I’m a little late to the conversation, as per usual, so let’s catch up a bit. Fair warning, this will be lengthy.

I think there is probably nothing supernatural about extrasensory perception. I think every human brain is capable of it, but it seems those who hold some perceived spiritual connection to it are those who have genuine skill with it. Personally, I think it is their faith and dedication which carry them along.

Not sure what your point is with the first sentence, unless you don’t understand the definition of “supernatural.” ESP is considered “supernatural” simply because it appears to violate the natural laws that dictate how reality works. If it can be proven to be a real phenomena and if the process of how it does what it does can be explained then it would no longer be considered supernatural. As it currently stands, however, it’s neither been proven to be real nor have any reasonable theories been proposed on how it does what it does, thus it’s designation as supernatural.

Now that we’ve gotten the semantics lesson out of the way, I have a couple of questions on the rest of your paragraph:

1. Why should people who have a ‘perceived spiritual connection’ be any better at using ESP than anyone else if we’re all capable of it?
2. Why should faith and dedication play a role in using this ‘extra sense?’ Do you have to have faith and dedication to use any of the other five normal sense you posses? If you stopped believing in your eyes would you no longer be able to see? Can you disbelieve away your sense of touch?
3. How do you explain all the self-professed psychics who don’t seem to make any spirituality claims with regards to their abilities?
   

I also think that no one has taken Randi’s offer (and collected) is in no way proof all this is a bunch of bullshit.

Indeed, but it definitely gives good reason to doubt. It’s entirely possible that every single person who has genuine ESP is too altruistic to prove their ability for mere money alone, but knowing human nature the way that I do I find this possibility to be very unlikely.

In the absence of proof you’re free to believe anything you want, but the absence of proof isn’t a good reason to believe nor is it much of a repudiation of those who disbelieve.

In 1993, a strange respiratory illness began claiming Navaho lives. Doctors were stumped. Medicine men were not. It was, in fact, the medicine men who figured out the problem was coming from the mice.

GeekMom has already addressed this fairly well so I won’t rehash what she’s said.

In fact, I could find only one article that mentioned the Navaho medicine men, which I provided. And it was either The Learning Channel or The Discovery Channel that made an episode about this case, and they did mention the medicine men, suggesting doctors should not immediately dismiss their skills.

These days, as much as it pains me to say it, you can’t trust everything you see on The Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel. They’ve given in to the draw of ratings and are just as willing to air shows that are scientifically dubious at best and pure hype at worst as they are anything that represents a serious look at the topics covered. Quite often it seems the shows are little more than one or more lowest-common-denominator FOX specials re-packaged with new title graphics and less sensationalistic voice overs. Checking the end credits commonly shows the same company behind the productions.

I also looked at the link you provided, but I don’t see anything about medicine men being credit with discovery of the hantavirus in mice plaguing the Navahos.

If you went to the Navaho medicine men and asked them to participate in this Randi offer, I would bet the same amount Randi is offering that you would get a flat “no,” if you got a response at all. The reason is simple. Those medicine men got their answer engaged in the rituals so many here and elsewhere ridicule, and those ways are sacred to them. Which is also why you won’t find them in the back of some metaphysical shop charging $20 to peer into your future.

It’s also possible the Navaho medicine men were just smart enough to notice that the presence of these mice coincided with the presence of the disease. Nothing particularly mystical about that.

It is my contention that Randi will never get someone in there with true skill, as those with true skill hold it very sacred.

Again, my experience with human nature would suggest otherwise and Randi certainly isn’t wanting for applicants. Many of whom claim not only to have a genuine ability, but seem to feel it’s a sacred gift from god. Their reasons for applying often have little to do with the money and more to do with establishing not only their ability as legitimate, but also as support for the existence of a god or gods. There are plenty of charlatans out there, however, who find hiding behind the “I won’t engage in tests to prove it because it’s sacred” argument to be a very effective means of deflecting criticism.

As I’ve said before: You can make any claim you want, but unless you’re willing to back it up with some solid proof (read: non-anecdotal which seems to be most of what is offered as proof) then there’s little reason to buy into those claims. Allow me to provide an example…

If I told you I had a small blue fairy in my pocket who gives me advice on the stock market and had a burgeoning portfolio of high-earning stocks as proof of this truth, would you accept my claim based on that evidence? How about if I refused to let you see or even hear my small blue fairy as she gives me stock tips? What if I had others who are willing to back up my claims because I relayed tips from my small blue fairy to them and their stocks increased in value as a result? My small blue fairy is a sacred gift and it would be sacrilegious to put her to any kind of a test so you’ll just have to accept me and my supporters at their word. I mean, why would we lie about it?

Based on the logic you’ve put forth so far you have no good reason to think my claims are bullshit and, based on your responses so far, quite probably would be inclined to defend my claims to others.

I also believe this whole “lottery numbers” argument is a bit naive. That really means nothing to say people do not have “psychic” experiences.

Again it’s not proof that some people don’t have said experiences, but considering one of the defenses often put forth is the detail of the information psychics supposedly come up with it does leave one wondering why this detailed information is never about anything important. Why do the dead people have no problems predicting new rugs in someone’s future, but they never tell anyone where the missing Last Will is hidden? Why can’t psychics tell us who the murderer was? Or that some relative is going to be hit by a car tomorrow? Who gives a flying fuck about new rugs?

When I was 10, I could not shake the feeling I was going to fall over the edge of the pick-up bed I was in. I even said as much to my friend. We decided it was safer to sit in the middle. Neither of us were behind the wheel when it wrecked and threw us out of the back.

There is a big difference between falling over the edge and being thrown from the bed of the truck. How many times have you had a feeling you couldn’t shake that something was going to happen, but nothing ever did? Why didn’t you sense that you would be thrown from the truck instead of merely falling out? For that matter, why didn’t you sense that it was going to be an accident rather than just you falling out as it traveled along? How many car accidents have you been in where you had no premonition at all? 

There is something to be said for intuition as well. I’ve had plenty of times when I suspected something was about to happen and—lo and behold—it did, but there was nothing paranormal about it. Often times I can even tell you why I had my suspicions, but not always. Does the fact that I can’t always explain why I have these insights prove that I have some latent psychic power I’m not aware of? Only if you’re easily convinced.

[Stuff about Grandmother’s predictions deleted]

Since I cannot get my dead grandmother to attest to this, I offer it not as proof, but to suggest that if you look around, you will find people around you who have experienced this kind of thing at least once. People have premonitions and psychic experiences. That is a fact. It may not be supported by modern scientists in the how’s and why’s, but that does not mean it does not exist. And that people are not hitting the lottery with these experiences in no way means it does not exist.

You’re not telling us anything we don’t already know by suggesting that we can find people around us who have experienced this sort of thing. Some people think they have premonitions and psychic experiences and are quite sincere about it. Then again, some people think they’ve been abducted by aliens and had probes shoved up their asses. Some other people think they’ve seen Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster or ghosts or any of a host of other ghoulies. Even more people think Elvis is still alive and living in Kalamazoo, Michigan and many of them claim to not only have seen him, but talked to him. All manner of people from all walks of life who are completely sincere make claims like any and all of these all the time. Are they all lying? I don’t think so, but that doesn’t mean they’ve actually experienced what they think. Any time spent with a children’s book of optical illusions will easily demonstrate how your eyes can’t be trusted to always present you the truth. If you’ve ever watched a movie in surround sound then you should realize your ears are easily fooled as well. Ever eaten anything that tasted familiar only to realize it uses artificial flavors? Not one of the five senses is immune to being fooled, but then it’s not the sense itself that’s being fooled, it’s the brain’s interpretation of the sense.

Again, it’s true that psychics not hitting the lottery doesn’t mean there aren’t any psychics, but it is good reason to doubt those who would claim to know the future. The point remains that few psychics who claim to know the future ever provide anything significant in the way of predictions that would indicate there’s more than mere coincidence at work for the few occasions they happen to be right. For example, why wasn’t there a single prediction about the 9/11 Terrorists attacks prior to the event?

I don’t see mathematicians who have probability down to a science hitting those lotto numbers either. ~ Just a thought. I do wonder about that. It should be one helluva math problem.

Perhaps that’s because the mathematicians who have probability down to a science know something that you apparently do not: That the probability of the mathematician to correctly predict the winning jackpot numbers in, say, the Powerball Lottery is around 0.000000012 or, in other words, they are most likely to be wrong on any given prediction. When you factor in the total number of potential ways to win (the jackpot isn’t the only prize) and the number of people holding tickets during any particular drawing, which tends to increase as the jackpot grows, you’ll find that the probability of predicting the winning numbers gets very complex. If you really want to know, however, you can read a very detailed examination of probability with regards to the Powerball Lottery in this PDF file.

You haven’t studied probability theory yourself, I assume, or you’d have already realized the fallacy of your argument. Why would you assume that someone who has probability down to a science would be able to use that knowledge to accurately predict the outcome of a random event? Simply knowing that the probability of any particular coin toss coming up heads is 0.5 (50-50) doesn’t make you any more likely to predict accurately what the next flip will produce. It just means you’ve got a good chance of being right on average.

Call me stupid, but I loved it and never feared it before. My feeling was there because of the sensation I was being pulled out, therefore couldn’t shake the feeling that I was going to fall out. I know what I felt. But you don’t. And yet, you immediately dismiss it as something I misjudged. You are right though, it is not proof, as neither of us can prove what I felt. It is however, evidence. Evidence quickly dismissed by “authorities” of science.

Correction, it’s anecdotal evidence. And yes, science discounts anecdotal evidence in favor of empirical evidence. I’m not sure why you seem to think this is a bad thing. No one is denying that you are sincere about what you felt at the time, it’s the conclusion you are drawing from that feeling that we are questioning. You say that you had a sensation of “being pulled out” which you interpreted to mean you were going to “fall out” of the truck. You acted on that feeling by moving to the center of the truck and at some indeterminate time after that there was an accident that “threw” you out of the truck bed. The conclusion you are drawing from these experiences is that it must have been some sort of premonition and that is certainly one explanation, but not necessarily the only one nor necessarily the correct one. You’ve accepted that explanation as being true, but that doesn’t make it true.

It’s entirely possible that the sensation of being pulled out could have been centrifugal forces from either an increase or decrease in the speed of the truck or a change in inclination of the truck due to a hill. If the change is gradual enough the sensation can be very subtle and startling. I’ve ridden in enough truck beds to have experienced the same sensation, though none of the trucks I experienced it in were in accidents. The fact that the truck was in an accident shortly after your sensation is likely just a coincidence that is facilitating your conclusion, but that’s not the only explanation. It’s possible the truck could have been accelerating in order to pass another vehicle (causing your sensation) and in the process of doing so causing the accident to take place. Or it may have been braking slightly (causing your sensation) due to a potentially dangerous traffic development which the driver under-estimated the severity of resulting in the accident. Or any of a number of other possible explanations all of which are more probable than you having a psychic experience. Again, without knowledge of the specifics all I can do is speculate. At the age of 10 your cognitive thinking ability wasn’t anywhere near what it would be as an adult and that also probably plays a role in this story.

I thought about that later and decided that statement was flimsy. But I do know there exists out here people with gifts science cannot explain who would not go near a lab.

All that proves is that there are people out there who believe they have gifts science can’t explain who are content in those beliefs or unwilling to risk the possibility of being wrong about those beliefs. In my youth I had a girlfriend whom I managed to convince that I had the ability to teleport myself from spot to spot. Every time she’d turn around I’d be standing right behind her. She never heard me coming up and even if she was trying to watch for me I’d still manage to end up behind her where I’d lean over and whisper “boo” in her ear. Now, which do you think is the more probable explanation:

1. I truly do have the ability to teleport and have managed to resist the temptation of using it to gain access to places I shouldn’t such as the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader’s locker room.
2. I have the ability to walk very softly for such a big guy and am clever enough (or my girlfriend was unobservant enough) that I could manage to get behind her without her noticing.
   

I’ll give you two chances to pick the right answer. This girl wasn’t stupid and she could admit that, logically, she knew it was impossible for me to literally be teleporting. That didn’t stop her from believing the possibility of it though. She probably dumped me because I creaped her out too much with that little trick.

I am sure everyone could. That is not to say that because psychics are not hitting the lottery, they do not exist. Funny, when I mentioned this to my daughter she said “how do you know they aren’t hitting the lottery?” The underlying question, of course, being “who would admit to it?” And think about that, who really would want to subject themselves to becoming a lab rat? Do you realize what would happen to a person who could prove they had true psychic abilities? Think not only about scientists, doctors, and government officials, but the general public as well.

They’d make a lot of money. At least they would if people like John Edward, Sylvia Browne, James Van Praaugh and the rest of the so-called psychics are any indication. You’re right, though, who the hell would want to subject themselves to being filthy rich and sought after by millions? I’d hate to have people hanging off my every word as being some revelation from on-high and asking for personal consultations at a billing rate of $300 an hour (Edward). I’d hate having all those people come to my sold-out shows at $75 a ticket on the off-chance that I might tell them about some rugs they’d get in the near future.

Sorry, the if-they-revealed-themselves-the-scary-government-people-would-lock-them-up-and-poke-the-with-needles-endlessly argument doesn’t really wash.

Better by whose standards? Yours and the million bucks? Again, just because they are not hitting the lottery does not mean these people do not exist, and it does not mean they are not using their skills to better their own lives. It also does not mean you would know about it.

Again, that’s certainly all possible, but that’s no reason to accept the possibility as being the truth. There’s a big difference between what is possible and what is probable. Simply because something is possible doesn’t give us any reason to believe that possibility is true. It’s possible aliens with a serious ass-fetish keep showing up and molesting various citizens of Earth. It’s possible the homeless guy I know is being followed around by invisible blue beings from the planet Zippo that are making him teach them all about mankind so they can determine whether or not to blow up the planet (he seems quite sincere in that belief). It’s also entirely possible that all of you are mere figments of my fevered imagination as I lay in a coma in some hospital after a horrible Cheez-Whiz(tm) accident.

All of those things are possibilities, but until you can provide something more than anecdotal evidence for any of them I intend to assume they’re all bullshit for now.

(Thank you for not assuming I just pulled that out of my ass. I really appreciate that.) They weren’t vague, and I don’t see how one could call even the short example I gave vague. That was only a small part of one thing she said. But you have there a vehicle, the description of that vehicle down to the color (no one in the family owned one, including the person who ended up being involved in the event), what it was doing, and who the others were around that vehicle… even that is hardly vague. But again, it is not proof, only evidence.

Again, without more specifics we can only speculate. I’ve heard a lot of claims like this, after the fact. It is anecdotal evidence, though. For whatever that’s worth.

I think of a few of those could very well be legitimate. “the conditions weren’t right.” ALL scientific experiments are subject to contamination. “it comes and goes.” Well, it is possible that you would have to find a person with an uncommon level of skill to find someone who can “control” their sixth sense, which could also be a reason people are not hitting the lottery by psychic means. “i don’t know what it means…” It has been argued that the conscious and subconscious mind do not speak the same language, and so there is a fallible interpretation between the two. Not that I am arguing it, just that it has been argued. That mostly deals with dream subjects. “you ruined it by not believing in it.” This one I find interesting that it is so quickly dismissed. If you are studying a subject that deals with the mind, how is it impossible that another mind cannot influence it?

Why should it? You haven’t even offered an explanation of how these phenomena would conceivably work, how can you begin to speculate on what might fuck up their functioning?

Pretty much what I think it boils down to is this: No other area of science instigates more emotion than that dealing with the so-called “paranormal.” I believe this is because of prejudice and fear. Really, if “authorities” of science admitted that there is something to the sixth sense, it would open the floodgates to all sorts of taboo. Science resists knew ideas, and there is hard evidence of that in its history. Despite the mountain of evidence provided by independent scientists - not just parapsychologists, but biologists and others too - that there is something to the sixth sense, “authorities” of science immediately reject it.

Well, that’s one explanation. I have problems with it though. What kind of prejudice and fear do you think scientists have towards the paranormal? Why should they have those fears? What other taboos does admitting the existence of the “sixth sense” open up? What the hell do you mean by “science resists knew ideas, and there is hard evidence of that in its history?” Are you sure you’re not confusing science with religion? What “mountain of evidence” are you talking about? All the anecdotal stories people have shared? If there’s mountains of evidence you should be able to point to it easily enough.

“Authorities” of science reject the idea that the mind stretches beyond the brain, and to except otherwise would change conventional, and highly emotional beliefs. That is not easily done in any arena, but I would argue particularly in science.

Again I think you’re confusing science with religion. Science, done properly, embraces change. No theory is sacrosanct. Nothing is beyond being revised in the face of new data. You want to accept all the excuses the psychics have to offer, but then take science to task for not buying into outrageous claims that, in many cases, violate some of the basic laws of realities that have stood up to rigorous experiments for decades because science is unwilling to draw conclusions on anecdotal evidence alone.

Not to be mean, but it sounds you’re suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking.

I have yet to meet a person with no more than a healthy dose of skeptism on this subject. It seems everyone forms their opinion on highly emotional beliefs. Even I am guilty of that because I know what I have seen and experienced. But people on the other side of this argument seem less skeptic than selectively cynical. And the reason I say that is because ALL evidence is immediately rejected, just as you rejected it above regarding my truck wreck.

I’m willing to be convinced, but it’s going to take more than stories about your experiences to convince me what you say is true. I’ve found that applying Occam’s Razor is invaluable in evaluating claims such as the ones you’re making above. I accept that you believe your conclusions on the events in question are true, but there are other possible explanations that are more probable as well and in the absence of any additional evidence other than your anecdotal stories I’m inclined to believe you misconstrued what actually happened.

Just as magnetic fields changed the nature of the materialists arguments, I think there is that one small detail scientists have yet to discover, which will eventually prove there is something to the sixth sense.

Again, that is a possibility and there are scientists out there looking for it. Until someone is able to repeatedly demonstrate some ability in a controlled environment, however, there’s no good reason to assume this possibility is even remotely probable.

Science is only as smart as the scientists who practice it. Sometimes it takes a while to find those elusive answers.

The one thing you’ve said so far that I agree with wholeheartedly. Shame it doesn’t really support your argument, though.

Naturally, I get this finished up and posted only to notice that there are already new replies including a new one from Stef. Oh well, I’ll catch up on the rest later.

...as I lay in a coma in some hospital after a horrible Cheez-Whiz(tm) accident.

And then there was the setback with the Cheez-Whiz.
:O
But he’s feeling MUCH better now!

There are so many presumptions as to what “might have” and “could have” taken place before that truck wreck. The idea of any kind of premonition is just so quickly dismissed. Let me recount. Pick away.

Why is it so hard to believe I was not afraid of riding in that truck? Anyway, it was in July, perfect weather. The truck was still when I got in it: We were in an empty parking lot next to a phone. My sister, who would be the driver, was using the phone. I walked to the edge of the side of the truck, closer to her. That was when I had this sensation of being pulled out (over the edge of the side). I immediately had the thought “I am going to fall out of this truck.” I looked over at my friend, said those words to her, and we agreed we should just sit in the middle behind the cab. We drove, stopped at a couple of places… we were on the highway, next thing I remember my sisters were panicking over the top of me.

elwedriddsche: Maybe you had misgivings before but ignored them, maybe the combination of the driver’s state and the traffic and road conditions gave you a hunch. We ignore these feelings at our peril, but they are nothing more than our subconscious telling us that something important escaped our attention. And again, there’s nothing supernatural about this.

That last part is very close to what I have been saying.

Les: There is a big difference between falling over the edge and being thrown from the bed of the truck. How many times have you had a feeling you couldn’t shake that something was going to happen, but nothing ever did? Why didn’t you sense that you would be thrown from the truck instead of merely falling out? For that matter, why didn’t you sense that it was going to be an accident rather than just you falling out as it traveled along? How many car accidents have you been in where you had no premonition at all?

There is a big difference. But I don’t think that invalidates everything. First of all, I did fall. I fell from the air after a crash projected me through the air, but I did fall. ”Why didn’t you sense that you would be thrown from the truck instead of merely falling out?” I don’t know. But it is possible that when I had the sensation of being pulled out, my brain was telling me to get out. In the translation to my conscious mind, I thought “I am going to fall out.” I have never been in any other car accident, and I have never experienced anything remotely close to this when nothing came of it.

There seems to be this idea that if premonitions really occurred, or if there was anything to the sixth sense, then people would know exactly what was about to happen. I don’t think it is a far cry, especially given research regarding the way the subconscious communicates with the concious mind, to say that probably isn’t the case. I think that could also explain why there are not, in any great number, those with the ability to “control” it.

Les: You’ve accepted that explanation as being true, but that doesn’t make it true.

Possible, I said, continue to say.

Les:Correction, it’s anecdotal evidence. And yes, science discounts anecdotal evidence in favor of empirical evidence. I’m not sure why you seem to think this is a bad thing.

I never said it was a bad idea. I just don’t think it is a good idea to so quickly dismiss the anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is what? Irrelevant? It was experience and observation which kicked off science in the first place, and it is what continues discovery.

Les: Perhaps that’s because the mathematicians who have probability down to a science know something that you apparently do not:

I thank you for taking the time to explain something to me I clearly indicated I wondered about.

I am not pretending to know things I don’t, or in any way saying I know things you don’t. What I am saying and have said from the beginning is it is possible.

That so-called “psychics” like the aforementioned are relishing in their fortunes means nothing to me by way of saying true psychics would jump at the opportunity to cash in. I honestly think the aforementioned people have nothing to worry about. They are either respected as “gifted” or dismissed as “phonies.” But I think you would put a person in a whole other playing field if that person proved beyond doubt to anyone of substantial “authority” in science that they were in fact (for instance) telepathic.

Stefanie: Science is only as smart as the scientists who practice it. Sometimes it takes a while to find those elusive answers.

Les: The one thing you’ve said so far that I agree with wholeheartedly. Shame it doesn’t really support your argument, though.

How does it not? Because you don’t want it to? It is possible not enough is known right now, just like every other time scientists have discovered something their predecessors would never have believed possible.

Back into the fray…

There are so many presumptions as to what “might have” and “could have” taken place before that truck wreck. The idea of any kind of premonition is just so quickly dismissed. Let me recount. Pick away.

I already admitted that I didn’t know details and that I was speculating on possible explanations. Surely if you want me to accept the idea that you had a premonition as a possibility you should be equally willing to consider other possibilities as well? Or are saying that your singular explanation is the only possible one?

Why is it so hard to believe I was not afraid of riding in that truck? Anyway, it was in July, perfect weather. The truck was still when I got in it: We were in an empty parking lot next to a phone. My sister, who would be the driver, was using the phone. I walked to the edge of the side of the truck, closer to her. That was when I had this sensation of being pulled out (over the edge of the side). I immediately had the thought “I am going to fall out of this truck.” I looked over at my friend, said those words to her, and we agreed we should just sit in the middle behind the cab. We drove, stopped at a couple of places… we were on the highway, next thing I remember my sisters were panicking over the top of me.

I’ve not claimed you were afraid of riding in the truck and Elwedriddsche was speculating using the limited information he had at the time. Based on this description of events I’m not sure where the premonition part comes in. Standing on the edge of anything can give one a sense of vertigo. I’ve gotten a similar sensation to what you’ve described by standing at the top of a flight of stairs. Considering the lengthy period of time you’re suggesting took place between the premonition and the accident I’m not sure why you’d assume these two things were in any way related. It’s a pretty big logical jump.

There is a big difference. But I don’t think that invalidates everything. First of all, I did fall. I fell from the air after a crash projected me through the air, but I did fall. “Why didn’t you sense that you would be thrown from the truck instead of merely falling out?” I don’t know. But it is possible that when I had the sensation of being pulled out, my brain was telling me to get out. In the translation to my conscious mind, I thought “I am going to fall out.” I have never been in any other car accident, and I have never experienced anything remotely close to this when nothing came of it.

And you don’t think that’s a bit of a stretch? Sounds to me like a rationalization more so than a logical conclusion. Is it a possible explanation? Sure, but how plausible is it?

As a followup question, how many other premonitions have you had that ended up coming to pass?

There seems to be this idea that if premonitions really occurred, or if there was anything to the sixth sense, then people would know exactly what was about to happen. I don’t think it is a far cry, especially given research regarding the way the subconscious communicates with the conscious mind, to say that probably isn’t the case. I think that could also explain why there are not, in any great number, those with the ability to “control” it.

You keep suggesting that this “six sense” works on a subconscious level only. Why should it be any different than the other five senses we posses which work on both the subconscious and the conscious level? Why should the sensory data from this sixth sense be any less exact than what we get from our other five senses? For that matter, how exactly does our brain pick up these sensory details? For example, you can probably name all the different nerves types that transmit data about touch, taste, sight, sound and smell to your brain, what nerves are involved in the input of this “sixth sense?” In short, what’s your basis for the explanations you’re providing if you don’t even have a theory of how this sixth sense is even physiologically possible?

Les: You’ve accepted that explanation as being true, but that doesn’t make it true.

Possible, I said, continue to say.

OK, it’s possible. So what? Pink unicorns are “possible.” Diminutive underwear trolls are “possible.” Ancient dinosaurs living undetected in deep lochs are “possible.” There are a lot of things that are possible, but don’t look to be very likely. If you just want to talk about possibilities we can have a grand old time letting our imaginations run wild, but you keep suggesting that because you feel ESP is possible that we shouldn’t consider it bullshit. Is it possible? Sure! Is there any reason to think it’s not bullshit at this point? Not really.

Les:Correction, it’s anecdotal evidence. And yes, science discounts anecdotal evidence in favor of empirical evidence. I’m not sure why you seem to think this is a bad thing.

I never said it was a bad idea. I just don’t think it is a good idea to so quickly dismiss the anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is what? Irrelevant? It was experience and observation which kicked off science in the first place, and it is what continues discovery.

OK. I assert that I can fly without any mechanical assistance of any kind. This is a patently absurd claim to make and it violates everything we know about the aerodynamics of flight, but I can provide you with all manner of anecdotal evidence about how I figured out how I could fly and how I’ve managed to teach other people to fly and I can provide you with the claims of others who think they know how to fly without mechanical aid as well. Plus, as an added bonus, all this flying helps to bring about world peace and happiness to society! It’s especially effective when large groups of people engage in flying.

How long are you going to wait before you dismiss my anecdotal evidence? I’m willing to bet you didn’t even entertain the idea that I can fly unaided for two seconds while you were reading the above paragraph. If not, then why not? The assertion isn’t original. In fact, certain practitioners of Transcendental Meditation make that very claim. They call it Yogic Flying and they claim it’s been scientifically validated. Here’s what the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has to say about it:

“‘Yogic Flying’ demonstrates the ability of the individual to act from the unified field and enliven the total potential of Natural Law in all its expressions—mind, body, behavior, and environment. ‘Yogic Flying’ presents in miniature the flight of galaxies in space, all unified in perfect order by Natural Law.

The mind-body coordination displayed by ‘Yogic Flying’ shows that consciousness and its expression—the physiology—are in perfect balance. Scientific research has found maximum coherence in brain functioning gives rise to ‘Yogic Flying.’

As the coherently functioning human brain is the unit of world peace, ‘Yogic Flying’ is the mechanics to make world peace a reality, and thereby bring world health, world happiness, world prosperity, a world free from suffering—Heaven on Earth in this generation.”

You’ll pardon my cynicism if I pull my hip waders on, won’t you? It’s getting a little deep. They even have videos of practitioners engaging in Yogic Flying. Do you know what it looks like? It looks like a bunch of people sitting with their legs crossed hopping around on their butts with bad 60’s reject T-shirts on. Apparently there are three stages to mastery of Yogic Flying:

The physical manifestations of the “Yogic Flying” vary with the practitioner. The Yoga Sutras of Mahrishi Patanjali describes three stages of immediately visible results. Stage One is generally associated with what would best be described as “hopping like a frog.” Stage Two is flying through the air for a short time. Stage Three is complete mastery of the sky. The above photo and all “Yogic Flying” demonstrations to date depict Stage One results.

Hmmm, no one has made it past Stage One yet. Imagine that. Is it possible that these people will eventually make it to Stage Three and have complete mastery of the sky? Sure, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it’s possible though I can’t imagine how. Should I hold my breath waiting for it to happen? Would you?

I thank you for taking the time to explain something to me I clearly indicated I wondered about.

The way you phrased your statement made it sound like you were offering it as a refutation and not merely pondering aloud. Don’t wonder, look it up. If nothing else you’ve got this huge vast Internet at your fingertips and just about every major University and scientific organization is hooked into it offering a wide-range of materials directly relating to the questions you are wondering about. Granted, you can’t believe everything you read on the Net, but with careful attention paid to the sources you’re consulting you have access to a stunning amount of information. People seem to think I’m highly educated even though I never finished college. I’m just very well-read.

I am not pretending to know things I don’t, or in any way saying I know things you don’t. What I am saying and have said from the beginning is it is possible.

Yes, it’s possible. That doesn’t mean it’s not bullshit.

Pink unicorns are bullshit. Loch Ness Monsters are bullshit. At least until someone manages to capture one or one of them washes up dead on a beach someplace. What level evidence outside of anecdotal that exists for either concept is inconclusive at best and fraudulent at worst.

That so-called “psychics” like the aforementioned are relishing in their fortunes means nothing to me by way of saying true psychics would jump at the opportunity to cash in. I honestly think the aforementioned people have nothing to worry about. They are either respected as “gifted” or dismissed as “phonies.” But I think you would put a person in a whole other playing field if that person proved beyond doubt to anyone of substantial “authority” in science that they were in fact (for instance) telepathic.

Please explain why true psychics would be any less like to jump at the opportunity to cash in? Is there something about ESP that it only works for people of an altruistic bent? You would definitely be putting someone on a whole different playing field if they could prove with little doubt their claimed ability, but why this different playing field would be so negative that a true psychic would avoid it is beyond me.

How does it not? Because you don’t want it to? It is possible not enough is known right now, just like every other time scientists have discovered something their predecessors would never have believed possible.

No, because it doesn’t. Your argument, until this most recent post, seemed to be “it’s possible so we shouldn’t say it’s bullshit” and my argument has been “it’s bullshit until someone shows it’s probable.” The fact that science is only as smart as the scientists who practice it and that it sometimes takes awhile to find those elusive answers says absolutely nothing about whether or not there is any credible evidence to suggest ESP isn’t bullshit. The simple fact is that even for those “elusive answers” that science has found they at least had some observable phenomena to form a hypothesis about and experiment with as a launch pad toward finding those elusive answers!

By comparison there are currently no practical hypothesis on how the brain would take in sensory input from this “sixth sense” nor what, exactly, the stimulus itself is composed of. There is no practical hypothesis for how things like future events can be “sensed” by the brain before they happen and the idea that it’s possible violates a number of well established physical laws. You’ve already admitted that you feel there’s nothing unreasonable about psychics’ excuses that “conditions aren’t right” or “your negative attitude ruined the results” so that removes the burden from them to be able to reproduce consistent results that might be observable and, thusly, testable. You also maintain that no “true” psychic would ever try to prove they had a real gift out of fear of being locked in a lab or killed by the government or something equally horrible.

Given all of that, just how the hell do you expect scientists to ever discover anything with regards to ESP?! Are they just supposed to make up a hypothesis at random about phenomena they’ve heard about from lots of people, but can’t actually witness and can’t actually experiment with? Are they supposed to just build devices at random and hope that something they come up with will start magically detecting whatever the hell it is that makes ESP possible? You’ve constructed a scenario here that makes it impossible for scientists to have any hope if figuring out if ESP is real and then you complain that scientists just aren’t smart enough to figure it out yet. WTF?

I’ve had that sense of vertigo, that feeling of being “pulled” over the edge of an elevation, plenty of times.  I worked as a light technician in a little theater despite having a fear of heights.  I never actually fell, though.  So is it only a premonition if it happens to come true?  Should I have let go of the ladder sometime so that I could be a real psychic?

How sweet. Insult my intelligence. That’s common enough practice here. At least we didn’t get to the snobbery of pointing to spelling and grammatical errors.

Les,
But with all the words being put into my mouth, I find little room for my own. Aside from those who hold their beliefs sacred, I said I would be surprised if a true psychic offered themselves up for the labs. I never said “no true psychic would.” You think they would be celebrated. That’s fine. I think that is a bit naive, but then I have been the target of the fear this kind of subject strikes in the heart of people on every social and economic level. So I see it from a different view. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I also misjudged those shotgun pellets. But I think I will just opt to respectably disagree, and point out that ”no “true” psychic would ever try to prove they had a real gift out of fear of being locked in a lab or killed by the government or something equally horrible,” are your words and not mine.

I’ve not claimed you were afraid of riding in the truck and Elwedriddsche was speculating using the limited information he had at the time.

It was suggested more than once that I had a prior fear, it was even suggested I would have been stupid not to.

are saying that your singular explanation is the only possible one?

It is possible I experienced Vertigo. It is possible my ideas on my own experiences are a stretch.

With all that flying, you are assuming (it seems) that I am saying anecdotal evidence is the be all, end all. I am interested in the studies that have begun with a collection of anecdotal evidence, and then test the stuff. There have been studies with enough positive results -not to say absolute proof- to indicate the seemingly telepathic occurrence was more than a coincidence. I am currently reading one such book “The Sense of Being Stared At” by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. I am not to the end to know what I think of it, but it is an example.

You can’t seriously think science has come so far on the studies commenced out of probability alone. Or rather, I should say, if what is thought possible but not probable were always dismissed, science wouldn’t be such a big boy right now.

You asked me in an earlier post about the taboos. For your religious, you have the devilish, witchcraft, evil etc thought associated with anything of this nature. With the non-religious you have something a little too close to the “supernatural” than is likely comfortable. Scientists are humans too, and I am quite surprised at what seems to be an assumption that psychics, out of human nature, would cash in on their abilities, yet scientists would not reject possibilities and even evidence out of fear and prejudice. I am not suggesting there is some collective effort to suppress evidence, or that there is some major cover up going on, but I do wonder why scientists are not subject to the nature of their own species?

By comparison there are currently no practical hypothesis on how the brain would take in sensory input from this “sixth sense” nor what, exactly, the stimulus itself is composed of.

There is that theory which holds the brain and mind comparable to Earth and its gravitational pull, which I found after you inspired me to learn more about gravity. So I do hope the “back to the fray” comment was not any indication your dealing with yet another nut job passing off some insane idea as fact.  That would hurt my feelings. (and don’t think I did not think about researching mathematical probability as well)

Where gravity is at the center of the Earth, its effects stretch far beyond its actual body. This theory says the mind is not confined to the body of the brain. Exactly how far it extends, or is capable of extending is unknown.

I’ll wait for your response to that before I go any further, but will add that this theory also suggests there is nothing “supernatural” about it. Supernatural implying ‘beyond natural,’ or loosely tagging something ‘spiritual’ to it. But that is quite natural - something I am more inclined to accept.

As for religious or spiritual people being better at this kind of thing, it just seemed to me they would be better canidates given their faith that they could do it. I think I can, I think I can… positive thought. It seemed to me a skeptic would be hard pressed to develop a skill he would think bullshit in the first place.

And by the way, if this should be taken to another area, point the way. I’d be glad to join you.

How sweet. Insult my intelligence. That’s common enough practice here. At least we didn’t get to the snobbery of pointing to spelling and grammatical errors.

It wasn’t my intention to insult your intelligence and if I made you feel like it was then I apologize. Seriously.

Les,
But with all the words being put into my mouth, I find little room for my own. Aside from those who hold their beliefs sacred, I said I would be surprised if a true psychic offered themselves up for the labs. I never said “no true psychic would.” You think they would be celebrated. That’s fine. I think that is a bit naive, but then I have been the target of the fear this kind of subject strikes in the heart of people on every social and economic level. So I see it from a different view. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I also misjudged those shotgun pellets. But I think I will just opt to respectably disagree, and point out that “no “true” psychic would ever try to prove they had a real gift out of fear of being locked in a lab or killed by the government or something equally horrible,” are your words and not mine.

Yes, those are my words. I was repeating what you had implied in an earlier response. Particularly when you said The underlying question, of course, being “who would admit to it?” And think about that, who really would want to subject themselves to becoming a lab rat? Do you realize what would happen to a person who could prove they had true psychic abilities? Think not only about scientists, doctors, and government officials, but the general public as well.” Now, I suppose you could have been meaning they’d want to avoid all the celebration and adulation that I suggested would result, but the tone of that statement makes it sound like, to me at least, you’re suggesting that true psychics wouldn’t reveal themselves out of fear of being locked up or killed. You even suggest in your latest response that you have been shot at over some issue related to your psychic experiences. So how is my summary not an accurate interpretation of what you’ve been implying?

And, yes, you did say that no true psychic would come forward, though I must concede that you came back later and admitted that it was a flimsy statement to make. It’s clear from your followup posts, though, that you don’t think it’s likely someone with a true gift would participate in trying to establish it as a fact.

It was suggested more than once that I had a prior fear, it was even suggested I would have been stupid not to.

Yes, GeekMom did say it would be stupid not to worry about falling out the back of a truck. It’s a reasonable fear for most people. Keep in mind that none of us here knows each other all that well as of yet so we’re going to be pulling from our personal knowledge of what common fears and experiences we’re likely to have and that won’t always be accurate.

It is possible I experienced Vertigo. It is possible my ideas on my own experiences are a stretch.

Thank you. Now, allow me to say that my point in asking you that question wasn’t to convince you that you are wrong in your interpretation of the event, it’s entirely possible that you did have a psychic premonition, I simply wanted to point out to you why the rest of us would discount that possibility. I accept that you believe your interpretation to be the correct one, but I have a hard time buying into that explanation based on the anecdotal evidence you’ve provided because there are too many other explanations that are more probable. This is exactly why science relies on empirical data over anecdotal.

With all that flying, you are assuming (it seems) that I am saying anecdotal evidence is the be all, end all. I am interested in the studies that have begun with a collection of anecdotal evidence, and then test the stuff. There have been studies with enough positive results -not to say absolute proof- to indicate the seemingly telepathic occurrence was more than a coincidence. I am currently reading one such book “The Sense of Being Stared At” by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. I am not to the end to know what I think of it, but it is an example.

That seems to be what you’re suggesting, that we should consider anecdotal evidence on the same level as empirical. You’re correct, as a pointer toward something to investigate it’s not a bad starting point. The possibility of ESP is very intriguing and there are definitely aspects about it that I think would make it very cool if the abilities that fall under that general heading really did exist and I do think that it should be investigated by science.

None of that, however, means that I should consider claims of ESP to be anything other than suspect at best and bullshit at worst until there’s some substantial data above and beyond the anecdotal that supports it.

You can’t seriously think science has come so far on the studies commenced out of probability alone. Or rather, I should say, if what is thought possible but not probable were always dismissed, science wouldn’t be such a big boy right now.

Of course not, but then scientists who start out looking at phenomena based on anecdotal evidence as a starting point don’t make any claims about the validity of that phenomena until they have something more substantial to offer in the way of evidence in support of it. Scientists do, however, compare and contrast a new claim against current scientific knowledge in determining whether or not there’s enough probability to the claim to make it worth the effort of investigating it. Scientists have a finite amount of time and resources to devote to any particular idea and if they checked into every ridiculous claim that came along they’d end up wasting a lot of time on spurious claims.

As I said before, premonitions of the future violate some pretty well established laws of physics which makes the claim pretty dubious. By comparison telepathy is a more probable possibility, though not without it’s problems, and it has been studied by more scientists as a result. Unfortunately neither possibility has had much in the way of substantial evidence to back them up so far.

You asked me in an earlier post about the taboos. For your religious, you have the devilish, witchcraft, evil etc thought associated with anything of this nature. With the non-religious you have something a little too close to the “supernatural” than is likely comfortable. Scientists are humans too, and I am quite surprised at what seems to be an assumption that psychics, out of human nature, would cash in on their abilities, yet scientists would not reject possibilities and even evidence out of fear and prejudice. I am not suggesting there is some collective effort to suppress evidence, or that there is some major cover up going on, but I do wonder why scientists are not subject to the nature of their own species?

Scientists are very much subject to the nature of their species and I’ve never said otherwise. However, I don’t know of a single scientist who would think that the discovery that ESP is real would find that to be anything less than exciting. Are there some scientists who fear the possibility? Probably some of them out there someplace do, but most of the scientists I’ve ever heard speak on the subject think it would be cool as hell to prove ESP. That’s true of the scientists who dismiss the possibility as much as it is those who accept it.

Keep in mind that once science manages to establish a phenomena as real and gets a toehold on how it works it no longer falls under the label of “supernatural” so fears of the “supernatural” aren’t really all that common among scientists. Part of their goal is to move observable phenomena from the realm of the supernatural to the natural. Lightning was once considered supernatural (from the Gods) and now it’s natural. That’s pretty much what the scientist’s job boils down to.

There is that theory which holds the brain and mind comparable to Earth and its gravitational pull, which I found after you inspired me to learn more about gravity. So I do hope the “back to the fray” comment was not any indication your dealing with yet another nut job passing off some insane idea as fact. That would hurt my feelings. (and don’t think I did not think about researching mathematical probability as well)

No, I don’t think you’re a nutjob. Far from it, in fact. I said back to the fray because I knew my next response was going to be rather lengthy again. Nothing you’ve suggested so far is insane, a lot of it is unlikely, but none of it is insane. I’ve read many of the same theories.

Where gravity is at the center of the Earth, its effects stretch far beyond its actual body. This theory says the mind is not confined to the body of the brain. Exactly how far it extends, or is capable of extending is unknown.

I’m not sure that description of gravity is quite correct, but that’s a minor quibble. The bigger issue I have is comparing gravity to the mind as I’m not seeing the connection between these two comments.

It is an established fact that the brain generates an electromagnetic field that extends for a short distance outside the body (we do know how far) and is the same as the electromagnetic field which surrounds the Earth (you can even measure it), but it’s a stretch to say that electromagnetic field should be considered to be “the mind” and it doesn’t explain how this field would be tied to a sixth sense.

I’ll wait for your response to that before I go any further, but will add that this theory also suggests there is nothing “supernatural” about it. Supernatural implying ‘beyond natural,’ or loosely tagging something ‘spiritual’ to it. But that is quite natural - something I am more inclined to accept.

No theory describes anything as supernatural. That, as I said, is kinda the point of science. To move phenomena from the realm of the supernatural to the natural.

As for religious or spiritual people being better at this kind of thing, it just seemed to me they would be better canidates given their faith that they could do it. I think I can, I think I can… positive thought. It seemed to me a skeptic would be hard pressed to develop a skill he would think bullshit in the first place.

That certainly sounds reasonable enough on the surface, but then if this is truly a sixth sense then one would assume it would work just like all the other senses we have that aren’t dependent on faith to function. No one has to develop the “skill” of using their eyes or nose or ears, why would they have to develop the skill of using their ESP?

And by the way, if this should be taken to another area, point the way. I’d be glad to join you.

Coolness. If it gets much longer I may redirect it to the forums.

When you stand near the edge of something you’re afraid to fall off of, notice how your body tenses.  I think you get the feeling of falling b/c your body is tense due to the fear of falling, but you’re looking DOWN at the same time.  Looking down requires, at minimum, for you to lean your head forward.  You end up “pushing” forward, which can scare you b/c your body is tense already and trying to pull back from the edge. 

That’s why you always look forward at where you’re going when on a balance beam, high wire, or cornering a motorcycle.  Look down, you go down.

Personally, I can lean over a high drop if there’s a railing and look down w/o any problem.  Take away the railing, and I won’t stand near the edge for fear of falling.

There can even be more to it than that, Ragman. In an outdoor environment on a partly cloudy day the movement of shadows from the clouds can act as an optical illusion that momentarily confuses the brain. There’s also the fact that tall buildings or other platforms tend to sway in the wind by design and the movement can be significant enough to be felt and cause vertigo in some people. Another similar confusion can occur sitting in your car at a stoplight when you notice out of the corner of your eye that the car next to you is moving slightly and you’re uncertain for a moment whether it’s the other car or your own that is moving.

Note: I’m not suggesting any of these things played a role in Stef’s experience. Just that it’s not all that hard to confuse your brain about sensations of movement.

Not only that, but if you’re up on a high vantage point without anything close by in your field of view with which to orient yourself in space, it contributes to the feeling of vertigo.  We use our eyes as well as our inner ear to maintain our balance.  (I learned that on “Popular Mechanics for Kids.” )

All of which is to say that there are ALWAYS plenty of mundane, already known and tested explanations for any ESP-like phenomena that we happen to come across.  If someone’s able to come up with hard evidence (not anecdotal), and we thoroughly exhaust all the alternative explanations for it, then I’ll be ready to take a look at it.  (And yes, I think it’d be cool too, if some other extrasensory ability could be truly proven.) But it hasn’t happened yet, despite the concerted efforts of a LOT of people over the ages.  So I’m not holding my breath.  In my experience, if something is real, you don’t have to work THAT hard to prove it.

All of which is to say that there are ALWAYS plenty of mundane, already known and tested explanations for any ESP-like phenomena that we happen to come across.

Fraud being one of them.

Another similar confusion can occur sitting in your car at a stoplight when you notice out of the corner of your eye that the car next to you is moving slightly and you’re uncertain for a moment whether it’s the other car or your own that is moving.

That’s so cool that someone else has noticed that.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone “Wha’ the. . .!” and tried to slam on my brakes (which I already had my foot on) because the car next to me started moving.

Great laugh, thanks. OK, so If I begin with the presumption there is no God, I end up believing there is no God. Wow, amazing logic. Try your logic out, but start with the presumption that God created the very laws that you describe. Couldn’t an all powerful being pretty much ignore the laws of physics he created? I think we call that a miracle. I think it’s pretty well accepted doctrine among Christians that creation was a miracle, and not the following of ordinary physics. But again, it’s the presumptions we are starting with leading to the conclusion that confirms our presumptions. Admittedly as circular as your argument. We admit it, and just say it requires faith, you’re the one denying that your argument is circular and demanding that we accept it as fact.

Why exactly would i start out with a presumption of something im 99.9999% certain does not exist?
what you believe is basically along the same lines as what Steph is “feeling”.
Is what you believe “possible”? Sure, is it probable? very VERY unlikely, is it provable? absolutely not.
Sorry but Christians iv met/talked to/heard about “admit” nothing of the sort, they clearly “believe” and have “faith” 100% in this invisible omnipotent being to the point of shouting it from the rooftops, to the point of trying hard to proselytize others into their delusions, to the point of every single week some 2-3 or more times a week going to this beings “alleged” house in order to worship his every word, to the point many devote their entire lives to this being of which they have absolutely zero proof of his existence other than pure dogma/hearsay, to the point many take their only vacations to areas such as jerusalem in order to litterly worship the ground on which he allegedly walked, to the point to where many fully believe they are “justified” and have the right to KILL other humans that dont believe their same delusion.

You say im the only one denying my argument is circular, what argument are you refering to?

“Where the Earth came from”?
“"Since when have i claimed to “know” where the Earth came from?"”

“How do you account for the existence of the universe?”
“"well nobody can account for the existence of the universe, well anyone thats sane at least"”

“"I certainly dont claim any such absurdity.
I can state some theoretical hypothesis but thats about the extent of logical reasoning “”

Or do you mean my “reasoning” that Evolution is 1000s of times more probable than Creationism?

If its the first couple then you did’nt comprehend anything i said. is that possible? yes, is that probable? entirely, is it provable? im sure your about to do that for me.

If its the Evolution vs Creation argument then thats not a “circular” argument in the slightest, im basing my “judgment” on nothing but empirical evidence thats been gathered, tested, retested, hypothosized, predicted, in some cases revised & improved, (Science & those that “honestly” practice it revel in the idea of finding something thats been “predicted” in order to improve a theory so as to bring it closer and closer to Scientific Fact/Law,) evaluated by 1000s of totally unrelated non bias & even some BIAS to creation individual scientist throughout the last 150 years which have all tried to prove Evolution to be false, and ALL have failed to do so.

You see thats the beauty of TRUE science, all your peers try hard as they can to prove your Theory WRONG they run every test, try every hypothosis, look under every rock, run every experiment over and over.
This can be done because True science relies 100% on “Falsifiable” empirical evidence, something Religion has ZERO of.

Now by all your peers sometimes for generations as in the case of Evolution trying fervently to prove your theory to be False, and failing time and time again, year after year, test after test, scientist after scientist, the more these peers fail to prove the theory Wrong, the more they in turn Prove it to be Right! and again in the case of Evolution, through many different fields of research, Biology/paleontology/Archeology/paleoanthropology/Phytology/sociobiology/entomology/Anthropology/etc etc, and ALL fields of research ALL corroborate each other and Evolution to the extent of the “possibility” of Evolution being False at this point in time after so much research by so many scientist is so infinitesimal that to question it or in the case of religious creationist to actually call it a very doubtfull theory at best, or in most cases as utterly false, is laughable & absurd.

So nothing circular in the least.

Now Creationism on the other hand is the exact opposite of that.
Creationism has ZERO Falsifiable empirical evidence to even bring itself past step 1 of the Scientific Method, It never even reaches the point of “Theory”
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

The entire “Scientific Creationist” (and oxymoron)argument is pretty well discribed here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/science.htm

Thus, using the ICR’s own description of creation “science”, we can demonstrate in a way that is crushingly obvious that there is no science in creation “science”. The ICR’s “science” consists of nothing more than one religious assertion and Biblical doctrine after another, not one of which can be supported by any scientific data whatsoever. Every single tenet of the ICR’s “science” makes it crushingly clear that these conclusions are based, not on any scientific data, but on the fundamentalist Christian religious doctrines of the creationists. Only the names of “the Creator” have been changed to protect the guilty from having their silly “science” tossed out of court as open religious dogma.

This, then, is the “scientific model” which the creationists would have us replace evolutionary theory, and which they would have us teach to students in public school biology classes: “In the beginning, some Creator whose name we aren’t allowed to mention POOF!ed everything into being.”

Is it any wonder that in every court case in which the creationists have attempted to argue that their outlook is scientific in nature and is not based upon any religious faiths or doctrines, they have lost repeatedly, crushingly and embarrassingly?

Now we get to the meat of it. You accept the authority of others, through faith. Just like a Christian

No, not “just like a Christian” not even close.
as a Christian your idea/definition of “Faith” is
“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”
“The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will”
“A set of principles or beliefs”

Now the closest you could even remotely define or even use the word faith as to how i accept anything would be.
“Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing”

and that really dont cut it either, because without seeing and to the best of my ability and resources reasearching and verifying what some “authority” maybe saying then i rarely if ever take anything they have to say as
empirical evidence or fact.
In the case of and much to the chagrin of many of my Professors I have called them to the table on several occaisions to show better evidence.

In other words i accept nothing as being fact on mere “faith” I leave that honor to religious fundamentalist

Funny, but my physical biochemistry professor would laugh you out of the room if you tried to bring this one up. There are plenty of scientists that believe that the resistant strain concept that you bring up is hogwash

Really your Physical Biochemistry professor would find this laughable eh? LOL
You got your Edumacashun whar? let me guess a Christian college in Texas...right, please say im right because i could understand that ignorance from a so called professor in that context, but would be scarey to think he is loose in some real college somewhere.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031209080506.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10913417&dopt=Abstract

http://www.academiclibrary.com/view/Science/254.HTM

http://whyfiles.org/038badbugs/tb1.html

http://www.paratekpharm.com/i_spread.html

I can list 10s of 1000s of resources all stating the same thing from very well respected institutions, so hardly what one might call “laughable” its called fact.

but you cannot deny they offer as good a proof as the evolutionists. But then you’ve already shown me that you’ve never critically looked at evolution. You got spoon-fed it as a babe, and you’ve no reason to question it now

Well sorry to tell ya there David but yeah i can not only deny it, but completely debunk it, their “proof” as you call it is non existent.
its really not even worthy of discussion.
Iv been “spoon-fed” nothing iv reasoned through hard tangible empirical evidence to come to its logical conclusion my judgment on Evolution.

I can only surmise that it is you that has been spoon-fed your religious pablum which you wholehearted accept on mere faith alone as 100% fact, which is the only reason i can fathom why anyone would ever even entertain the sheer absurdity of Creationism in the year 2004.

I can give a proof that God exists. In fact many. But I suggest you run off and read CS Lewis and Norman Geisler first. When you’re ready to refute their arguments, we can start

Have tried to read both many years ago, Geisler is nothing but a outright Fundamentalist spouting the usual religious dogma with absolutely zero evidence of any kind, there is nothing to refute, its baseless senseless irrational babbling.

CS Lewis seemed liked someone that at some point was intelligent then slowly but surely lost his mind somewhere along the way.
Most of his ramblings proved nothing either for or against I think this one quote from CS Lewis sums up just everything he has to say.

“God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies”

Ramblings of a stressed mind to say the least.
maybe a chemical imballance

So before you give your “proof that God exists. In fact many. “ speech, i would suggest that if you posess this information that has eluded all humanity for 2000 years then personally i would run dont walk get on the nearest plane train or automoble that gets you to James Randi’s doorstep the fastest so that you can collect than Million $$$.
No need to post it hear BTW since you will be most famous and it will be on every TV channel adnausium.
id lay odds though that you have LESS proof of the existence of God than i do of Aliens from the planet Ork

I may not agree with all of Nunya’s methods, but at least he’s keeping David busy. :-D

Nunya, in the past I invited David to start in on his proof and he made it to the second argument before I told him to not bother because he had already fallen back on the Argument from Design and tried to misquote Einstein to support his assertions. You may want to read that entry before inviting David to launch into his “proof” again. If it takes as long as he claimed it does then I’d have to upgrade my hosting account to deal with the additional text.

Les,

It wasn’t my intention to insult your intelligence and if I made you feel like it was then I apologize. Seriously.

I appreciate that. What sucks about it though is when I write lengthy responses I do it on a word processor so I can spell check and even come back to it later if I need to. I wrote that remark, but later thought you probably didn’t have that intention, and GeekMom made a joke that probably was funny. I meant to leave it out when I copied and pasted, as the second paragraph begins with your name might indicate. My bad.

You even suggest in your latest response that you have been shot at over some issue related to your psychic experiences. So how is my summary not an accurate interpretation of what you’ve been implying?

I understand. I want to clear it up though that my life was threatened because of the rumor I was Pagan, not for any psychic experience. However, witchcraft, devil-worship, and other so-called evils are so closely related to anything ‘supernatural’ in the minds of the kind of people like the one who shot at me… It is just potential craziness I see. But in the best case scenario for a person who could prove telepathy beyond doubt, I can imagine some freaky harassment, if not just constant bombardment for answers that person may not even have, and so on. It’s possible I have lived in backwaters too long, so I admit that could be just my own jaded view of the world, but I have heard so often, by scientists themselves, those who take seriously the study of anything “paranormal” are ridiculed. “Hostility and adversity” claims Rupert Sheldrake. (Not that I am claiming his book is anything more than a book, just happens to be the one I am reading right now which provides example.)

And, yes, you did say that no true psychic would come forward, though I must concede that you came back later and admitted that it was a flimsy statement to make.

:paperbag: Oops. Actually, I was referring to those who hold sacred beliefs to it. But I concede.

When I use the term “sixth sense,” I am choosing that term because I am leery of any which conjure ‘hocus pocus’ stuff in the minds of others. I wouldn’t think it is crazy to think the sixth sense really does not work precisely like the other five. Also I don’t think it is a crazy possibility that just like a muscle, the sixth sense must be exercised to become strong. While none of us have to work at using our eyes, ears, etc. we also use them every day. Cover a person’s eyes for a length of time, and when you uncover them, it will take some time for them to readjust. With the sixth sense, you are talking about a sense that is rarely, if ever, used by most people.

I found an article on Synesthetes - people whose senses seem to cross, almost as if their brain creates an actual sixth sense. While neurologists can prove the condition exists, they don’t know much else about it, cannot explain why etc. I point it out by way of showing a sixth sense is possible, and also that these people live fairly alone because of the ridicule. Whereas you and others might find this kind of discovery exciting, it is no fun being the discovery.

The bigger issue I have is comparing gravity to the mind as I’m not seeing the connection between these two comments.
It is an established fact that the brain generates an electromagnetic field that extends for a short distance outside the body (we do know how far) and is the same as the electromagnetic field which surrounds the Earth (you can even measure it), but it’s a stretch to say that electromagnetic field should be considered to be “the mind” and it doesn’t explain how this field would be tied to a sixth sense.

I have an example :smile: : (Note that the author refers to what I call the “sixth sense” the “seventh sense.” heh. “because the ‘sixth sense‘ has already been claimed by biologists working on the electrical and magnetic senses of animals") “If the seventh sense is real, it points to a wider view of minds - a literally wider view, in which minds stretch out into the world around bodies. . . They extend through fields that link organisms to their environment and to each other.  These fields can help to explain telepathy, the sense of being stared at, and other aspects of the seventh sense. But more important still, they also help to explain normal perception. Our minds are extended into the world around us, linking us to everything we see.
….
. . . Earth’s gravitational field stretches far beyond it’s surface, holding satellites and the Moon in orbit around it.
Magnetic fields, like electrical and gravitational fields, are invisible yet capable of bringing about effects at a distance. Likewise, the fields of our minds are not confined to insides of our skulls, but stretch out beyond them.” (The Sense of Being Stared At - Rupert Sheldrake)

This goes on with an interesting theory which would contradict the Identity Theory, and thus would change an orthodox view. It does not seem far-fetched, though one could cause themselves a headache trying to figure it out: Are the images you see on the inside or outside of your head?

Just a thought - A major portion of our brain goes unused. How does that look in evolution? Did we once use more than we do now, or is it possible we will use more than we do now? Couldn’t it be possible that we are at the end or beginning of a sixth sense existence/development?

nunyabiz,

You keep using “Falsifiable”, but I am hoping you mean “UNfalsifiable”. Falsifiable evidence is that which can be faked.

Les, Worry not about your bandwidth or space limitations. I do not intend to enter into a battle of intelligence with clearly unarmed opponent. I value your opinion, but after having read

Ramblings of a stressed mind to say the least.
maybe a chemical imballance

and that really dont cut it either, because without seeing and to the best of my ability and resources reasearching and verifying what some “authority” maybe saying then i rarely if ever take anything they have to say as
empirical evidence or fact.

I realized a few things:
1) Whatever school(s) that he went to (BTW, I took P. BioChem at Temple U in PA)
a) doesn’t use apostrophes.
b) doesn’t teach it’s students to use spell check.
c) doesn’t teach them how to spell.
d) doesn’t even begin on grammar instruction.
e) doesn’t insist it’s students learn how to read.
f) doesn’t insist it’s students take any courses in which logic is taught.
2) That nunyabiz has a certain incapacity for reason and maybe suffering from a “chemical imballance” of his own.
3) And perhaps worst: will never accept authorities on subjects if they disagree with his preconceived notion of how things are.
Combined these things make it worthless, and quite impossible, to prove anything outside what he has already decided to accept as fact.

In fact, since I’m about to send my eldest off to college, I’m hoping nunyabiz will let me know where he went so I can cross that turkey off my list of schools I’ll pay for.

Although Les, you treat me unfairly. My argument did not rest on form/design, but I used it as one of 3 proofs for a single point. And my quote from Einstein was no more out of context that Nunyabiz’s quote from Lewis. And, I admitted that what I quoted was not representative of Einstein. Although I still contend he was deist (I’ve read your rebuttal to that, but a man does not pronounce a belief publicly that is contrary to his heart. Particularly when he’s as powerful as Einstein.)

Lastly to clarify, the circular argument I refered to, which I thought was clear enough if you understood your own argument, Nunyabiz, was this one:

If it is physically possible, actual or necessary that some states of bodies or particles are instantaneously caused to begin to exist by other such states, then this is both metaphysically possible and logically possible. Suppose we have a first state of the universe that consists of the initial temporal part (initial state) of three particulars (e.g., elementary particles). Let us call the three initial states or temporal parts of the three particles the states a, b and c. (For simplicity’s sake, we shall adopt a ‘geni-identical’ theory of objects, namely, that objects are not enduring particulars but a succession of causally connected temporal parts (states, events).) The temporal part or state a of one of the particles instantaneously causes the state b to begin to exist, b instantaneously causes c to begin to exist, and c instantaneously causes a to begin to exist. This causal loop obtains at the first instant of time, t = 0.

I guess you must have copied whole cloth and never really understood it, or it’d been clear that it was the one I was referring to.

Just a general observation - it’s interesting who does and who doesn’t use the argument from authority.

Not only that, but it’s interesting who nitpicks on spelling and grammar and gets it WRONG.

b) doesn’t teach it’s students to use spell check.
e) doesn’t insist it’s students learn how to read.
f) doesn’t insist it’s students take any courses in which logic is taught.

David, you don’t use an apostrophe when you’re using the possessive form of “it.” The only time you use an apostrophe is when you’re using the contraction of “it is.”

I’m sure Temple U. is a perfectly fine university and it’s not their fault their education doesn’t always take.

Maybe you should play it safe and stick to ad hominem arguments (speaking of learning logic and rhetoric in school).  You’re less likely to shoot yourself in the foot that way.

Greetings...I am a Christian and a very “sane” and capable human being.  I am a straight A student, wife, and tech.  I made my decision to become a Christian based upon intellectual facts and personal experience, which in turn, led me to faith.  I feel it is inapproiate to label Christians as ignorant and “delusional” people.  I refuse to insult individuals based on their beliefs and ideas, it just appears petty.  I will not categorize athiests based on thier choices, I do not need to insult others to feel superior.  My very good friend Matt is an athiest and I respect and value his opinions and views, as a matter of fact I enjoy communicating with people even more when they have an opposing point of view.  When people communicate and listen to other’s point of view they can learn new things, and learning is very important to me.  It is important to note that if one desires respect and tolerance they must be willing to show the same level of respect and tolerance.  I would ask some of the people on this website to be a little less judgemental and a little more open-minded, if you expect any level of credibility and respect. 
I would like to quote an exert from Josh McDowell’s short book, “More Than A Carpenter,” this book was helpful in my search for evidence of the Bible being a reliable document.

Ater personally trying to shatter
the historicity and validity of the
Scriptures, I have come to the
conclusion that they are
historically trustworthy.  If a
person discards the Bible as
unreliable in this sense, then he or
she must discard almost all of the
literature of antiquity.  One
problem that I constantly face is
the desire on the part of many to
apply one standard or test to
secular literature and another to
the Bible.  We need to apply the
same test, whether the literature
under investigation is secular or
religious.  Having done this, I
believe we can say, “The Bible is
trustworthy and historically
reliable in its witness about
Jesus.”
Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of
systematic theology at Regent
College, states: “There exists no
document from the ancient world
witnessed by so excellent a set of
textual and historical testimonies,
and offering so superb an array of
historical data on which an
intelligent decision can be made.
An honest [person] cannot dismiss a
source of this kind.  Skepticism
regarding the historical credentials
of Christianity is based upon an
irrational [i.e., antisupernatural]
bias"24 (57).
In this book McDowell explains the tests that “all historical documents are tested by.” The “three basic principles of historiography” are the “bibliographical test,” the “internal evidence test,” and the “external evidence test” (47).
If anyone would care to read it, it is a very short read of about 128 pages.  It was one book that helped to inform me about how much I could trust the validity of the Bible, in case anyone is interested. 
Thank you all for your time, I have enjoyed reading your comments on science and the more intellectual disputes on Christianity.  I am always happy to read about other people’s ideas.  Oh, and David I would love to hear more from you!

A plant! That’s what I was trying to think of. Anybody seen any good plants lately?

Waitaminute, Mildred. “If a
person discards the Bible as
unreliable in this sense, then he or
she must discard almost all of the
literature of antiquity” ?? Am I missing something here?  Since when has the ‘literature of antiquity’ been considered ‘historically reliable’?  I don’t think anyone’s reading The Odyssey
or Greek tragedy or Egyptian hieroglyphs or Inuit origins stories and pronouncing them ‘historically reliable’.  Sure, they all have something to say about the cultures that produced them, but they’re no more ‘history’ than the bible is.
May the author of the book you’re quoting makes a stronger argument elsewhere, but judging by this excerpt, he sounds kind of… well, dunderheaded.
But what do I know, I’m no A student.

I made my decision to become a Christian based upon intellectual facts and personal experience, which in turn, led me to faith.

An interesting way to put it. The decision to embrace a certain religious belief preceeded the actual faith.

In other words, she decided ahead of time that she was going to believe in it, and then she talked herself into it.  Nothing new there.

I could write a book that was based on fact—actual persons, actual verifiable places, and reliably witnessed events—and still make it a work of fiction.  Then I could write a sequel, and because the two agreed with each other so much, people would have to believe the second one too, wouldn’t they?

If someone wants to play make-believe, that’s fine.  I won’t spend any time getting my knickers in a twist about it as long as they don’t try to force me to play along too.  But if they want me to take their pretense seriously, I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.  I don’t consider it to be as valid as my own take on things.  If you want to call that lack of respect, I’m cool with that.  It’s true that when my daughter pretends to be a Space Princess, I don’t actually kneel down before her.  She’ll just have to live with that.