NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/13436

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-30 | 6.5 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13436 alt.paranormal:1990
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Message-ID: <f#[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:36:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <*> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 120

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Boyken) writes:

[...]

>No, you misunderstood my post.  The person I responded to implied that the
>scientific model of the world had the most adherents of any belief system,
>and I claimed that that is probably not true.  I'm sure that vastly more
>people subscribe to some other model of the world that includes belief in
>supernatural or paranormal events.  Even many scientists also hold such
>beliefs--you can find them in mosques, churches, and temples from time to
>time, practicing them.

My experience is that humans are non-linear. It is possible to hold
conflicting experiences, or have deep seated beliefs which are in conflict
with daily experience. This is neither good nor bad.

>This is because scientific theories do _not_ work for _all_ of everyone's
>common experience, despite what you claim.  For example, science has no
>applicability to a person's emotional life.  Science is of little help in
>dealing with interpersonal relationships.  In fact, for the majority of the
>population of the planet, science is largely _outside_ the common, everyday
>experiences of their lives.

Which science do you claim deals with interpersonal relationships/emotions?
The only things that come to mind would be socioligy or physcology. While
the practitioners like to claim that these are sciences, they have 0
predictive value, and often cannot even explain what is observed. Many,
including myself, do not think that they are sciences. The subjects are
too complex, and there are far too many variables which cannot be known.

But then, do you use a spatula to fix a spare tire? Use the tool which is
appropriate to the job.

>> If you claim the existence of any paranormal ("outside the
>> common experience") phenomenon, naturally you find yourself
>> in the minority.  Why?  Because you have not found any way to
>> demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon to the rest of
>> the world.
>
>No, those who hold a purely scientific outlook on the world are in the
>minority, because they have not found a way to convince the rest of the
>world to ignore the vast majority of their everyday experience and focus
>solely on an abstract, narrow view of the world.

The world seems to follow the pretty much the rules physics claims it
should. And as for abstractions, how many have died or been put to death
for no more than abstractions? They are real, and as dangerous as the
highways.

>> I have no doubt that people who experience OBEs and such
>> consider them "real".  But that is a personal reality.  Then,
>> if they find out that other people experience the same things,
>> they start to postulate such explanations as "higher
>> frequencies", "thought forces", other "dimensions".  In other
>> words, they look for some connection, some explanation which
>> would explain the _common experience_, i.e. what we call,
>> ironically enough, a "scientific theory".
>
>I don't think there is any type of reality other than personal reality.
>Anything else is just an abstraction, a tacit agreement among people that
>serves as a basis for discussion.  Some people do seem to feel the need to
>translate their paranormal experiences into another belief system; not all
>choose the scientific belief system.  Some try to view their experiences in
>religious terms.

One can believe in science, in which case the basic idea never took root, or
one can do science. I have done many physics experiments, but never one
religious experiment. Many sciences have made great strides because of
some student asking the proper questions. Most belief systems punish
questioners, evidence is not relevant, -belief- is important. Those who
belive shall have everlasting life/nervana/whatever, those who do not
shall have nothingness/eternal damnation/eternal torture/etc...

>> None of us wants to be alone in this world.  We are desperate
>> to find others who share our own views, beliefs and experiences.
>> Personally, I like the scientific method because I have a way
>> to test my own reality, to compare it with the common reality.
>> How else do you know you're not crazy?
>
>What this means to me is that the scientific view of the world is the lowest
>common denominator, what's left after you throw out everything someone else
>blackballs.  Conformity that reaches into your life and stamps out anything
>that makes you unique.  No room for intuition or inspiration or anything else
>that might be considered "crazy".  A nice, safe, gray world to hide in.

Now I'm sure that you are talking about religion. You will find conformists
everwhere, which proves nothing. Belief systems punish non-conformists,
heresy was once a crime punishable by death. Which is why most religions
are fundamentally the same as they were thousands of years ago. Science
has progressed a tad bit more, despite the fact that it's practitioners
are human.

>> I too have had several interesting, seemingly inexplicable
>> events in my life, but I have never had reason to think there
>> was anything more to them than my own mind, coincidence or
>> simply some manifestation of the "real" world which I didn't
>> understand.  That others may have similar experiences doesn't
>> suprise me -- after all, we live in the same world, we are
>> made of the same stuff, and our bodies and minds are strikingly
>> similar in function.  Is it any mystery that we both in similar
>> ways think, forget, remember, imagine, and dream?
>>
>> -- gk
>
>And now you don't have to think about those interesting, seemingly inexplicable
>events ever again, because your model of the world has safely tucked them away.
>How sad.

It's all gods plan, and no man can know the mind of god. Who says that all
events are explainable? Reality is a jigsaw, with many pieces missing. If
you can find enough pieces you may be able to see the picture.

>*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
>Karl Boyken, system programmer | Although you wonder me, with your majestic and

Rich

[e-mail]