the system of inquiry that is better at it?

Lance

I can name several; nearly any philosophical concept, many psychological concepts, many thousands of zoological concepts...nearly any idea or observation which involves free-will on the part of the participant, whether it be of the human species or something more intelligent than an Earth worm.

And no, I cannot name a system of inquiry nor a format of resolution that is better than the scientific method, which is my point exactly; it's faulty but it is the best our little species has, and since it's the best we have at this point in our development we tend to cling to it like, oh.....I don't....a religious concept of Truth maybe? After all, many skeptics point to the scientific method as the end-all-be-all say in all things, just like people point to the Bible or other religious texts as being unyielding and undeniable. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the scientific method is a good framework, but should not be used as a universal method of measure by any means.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Please see my reply to Lance.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Respectfully, no they don't (unless you might show evidence of this). They simply point out (as you did) that it is the best that we have.
In this case ("I feel energy from crystal skulls"), it is perfectly suited for proving such a statement.

I agree.

To choose scientific disciplines like zoology and psychology as examples falsifies your argument without any effort on my part. Advancements in those fields certainly come within a scientific framework (same for much rational philosophy, especially logic).

Lance

I disagree. Though my examples are clearly scientific fields, they do not follow the framework of the scientific method, especially "in the field" and framework of reality. Zoology and psychology, the study of mentality and behavior of biological entities, is too variable to be measured in such an unyielding step-by-step process as the scientific method. It's insufficient and requires the researcher to step "out of bounds" of the method, at times even at the observational level.

You asked for examples. I provided them, and now you refuse argument or discussion? I take that as recognition of defeat. (?)

 

[trainedobserver]

And no, I cannot name a system of inquiry nor a format of resolution that is better than the scientific method, which is my point exactly; it's faulty but it is the best our little species has, and since it's the best we have at this point in our development we tend to cling to it like, oh.....I don't....a religious concept of Truth maybe?

What is faulty about it? Why would you say it is faulty?

Any portrayal of science as religion misrepresents both. A universal characteristic of religion is an already established and unchangeable body of knowledge provided through revelation or inspiration which is to be accepted as fact even in the face of contradicting evidence. On the other hand, science accumulates knowledge by first looking to disprove any given hypothesis rather than confirm it through the elimination of error by experimentation and observation. Science is more than willing to change where religious belief is not. There is no comparison.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I don't refuse argument. I do refer you to countless psychological and animal behavior experiments that attempt to quantify exactly what you claim is unquantifiable. I can make more precise references of this if you would like--it is literally the whole of the fields.

Can you point out an example of where a respected researcher stepped "out of bounds" of the method, at times even at the observational level" and still produced accepted results?


Lance

Yes, I invite your examples.

As for mine, here is but one example in which "thinking outside the scientific method" box came into play. Again, this is a real world scenario, quantified outside the straight-and-narrow method so utilized in the laboratory. I, of course, do not expect you to read the entire of Radick's book so I've provided a copy of the abstract.

"
<dl id="citationFields" class="citation-fields"><dd class="citation-title color-s4">The simian tongue: The long debate about animal language.</dd><dt>Authors:</dt><dd>Radick, Gregory, University of Leeds, Leeds, WYK, United Kingdom</dd><dt>Source:</dt><dd> Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press, 2007. xiv, 577 pp. </dd><dt>ISBN:</dt><dd>0-226-70224-3 (Hardcover)
978-0-226-70224-7 (Hardcover)</dd><dt>Language:</dt><dd>English</dd><dt>Keywords:</dt><dd>simian tongue; debate; animal language; theory of evolution; primate communication; evolution of language; Darwin; psychology; anthropology; human language</dd><dt>Abstract:</dt><dd> (from the jacket) In the early 1890s the theory of evolution gained an unexpected ally: the Edison phonograph. An amateur scientist used the new machine--one of the technological wonders of the age--to record monkey calls, play them back to the monkeys, and watch their reactions. From these soon famous experiments he judged that he had discovered "the simian tongue," made up of words he was beginning to translate, and containing the rudiments from which human language evolved. Yet for most of the next century, the simian tongue and the means for its study existed at the scientific periphery. Both returned to great acclaim only in the early 1980s, after a team of ethologists announced that experimental playback showed certain African monkeys to have rudimentarily meaningful calls. Drawing on newly discovered archival sources and interviews with key scientists, Gregory Radick here reconstructs the remarkable trajectory of a technique invented and reinvented to listen in on primate communication. Richly documented and powerfully argued, The Simian Tongue charts the scientific controversies over the evolution of language from Darwin's day to our own, resurrecting the forgotten debts of psychology, anthropology, and other behavioral sciences to the Victorian debate about the animal roots of human language. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)"</dd></dl>And again, I must emphasize, I am not discounting the scientific method in it's entirety. I am simply pointing out the fact that in many situations, behavioral and psychological, it is lacking.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

What is faulty about it? Why would you say it is faulty?

Any portrayal of science as religion misrepresents both. A universal characteristic of religion is an already established and unchangeable body of knowledge provided through revelation or inspiration which is to be accepted as fact even in the face of contradicting evidence. On the other hand, science accumulates knowledge by first looking to disprove any given hypothesis rather than confirm it through the elimination of error by experimentation and observation. Science is more than willing to change where religious belief is not. There is no comparison.

When people cling to science with simple and narrow-minded conviction, there is every comparison. You're missing my point and, in fact, you emphasize my point in your own text.

"... already established and unchangeable body of knowledge provided through revelation or inspiration which is to be accepted as fact even in the face of contradicting evidence...." These exact words are utterly interchangeable in many situations between science and religion, mostly on the blind-eyed skeptical side of the argument. (Please note, I do NOT consider Lance to be a blind-eyed skeptic in this case) But as I said, you're missing my point....

........and that is that the scientific method IS flawed in that it cannot be applied to every situation of observation.

 

[redrocket]

Gene and Chris tried to be objective and were respectful to the guest, which is good, I guess... but Geez, what a freakin' nutjob. I had to turn it off when he said that he has a personal relationship with his crystal skull and it speaks to him telepathically... I listen every week, and I hope that every guest will be a Jacques Vallee, but Crystal Skull Guy and Underground Base Guy were at the extreme other end of the spectrum. Underground Base Guy said he was lying in bed at night and heard a voice in his ear, and by the way, he frequently uses DMT. end of interview. He cannot under any circumstances be taken seriously, whether he's written a book or not. When a grown man looks you in the eye and says that he has conversations with a rock, a stone that's been carved to look like a skull, I have to look straight back at him and call bullshit. Let's have some shows about UFOs!!

 

[Jeff Crowell]

And I am not speaking of the abandonment of science, I am speaking of the deviation of the scientific method.

I think I see a source of our misunderstanding; you are equating science with the scientific method. I am NOT disagreeing with science, which is the understanding of the environment based on observation. In my terminology, the scientific method is a singular method of performing science, but it is not the only method of performing science. The field of science (or the many fields of science as it were), is independent from the method in which it is studied as it can be studied in any number of methods, and moving forward with my point; a singular method may not be the only, nor the best way, of studying something scientifically.

I hope that clarifies. I, myself, am on the 'side' of science, but do not worship it in a singular view.

 

[trainedobserver]

When people cling to science with simple and narrow-minded conviction, there is every comparison. You're missing my point and, in fact, you emphasize my point in your own text.

I think anyone who can understand the difference between being able to change your mind (science) and not being able to change your mind (religious faith) can understand the fundamental difference between religion and science.

The scientific method alters the body of scientific knowledge almost on a daily basis. Does the body of knowledge in any religion change due to experimentation and observation detecting errors in it? Not to my knowledge and experience with religious faith, but I am willing to change my view given a good reason to do so. And as I've already pointed out, another great difference is that while religion seeks to confirm and prove its beliefs, science seeks to disprove and find fault with its accepted knowledge in order to eliminate error in it. Religion simply does not do that, it clings to its knowledge and discourages any attempt to disprove it. Science does not cling to its knowledge but sees it as a basis from which new knowledge can be discovered often discarding the stepping stones along the way.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I think anyone who can understand the difference between being able to change your mind (science) and not being able to change your mind (religious faith) can understand the fundamental difference between religion and science.

The scientific method alters the body of scientific knowledge almost on a daily basis. Does the body of knowledge in any religion change due to experimentation and observation detecting errors in it? Not to my knowledge and experience with religious faith, but I am willing to change my view given a good reason to do so. And as I've already pointed out, another great difference is that while religion seeks to confirm and prove its beliefs, science seeks to disprove and find fault with its accepted knowledge in order to eliminate error it. Religion simply does not do that, it clings to its knowledge and discourages any attempt to disprove it. Science does not cling to its knowledge but sees it as a basis from which new knowledge can be discovered often discarding the stepping stones along the way.

Again, I disagree. I've seen many scientists cling, quite desperately, to their edicts, say, Mr. Friedman? And science will cling quite desperately to it's singular methodologies, but perhaps I am being too unfair. It's not so much science that is the religion as the scientists who cling to it as a religion, including the narrow-minded and singular "scientific method."

As far as religion not being able to change it's mind, I point out Martin Luther and it's 96 theses, I also point out every denomination of the Christian faith, and many that are no longer "with us" because religion changed it's mind. I point out that reincarnation was a concept accepted by Christianity in it's early days, and later "discarded" from it's teachings. I also point out that I, as a practitioner of religion was born and raised as a Lutheran but now consider myself agnostic, so even religious people change their minds.

Science and religion are 100% interchangeable. There can, and does, exist faith in both, and that faith can be misplaced in either.

 

[tyder001]

Just to pop in for a minute. I don't think anybody is talking about abandoning science. I know I enjoy science in my life everyday. However, I also find fullfillment in my faith and hope everyday. I think when anybody honestly looks at the results there are very provacative expereiments that have been done over the years that point to PSI as a real expereince. But, it gets so covered up by the true beliver camp to push some new age agenda. Then it gets ignored and overlooked by the debunker camp because it threatens their world view. It's kind of silly really since it all points to the "power" of the human spirit/mind. To those of us who beleive and have an inner life there is no amount of poking the brain and producing a muscle twitch that will sway us. To those who think we are all a chemical by product there is no amount of "I saw an event before it happened(this actually has happened to me) that will be enough for them to even take it serioulsy." To be honest people like Echols and Polkinghorn and Sheldrake and Rhine have done monumental work to at least provoke honest acceptance of something beyond chemical reactions. But, as long as people hold to their religion of 18th century physics as if they are upholding the structures of science (their not) we will always have the two camps fighting. I have noticed there is a certain mindset from some of the debunkers that fall all over themselves trying to debunk any claim of concsinuss outside of a chemical reaction instead of honestly trying to replicate the work they are busy trying to fit it into their own bias. I still remember a Scientifc American Editor (yeah I'm still looking for the damn book, it's somewhere in my pile of books or at least it was) putting the "amazing randi" in his place for scoffing at Sir John Echols. It is easy for the peanut gallery to throw stones and I'm sure it itimidates some honest researchers. I'm not sure that we have the proper tools right now. But, we may have one day. Anyway, I candidly admit I can't produce or perform on demmand. But, sometime (and from my old college stats classes I can tell you it's at least significant) I have known things that I honestly had no way or reason to know. But, I suck at the lottery and I abslutely will never win the million dollar challenge. So, chill out a little cause your asking "science" to be something it's not. It isn't an entity unto itself. It's a great collection of human knowledge and it compliments our physical world and works more times than not for what it can be used for. I look at scienfic advancement and see the spirit of mankind doing what it is "meant" to do. Some look and see an automaton.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I've seen many scientists cling, quite desperately, to their edicts, say, Mr. Friedman

Jeff, that's a horrible example to use. He's a ufologist, not a scientist.