quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Science is the study of reality, and is always limited. Removing limits refers to science, not reality.

CR@P
reality clearly has limits.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Ego, why would i want suggest anything? Ive just said that science, the study of reality, always has limits. Its a fact. In 10 years science will be more advanced and therefore it will have moved beyond the limits that it currently has.

Wow, that's a new definition of "limits" to me! - something that's not limited to its limits

I'm sorry, was there a point in there, or was it just some deep twisted bitterness you have that prevents you taking joy in living in such an enlightened age?

quote:

Basically im saying that we all have intuition, and that some people believe that its not to be trusted, and others believe that it is, and whenever their "hunches" turn out to be accurate, the other group have another belief that it must be something else.

Yeah, but that's rubbish. As has already been pointed out, people remember the "hunches" that were right and forget the gazillions that miss the mark. But it comes back to defining "intuition" - your term, not mine - and so far you have not provided one whilst others and I have. Oh but hold on -

quote:

They call it the unexplained, because they want to wait for a scientific answer, but while theyre waiting theyre not prepared to see if they already have it.

ROTFLMAO! "Intuition" has suddenly become spooky voices from beyond the grave! Hey, maybe the little green head pixies put thoughts in your head (rather like Descartes' "Malicious Demon")? And you trust it? Have you any idea how often your mind lies to you? You should take a look sometime; you'll be terrified.

quote:

Thats an example of turning away from intuition, not accepting that there must be a reason why we all have it. Other senses include : dreams, intuition, telepathy, etc, im sure i dont need to point them out to you.

Quite. We've all seen the X-Files, though not all of us thought it was a documentary.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Ego, why would i want suggest anything? Ive just said that science, the study of reality, always has limits. Its a fact. In 10 years science will be more advanced and therefore it will have moved beyond the limits that it currently has.

wrong
science clearly hadn't reached it's limits in these cases

Heselbine , the trouble with science in its current form is that it has a belief that its criteria are completely reliable, and anything outside of it cant be real. Im sorry but its perfectly possible for a person to genuinely perceive something that most others cant. You can give all the alternative explanations you want, and in some cases you may be right, but that doesnt change the fact that not all evidence left behind by reality is subject to the criteria set by current science. Telepathy is a real thing, it can be done, people can sense things without using the 5 senses, and lots of other things are possible. Asking me to prove it to the satisfaction of the scientific method will lead to frustration simply because as i say not everything is subject to it. And explaining it away as something else may turn out to be correct or it may turn out not to be, but either way its a belief based on the kind of person you are, and thats the subject of this thread. We can have these discussions on individual topics but it will only illustrate the difference in thinking between the two groups.

By telling me to learn to use apostrophes youre implying that i dont know how to use them (Didnt i say lets keep this respectful right at the start?)


Once again ego, the study of reality called science is limited. Do you think its not? And by your 3rd paragraph i can see that youve misunderstood what i said, and ended up commenting on something which i didnt say. Read it again carefully. Im not being patronising, im just being practical.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:

Once again ego, the study of reality called science is limited. Do you think its not?

It was YOU who said that science has exceeded its limits, not me! I absolutely agree that it has limits, though I am perhaps better placed to know where they are than you. One of my points is: SO - FLIPPING - WHAT? You have nothing better to put in its place, only continual garbage about "intuition". Geez, all I'm asking is that you define your terms and string an argument together.

quote:

And by your 3rd paragraph i can see that youve misunderstood what i said, and ended up commenting on something which i didnt say. Read it again carefully. Im not being patronising, im just being practical.

What, this:

"They call it the unexplained, because they want to wait for a scientific answer, but while theyre waiting theyre not prepared to see if they already have it."?

How could you "know" you already have it if you currently have no "scientific" answer? Sorry, but this is utterly utterly risible and stems from you complete inability to define your terms and formulate a valid argument.

Sorry for butting in everyone - i'm only going to post this short post today but I think it would be wise if everyone could acknowledge each other as thoroughly decent and nice human beings - then there will really be no need for perceived aggression.

Leafar - you have your views on things which I personally think are perfectly valid and I like them

To everyone else in the discussion - there is no need to be rude, it might be conducive to a more enjoyable discussion if everyone were to calmly and clearly state where there disagreement lies without statements which could be perceived as derogatory (as TheCarpenter demonstrated in his last post) - there is never any need for aggression.

So lets all centre ourselves and be happy

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:

So lets all centre ourselves and be happy

After saying "Leafar - you have your views on things which I personally think are perfectly valid and I like them "? Not a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar: Telepathy is a real thing, it can be done, people can sense things without using the 5 senses, and lots of other things are possible.

OK, see you in Teletubbyland.

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:

So, NowPower, are all views equally valid?

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:
To everyone else in the discussion - there is no need to be rude, it might be conducive to a more enjoyable discussion if everyone were to calmly and clearly state where there disagreement lies without statements which could be perceived as derogatory (as TheCarpenter demonstrated in his last post) -

HE HE, priceless.
perhaps it was over your head but I interpreted carpenters post as being a little on the sarcastic side (please correct me if I'm wrong carpenter), or is sarcasm acceptable

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:

Im sorry but its perfectly possible for a person to genuinely perceive something that most others cant.

How do you know?

quote:

You can give all the alternative explanations you want, and in some cases you may be right,

Er, hold on a minute. Doesn't it matter to you if Heselbine is right in these cases? Ah, but I see, you don't really care. All you want to do is believe what you want to believe without letting the truth get in the way.

quote:

Telepathy is a real thing

No it isn't, you can't point to a single case where it has been demonstrated to work. The absolutely-mindfreakingly-pathetic "if you try and test it, it doesn't work" excuse is really the bottom of the garbage pile, fit only for the credulous who wish to believe whatever they damn well like never mind what the facts say. That wouldn't be you would it, perchance?

quote:

Asking me to prove it to the satisfaction of the scientific method will lead to frustration simply because as i say not everything is subject to it.

If it's not testable THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WORKS? Just tell us for pete's sake. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY SOMETHING IS TRUE WITHOUT HAVING THE MEANS TO DETERMINE IF IT IS? Saying X is true when you do not know is a LIE.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
... the trouble with science in its current form is that it has a belief that its criteria are completely reliable....

wrong again,
science can also be unreliable, & there are plenty of unexplained phenomena out there.
the problem arises for me when others claim an explanation based on fantasy, gods, the supernatural etc for where there is no more evidence than that which science is also unable to provide (at this moment in time)

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:

So, NowPower, are all views equally valid?

From my subjective point of view, and the view of buddhism, all views are simply views. The only time it matters whether or not they are 'valid' or 'invalid' is where one view makes a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to the holder of another view.

We all suffer enough - lets try not to create any more suffering for each other!

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:
From my subjective point of view, and the view of buddhism, all views are simply views. The only time it matters whether or not they are 'valid' or 'invalid' is where one view makes a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to the holder of another view.

We all suffer enough - lets try not to create any more suffering for each other!

Rot. If you become seriously ill, will you be regarding the views of a trained, qualified doctor with their evidence based medicine as being as valid as leafar and his magic telepathy?

Will it not matter to you which is more valid?

Will you, in fact, choose to be treated by leafarmagic, because rejecting his views might cause him suffering?

Ego, saying "How do you know?" and "you can't point to a single case where it has been demonstrated to work" is what id expect from group 1. You want to know how i know yet you wouldnt accept my reasons if i told you because they dont conform to objectivity (and i hate to keep saying it but not everything in reality wants to play the little human's "scientific method" game). And you're challenging me to come up with a case where its been demonstrated to work, yet i cant. Whether i can prove it to you or not is one thing, but reality goes on as it is regardless. I cant make it true by proving it to your satisfaction, just like you cant make it go away by telling me that i cant prove it.

"if you try and test it, it doesn't work" is something that ive never said or even implied. Ive said that sometimes the evidence that reality leaves behind isnt always "scientific", but i never said that the evidence doesnt exist. It may be subjective at times, but thats not to say that it doesnt exist and cant be tested. Maybe science should learn how to measure subjective evidence.

Saying X is true when you dont know is a lie? Hmm, i dont know, but if it is a lie, then so is saying that its not true when you dont know.

Greenjack, thats fine. But when people make strange claims like telepathy, intuition, the existence of a god and what have you, they generally do so out of a personal conviction, and not some wish to make up stories. I would have thought that scientists, as humans themselves, would be fascinated at why hundreds of millions of people tend to have these beliefs. Sure, some of it can be and is a load of crap and there are certainly loads of fakes out there, theres no doubt about it. But how is it that there are so many "ignorant" people with "unprovable" beliefs? Its been like this for thousands of years, and there has to be a reason. Either humans tend to wish for comfortable explanations (which is not a sign of stupidity) or some people (many in fact) keep having experiences and perceptions that are subjective. If you didnt have dreams and i told you that i have them every night, youd think "thats stupid, when you close your eyes all you can see is darkness until you wake up". But because you also have them youd now what im talking about and youd need no evidence because the evidence reveals itself to you too every night.

quote:

Originally posted by Greenjack:

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:
To everyone else in the discussion - there is no need to be rude, it might be conducive to a more enjoyable discussion if everyone were to calmly and clearly state where there disagreement lies without statements which could be perceived as derogatory (as TheCarpenter demonstrated in his last post) -

HE HE, priceless.
perhaps it was over your head but I interpreted carpenters post as being a little on the sarcastic side (please correct me if I'm wrong carpenter), or is sarcasm acceptable

I think sarcasm is acceptable isn't it? So long as the intent behind it is apparent. If the intent is to try to make Leafar feel horrible then it wouldn't be acceptable - but then Leafar has the choice of whether to accept it or not.

If the intent is to be humourous - then lets all laugh with each other!

quote:

Originally posted by MMP:

quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:
From my subjective point of view, and the view of buddhism, all views are simply views. The only time it matters whether or not they are 'valid' or 'invalid' is where one view makes a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to the holder of another view.

We all suffer enough - lets try not to create any more suffering for each other!

Rot. If you become seriously ill, will you be regarding the views of a trained, qualified doctor with their evidence based medicine as being as valid as leafar and his magic telepathy?

Will it not matter to you which is more valid?

Will you, in fact, choose to be treated by leafarmagic, because rejecting his views might cause him suffering?

If I personally was ill or had a disease then i would go to whomsoever I felt had the capacity to heal me. If it is my perception that Leafar could heal me then I would approach him, but I'm assuming we are dealing with actual medical complaints - If i thought i had an actual medical complaint then I would approach an actual medical doctor to heal me.

If somebody chooses to go to some sort of strange spiritual healer then how does that concern you? Nobody is telling you that you have to agree with that view - you are the holder of your own views.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Ego, saying "How do you know?" and "you can't point to a single case where it has been demonstrated to work" is what id expect from group 1.

In other words you can't. You're a quack, and a liar.

If im a liar, why are there billions of us?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
If im a liar, why are there billions of us?

To name but a few:

Poor education? Laziness? Credulousness? Inability or unwillingness to think critically? Rebellion against authority? A prevailing culture induced by religion where faith - belief without or contradicting evidence - is worthy?

So there are billions of people who just happen to be lazy, cant think properly, and believe in things based on no evidence? How did you discover this?

The fact is that when so many people have certain beliefs, you have to be intelligent and ask yourself sensible questions as to why this might be, rather than just childishly throw terms around.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
If im a liar, why are there billions of us?

I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago: Education.