If science is used to test these concepts I see no reasons it cannot be in this thread.

Paranormal is just a word with meaning. The meaning is pretty clear, abilities beyond the norm.

We have 5 senses, if you had a sense beyond those, that would be paranormal.

If you would be willing to test it, it could be tested. Senses provide data, data can be verified.

Double blind tests can eliminate bias.

Every-time we access a given memory it is overwritten. If it is done in such a way as to keep the details the same then the memory may still be valid.

We have tested this is many controlled settings. The conclusions are drawn from these tests.

The tests conclusively show that the brain "makes stuff up" to fill in gaps of understanding. My example of a plastic bag floating across the road being seen as an animal is one aspect of this, however another aspect is memory ordering. Your brain can and does quite literally change the order of events as they are remembered to make things make sense, or sometimes its just a mistake. We have tests that show this effect quite clearly.

I understand how many people feel threatened by this, and dont want to accept that there own perception of these events is highly flawed. Reaching conclusions such as, I saw the future, quite an extreme conclusion given the flawed nature of memory and consciousness.

Testing is were its at, and proper skeptics will change there minds when the tests show an effect.

I urge all you folks who believe in the paranormal to get yourselves tested in proper double blind conditions.

Testing and taking for granted the conclusion of a given authority are not the same thing. One takes data and arrives at a conclusion by anlaysis, and the other trusts someone else to do that.

You do not begin to have the tools to properly assess a blinded and cotnrolled scientific trial. It is a skilled and careful craft, one were even professional researchers often take things for granted that must be controlled, this is why peer review exits, we check each other for bias.
Again this really doesn't have anything to do with an authority, in fact quite the opposite.
You remember what was stored and overwritten I am sure countless times. You yourself have brought up this event as a testimonial of your paranormal beliefs on soooo many occasions on these forums. It seems clear that if memory is so flexible then you have no idea the validity of this event, its time table, and how/when the "vision" occurred.

My argument is that you could be remembering this incorrectly, and basically your subconscious mind made up this vision to make things sync internally. Your argument is magic, or has yet to be really detailed, not sure, I would welcome your explanation . . .(I think we have heard it all before however . . . vibrations, alternate realities, basically a lot of word soup that cannot be tested, ie it shouldn't be trusted either . . .)

This supports my argument.

Your understanding of the research is what is weak.

How can anyone? It is the very mechanism by which we can assess the reliability of that mechanism that might be at fault? The answer is we cannot.

I am not interested in semantic arguments, we all know what is meant with the word paranormal. Get over it, its useful in these kinds of conversations. You are taking umbrage only becuase you are seeing my usage as pejorative, trust me I am not using it that way.

I have heard that we naturally have 6 senses not five.

The sixth sense is one that we have lost or forgotten to use. I think today it is lightly called "intuition" or a "hunch."

But it is what an animal gets when it realizes it is being stalked by a predator.

Yes I have read all about how the brain (or mind) "makes stuff up" to fill in gaps. It is really fascinating, and I have my own ideas about what is going on there. Perhaps everything we see is "stuff our minds made up" in reaction to the vibrations we are experiencing.

I also understand and have experienced the changing of the order of events, even very tiny events in time.

But I am not one of those people who thinks they remember seeing a video of the first plane hitting the tower that first day.

I don't think memories are rewritten a lot every time they are accessed but yes, maybe a little.

But I think some memories are a lot stronger than others. These stronger memories don't change enough to be significantly altered.

The reason for this I believe is that people are not always fully conscious of what they are doing and what is going on around them. Their minds are constantly thinking about other things and wandering.

But when you are fully focused and concentrating on the moment, you will have a very strong memory of the event.

What's wrong with it? It's very simple. You accept some claims at face value and with others you demand extremely high amounts of proof.

An example: You accept that people exist outside of yourself. You have no proof. You accept that other people exist, despite the fact that it's just as possible that you are the only person who exists and everyone and everything else is just your imagination.

You accept the scientific method as a way of understanding the universe, but there is absolutely no proof that the scientific method is reliable. There is no way of verifying the scientific method (you certainly can't use the scientific method, that would be circular reasoning), it's reliability must be taken at faith.

So you believe both that: a) Other people exist and b) That the scientific method is a reliable method for understanding the universe, despite the total lack of evidence to support either belief and then you reject any belief in the supernatural out of hand.

I know I'm going off topic with this, but...

We have far more than six senses and that has been verified by science.

Sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell are the five major senses, but there are far more than that.

Pain is sensed from different receptors than we use for touch, so it is a separate sense.

The same is true of hot and cold, which is called Thermoception.

How about Proprioception, the ability to know where your body parts are without looking. People who are born without this sense spend their entire life learning how to not hurt themselves accidentally.

Yes, its like a criminal government that makes laws. Yet they themselves, the maker of the laws, are above the law because they are not going to enforce it upon themselves, just other people.

Scientists decide what is proof, what is real, etc. through their own rules of testing etc.

Everything that does not fall under their rules... doesn't count.

That's very interesting. I had never thought about that.

Most of the "accepted science" we learned in school is total BS. For instance: I remember doing the sugar cube test in school, where you put some sugar on your partners tongue and if you put it in the "wrong" spot, your partner wouldn't taste it. I was the only student who insisted I could taste the sugar no matter where it was put, my teacher said I wasn't being truthful.

EDIT: I guess I should mention, that is total BS. You tongue is covered with taste buds and you can taste any flavor anywhere on your tongue.

This is sooo far from the truth. In fact these kinds of statements make it so I cannot take you seriously at all.

A scientist is a person after an explanation of the facts. To be a good scientist is to be good at removing bias.

If you were correct technology wouldn't exist, only snake oil salesmen with lots of claims and no positive effects.

Bias is what you describe, and its the exact thing of which I am claiming supports your world view, its pretty bad that the best you have is to try to throw your own bias onto me or others who would test such claims.



Thankfully I have never heard of such nonsense. Education=/= science btw.

When you say accepted science . . . I say . . . accepted by who, and for what reasons?

This is classic nativity!

Have you heard of doctor Semmelweis? He was locked into an insane asylum and beating to death by his guards, because he said doctors should wash their hands and the table before delivering a baby.

How about Louis Pasteur? He was mocked a ridiculed for years by "scientists" until he finally produced an overwhelming amount of evidence.

How about Dr Goldberger? He proved that pellagra wasn't caused by bacteria, yet the scientific community wouldn't take him seriously. Eventually, he was driven to swallowing the scabs of pellagra victims (to prove it wasn't bacteria) trying to get enough attention so that this deadly, yet easily cured vitamin deficiency could be addressed.

There is a very long list of scientists who reasonably proved their hypothesis, but they were continuously rejected by other scientists as frauds or insane. The very idea that scientists are "non-biased" is laughable.

Today, most scientists would agree that cholesterol is bad for you. But the truth is the exact opposite as has been proven in study after study after study. Scientists would tell you to eat a low fat diet with a lot of healthy grains, but their OWN RESEARCH proves that grains are not healthy and that fat is!

How about Global Warming? Scientists have been caught FAKING THE DATA!

Only a truly naive person could ever think that "science" or "scientists" are not biased.

I never said they are not biased . . . quote me. A good scientist is GOOD at removing bias.

Now that we are all on the same page . . .


Nope, that was taken out of context. No data faking needed.

Until 1974, it was accepted science. It stayed in text books for many years after it was debunked.

Do you have a point? It seems you are arguing against me, but really you are supporting my arguments for working hard to remove bias and relying on the data.

Are humans biased? Yes

Are scientists human? Yes.

Are human scientists biased? Yes.

The only way to remove the bias is to remove the human.

Notice that your bias has thus far prevented you from commenting on the facts that a) You have no proof and no compelling reason to believe that anyone outside yourself exists and B) You trust the scientific method as being reliable, without any proof.

Surly you jest! It was clearly faked! Hell, the raw code for one of their climate models had comments that indicated that the modifiers they were using for the temperature since the industrial revolution had been simply made up.

This must mean there is no such things as controls, that blinding doesn't exist . . . . either that or it means you do not really know what it takes to remove bias.

Hmmm, I wonder which conclusion I should reach.

Nonsense, your argument against me and science is solipsism? Really? Its been very entertaining up to this point, but I did not expect that . . . for sure!

Meh...

Quaere verum..

or...

Qui tacet consentit.

Just saying.

Yup, I seek the truth, loudly and proudly.

Controls don't do any good, if you refuse to accept the possibility of the hypothesis! Dr Peter Duesberg and others have been trying for years to do studies on AIDS, which they aren't allowed (HIV is controlled by the Government, you have to have their approval to do any study) or funded to do by the NIH. They want to prove that while HIV is communicable, AIDS is not. They might be wrong, but they can't even run a study. They would also like to do a comparison study of people receiving normal AIDS treatments and others receiving non-traditional AIDS treatments (lifestyle changes).