|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Anything Goes! > Internal power/energy is real??? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
      
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1226
| Posted 5/9/2008 4:03 AM (GMT -4) |   | Just a brief interlude, if I may, to respond to a comment about scientists and their naturalistic reductionist worldview that "won't allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation."
This is a common misconception. Yes, when doing science, a scientist must stick with natural, measurable things in seeking explanations. It's a necessary component of doing science. You can't possibly do science any other way. If you allow for causes that can't be measured or observed, you allow for EVERYTHING ... and the scientific method falls completely, hopelessly, utterly apart.
That does NOT mean, however, that a scientist automatically refuses to even consider the slightest possibility of a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon. A scientist is just as capable of believing he saw a ghost, or received an ESP communication, or of believing in a Creator, as anyone else. The scientist will not say that such explanations are SCIENTIFICALLY plausible, but he darn well might think the big dark shape he saw in the woods was Bigfoot, or that the noise in the attic was his dead Aunt Bessie. Being a scientist, he naturally will seek natural explanations for such things. If he finds such, being a scientist, he will lean that way. Occam's Razor, you know. Which is more likely, the wind banging a shutter or someone coming back from the dead? Bigfoot, or tired eyes deceiving their owner?
If a scientist finds no natural explanations, however, he will simply say "Science can't explain this." But he might well go right on being convinced his dead Aunt Bessie is making noise in the attic, or the thing in the woods was Bigfoot, while wishing he had some solid evidence to back that up -- or that he could even think of a way to possibly garner such evidence. That's the sticking point with supernatural explanations. By definition, science CAN'T do anything with them. It doesn't necessarily make supernatural explanations WRONG; it simply makes them beyond science. And a scientist who himself has NOT experienced a supernatural something-or-other is completely justified in remaining skeptical. That's particularly true in the realm of ghost stories and Bigfoot sightings. The number of cases that can be shown to have been hoaxes, or to have very simple explanations, makes it very difficult for a scientist to make the leap to a supernatural explanation if he hasn't had such an experience himself. But if he says "ghosts don't exist" or "There is no Bigfoot," he is being a bit arrogant, and will likely realize it and concede that he is being arrogant if pressed. Then he will amend his statement to "There is no scientific evidence for ..." etc. etc. etc.
I interject this because it's a frequent sticking point. People hear a scientist say "there is no evidence for A, B or C" and automatically assume that means the scientist is saying "A, B or C do not exist." Not quite the same thing, really. Scientists who have a strong religious faith, for example, run into that all the time. So ... I thought I'd point out the difference between a priori dismissal and simply recognizing that sometimes, there is no measurable evidence. (Of course, a priori dismissal does happen sometimes, because scientists are human, too. But overall, they actually are a rather open-minded bunch. They are just really persnickety about evidence.)
OK. Carry on.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1549
| Posted 5/9/2008 2:26 AM (GMT -4) | |
Nicholas said...
---From the 1963 movie The Haunting (This thread brought that conversation to mind)
IMHO one of the better haunted house/ghost movies ever made.
An interesting thing about the movie, it's never clear what exactly is causing the haunting. Is it spirits? Is it the location? Is it all in the mind? Is it a combination?
That could be another factor that makes paranormal stuff so difficult to pin down, it might be due to a combination of factors. And these factors may have to be brought together at just the right time, with just the right mixture of elements.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Nicholas
Adept
Date Joined Jun 2006
Total Posts : 954
| Posted 5/9/2008 2:12 AM (GMT -4) | | | Luke: Doc, level with us. I mean, you're a college prof. A man with a PhD. You can't really believe there's such a thing as a haunted house. I wish you'd stop referring to this desirable property as haunted.
Dr. Markway: There's that word "haunted" again. Makes me expect to find a disembodied hand in the sauce. Nobody knows even why some houses are called haunted.
Luke: What would you call this place? Fun-o-rama?
Dr. Markway: Diseased, sick, crazy if you like. A deranged house isn't a bad way of putting it. Your aunt thinks that maybe Hill House was born bad. Such houses are described in the Bible as leprous. Or before that, in Homer's phrase for the underworld: a house of Hades.
Luke: Come off it, Doc. Really, the local mayor makes more sense to me. He says the disturbances are caused by subterranean waters... electric currents, atmospheric pressure, sunspots, earth tremors, et cetera.
Dr. Markway: Sure, people always want to put an easy label on things... even if it's meaningless. "The trouble with Hill House is sunspots." There's an explanation you don't have to think twice about. And it has a scientific ring.
---From the 1963 movie The Haunting (This thread brought that conversation to mind)
In other words, materialist reductionists MUST find non-supernatural explanations for any phenomena because their worldview already bars the supernatural. Ergo, they honestly do not even consider the supernatural as a possible explanation; they are as rigid in their non-belief as a religious fundamentalist is in his/her belief.
http://ozment.livejournal.com
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1549
| Posted 5/8/2008 10:46 PM (GMT -4) | | | Unfortunately, ghosts don't perform on cue. Nature doesn't always work that way.
I remember watching a National Geographic special about a lady scientist who wanted to study tigers in India. I believe she was there a couple of months, and didn't see a single tiger. One was caught on film shortly after she left.
Sometimes things don't happen conveniently for the scientists.
Yes, I know repeatability is one of the keys of the scientific method. I will also point out that I had a lab experiment or two go awry back when I was in school. Things just didn't go the way the book and instructor claimed they should go. Even with standard experiments human error, faulty equipment, or just plain bad luck can derail the repeatability factor.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1549
| Posted 5/8/2008 10:07 PM (GMT -4) | | Then what's left? If eye witness accounts are out, and film is out, what's left? Physical evidence, of course.
But then, what counts as physical evidence? To use one of my favourite examples, scientists still often discount Bigfoot footprints. In terms of ghostly phenomena, you often have EVP recordings and strange fluctuations in EMF metres in association with personal encounters and things captured on film.
Unfortunately, you can't haul a ghost's carcass in front of a scientist to prove it's real. And, since most ghosts hang out in pretty specific spots, you can't just invite them to the lab for a special performance.
Admitedly, that's the problem with much paranormal phenomena.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 395
| Posted 5/8/2008 9:52 PM (GMT -4) | | | So far I've posted two explanations offered for ghostly apparitions, one of which (stimulation of part of the brain) might be related to the conditions of a particular place, so it wouldn't be surprising if different people see such apparitions there - it would explain why some places get the reputation for being haunted. Low frequency sound was suggested as the mechanism, but since it's electrical stimulation of a part of the brain which induces such hallucinations, I suppose it is possible that some form of electrical field in that location could be responsible.
The most convincing film I've ever seen of a UFO - one which really looked like a flying machine - was taken by a passenger on an internal UK flight many years ago. The object appeared as a dot in the distance then rushed up to the plane at enormous speed, hovered there for a few seconds, then rushed away just as quickly. The image was sharp and clear, and showed a lens-shaped object with irregular markings around the rim. Now I don't believe in visiting aliens or flying saucers, but when they showed that film on TV I was impressed and rather shaken. There was no doubting the sincerity of the cameraman or the genuineness of the film. So the programme-makers borrowed the camera, loaded it with the same type of film, sat a cameraman in the same seat of the same aircraft flying the same route, and did some filming.
It turned out that the window glass was not flat across its width but had a bevel along the edge which distorted the view. If you got the camera in exactly the right position, it showed a part of the horizontal tail which seemed to be detached from the plane, and appeared as a lens-shaped object with the irregular markings just being erosion of the paint. By shifting position slightly, the cameraman was able to make the "UFO" appear and disappear at will.
That was a salutary lesson for me...no matter how convincing a film might be, and how genuine the cameraman, do not take it at face value.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1549
| Posted 5/8/2008 9:04 PM (GMT -4) | | |
The idea that ghosts are basically some sort of induced hallucination might explain only one part of a much wider phenomena. And it doesn't explain how people who have no prior knowledge of a haunting will see the same hallucination that others have seen over the years. What would make people have the same hallucination, even when they have no prior knowledge of what they "should" see?
This is the problem I often have with the skeptical scientific explanations of strange phenomena; they often explain only part of it and then use that as an explanation for the whole thing. To me, that's bad science.
It's akin to the skeptics who point out that some people have created hoaxed Bigfoot prints, and then reach the conclusion that the whole concept of Bigfoot is a hoax. People impersonate Elvis, does that mean Elvis never existed?
Movement of objects, apparitions, anomalous thermal images, and strange lights have all been captured on film. That can't be explained away as hallucination. Therefore, the induced hallucination explanation is inadequate.
There could also be a misinterpretation of cause and effect here, too. What might be causing the "hallucinations" in terms of ghostly apparitions? Might it be some form of energy? EMF is thought to cause all sorts of weird physiological effects. Perhaps EMF can cause hallucinations.
Interestingly enough, paranormal investigators feel that EMF is involved somehow in many hauntings. Is EMF causing the haunting, or is the haunting causing EMF fluctuations and spikes?
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 395
| Posted 5/8/2008 8:59 PM (GMT -4) | |
MysticWino said...
Tony: with all due respect, your refutation of my point about skill is off the mark. Yes, the study suggests that placement seemed nonsignificant. But this raises a great many questions about where the placebo needles were placed, how inserted, etc. Furthermore, I am fairly confident that the persons inflicting both the placebo and actual acupuncture needles were highly trained in the use of such needles. Much of the knowledge necessary for competent practice of acupuncture has to do with memorization of, or at least a working familiarity with, meridians and specific target points - of which there are at least a couple hundred. Not only must one know these, one should also know the optimal time for manipulation and treatment.
Taking the study at face value, it shows that sticking pins into people actually works, so I don't see that the placebo effect is an issue here. But a double-blind experiment with 1,100 people is a pretty powerful test, and it concluded that it doesn't matter where the pins go. To convince me otherwise, you'd have to present even stronger experimental evidence to the contrary.
On the wider issue, there is no doubt that the human mind has the ability to override the normal responses of the body. This is evidenced by such matters as hypnotism and the placebo effect (I read recently that independent tests of some commonly-prescribed medicines showed that a placebo was just as effective). If people really believe that they're going to be cured, they may well be.
However, I recall a separate study which tested the attitudes of people who knew that they had illnesses likely to prove fatal. It was found that people who were determined not to accept this and battled to fight it died off at just the same rate as those who were resigned to their fate. So there are limits.
Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
SFF Blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 395
| Posted 5/8/2008 4:51 PM (GMT -4) | |
Rob Mancebo said...
Anthony G Williams said...
Yes, of course the body produces energy - I've already pointed that out in an earlier post. But the energy produced is tiny, confined to the immediate area of the body, and not possibly strong enough to account for any major paranormal effects. Remember the Law of Conservation of Energy; if you want to shift an object a certain distance, which requires X joules of energy, then the mechanism by which it is shifted must produce at least X joules (actually a bit more, allowing for transmission losses). If it affects material objects, the energy must be detectable and measurable. So where is it, and where does it come from?
- The energy must be detectable and measurable? Of course it does. But whatever makes you think that we have the ability to detect all forms of energy at this moment in time? I never claimed we have. What I was pointing out was that any "poltergeist" force which can pick up a solid object and throw it across a room must be detectable and measurable, because it is applying a huge amount of force to a physical object. If it can affect a solid object in such a dramatic way, it will certainly affect a physical measuring device.
On the subject of ghostly apparitions, I have entirely coincidentally just read this in my local paper:
"...Charles Bonnet Syndrome, a little-known but far from rare condition which causes victims to hallucinate and 'see', among other things, people in old-fashioned dress..."
I'm not suggesting that this accounts for all ghost stories by any means, though it may well have made a contribution. However, it reinforces my point that if people "see" things which can't be physically present and which don't show up on camera, there's a very strong probability (to put it mildly) that the answer lies within their own heads.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MysticWino
anarchist fringe monkey boddhisatva
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1565
|
| | |