Proof of the supernatural

[Magical Realist]

All it is, in truth, is an audible frequency akin to human vocalizations of an upper register the origin of which is entirely unknown - that is the ONLY fact about the voice we can draw from the video

So now it's NOT the voice of a bystander? Ok then. But I wish you people would make up your minds about this. You've switched to about 5 different things since this thread began. Is this what we call "the scientific method"? lol!

 

[spidergoat]

No..that voice recorded on the body cam isn't "talking water." It's a real voice coming from the car.

How do you know?

 

[spidergoat]

So now it's NOT the voice of a bystander? Ok then. But I wish you people would make up your minds about this. You've switched to about 5 different things since this thread began. Is this what we call "the scientific method"? lol!

It's perfectly ok to advance different theories. What's your problem with that?

 

[Magical Realist]

How do you know?

I heard it on audio. And the 6 rescuers present say so. That's how I know. How do you know it's gurgling water?

 

[Magical Realist]

It's perfectly ok to advance different theories. What's your problem with that?

Science is sticking to the same theory based on the evidence. Just as I've done since this thread started.

 

[Bells]

I heard it on audio. And the 6 rescuers present say so. That's how I know. How do you know it's gurgling water?

Science is sticking to the same theory based on the evidence. Just as I've done since this thread started.

The audio you provided does not match what you are saying happened. Nor does it match what the police claim was said, or their response.

You are yet to explain this discrepancy.

You are claiming it is up to 6 people who heard this, when the media and the police have advised it is 4. How do we know it was gurgling water? Umm, the car was upside down in a river, with water gurgling everywhere around it and around where those officers had waded into. There were a lot of sounds happening, the sound of water was pervasive, as was the sound of people talking, yelling, mumbling.. As one would expect.

The video you provided does not support your claims at all.

 

[Sarkus]

Science is sticking to the same theory based on the evidence. Just as I've done since this thread started.

No, science is a tool to establish knowledge based on experimentation and evidence that comes from it in relation to the theory being tested.

In this instance we are discussing matters of rationality, not science per se.
Science, or more specifically the knowledge that the scientific method has provided us, certainly informs what many of us consider to be rational. And many of us consider unscientific explanations to be irrational.
Your theory is untestable, unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific, and unsurprisingly has zero scientific support behind it.
Since there has been no testing of the scientific theories presented with which to arrive at most plausible candidates, we are merely left with opinion of which theory is most rational to us.
But I repeat that a theory that only involves natural phenomena trumps one that requires the supernatural with regard to what most of us deem rational.
You, and a few others, seem to be exceptions.

 

[Kittamaru]

So now it's NOT the voice of a bystander? Ok then. But I wish you people would make up your minds about this. You've switched to about 5 different things since this thread began. Is this what we call "the scientific method"? lol!

Indeed, this is exactly the scientific method - you propose a theory, or set of theories, and then test them.

In this instance, our ability to test the theory is significantly limited by the evidence at hand. However, the evidence at hand DOES NOT support the claim of a "mysterious disembodied voice from within the car" - as Bells said, that same voice is heard repeatedly throughout the video... so unless this "spirit woman" is standing there having a conversation with someone else, I think we can safely rule that theory out, especially in light of how utterly untenable it is.

As I said - what we KNOW is that it is an auditory anomaly that sounds like a voice in the upper register, presumably female. We dont' KNOW it's a female voice (it could be a pre-pubescent boy), and to be frank, we don't KNOW it's a voice at all. All we KNOW is that it is a sound of some sort. To make the correlation that it is/was a voice is fair enough. To assume it to be female is within reason, given how it sounds despite the background noise. To assume it to be coming from a "spirit from the other side from within the car" is a leap of illogic that doesn't hold water.

Where did I say I'd rather have a doctor who pretended to know everything? You're saying that's what I answered. I never answered your question. And what have you seen of me here that says I would choose an impractical course of action?

Simple:

Billvon said:

You must have a different sort of doctor than I do. He has never told me either one although I ask a lot of questions. He often answers based on his medical knowledge. He sometimes says "I don't know." He sometimes refers me to another specialist. He sometimes suggests I look something up on the net. (He has occasionally given me links to studies.) He sometimes says "not sure yet, I think I'll have to run X test to be sure."

He has never said "you just have to trust me" or "get the hell out of my office." Perhaps in your case the latter was due to something other than asking questions?

You snipped the quote, cutting out the last line and focusing entirely on the section where Billvon notes how his doctor ADMITS to not having all the answers (hence, "I don't know"), refers him to a specialist, looks information up, or mentions running tests...

And your response was:

You have a really shitty doctor.

Now, from that, I draw the conclusion that you want your doctor to have all the answers. If that is not what you meant, then kindly enlighten us on what you ACTUALLY meant.

It would behoove you to mean what you say and to say what you mean...

I heard it on audio. And the 6 rescuers present say so. That's how I know. How do you know it's gurgling water?

No, because you heard it doesn't mean you know it was a voice - all it means is you know you heard something. Because it was recorded on a monophonic recording device, you have NO indication of direction, NO indication of distance, and NO indication of any possible obstructions between the recording instrument and the source.

Again, learn how science works, and perhaps you'll stop making an utter gaffe of yourself.

 

[spidergoat]

I heard it on audio. And the 6 rescuers present say so. That's how I know. How do you know it's gurgling water?

You heard the direction?

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know it's gurgling water?

I don't know for sure. But I do know for sure it wasn't a dead person talking. How do I know that? Because dead people are inanimate pieces of meat.

 

[Yazata]

I think that the reports were that several people present perceived what they thought was a voice, calling for help. There needn't have been physical sounds audible on recordings.

If it was a confluence of natural background sounds that subjectively sounded to those present like a voice directing their attention to the trapped child, that would constitute a much better miracle than if it was an actual human voice.

What we actually have before us is a Fortean-style anomaly, and if we are honest, we will admit that probably none of us can fully explain it. (There might not be enough information to do that, especially when we are dependent on reports of subjective experiences.)

All of the Sciforums pronouncements of what this has to be, and all of the attitude with which those pronouncements are being made, are just expressions of people's preexisting faith commitments to metaphysical naturalism or to supernaturalism, respectively.

 

[billvon]

I think that the reports were that several people present perceived what they thought was a voice, calling for help. There needn't have been physical sounds audible on recordings.

Agreed. This phenomenon is called pareidolia, and is extremely common. It happens most often when people hear loud random noises (like running water, or rushing wind, or the rumbling from a highway) and interpret it as intelligible speech. It happens even more often when people are straining to hear a pattern in noise, like a radio operator listening for a message.

 

[Magical Realist]

Now, from that, I draw the conclusion that you want your doctor to have all the answers. If that is not what you meant, then kindly enlighten us on what you ACTUALLY meant.

It would behoove you to mean what you say and to say what you mean...

No..you said I would rather have a doctor who PRETENDED to know everything rather than seeing a specialist. I never said that. And then you said this makes sense from what we see here, that I would choose an impractical course of action. I never said that either. So twice you accuse me of saying something I never said. Why are you saying ANYTHING about me? You don't know me, and it's certainly not relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Yazata]

From the point of view of laymen, there isn't a great deal of difference.

Seen from the street, both science and religion are arguments from authority.

That is crap. Science proceeds on evidence and predictive ability.

A great deal of scientific rhetoric consists of inferences being drawn from evidence or established principles. Laypeople are in no position to judge the plausibility of those inferences for themselves, since they often depend on advanced mathematics and concepts incomprehensible to anyone but specialists.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that all these inferences are subsequently tested by experiment, we can still ask how many laypeople are in a position to know what predictive successes are. They don't have access to the data-sets and wouldn't be able to interpret them if they did.

In real life, what laypeople are exposed to are the conclusions that scientists (or politicians or the media) tell them that they need to accept on Science's authority.

Religion proceeds on myth and the obscure writings, in an obscure book, written in an obscure age.

What I'm saying is that from the point of view of the street, there's little difference in being told to believe something based on the authority of Science and being told to believe something based on the authority of the Church. Medieval villagers were rarely in any position to understand the arcane disputations of the theologians either.

There's lots of grand talk about "The Scientific Method" and "reason", but whatever justifications that scientists possess for the counter-intuitive things they tell the public are largely opaque to those who lack specialized training.

So??

If people aren't in any position to understand something, then the decision whether or not to believe it will necessarily have to be based on something other than a rational analysis of its merits.

Laypeople are in no position to question anything said to them in the name of 'science'. Their doing so is totally unwelcome. It gets people labeled "deniers" and flamed into smoking lumps of charcoal.

The analogy with "heathen" and "heretic" should be obvious.

Bullshit. I question my doctor whenever I have the need to go to him for a particular medical problem. I don't act like some nutty crank and ignore what he tells me and infer he does not know what he is talking about.

You're agreeing with me without realizing it.

If you don't understand the science behind the mode of action of a particular drug, you can ask your physician for more information, but you still won't really understand the biochemistry. You will have little choice but to decide to take your prescription based on your faith in your physician and in the medical profession.

You may feel that your faith is justified by medicine's past successes, but it's faith in authority nevertheless.

 

[spidergoat]

The things we are told to believe from science are the things that are the most accessible, such as evolution or that vaccines aren't harmful. No one expects the layman to believe in the Higgs Boson for example.

 

[Kittamaru]

No..you said I would rather have a doctor who PRETENDED to know everything rather than seeing a specialist. I never said that. And then you said this makes sense from what we see here, that I would choose an impractical course of action. I never said that either. So twice you accuse me of saying something I never said. Why are you saying ANYTHING about me? You don't know me, and it's certainly not relevant to the topic at hand.

Except we do know a fair bit about you, just from your postings here... unless, of course, your persona here is all a fabrication? Though... if that's the case, one has to wonder why...

 

[Yazata]

There's only so many questions you can ask your doctor before he makes an appeal to authority and asks you to either trust him (which, to you, is unscientific, or "not rational") or get the hell out of his office. Which do you choose?

You must have a different sort of doctor than I do. He has never told me either one although I ask a lot of questions. He often answers based on his medical knowledge. He sometimes says "I don't know." He sometimes refers me to another specialist. He sometimes suggests I look something up on the net. (He has occasionally given me links to studies.) He sometimes says "not sure yet, I think I'll have to run X test to be sure."

He has never said "you just have to trust me" or "get the hell out of my office." Perhaps in your case the latter was due to something other than asking questions?

It doesn't matter whether the doctor literally says that or not. What matters is that it is effectively what's being said, not whether or not the doctor is being rude about it.

Suppose that Billvon consults his physician for some ailment and that physician prescribes a new genetically-engineered bio-tech drug. Billvon can ask all the questions he likes, but it's unlikely whether the physician can ever explain the drug's mode of action to him at the research Ph.D. level. The physician probably doesn't understand it that well himself. Even if the physician could explain it, Billvon probably doesn't have the background in molecular biology necessary to understand it, let alone to evaluate its safety and efficacy on the fly.

So no matter how deep into it one gets, a non-specialist will eventually come face-to-face with 'you've just gotta have faith'.

 

[Kittamaru]

It doesn't matter whether the doctor literally says that or not. What matters is that it is effectively what's being said, not whether or not the doctor is being rude about it.

Suppose that Billvon consults his physician for some ailment and that physician prescribes a new genetically-engineered bio-tech drug. Billvon can ask all the questions he likes, but it's unlikely whether the physician can ever explain the drug's mode of action to him at the research Ph.D. level. The physician probably doesn't understand it that well himself. Even if the physician could explain it, Billvon probably doesn't have the background in molecular biology necessary to understand it, let alone to evaluate its safety and efficacy on the fly.

So no matter how deep into it one gets, a non-specialist will eventually come face-to-face with 'you've just gotta have faith'.

"faith" and "trust" are two very different things in the end...

Trust is generally earned... faith is given without cause

 

[Magical Realist]

What we actually have before us is a Fortean-style anomaly, and if we are honest, we will admit that probably none of us can fully explain it. (There might not be enough information to do that, especially when we are dependent on reports of subjective experiences.)

All of the Sciforums pronouncements of what this has to be, and all of the attitude with which those pronouncements are being made, are just expressions of people's preexisting faith commitments to metaphysical naturalism or to supernaturalism, respectively.

Well said, except I disagree we can't know what happened here. The 6 rescuers (as cited by an already quoted news article) all claim to have heard the voice coming from the car, and we have audio of the voice now. We have audio of what it is saying, and we have audio of the policeman responding to it. This strongly supports the event happening just as described. Every alternative "explanation" pulled out of people's asses so far has no evidence to back it up. They are just speculations based on their belief that the paranormal can't happen. That IS an article of faith. Even if there WEREN'T evidence of the paranormal, of which Charles Fort and others have abundantly documented, there's no point at which anyone can say with certainty that a paranormal event can't happen. This would assume a thorough knowledge of how spacetime and consciousness can operate, and knowing all anomalous possibilities opened to it, and nobody has that sort of knowledge. At any given time the paranormal can happen, even if we don't know how or why it occurs. As it did in this case.

 

[Magical Realist]

Except we do know a fair bit about you, just from your postings here... unless, of course, your persona here is all a fabrication? Though... if that's the case, one has to wonder why...

You're making a moral judgment about me as a person based on something you claim I said but never did. You then say this statement I never said, that I would prefer a doctor who PRETENDS to know everything, makes sense from what you have seen from here. That's another moral judgment on me. What do you know about me that says I will make the impractical decision of not consulting a specialist, which you falsely accuse me of saying? More to the point, why are you attacking my character?