Science and its boundaries

[Kekerusey]

Such feelings are subject to confirmation bias. If someone claims something they don't understand, they generally don't talk about the 364 days per year where they don't feel anything unusual

Very true

Science is based a fundamental idea: There's nothing supernatural. Everything we can observe happens withing the boundaries of natural laws. If something is observed that cannot be explained yet, then this is not a failure of science, but just something not yet understood and a new field for exploration.

Yes ... was that in this thread?

Keke

[Kì'eyawn]

A little tangential, but still:  Here's an interesting article on the science-religion debate—but in Israel, rather than the U.S.  This bit sums up the issue fairly nicely.

...the battles over school curricula in America concern ideas: Should evolution be taught as fact or supposition?, Should alternative accounts of the origin of species be taught?, Should the notion of a Creator be entertained in public schools? What counts and does not count as science? In contrast, the battles over school curricula in Israel concern practice. No ultra-orthodox leader has attacked scientific ideas, nor have any even suggested that science is not valuable. None have said that science courses teach heresies. Their point is not that they refuse to teach sciences because they are not true; their point is that they should not be forced to teach sciences, even though they are true...

It's easy to forget that the animosity between science and religion, where it exists, is not quite the same everywhere.  This article makes me curious about what this issue is like outside the U.S.

[Yayo]

Referring to Braniac's comment "Thinking of someone and then the phone rings, and it's them"; this reminded me of the Secret (which represents the 'Universe Theory'). I do not believe these are psychich visions, nor do I believe that it is obeying the 'Laws of the Universe Theory. I sometimes get into the car while the radio is muted. I begin to sing a song or (hear it in my head) and then I turn the radio up and the song is playing: at the exact place where I was singing it. I am not condemning the fact that these may be 'Psychic Visions', nor am I telling you all that it is not the Universe Theory. But I believe if you truly want something and are willing to work towards it, then it will happen - eventually.
Braniac, your comment is very valid and I have experienced this also. I think that your subconscience monitors time very well.
For example,
My friend told me that he would call me back in approximately five hours. When he told me this, I was not aware of the current time yet I spontaneously thought about him and a few seconds later, the phone wrang. So, I do not believe that these are psychic visions, I just believe that we are very good at maintaining time subconsciously.

[Eyamsiyu]

Ok, coming in a bit late into this conversation...

To the original title "Science and its boundaries," what boundaries?  I mean, there are certain things that I myself would not want to be a part of, but the honest truth is that we should try to explore the unexplored and learn as much as we can.

That includes trying to prove or disprove paranormal events using science.  After all, as a certain dictionary (whose name I cannot recall) once stated that magic is
"what hasn't been proven by science yet."  I believe the same applies to the paranormal.

Ok, just sort-of wanted to say something and mark this for future posts.  I'll shut up now.

[Vawm tsamsiyu]

That includes trying to prove or disprove paranormal events using science.  After all, as a certain dictionary (whose name I cannot recall) once stated that magic is
"what hasn't been proven by science yet."  I believe the same applies to the paranormal.

This reminds me of this
"Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Profiles of the Future (revised edition, 1973)"
Some of this paranormal stuff could be some natural phenomenon we haven't figured out yet and can't prove is real

[Kekerusey]

It's easy to forget that the animosity between science and religion, where it exists, is not quite the same everywhere.  This article makes me curious about what this issue is like outside the U.S.

Well I'm co-founder of a campaign that has tried to keep these people out of science education in the UK (their teachings that is, not the people) ... we had some success back in 2007 with a government response assuring us that science was all that would be taught in science classes but the campaign is a bit dead right now.

What was interesting was that I predicted the rise of creationism in the UK ... no special logic, we just get what the US has about 5 years down the line but it was interesting because many here said it wouldn't happen, that that sort of thing could only happen in America.

@Yayo I will say just this, it's coincidence! Any pattern you see simply reflects human ability to select data in a way that suits them whilst ignoring the rest (IOW although that may well have happened sometimes, what about the other 99.9% of the times that it didn't?). Of course no one has any way of telling whether you are being truthful, objective, delusional or just plain lying ... I'm not saying you are one of these but the likelihood is that what you describe with such certainty is some distance from what actually happened.

To the original title "Science and its boundaries," what boundaries?  I mean, there are certain things that I myself would not want to be a part of, but the honest truth is that we should try to explore the unexplored and learn as much as we can.

I think that was the point of the original post or at least it devolved from me (in another thread) saying that I don't accept the existence of the supernatural.

That includes trying to prove or disprove paranormal events using science.  After all, as a certain dictionary (whose name I cannot recall) once stated that magic is "what hasn't been proven by science yet."  I believe the same applies to the paranormal.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic ... I think it might have been Michael Shermer. I get this kind of thing in debate all the time and it is the very core of the so-called "Theory Of Intelligent Design" (it's not actually a science theory but that's another argument albeit a related one) which argues that some things are better explained by invoking a designer than trying to explain it naturally ... to me, all such ideas (ID and others that try to explain things via the supernatural) are premature. My argument is simple ... science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe we see around us and it isn't done yet.

"Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

You're right, it was Clarke ... Shermer's was a modification of that, "Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God."

Some of this paranormal stuff could be some natural phenomenon we haven't figured out yet and can't prove is real

Only some?

Keke

[Carborundum]

"Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

You're right, it was Clarke ... Shermer's was a modification of that, "Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God."

Personally I prefer David Langford's corollary:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"

[Eyamsiyu]

My argument is simple ... science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe we see around us and it isn't done yet.

Agreed.  Completely.

[Yayo]

Kekerusey,
I was not suggesting that my friend 'sent me a telepathical message; I was stating that the Humansubconscience monitors time very well. How did I come to this conclusion? Because it has happened more than once and is not purely coincidence.

[Human No More]

Kekerusey,
I was not suggesting that my friend 'sent me a telepathical message; I was stating that the Humansubconscience monitors time very well. How did I come to this conclusion? Because it has happened more than once and is not purely coincidence.

What about the few million times you thought of someone and they didn't do anything?

Pure confirmation bias.

[Yayo]

Kekerusey,
I was not suggesting that my friend 'sent me a telepathical message; I was stating that the Humansubconscience monitors time very well. How did I come to this conclusion? Because it has happened more than once and is not purely coincidence.

What about the few million times you thought of someone and they didn't do anything?

Pure confirmation bias.

What about the few billion times I said I was merely stating that the Human Sub Conscience was very good at monitoring and estimqting time?
Pure lack of reading.

[Yayo]

and I did not say that it happens qll of the time. Did I?

[Kekerusey]

and I did not say that it happens qll of the time. Did I?

But you also said, "Because it has happened more than once and is not purely coincidence." which (in conjunction with your earlier remaks) pretty much implies you think there's something somehow inexplicable afoot doesn't it?

Keke

[Brainiac]

and I did not say that it happens qll of the time. Did I?

First of all: Pick a keyboard configuration. Please?

Second: This has nothing to do with your subconscious estimating time. It's the one thing it's absolutely horrible at (well, that and focussing). Well, that and that the division between subconscious, ego and superego is a bit archaic.

I think you thought of that person multiple times in those 5 hours, but you don't remember because nothing happened. Like Human No More said: bias.

[Yayo]

Braniac, apologies for my mistype; I am currently in France and I am having troubles with the European keyboard configuration.
Upon reviewing my post(s), I have seen where the implication is, therefore, I can understand your reasoning. I suppose it is biased, although, at the time when it occured, it was rather strange.

[Kerame Pxel Nume]

Braniac, apologies for my mistype; I am currently in France and I am having troubles with the European keyboard configuration.

– I think I should point out that there is no "european" layout. As many languages there are, as many different layouts one can find, which in some cases differ vastly. Anyway, if you can touch type, just switch the layout to whatever you're used to  for the time being, saves a lot of headaches.

[Yayo]

You are mistaken;
In France, the Q is in the position of the A whilst in Germany, the Z is in the place of the Y. There are also additonal symbols which occupy several places such as the apostrophe etc.
It is different to the standard US keyboard.

[Kekerusey]

– I think I should point out that there is no "european" layout. As many languages there are, as many different layouts one can find, which in some cases differ vastly. Anyway, if you can touch type, just switch the layout to whatever you're used to  for the time being, saves a lot of headaches.

That's not only incorrect it's patronising ... there are many different keyboard layouts (Yayo cites the French AZERTY keyboard amongst others) , the UK doesn't differ much from US but it does differ and finding the UK pound symbol (£) and/or the forward slash (\) can be a trial, moreover the reference to touch typing is only a solution to those who can do so and, despite using a computer for 25 years or more, I can't and I know of no one who can.

What's this got to do with science and it's boundaries anyway?

Keke

[Kerame Pxel Nume]

– I think I should point out that there is no "european" layout. As many languages there are, as many different layouts one can find, which in some cases differ vastly. Anyway, if you can touch type, just switch the layout to whatever you're used to  for the time being, saves a lot of headaches.

That's not only incorrect it's patronising ... there are many different keyboard layouts (Yayo cites the French AZERTY keyboard amongst others)

Didn't I tell exactly this? What I did tell was, that there is no purely european layout. About each european country has its very own layout.

What it got to do with science? Well in that case it's more about engineering and linguistics: The arrangement of keys in most keyboards is in a way, that back in the times of mechanical typewriters keys won't jam when writing in the language the keyboard was designed for. Today, completely irrelevant, as electronic keyboards can't jam. But there is some science behind keyboard layouts. And to bring that thread back on topic: There are brain machine interfaces developed, aiming to replace keyboards

http://www.physorg.com/news180620740.html

In this case the boundaries by science are of an ethical question.

[Yayo]

I believe that this thread was initially started to discuss the 'boundaries' of Science when attempting to explain topics such as Paranormal activities/experiences. In that case, I do believe it is irrelevant to this discussion; it may very well be related to Science but this thread is about the 'social and moral' limits of Scie
nce. If it were a general discussion about Scientific basis, concepts and history, then your keyboard reference would be rather valid.

And yes, I did find your keyboard comment rather unprovoked and patronising; as those of us who are involved in this thread are here to debate/discuss the heresaid title, not attempting to insult oneanother via sarcasm or a demeaning attitude.

If you
intend to involve yourself by posting relevant and on topic contributions, then we genuinely want you to.

We are here to healthily discuss and debate theories and/or concepts
presented because we are passionate about Science.

So, if you do want to, I shall disregard your previous comment and forgive you for your mistake. It is better to accept that you made a mistake rather than to allow it to escalate to a dangerous level.

I myself will try to control my emotions as Science and Scientific Research relies upon the absense of these in order to be done properly.
Regards,
Yayo