O.B.E.'s

Calan wrote: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes".

If you want to call yourself that, be my guest.

Our rigid rules of the Universe [sic] have and will be broken again and again.

So are they our rules or rules of the universe's? Also, what does broken mean and what even are rules of the universe? In my interpretation not even our rules ever have been broken but the Sithishly absolute certainty with which you assert that leaves me to suspect that you have some rather strong examples. Please, do bring them on.

Adder wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing against scientific method.

Not even Nai?

It is simply a case of the mechanism's behind the event not being accessible enough to properly apply that scientific method.

I cannot speak on behalf of those arguing that some sensations they had were OBEs, but I can say for myself that I for one would beg to differ if I was in their camp. To me, anything that can be sensed, even by so few as one person is subject to scientific examination for that reason. The statement that something is outside the reach of science is functionally equivalent with the statement that it didn't or couldn't really happen.

If someone has en experience which to them is justified enough to warrant a strong measure of truth for them, then an interest in exploring that is scientific in spirit! It's just the extent they are able to apply science might vary. Skepticism has a good place there though.

That really is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Why would anyone feel that their confidence in a belief is justified while simultaneously going out of their way to protect from any critical examination either the belief itself or the events that triggered its formation? Why would anyone be jumping to conclusions, let alone be protective of those conclusions like that, well even before having any interest in exploring any further, often openly wishing to not explore, lest the precious conclusion fall into question?

Gisteron. I'm not sure I can answer all the many questions in your reply on this topic. However they seem to have a common theme, correct me of i'm wrong but you are asking why an OBE shouldn't be examined? Well it is and has been, it seems a main function of humanity is to examine and it occurs quite​ naturally. In fact for many of us it takes diligence and practice to turn off the mechanisms of examination just to get a break every now and then. However, to state so bluntly that this experience isn't a true experience or that experience is, is again just another experience that could be deemed true or false, and on and on like an infinity inside another Infinity. The rules of the Universe I speak of we create by definition, and it is the nature of the scientific​ method to define and explore them as we find them in nature, but also to be open to new findings and to throw out broken ones. Ones that didn't work according to our idea of things. Certainly is arrogance, absolutes are unscientific, a path to the dark side.

Gisteron, I find your passive aggression highly distasteful. Dragging me into an argument I stopped participating in just to use me as a straw man. You know literally nothing about me. If I were you, I'd seriously reconsider the way I talk to and about people.

As a physicist I think one of the main issues regarding investigation is that its in that area of 'topics' that can be a career ender...
The scientific community, though it professes to be 'inclusive' will shun certain areas of scientific investigation.
Anything that goes along the lines of 'ghostbusters', religious, telekinesis etc etc is a dangerous area as a scientist...

Personally I think the more you learn the more you appreciate how little we understand....
Dark Energy - ok
Dark Matter - of course!
Gravitons - fine
Inflation - Yeah sure
O.B.E - Errr... "bit spiritual, not Science"
Telekinesis - Err... no (apart from the Russians)
The Force - Well No... (Even though we have lots of gaps in our understanding of ALL of the forces of nature)

Science needs to lighten up... so does religion...
We know about 4% of what there is to know... Who knows what the mind of a sentient being is capable of... ?

(Sorry, I'm on a mission tonight! lol)

Nai_Elyob wrote: Gisteron, I find your passive aggression highly distasteful. Dragging me into an argument I stopped participating in just to use me as a straw man. You know literally nothing about me. If I were you, I'd seriously reconsider the way I talk to and about people.

Do you feel like I have mischaracterized your position on the merits of scientific methodology? Also, with how easy it is to unintentionally upset you, I don't feel like taking any advice from you on how to conduct myself peacefully and portly, but I do appreciate your trying to help. Thank you.

Moving on...

Obo Nâm wrote: As a physicist I think one of the main issues regarding investigation is that its in that area of 'topics' that can be a career ender...
The scientific community, though it professes to be 'inclusive' will shun certain areas of scientific investigation.
Anything that goes along the lines of 'ghostbusters', religious, telekinesis etc etc is a dangerous area as a scientist...

That's not really been my experience. To me it seems more like these things are dismissed because of how many times it has been shown that there is nothing to them, not because they are somehow taboo. They are also areas very few investors fund research into, because the majority of investors are from the industries and are looking to optimize parts and processes against costs.

We know about 4% of what there is to know...

A very common number to name when talking about it. I remember when a fellow student of mine said the same thing in her seminary talk about cosmology. It sounds really humble putting it like that, but it didn't quite work in her case, because she said it right after mentioning the real context the number comes from. 4% is the fraction of currently directly detectable energy in the universe, and by that we mean the radiation our devices can pick up and the matter we can see by picking up particularly strong sources of radiation. The 4% estimate comes because in order to explain some of the motions we observe out there, we must postulate more and invisible stuff, "dark", because they emit nothing we can detect the way we detect anything else. 4% is not the fraction of what we know over everything there is to know, because we frankly don't know how much there is to know and will likely stay unable to find out for quite a while to come still. We also don't know "how much" we know right now, because we don't actually have a measure for that, we have no way to quantify knowledge at all. 4% is not even the fraction of all the stuff in the universe we know exists out there, since we do know about stuff that we cannot see the way we see the 4%. Do not be impressed by a number that sounds low and humble and like it confirms what your humble self thought all along. It does not represent what is popular to say it represents.

Who knows what the mind of a sentient being is capable of... ?

If we really cared about that, we could consult with psychologists or neuroscientists. They probably wouldn't know all about the mind either, but what little they do know they came to know through ruthless, rigorous study, not through what they thought they felt the other night that for unspecified reasons must have been their spirit wandering about.

Yes, you've most definitely mischaracterized everything about me. The subject at hand was OBE's, but since you and Kyrin derailed the topic in the name of defending progress for fear of unscientific thinking you've been talking up the merits of science while downplaying the limits of our existing technology. I've got no problem talking about science, the boons of progress and Enlightenment thinking, etc. - you just could have been courteous and started a new thread. Science has been a long time passion of mine, I'm an electrician by trade and have been doing science experiments since I was a small child. However, like the great scientific minds of the past, even foundational figures like Isaac Newton, my interests are not limited to what our instruments can measure.

We have to be willing to admit the limits of the scientific method and our existing technology, and have a more thorough understanding of the history of science. I think it is important to point out what science has overlooked and the arrogance of the scientific community to keep folks humble. At the very least, Kyrin has implied anyone who embraces ideas outside the scope of modern science of embracing fantasy and rejecting truth. Yet, you can see that logic being applied throughout the history of science. Because of the limitations of technology at any given point in time, as Obo pointed out, those who investigate areas where technology and understanding are lacking are subject to censorship in the scientific community. Your anecdotal dismissal of this, Gisteron, is contrary to anyone who knows the history of science. Just look at Copernicus, Darwin, and other great minds whose works have suffered the slings and arrows of an orthodox community.

So, while I believe the Scientific Method is an excellent tool, my problem is with the people who deify it and become dogmatic about their beliefs in the same way any fundamentalist of any ideology typically does. Anyone who steps in to shout down folks exploring subjects outside the limitations of existing technology and theories deserves to be reminded of various points in time where the secular, progressive nature of science gave way to the very conservative nature of humanity to cling to tradition and afraid of losing control. In a community that is a mix or religious, spiritual, and secular folks, it is incumbent upon the secular to have as much respect for the rest as they expect to receive.

JamesSand wrote:
If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?


Yes it does because when it fell it created vibrational sound waves in the medium of the atmosphere in which it fell.

Yes, thank you, I'd briefly forgotten all about sound waves.
Remind me not to use metaphors around you, lest ye explain to me that my pile of dirty dishes is not actually a chunk of the earth's crust rearranged by tectonic shifts...
(You could also argue that until those waves hit someone's tympanic membrane, the sound isn't heard, but it's well beyond the point)

Anyway, Gist more or less summed it up nicely - We can't deny the experience, but we can probably determine it wasn't caused by being kidnapped by fairies.

Nai_Elyob wrote: ... as Obo pointed out, those who investigate areas where technology and understanding are lacking are subject to censorship in the scientific community.

So the four areas Obo mentioned (limiting himself to physics alone, mind you) where that is not the case don't count?

Your anecdotal dismissal of this, Gisteron, is contrary to anyone who knows the history of science.

Well, if I was 400 years old, maybe I'd have anecdotes representative of the history of science. Unfortunately I can only speak to how it is now. If that's contrary to how it has been long before any of us could witness it, so be it.

Just look at Copernicus, Darwin, and other great minds whose works have suffered the slings and arrows of an orthodox community.

You mean the names we know because of all the censorship stopping us from knowing them? Never mind that science as we know it is today is younger than either of the names you mentioned. But yes, when it came to the ignorant public, it takes a while to catch up with big scientific advances. Shocking, I know. And a community of intellectuals trained to approach claims critically also didn't embrace every new and radical idea without question. Shocking, I know, I know.

So, while I believe the Scientific Method is an excellent tool, my problem is with the people who deify it and become dogmatic about their beliefs in the same way any fundamentalist of any ideology typically does.

Oh, but that is not a straw man? Can you name as many as one person on this forum that meets this description?

Anyone who steps in to shout down folks exploring subjects outside the limitations of existing technology and theories deserves to be reminded of various points in time where the secular, progressive nature of science gave way to the very conservative nature of humanity to cling to tradition and afraid of losing control. In a community that is a mix or religious, spiritual, and secular folks, it is incumbent upon the secular to have as much respect for the rest as they expect to receive.

Nobody is shouting down anybody. It is not about secularity or spirituality either; I for one didn't even make it about science, and I can't help but cringe slightly every time Kyrin makes science or skepticism out to be about truth, too. That is maybe a rather central point of divergence between the two of us, though we have not discussed it yet, so maybe not. And as for respect, I absolutely agree. That is exactly why I do what I do. I don't look down upon anybody, no matter what they believe. Nobody, and nothing anyone claims is so far beneath me that I would think there is nothing for me to learn from it. Nobody, and nothing anybody says is undeserving of the same respect and expectation I would hope others would have towards me and my own words. I treat everyone here like an adult, everyone like my peer, nobody like a lesser.

@Nai_Elyob

Make sure to keep your arguments focused on the issue at hand. Otherwise, who is the one who comes off as passive-aggressive?

You do make a good point on the dangers of scientism.

nai elyob wrote: At the very least, Kyrin has implied anyone who embraces ideas outside the scope of modern science of embracing fantasy and rejecting truth...

I can't help but cringe slightly every time Kyrin makes science or skepticism out to be about truth, too.

Uhh no and no. I did neither of those things. I said inventing fantasy to explain experience we dont have an answer for is rejecting truth.

If something exists beyond our means to detect it or interact with it in any sort of tangible way, what use is it's existence?