Aliens and Ghosts.. (1 Viewer)

[BrianW]

Yeah, Steeve is amazing. He understood the logical fallacy of proving a negative and maintained his position on much firmer ground. He completely blindsided me and changed the direction of the debate on at least two occasions. I mean, Jeepers!, he actually had us debating the ratio of all we know to all that can be known! How much more high-minded can you get?

Ultimately, as I recall, the debate boiled down to the scientist saying that a phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed, and Steeve saying that phenomena exist whether we observe them or not. For the purpose of applying the Scientific Method, the scientist is correct. (After all, why try to explain something you can't even observe?) But in the real Universe, outside the scope of science, I ultimately had to agree with Steeve. I learned a lot from him. I miss him, too.

 

[BrianW]

Oh, yeah. Hockey. Isn't that some kind of sport, or something?



(Please don't give me a wedgie.)

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I'll refrain from mentioning the "holographic" universe theory I mentioned in that thread. Somehow I think it would disappoint the non-skeptics if they found out a scientist has actually developed a theory that attempts to account for the paranormal. We scientists do have that reputation for taking all the fun and fantasy out of everyday life, leaving only cold science. You only have to look at a cold, non-dreaming, non-artistic hack, such as DaVinci, to realize just how out of touch scientists are with the real creative thinkers of the world.

 

[Lew Crippen]

This reminds me of a study I read in Scientific American many years ago (40 or so). As I recall the purpose was to determine which disciplines liked what things. It turned out that scientists (in general) were not at all more limited in their views and likes than other groups (artists, for example), and in fact the group that liked the most and the most diverse things where physicists.

Put another way, physicists were more likely to go to eat barbeque, go to a museum, attend a baseball game, and polish the night off with a glass of wine, listening to Mozart with a pretty girl than any other group.

Not too bad for stuffy scientists.

 

[DeathStar1]

I'll refrain from mentioning the "holographic" universe theory I mentioned in that thread. Somehow I think it would disappoint the non-skeptics if they found out a scientist has actually developed a theory that attempts to account for the paranormal. >>>

Was that a real theory, or an attempt at humor? if it's real, post a link

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Quite real. The most accessible analysis for anyone who is not a PhD is this book (the descrition of the book will give you a fair outline):

The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot at Amazon

Note, this is just a theory; far less fleshed out than even string theory or multiple universes. It is interesting, though. Also quite usefull when you want to tie a "anything is possible and you scientists can't prove it isn't" type in knots. I believe I used it to prove the possible existence of Fred Flintstone after the resident "scientists know nothing" guy said "he's a fictional character, he can't be real" in the "Transporters are impossible" thread.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Speak for yourself Lew (actually, if I know you well enough, you are speaking for yourself; probably about how you spent last weekend ).

 

[RobertR]

I’ve always been bemused by the notion that scientists are somehow not human, that they’re cold, unfeeling automatons who take no joy in life (in wire debates, for example, it’s been strongly implied that skeptics never actually LISTEN to music). The idea is silly and wrong.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

People are so surprised when they see I have a varied background and a love for the arts (you should see the ribbing I take when I have to leave work early to go to a ballet

). They always tell me "I thought you came from a long line of geeks!". Well my mom is a nurse and my dad was a fine arts trained commercial iilustrator, so I had the best of both worlds.

I was never prouder than when I expressed to my dad how disappointed I was that I didn't carry on his talent for the arts. He (who went to art school in the days of the Beats and Bohemians) replied, "Well the days of the artists being the only ones who express new and creative ideas are over. What you do with computers is the new Bohemia and much more complicated and creative than anything in my day."

My dad was not one to hand out praise in a direct manner, but I felt pretty proud that day.

 

[RobertR]

I see two very different approaches to life from people. The first approach shows an almost palpable sense of joy when the light of human reason shines on a subject, thereby rendering that which was previously dark and mysterious understandable. The second approach displays an almost palpable sense of disappointment, as if to say “aw, why’d you have to go ruin my fun by taking the mystery out of the subject!?”. I’ve never understood why anyone wouldn’t be happy to understand Reality better.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I have to say it's half and half. I know some researchers who do amazing stuff like hikes, rock climbing, and travel around the world. And then you have your socially awkward eggheads who scream orgasm at the discovery of a protein kinase.

So the ultimate question is do I believe in aliens and ghosts. Absolutely. Is there any scientific basis for it now? Hell no. But can there be later? Yes, but I'll have to get back to you guys on that one.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

That's a good question, and something I even experience. I'm wondered and awed by fantasy and the supernatural, but I get pissed once that engine in the back of my mind says, "there's a perfectly scientific logical explanation for this." As long as the phenomena doesn't hurt anybody, I think awe of supernatural and fantasy is okay.

This whole thing reminds me of Lisa Simpson for some reason. I hate her.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Then there's the combination of the two. Just because I know the physics of a jump or the supportive mechanisms of a ballerina on pointe, does that mean I can't enjoy the artistry and talent of a figure skater or the beauty of a ballet? Just because a doctor knows the chemical and hormonal reactions of romantic love in the brain and body, does that preclude him from really feeling romantic love? If a chemist knows the compounds that go into paint and their reaction to light, air and canvas, does he automatically unappreciate a Rembrandt, a Van Gogh or a Picasso?

Finally, is Michael Crichton a cold, shallow, one-dimensional fiction writer just because he is a first and foremost a scientist . . . wait, don't answer that one.

 

[Chu Gai]

It becomes hard for the public to make sense of these things. Oprah's had John Edwards on for a while and then he had/has his own show. People trust Oprah, Oprah says he can contact the dead, and there you go. Court TV runs those silly psychics helping cops shows. Other programs have the likes of Char Margolis and her psychic buddies on and let them spin to their heart's content. Then you've got the psychic healers who can pull out organ parts without a mark on your body. Instead of debunking them like the great Houdini used to do they're given free reign and we have a substantial segment of the public, and that includes our lawmakers, who believe in this wacky stuff. None of them take issues with what others say. You could say it's because anything's possible and what do we really know? I say it's because they're all stealing from the same people and that includes the networks.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

A big thanks to the Amazing Randi and the JREF for picking up the tradition of Houdini.

http://www.randi.org/

He's maintained his $1 million reward for anyone who can "show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." for years now and no one has claimed the prize yet.

Here's the details:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Actually, no one has even passed the preliminaries.

 

[BrianW]

Oh, yes, we physicists definitely know how to have a good time. Why, just the other day, I got a call from someone inquiring about the possibility of time travel. I told him that at our lab, we had indeed developed the capability of transporting people through time, but we could transport people only into the future, not the past. I asked if he would like a demonstration. He said, "Yes." So I put him on hold.

Oh, my, the smirks were certainly abundant that day, I'll never forget.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Gee Brian, maybe you are a "kook".

Myself, I enjoy having days much like the one Lew described above. I also tend to end up relaxing with a glass of wine and a pretty girl. Unfortunately, in my case the girl is usually Ingrid Bergman in yet another screening of Casablanca.

 

[Chu Gai]

I keep getting this thought in my head. It's very strong. It's an F...Does anyone here have a father?

 

[Holadem]

You guys are ruthless .

--
H

 

[MarkHastings]

But isn't that like "Movie Magic"? Sometimes people would rather believe in the fantasy than to know the truth behind certain things.

Even though I don't exactly believe in a Lochness Monster, I like the idea that it COULD exist, so I'd hate to see anyone go and prove there isn't a "monster" in the lake.