Telekinesis
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
- Abiathar
- Posts: 247
- Joined: April 29th, 2008, 5:32 pm
- Location: Angkor Wat.
No, I did not ascribe any value to science, quite the contrary... however I will point out that you have used vague and undeclared incidents in psychological and medical study to disprove an entire theory, on the same logic I can do the same..The sciences don't claim the omniscience that you seem to expect from them. Consider an everyday example:
If you thought that your favorite pop was no longer made, but you later found some in a country store, this would not make you a generally unreliable observer.
Similarly, the fact that scientists once found a fish nowhere except in the fossil records, but later found that the fish is still alive, does not make scientific observations generally unreliable.
The idea that your reference to the Coelacanth somehow discredits all biology is garbage.
So, what you are telling me, is that the Ancient Egyptians, builders of the Sphyx (Carbon date 11,500 years) and a few other of the most basic of monuments that were built at the same time, in the alignment with the Milky Way, Orion, and Leo... the 730 year cycle inwhich Egyptians followed a 26,000 year tertiary axis rotation cycle did not count... etc. You are telling me that because it was not -called- physics that it was not physics?b) The idea that science is anywhere near 11,500 years old is garbage. Science is arguably as old as the ancient Greeks, but experimental methods for physics were pioneered by Galileo.
c) You seem to confuse a willingness to change one's mind in the fact of new evidence on one hand with total unreliability on the other.
The geocentric model was indeed credible in former times, given the evidence that the ancients had. New evidence came in, thanks to scientists like Galileo & Copernicus. Science changed accordingly. That doesn't make the sciences totally unreliable; it makes it self-correcting.
Please attempt logic: If science is replaced by new science, and all science has thus far been replaced with new science, that means only the remaining modern theories are considered correct... hence a vastly smaller fraction, more akin to 99.9999999% would be valid. Let your arrogance stop making contradictions to your own posts.a) The 99% statistic was pulled straight out of your hat. Also remember that science's capacity for self-correction, and the consequent accumulation of outmoded scientific theories, does not make current science wrong 99% of the time. If it were wrong 99% of the time, no one would fund it.
See above.b) There is no historical evidence that science is invariably wrong. You also pulled that one out of your hat. By the way, "invariably wrong" and "wrong 99% of the time" are different statistics.
Abiathar (arrogant exit addition)
P.S. 8 years of college has provided me a small idea of the concepts of science... Philosophy is not science it is logic, and often logic defeats Science... please read on Quantum Phase Variances, String Theory, Isolinear equations and Quaderndions.
P.S.S. Em*pyr"ic*al\, a. [Gr. ? in fire. See Empyreal.] Containing the combustible principle of coal.
Just since we are displaying our arrogance... also if you do not get Sarcasm, this is not my fault.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: May 22nd, 2008, 1:23 am
How can we develop it, if the methods of developing it are not scientific and you will only develop something from a "scientific" standpoint? How can you expect a scientific method of developing psychic ability unless you believe there is a magnet in your finger which should let you pick up objects, since contradictory to that, the overall idea of being psychic is deeply rooted in metaphysics and not physics. A leap of faith is the only way we can discover accurately what is happening, and many consider that a risk simply not worth taking. They predict it is a million and one things that it is could be before they try it and use that as an excuse to say that trying to develop anything "psychic" themselves is a waste of time. But how can they, from that stance, continue to be armchair critis?Daniel Owen wrote:Well there's no proof of it, no reason to believe in it, and no likelihood we'll develop it.
I am sure of many psychic abilities "existing" or non-existing but being relative to existence in some way, but what I am not essentially sure of is telekenisis, the ability to move objects. I do not think its scientific existence or validation is possible.
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
That may be true, but just because something doesn't have scientific validation doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For example, wind has existed basically forever, even before the invention of science. When wind was first created there was no scientific evidence for it, but did it not still exist?Miles wrote: I do not think its scientific existence or validation is possible.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: May 22nd, 2008, 1:23 am
Similarly, wind and supposedly metaphysical phenomena such as psi and telekenisis are not the same. Although I understand you are trying to point out that they were both alien prior to their discovery, the their occourances are entirely different in frequency and essential nature.
Also, you would need to be taking a leap of faith to suppose something exists without scientific evidence, unless you have solidly had the experience yourself.
The way I believe this phenomena can be tested is in my previous post. I have studied psychic groups, and what they discuss to developing psychic techniques. To be honest they don't talk about bending spoons or picking up semis with their thoughts and throwing them around ...
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: February 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Contact:
Telekinesis is not necessarily picking up semis or bending spoons it's influencing matter or nature with your thoughts.Miles wrote:The way I believe this phenomena can be tested is in my previous post. I have studied psychic groups, and what they discuss to developing psychic techniques. To be honest they don't talk about bending spoons or picking up semis with their thoughts and throwing them around ...
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023