Science in relation to the 'unexplained'.

Science in relation to the 'unexplained' has been touched on in other threads. It could be in relation to Pagan practices or beliefs, divination, the supernatural,'ghosts', energy healing, etc, etc.

I just wanted to open a thread about how you feel about how current scientific beliefs, or even your own reasoning of what are viewed as the unusual or 'impossible'.

What is interesting imho is that people define or have a personal view of what is 'scientific fact' or theory in various ways. How can 'fact' be anything other than an actual fact? Well, it depends doesn't it?

For example, defining what a scientific fact can mean that something: -

1. Is undeniable
2. Can be proven
3. Can't be disproved
4. Is summarized by a set of observations

I'm sure there are many other ways to define a fact. I don't have a problem with peolple saying something is a scientific fact if it is undeniable and can be proven. I do have a problem with scientific conclusions that something is a 'fact' based on lack of proof or the lack of ability or scientific knowledge to ascertain how something works or does not work.

What's that you say Mr(s) Scientist? There's no way to measure a phenomena using current knowledge so it must be false/impossible/not a fact? That's interesting because that is what scientists have said for centuries based on the best available knowledge of their time using the best tools they had available. So, early scientisrts who had no electricity, had no access to an electron microscpoe or advanced mathematical or 'scientific' theory, etc, etc. did not shape the world with their scientific facts of the time? Oh, what was that you say? Of course they shaped the world with their limited knowledge but some brighter spark came along at a later date and either debunked, improved on or completely changed the nature of whatever theory you want to discuss.

Scientific theory is another thing. The Big Bang, String Theory, Quantam Theory, Chaos Theory, Dimensions, Folding Space Time (Warp), etc, etc, etc. Loads of theories, tons of observations and mathematical and scientific theory. Accepted by millions as 'very probably fact'. Where's the definitive proof? I happen to fall into the category of people who believes that much of this is probably heading in the right direction but I think there is much more to it. Ironically many scientists say they do not have ;'faith' but that is what they have an abundance of.

I have many theories that I believe can validate divination, crystals, premonition, various forms of spellcasting, origfins of 'mysticism', visiting other planes of existence, Logmadr's Necromancy experiences, energy healing, etc, etc, etc. I see none of the theories as magical, mystical or even 'supernatural'. I think these phenomena are scientific fact that have no current methods to prove them.

I will explain my theories later because I've written so much already. What are your thoughts on this?

Excellent.

Ook! wrote:

What's that you say Mr(s) Scientist? There's no way to measure a phenomena using current knowledge so it must be false/impossible/not a fact? That's interesting because that is what scientists have said for centuries based on the best available knowledge of their time using the best tools they had available. So, early scientisrts who had no electricity, had no access to an electron microscpoe or advanced mathematical or 'scientific' theory, etc, etc. did not shape the world with their scientific facts of the time? Oh, what was that you say? Of course they shaped the world with their limited knowledge but some brighter spark came along at a later date and either debunked, improved on or completely changed the nature of whatever theory you want to discuss.

Standing on the shoulders of giants is how it goes. Even today scientific understanding is being added to and refined all the time. It's an ongoing process.

Ook! wrote:

Ironically many scientists say they do not have ;'faith' but that is what they have an abundance of.

Physicists!

Ook! wrote:

I think these phenomena are scientific fact that have no current methods to prove them.

I like that way of thinking about it. Have you ever read the book supernature by Lyall Watson? It's pretty good, he highlights scientific research into the supernatural, (including some evidence for the accuracy of astrology) and gives possible theories for how supernatural phenomena work.

Astrophysicists recordered a burst of energy from space, possibly from a black hole but they were'nt sure. But it definately happened so they described it as "theoretical phenomenom". I take it this is how they explain things they can't prove.

I have read or watched somewhere (yep, somewhere) that scientists are seeing their ideas collaborating with that of religions...
mainly the whole thing about everything in time and space being fine-tuned and that the tiniest difference that could have happened before would have led to us not existing... or existing but not as we are now...

before the big bang, there was nothing. as far as we know. what the hell is nothing, or what does it feel like? we don't know. It is something i hope to find out inn death.
But somewhere along the line, something happened. something got bored of nothing or disliked that nothing was happening.
a higher force of some kind is undeniable and cannot be disproved. not now anyway. not even by scientists or those of great faith.
That is the boundary where our current inteligence (or lack of) ends.

no problem! i just feel that people no matter their religion or idea, should keep an open mind and expect anything and any possibilitys - heck i bet even stephen hawkin beleives in the likelihoods of chakra

(i would also laugh if he found this topic and replied XD)

Logmadr wrote:

Charka? Is that supposed to say "Karma" by any chance?? lol sorry, just a bit confused!

Chakra/karma/auras anything along htose lines would do - now to wait on Hawkin's response

kehe... charka.....

Jaska wrote:

But somewhere along the line, something happened. something got bored of nothing or disliked that nothing was happening.
a higher force of some kind is undeniable and cannot be disproved. not now anyway. not even by scientists or those of great faith.
That is the boundary where our current inteligence (or lack of) ends.

Hmm, a very Deistic view. I like it.

Ook! wrote:

Hmm, a very Deistic view. I like it.

Deistic... damn have to google again XD

thanks

You are probably better off reading this thread on this forum>>

Click here

There is a lot of confused misinformation about Deism out there on the internet. Even 'Deist' forums get it wrong a lot of the time!

Quote :

For example, defining what a scientific fact can mean that something: -

You forgot the most important critera - That it must be repeatable. Hence if somebody claims to cast a hex and a person drops down dead that will not be treated a scientific fact until the person has repeated the experiment and achieved the same results, this rules out the elemant of chance coincedence.

Ook! wrote:

You are probably better off reading this thread on this forum>>

Click here

There is a lot of confused misinformation about Deism out there on the internet. Even 'Deist' forums get it wrong a lot of the time!

eheh, again as someone said before... have to look at it at a time im more awake...
on google i saw it as:
Deists accept that there is a God responsible for creating the universe, but reject claimed special revelation such as the Bible.

so like me, i beleive there is a higher plane, but i do not beleive in the book of god(otherwise know to me as book written by man)

On deism skip the first few posts of that thread and you will find a few articles that hopefully make it easier for everyone to to follow.

I have a core philosophical view that is shared by other deists but it does not mean that outside those core beliefs that deists have the same opinions about many matters. Mysticism, the paranormal and unexplained phenomena is a perfect example of this.

I'm a bit tired now so I'll post about my own opinions related to these subjects and how I feel they may be rationalised at a later date.