Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    I'm sceptical of scientists because they seem more concerned with disproving spirituality than in proving science.

    It's about time scientists started trying to understand the nature of the paranormal (ghosts, poltergeists, past-life experiences, OBEs etc.) rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
    This is simply not true. Scientists often investigate the paranormal. For instance, did you know there is a study suggesting that prayer has no effect on terminal heart disease?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    At the moment it seems like they're saying anything they can't explain doesn't exist. It shouldn't be a taboo to say they don't know.
    Oh dear lord. You're taking the piss with that last sentence surely? I could go on a rant that would result in a tl;dr but I think this quote from Dara O'Briain sums it up.

    "Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it would stop."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHyacinthGirl)
    I maintain a healthy scepticism of both evolution and creationism.
    You are sceptical of evolution despite the fact it has actually been observed in a laboratory?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    I do not accept that global warming is entirely man made. It's a natural process accelerated by man.
    All we are doing is returning the earth to a state from before mankind existed, in terms of the composition of the atmosphere and global temperatures.

    The worst thing we can do is believe that we can prevent global warming - it will happen and the polar ice caps will melt just as they have done dozens of times in the past without man's influence.
    We can prevent our effect on it though
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dknt)
    No, it's a theory, a new idea, just like others trying to explain what we see in the Universe based of evidence and observations. If your evidence says one thing and your theory says otherwise, you're going to have to change it. So yes, it is science. And also, we can "measure" dark matter and to an extent "measure" dark energy.
    I suppose my problem with it is the lack of elegance, as with the standard model and the ghastly if fascinating edifice of M-Theory.

    I have no objection to it being a theory, or even a leading one if it's accepted to be a convenience till something better comes along, but the way it's presented as fact in almost every publication really gets my goat.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    I think this accurately describes the point I've been trying to make.

    Scientists' faith in the tangible world being all there is means that they deny the observations of others (who have experienced the paranormal) to preserve their own stubborn and very unscientific stance on the matter.

    I think it's time scientists swallowed their pride and conceded that people who see ghosts are not just imagining it or seeing a trick of the light etc. These arguments just don't wash any more, ghosts sightings have been reported in every corner of the world since time began, often by people who were previously sceptics.

    Scientists ought to be trying to understand this phenomena rather than denying its very existence.
    Plenty of research into things like this. And if it's a neurological phenomenon (as ALL, i repeat ALL, optical illusions are) then it's not in any way surprising that plenty of people will have reported it. Read into visual neurobiology and visual conciousness and you'll find plenty of perfectly plausible explanations.

    Furthermore - ever heard of schizophrenia? A very prominent symptom of which is a running commentary on your life, or someone apparently criticising them constatly, or objects talking to them. Lots of people, more people than have reported seeing ghosts, will have this running commentary in their head. It is VERY real to them, does this mean that there is someone reading out the story of their life? Or does this make it a common neurological phenomenon.

    These auditory hallucinations are, by the way, described in science just as visual illusions are.

    Maybe ghosts do exist, but at least some observations can be explained by the above. And ghosts don't fit into any of our basic understandings of anything that I can think of to be honest. It becomes extraordinarily hard to 'research' something when you aren't building on any previous research and are literally creating a whole new scientific concept.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHyacinthGirl)
    I maintain a healthy scepticism of both evolution and creationism.
    Being skeptical of evolution is not at all healthy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    You are sceptical of evolution despite the fact it has actually been observed in a laboratory?
    Even if we can prove that organisms adapt for survival I don't think that we can necessarily take that as far as to say that we know how life began.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    You are sceptical of evolution despite the fact it has actually been observed in a laboratory?
    The adaptions of organisms to better ensure their survival has been observed, I don't think that the history of life has been observed. There's an assumptive leap between the idea of organisms adapting and the thought that we can know how living things as we know them developed in a conclusive way. It's a persuasive theory, but an arrogant one I think.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHyacinthGirl)
    The adaptions of organisms to better ensure their survival has been observed, I don't think that the history of life has been observed. There's an assumptive leap between the idea of organisms adapting and the thought that we can know how living things as we know them developed in a conclusive way. It's a persuasive theory, but an arrogant one I think.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    You're missing the evidence, only a quick Google search away.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHyacinthGirl)
    Even if we can prove that organisms adapt for survival I don't think that we can necessarily take that as far as to say that we know how life began.
    Perhaps you don't understand that evolution has nothing at all to do with the origin of life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHyacinthGirl)
    Even if we can prove that organisms adapt for survival I don't think that we can necessarily take that as far as to say that we know how life began.
    We're getting awfully close.

    Scientists create artificial life in laboratory
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.