Political Crossfire Forums

[JDHURF]

greeneye wrote: No, it's not broken... however, there's a lot it can't explain yet and one of those things it can't explain is how the universe was created.
Which says nothing at all about supernaturalism or the paranormal.
greeneye wrote: But that's OK... believers have their beliefs about creation, and scientists have their theory -- and then perhaps between all that ... there's God's intention... the subject of this thread.
An assumption that is without merit, that there even is a god to have an intention but I am not against philosophizing.
greeneye wrote: Now there's a potential contentious debate: the scientific argument about God's intention.....
There is no scientific argument about “god’s intention” and there never can be. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, as I have already pointed out, by definition.
greeneye wrote: Well, the world burned people like Joan of Arch centuries ago because she said she was talking to an angel. We've come a long way with regards to beliefs and tolerance. We don't burn people anymore for talking to angels. But now, there's a field in science called parapsychology that is trying to understand who Joan of Arch was communing with centuries ago, because in our modern society, many people seem to be having similar experiences.
You are simply misinformed. There I no way in the world to scientifically understand “who” Joan of Arch was speaking to centuries ago, no way in the world. Parapsychology, by the way, is not a legitimate science. I am majoring in theoretical psychology.
Claiming that parapsychology is a legitimate science is similar to claiming that eugenics was valid, or that astrology is; they are not, it is all hokum and voodoo.
greeneye wrote: If the supernatural realm turns out to be is a different energy field, a different reality from the physical plane, I disagree... Would it not just be a matter of creating (developing) instruments that can measure a different frequency then our physical world?
You’re redefining supernatural. Either something is supernatural or it is not and if it is supernatural then, by definition, science cannot investigate it.
greeneye wrote: If there is a group of scientists now who are attempting through laboratory studies, analysis and research to understand how and why ESP between so many people works, I have no problem in moving the clock forward 50-100 years and seeing ESP as an accepted and understood natural science.
Why can't you?
Because you are clearly beginning with an egregious preconceived notion. Namely that ESP is “an accepted and understood natural science.” It is not, it is a superstitious claim and I have no problem whatsoever with it being investigated and scrutinized but to start off with the assumption that it is valid and exists is clearly fallacious.

As far as the “science” behind ESP:

http://skepdic.com/esp.html

http://www.csicop.org/genx/ganzfeld/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_25/ai_74523980

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_23/ai_57533279

[greeneye]

quote="JDHURF"

greeneye wrote: No, it's not broken... however, there's a lot it can't explain yet and one of those things it can't explain is how the universe was created.

JDHURF wrote: Which says nothing at all about supernaturalism or the paranormal.

What it says is that as much as science knows, there is much that it does not yet know or understand. It's kind of like a new student in college, the more we learn and discover, the more we are humbly awed about how much we don't know. We have some laws, theories and hypotheses about a lot of different parts of our world. But science still has yet to explain or show the "whole picture" of man and his world and how (if) everything is connected together.

And as far as supernaturalism... yes science knows very little about this, depending on what scientist you're talking to about the subject.

greeneye wrote: But that's OK... believers have their beliefs about creation, and scientists have their theory -- and then perhaps between all that ... there's God's intention... the subject of this thread.

JDHURF wrote: An assumption that is without merit, that there even is a god to have an intention but I am not against philosophizing.

For believers, there is much merit to the discussion.

JDHURF wrote: There is no scientific argument about “god’s intention" and there never can be. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, as I have already pointed out, by definition.

Yes, I understand the position of science. However, not all scientists disregard the reality of a divine force though their profession does not acknowledge one.

greeneye wrote: Well, the world burned people like Joan of Arch centuries ago because she said she was talking to an angel. We've come a long way with regards to beliefs and tolerance. We don't burn people anymore for talking to angels. But now, there's a field in science called parapsychology that is trying to understand who Joan of Arch was communing with centuries ago, because in our modern society, many people seem to be having similar experiences.

JDHURF wrote: You are simply misinformed.

Perhaps... it wouldn't be the first time.

JDHURF wrote: There is no way in the world to scientifically understand “who" Joan of Arch was speaking to centuries ago, no way in the world.


No, of course not. But I believe it was this type of communion by the saint, with the supernatural world (different reality), also reached through prayer and meditation today by people, that parapsychologists are now researching and trying to understand it

JDHURF wrote: Parapsychology, by the way, is not a legitimate science. I am majoring in theoretical psychology.

I understand how traditional science has adopted this attitude. However, it's a new 'science' and as one of the articles on your links stated:
"Though Hyman doesn't see much promise in current and past psi research, he agrees that a confirmation of psi would be of wide interest and importance. "The first person to make a breakthrough is going to make Newton and Einstein look puny,"

So, my position is.... let the research, studies and analysis continue. Let the articles and books be published. Let there be critical analysis of the findings. The dots will eventually be connected and the breakthrough will most likely change the way we live, the way we think and the way we learn...

Here are some definitions and recognitions for this science that is not considered legitimate in some circles of the scientific community.

Quote: Scientific interest in parapsychology dates from 1882 with the establishment in London of the Society for Psychical Research, a group of scholars dedicated to examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit" phenomena not readily explicable by contemporary knowledge. Generally hostile to parapsychology, academic psychologists began conducting experiments in telepathy in the United States as early as 1912 (J. E. Coover at Stanford University). Important work from the Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University began in 1927. Today many dozens of respected scientists engage in psychic research.

Science Resource Center

Quote: The Parapsychology Association has been accepted as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science . There are also several professional bodies of parapsychologists that ostensibly serve to monitor research and ensure that high standards are met.


Quote: Today parapsychology is taught in hundreds of U.S. schools as well as France, The Netherlands, Germany, India, Japan and the Soviet Union.

Quote: There are a couple of Ph.D. programs available in parapsychology. There are numerous journals that publish papers on the subject, exhibiting research from laboratories all over the world.


greeneye wrote: If the supernatural realm turns out to be is a different energy field, a different reality from the physical plane, I disagree... Would it not just be a matter of creating (developing) instruments that can measure a different frequency then our physical world?

JDHURF wrote: You’re redefining supernatural. Either something is supernatural or it is not and if it is supernatural then, by definition, science cannot investigate it.

Perhaps science has an inaccurate definition of the supernatural. If, the supernatural was "proved" to be simply a different plane of energy, a different frequency/vibration than the physical, that was somehow interconnected with our physical world .... but we just haven't connected all the dots .... why couldn't science investigate it -- if it had the right type of instruments? You're making the statement based upon a 'given assumption' that science can not measure, let alone acknowledge a "different reality."

But yet, as this study and report (and others) shows man's consciousness can reach a different reality when certain states of meditation and prayer are realized understand

[JDHURF]

greeneye wrote: What it says is that as much as science knows, there is much that it does not yet know or understand.
There are many things which science is not yet able to understand and describe in detail but, clearly, this is not to say that all variations of the occult and paranormal are now fair game.
greeneye wrote: It's kind of like a new student in college, the more we learn and discover, the more we are humbly awed about how much we don't know.
True.
greeneye wrote: We have some laws, theories and hypotheses about a lot of different parts of our world. But science still has yet to explain or show the "whole picture" of man and his world and how (if) everything is connected together.
Science has yet to offer a G.U.T, that is true.
greeneye wrote: And as far as supernaturalism... yes science knows very little about this, depending on what scientist you're talking to about the subject.
It does not depend on which scientist you are talking to, it depends on whether you are speaking with a legitimate scientist or a charlatan perpetrating hokum. Supernaturalism is simply not subject to the investigation and rigorous methods of the scientific method, it simply is not, it’s not that difficult a concept.
greeneye wrote: For believers, there is much merit to the discussion.
Which is why I said that I am not against philosophizing.
greeneye wrote: Yes, I understand the position of science. However, not all scientists disregard the reality of a divine force though their profession does not acknowledge one.
I simply don’t care. I am well aware that some scientists partition their mind in such a way that allows for them to understand evolution, biogenetics, relativity, etc. while also believing in the legitimacy of a book written several thousand years ago which calls for the death of homosexuals, “witches,” idolaters, non-believers, etc. I believe that it is a sad state that our society is in, one in which it is possible to be so well educated that one is able to perform highly advanced surgical techniques and design vehicles that traverse space yet it is still possible to believe that a supernatural entity spoke to humans through a burning bush, that a man scarcely mentioned outside of the bible walked on water, that Lazerous was raised from the dead, etc. I find it absolutely disheartening. In fact I would like to quote an author I very much enjoy:
Sigmund Freud wrote: The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.
greeneye wrote: Perhaps science has an inaccurate definition of the supernatural.
It is not the definition of science but of the English language. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
greeneye wrote: If, the supernatural was "proved" to be simply a different plane of energy, a different frequency/vibration than the physical, that was somehow interconnected with our physical world .... but we just haven't connected all the dots .... why couldn't science investigate it -- if it had the right type of instruments?
I do not wish to ruin your hopes and wishes but science is the investigation of the physical not the supernatural. You claim that maybe one day science will be able to investigate the supernatural, well, that would imply that science and humanity had created supernatural tools but I’m simply not going that far into neverland with you.
greeneye wrote: You're making the statement based upon a 'given assumption' that science can not measure, let alone acknowledge a "different reality."
This is so ridiculous.

I also intentionally ignored the portion of your post regarding all things paranormal because I am simply through discussing it. If you wish to believe that there is all forms of occult behavior and phenomena, great, but it is simply incorrect to claim that there is anything remotely scientific about them, get over it.
greeneye wrote: But yet, as this study and report (and others) shows man's consciousness can reach a different reality when certain states of meditation and prayer are realized understand
Well no kidding. Consciousness can also be altered by fasting, sleeping, running, hypnosis, torture and taking psychoactive drugs, there are virtually a slew of things that alter consciousness and I am well aware of this. I have no idea why you decided to mention this, it is peripheral to anything paranormal and supernatural. Consciousness and the alteration thereof is understood in terms of physiology, psychology and neurioscience, there simply isn’t anything paranormal or supernatural about it.

[lovebush]

[quote="greeneye"][

Quote: All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.

Albert Einstein

:roll: yea, but what did he know?

[johnflesh]

JD,

Your beliefs are something that you learned through an obvious scientific eyeball. Not all of what you say is true in its simplicity so I will not go tit for tat with you as you seem to enjoy. However I will stick by the comment that science and religion are two tools that should be used together to fully understand the grand scheme of things. I do not contradict when I say they are different tools, that would mean all we'd need is one tool, how arrogant for someone to think this. It would also be arrogant to attempt to discredit other's beliefs, abilities, or tools based on your's alone. Science doesn't answer all questions and sometimes just raises more questions.

The first thing we learn socially may be made possible by an open-mind, why is that so hard to ask every time you learn something, or discuss it.

[JDHURF]

johnflesh wrote: Your beliefs are something that you learned through an obvious scientific eyeball.
Agreed.
johnflesh wrote: Not all of what you say is true in its simplicity so I will not go tit for tat with you as you seem to enjoy.
Care to expound? What portion of my posts is not true in its “simplicity?”
johnflesh wrote: However I will stick by the comment that science and religion are two tools that should be used together to fully understand the grand scheme of things.
That is fine.
johnflesh wrote: I do not contradict when I say they are different tools, that would mean all we'd need is one tool, how arrogant for someone to think this. It would also be arrogant to attempt to discredit other's beliefs, abilities, or tools based on your's alone. Science doesn't answer all questions and sometimes just raises more questions.
Theists – most especially fundamentalists and evangelicals – must believe that he or she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a supreme being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that supreme being desires. I have been called arrogant before but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator, that’s beyond my conceit. When I claim that it is without merit and without evidence to present the positive assertion that “there is a god” and that “religion is an effective tool that is explaining real realms of the universe” and furthermore that to make these claims is rashly impetuous and intellectually bankrupt I am not being arrogant I am being completely honest and rational and, quite frankly, it is exceedingly arrogant for you to make the claims that you have.
johnflesh wrote: The first thing we learn socially may be made possible by an open-mind, why is that so hard to ask every time you learn something, or discuss it.
There is a difference to being open minded regarding possible hypothesis that are presented as a mere possibility that should then be investigated but when theists present the notion that supernatural and paranormal phenomena - which has never been evidenced or proven and most likely never will be – is already reality, then they are clearly starting off from an egregious beginning. You cannot claim that something definitely exists and then work towards proving it, you can only claim that it is worth looking into and only when it has been supported by evidence are you allowed to claim that it is factual. There is also a difference between being rationally open-minded and being susceptible to all forms of illogical nonsense.
Living within a society we also learn that not only are some beliefs not worth being “open” to but they are so hostile to society at large that they must, at all costs, be castigated lest society becomes an accomplice in its own demise.

[greeneye]

quote="JDHURF"

greeneye wrote: What it says is that as much as science knows, there is much that it does not yet know or understand.
JDHURF wrote: There are many things which science is not yet able to understand and describe in detail but, clearly, this is not to say that all variations of the occult and paranormal are now fair game.

Well, what I observe in the scientific community is that it can not violate materialist principles that is part of it's belief system. Thus, materialism seems to have become more fundamental than the principle of empiricism. But data is data and speaks for itself.

greeneye wrote: Yes, I understand the position of science. However, not all scientists disregard the reality of a divine force though their profession does not acknowledge one.
JDHURF wrote: I simply don’t care. I am well aware that some scientists partition their mind in such a way that allows for them to understand evolution, biogenetics, relativity, etc. while also believing in the legitimacy of a book written several thousand years ago which calls for the death of homosexuals, “witches," idolaters, non-believers, etc. I believe that it is a sad state that our society is in, one in which it is possible to be so well educated that one is able to perform highly advanced surgical techniques and design vehicles that traverse space yet it is still possible to believe that a supernatural entity spoke to humans through a burning bush, that a man scarcely mentioned outside of the bible walked on water, that Lazerous was raised from the dead, etc. I find it absolutely disheartening.

Man's acknowledgment of a divine force and the historical references we have of the lineage of God's footprints on the plant is one that is as natural to man as the universal laws that govern our lives. Just as a child is drawn to his mother by an inner force, man's belief in his creator is not solely based upon the Bible, as wondrous a book that it is.

Though the spirit of the words on the pages of scripture helps connect man to his creator, if the words and its message did not register as truth inside man, the Bible would not be the Bible. The biggest testimony to the validity of the message of the Bible over the centuries is none other than 'man' himself and what the Message has done to uplift and help the soul of man evolve.

Though many non-believers like to accept and justify that most of the 97 % of the world's population who believe in God do so blindly because of 'dead' words in a book, or because they were raised to believe, or because they were indoctrinated to believe, or because of religion...belief and faith is based on much more. God won't go away because man's belief in God is ratified through an inner (soul) confirmation. Without this soul confirmation, the stream of belief in a divine force would have no path and spirit to flow and sustain itself. And it is this belief and faith that regenerates this divine force and its Majestic spirit in nature and man's world.


greeneye wrote: Perhaps science has an inaccurate definition of the supernatural.
JDHURF wrote: It is not the definition of science but of the English

I believe science is starting to change its perception of the supernatural.

greeneye wrote: If, the supernatural was "proved" to be simply a different plane of energy, a different frequency/vibration than the physical, that was somehow interconnected with our physical world .... but we just haven't connected all the dots .... why couldn't science investigate it -- if it had the right type of instruments?
JDHURF wrote: I do not wish to ruin your hopes and wishes but science is the investigation of the physical not the supernatural.

Scientific paradigms are changing and that change has been driven by the fact that over the past decade especially, the supernatural has been slowing but increasingly spilling it's effects into man's physical word.

And because of this, I think the science of parapsychology and the paranormal have started to matter -- because people believe in it -- not idly or indifferently, but actively and enthusiastically.

Inasmuch as supernatural causes are by definition outside the sphere of science (as you point out), I would argue that supernatural effects may not be outside the scope of science. I think and believe supernatural effects can be investigated by science. As long as one isn't an atheist, what's wrong with allowing the possibility of supernatural causes and presuming the effects of such a cause can be empirical?


greeneye wrote: But yet, as this study and report (and others) shows man's consciousness can reach a different reality when certain states of meditation and prayer are realized understand
JDHURF wrote: Consciousness and the alteration thereof is understood in terms of physiology, psychology and neurioscience, there simply isn’t anything paranormal or supernatural about it.

I disagree.... awareness is not just a function of the brain and can produce altered states of consciousness and paranormal effects.

Quote: ...as psychology deals more and more with the phenomena of altered states of consciousness, it will more and more have to deal with phenomena that do not fit well in a conceptual scheme that says awareness is only a product of the brain. Experiences of apparently paranormal abilities like telepathy, of feeling that one's mind leaves one's body, of mystical union with aspects of the universe outside oneself, of supernormal knowledge directly given in altered states, fit more comfortably into schemes that do not assume that awareness is only a function of the brain. I have nothing against competent attempts to fit such phenomena into our dominant Western scientific framework, but the attempts I have seen so far have been most inadequate and seem to work mainly by ignoring major aspects of these altered states phenomena. Thus the assumption that awareness is only a function of the brain, especially as it becomes implicit, tends to distort our view of real phenomena that happen in altered states. We dismiss their possible reality a priori. We cannot build a science when we start with such a selected view of the data.

The second reason for questioning this assumption is the existence of first-class scientific data to suggest that awareness may be something other than a product of the brain. I refer to excellent evidence of parapsychological phenomena like telepathy, evidence that shows that the mind can sometimes function in ways that are "impossible" in terms of our current, physical view of the world. I review our knowledge of the paranormal in Studies of Psi {131}. "Impossible" means only that these phenomena are paraconceptual, that our conceptual schemes are inadequate because they exclude this part of reality. These same conceptual schemes underlie the belief that awareness is only a product of the brain, and if we question these conceptual schemes we question that assumption. This book is not the place for detailed argument, but I have discussed the subject at greater length in Transpersonal Psychologies {128}, which reviews the impact of the spiritual psychologies on the evolving science of consciousness.

"Altered state of conscience [that neuroscience deals with] are a gateway to a higher consciousness, to the realm of the paranormal and the spiritual. "

Dr. Charles Taft


ESP and altered states of consciousness: an overview of conceptual and research trends

[JDHURF]

greeneye wrote: Man's acknowledgment of a divine force and the historical references we have of the lineage of God's footprints on the plant is one that is as natural to man as the universal laws that govern our lives. Just as a child is drawn to his mother by an inner force, man's belief in his creator is not solely based upon the Bible, as wondrous a book that it is.
I agree. The human propensity to be susceptible to the “transcendental temptation” appears to be a byproduct of the evolution of consciousness in the first place. Pascal Boyer’s anthropologic and psychological work Religion Explained is a daunting testament to this, I recommend this book even to the “true believers.”
greeneye wrote: Though the spirit of the words on the pages of scripture helps connect man to his creator, if the words and its message did not register as truth inside man, the Bible would not be the Bible. The biggest testimony to the validity of the message of the Bible over the centuries is none other than 'man' himself and what the Message has done to uplift and help the soul of man evolve.
Religious vagary. Furthermore there are millions of human beings that do not register the bible as “truth” and have not been “uplifted” by it.
greeneye wrote: Though many non-believers like to accept and justify that most of the 97 % of the world's population who believe in God do so blindly because of 'dead' words in a book,
Right, like the “dead” words found in the bible.
greeneye wrote: or because they were raised to believe, or because they were indoctrinated to believe,
Right like the religious are indoctrinated and raised to believe.
greeneye wrote: God won't go away because man's belief in God is ratified through an inner (soul) confirmation.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The belief in the supernatural won’t go away, more than likely, because of the evolutionary underpinning of the development of consciousness in the first place and because, as Freud pointed out, of the human infantile fear of death, the dark and the unknown.
greeneye wrote: Without this soul confirmation, the stream of belief in a divine force would have no path and spirit to flow and sustain itself. And it is this belief and faith that regenerates this divine force and its Majestic spirit in nature and man's world.
Transient voodoo.
greeneye wrote: Scientific paradigms are changing and that change has been driven by the fact that over the past decade especially, the supernatural has been slowing but increasingly spilling it's effects into man's physical word.
Incorrect and as I have said numerous times throughout this thread religious extremists and conservatives that parade around the Kuhninan paradigm shift without an actual understanding and appreciation of his real work is more than incorrect, it is a disgrace and should be embarrassing.
greeneye wrote: And because of this, I think the science of parapsychology and the paranormal have started to matter -- because people believe in it -- not idly or indifferently, but actively and enthusiastically.
No amount of belief, passion or enthusiasm makes anything a science.
greeneye wrote: Inasmuch as supernatural causes are by definition outside the sphere of science (as you point out), I would argue that supernatural effects may not be outside the scope of science. I think and believe supernatural effects can be investigated by science. As long as one isn't an atheist, what's wrong with allowing the possibility of supernatural causes and presuming the effects of such a cause can be empirical?
Science not being able to investigate the supernatural has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with an understanding of what the scientific method is. In which case I would point out, again, that science is not able to deal with the supernatural by definition.
greeneye wrote: I disagree.... awareness is not just a function of the brain and can produce altered states of consciousness and paranormal effects.
There are various theories regarding what originates and regulates consciousness, the most prevalent of which is physicalism: that consciousness is a product of the physical brain.

What you cut and pasted after your quote espouses the minority theory of dualism and goes on to support various aspects of the paranormal, such as telepathy. Furthermore I did a quick search for information regarding this individual – I haven’t heard of him – and found nothing, the link you provided doesn’t even work.

As for your last link I will direct you back to my pervious links.

[greeneye]

[quote="JDHURF"]

greeneye wrote: Man's acknowledgment of a divine force and the historical references we have of the lineage of God's footprints on the plant is one that is as natural to man as the universal laws that govern our lives. Just as a child is drawn to his mother by an inner force, man's belief in his creator is not solely based upon the Bible, as wondrous a book that it is.

JDHURF wrote: I agree. The human propensity to be susceptible to the “transcendental temptation" appears to be a byproduct of the evolution of consciousness in the first place.

The human propensity is driven by the spiritual soul of man that knows it is significant; it knows it has a purpose; and it knows that it is directly connected to its Creator as it absides within man.

greeneye wrote: Though the spirit of the words on the pages of scripture helps connect man to his creator, if the words and its message did not register as truth inside man, the Bible would not be the Bible. The biggest testimony to the validity of the message of the Bible over the centuries is none other than 'man' himself and what the Message has done to uplift and help the soul of man evolve.

JDHURF wrote: Religious vagary. Furthermore there are millions of human beings that do not register the bible as “truth" and have not been “uplifted" by it.

Not all cultures use the Bible but they have their own scared scriptures. And yes, only about 1 percent of the world population are atheists, which speaks loudly for the many who believe.

greeneye wrote: Though many non-believers like to accept and justify that most of the 97 % of the world's population who believe in God do so blindly because of 'dead' words in a book,

JDHURF wrote: Right, like the “dead" words found in the bible.

If the light (spirit) is turned off in the reader, the words will appear as dead just as a man may believe there is no gold in a room that is dark because he can not see the bag of gold. Turn on the light and you might be amazed at what you see.

greeneye wrote: God won't go away because man's belief in God is ratified through an inner (soul) confirmation.

JDHURF wrote: You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Have you considered the possibility that you may not know what you're talking about regarding a divine force?

God has been around for a very very long time, longer than man's belief --- and so have the souls of men. Throughout history and through modern times, many of our great philosophers have written about the soul. Man can choose to shut it (the soul) down; man can choose to sell it out; man can choose to blind its vision; man can choose to disable its hearing; man can choose to not recognize it for a very long time; and man can even deny its very existence ---but the spiritual soul of man is very real, eternal and the window to the divine.

greeneye wrote: Without this soul confirmation, the stream of belief in a divine force would have no path and spirit to flow and sustain itself. And it is this belief and faith that regenerates this divine force and its Majestic spirit in nature and man's world.

JDHURF wrote: Transient voodoo.

Or a reality check that you choose to avoid.

greeneye wrote: Scientific paradigms are changing and that change has been driven by the fact that over the past decade especially, the supernatural has been slowing but increasingly spilling it's effects into man's physical word.

JDHURF wrote: Incorrect and as I have said numerous times throughout this thread religious extremists and conservatives that parade around the Kuhninan paradigm shift without an actual understanding and appreciation of his real work is more than incorrect, it is a disgrace and should be embarrassing.


It's not embarrassing at all. Science can stand still and say the mountain can't be moved; it can say we don't recognize any scientific principles within all of our theories and laws that can move the mountain, it can say we don't accept the data that may prove the mountain could be moved; and it can say the mountain will not move. But when the mountain is indeed moved... science can only say: "well there are some areas of science that we just don't understand yet. This can happen only for so long...

And as the definition for Kuhnian paradigm states: "When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis."

greeneye wrote: And because of this, I think the science of parapsychology and the paranormal have started to matter -- because people believe in it -- not idly or indifferently, but actively and enthusiastically.

JDHURF wrote: No amount of belief, passion or enthusiasm makes anything a science.

Science is suppose to help man understand the world around him and how it works. As a society evolves and new causes start producing effects in the physical world that are not within the scope of scientific understanding, I would argue that science has a responsibility to help man understand where and how and why these effects occur. And if it doesn't choose to take that responsibility, some scientists will -- just as they have done with the science of the paranormal. Science can choose not to recognize this science as a legitimate science until, "The first person to make a breakthrough is going to make Newton and Einstein look puny," but then it might be too late.

greeneye wrote: Inasmuch as supernatural causes are by definition outside the sphere of science (as you point out), I would argue that supernatural effects may not be outside the scope of science. I think and believe supernatural effects can be investigated by science. As long as one isn't an atheist, what's wrong with allowing the possibility of supernatural causes and presuming the effects of such a cause can be empirical?

JDHURF wrote: science is not able to deal with the supernatural by definition.

Why, when the effects of the supernatural can be experienced empirically.

greeneye wrote: I disagree.... awareness is not just a function of the brain and can produce altered states of consciousness and paranormal effects.

JDHURF wrote: There are various theories regarding what originates and regulates consciousness, the most prevalent of which is physicalism: that consciousness is a product of the physical brain.

According to who? It's interesting to me how you may regard the paranormal science as an illegitimate science but neuroscience is regarded as legitimate? Surely you much realize the neuroscience is finding in their studies of people who experience altered states of consciousness during meditation and prayer, also experience paranormal experiences such as telepathy, miraculous healings, etc. How does one reconcile one science that is considered "illegitimate" to deal with the effects and results of another science that is legitimate?

JDHURF wrote: I did a quick search for information regarding this individual – I haven’t heard of him – and found nothing, the link you provided doesn’t even work.

I misspelled his name: It is Charles Tart

States of Consciousness