psychic powers

[Oli]

Your point was that belief was the beginning of acceptance.
Einstein's theory wasn't accepted because it was believed: it was because it was right.
Acceptance (because it explained stuff correctly) came before belief...
We accept that it works so we now believe it's correct.
The logic showed that it worked, belief came much later.

 

[Reiku]

Belief is certainly one of the strongest points in the acceptance of a theory, and i have shown how this links to actual events in history.

 

[Oli]

No, belief comes AFTER it's proven to work.
The theory shows utility first then it's believed in.
Acceptance does not require a belief in the theory, only that the theory works.

 

[Reiku]

No. Your linear way of thought will not work on me.

 

[Oli]

Of course not.
You prefer to go with unsubstantiated belief and speculation rather than actual facts, and known chains of events.
That's real science, presumably.

 

[Reiku]

I certainly don't believe that ''belief'' itself is always latter to that of acceptance.

 

[Oli]

Then you're ignoring the chain of events.

 

[Reiku]

I'm scientist. I don't ignore chain of events. If anything, i embrace them.

 

[Oli]

I'm scientist. I don't ignore chain of events. If anything, i embrace them.

So tell me do no scientists at all USE quantum theory without actually believing it's "real" and that a "better" explanation will come along.

Belief follows utility.
Belief is NOT required for utility, only the utility itself.

 

[Reiku]

No. Scietists do not use a model that explains the fundamental world, without quantum physics. Likewise, quantum physicists do not proclaim to understand macroscopic objects from a quantum viewpoint, for reverting alone to classical dynamics.

However, it is to any quantum physicists viewpoint, that any phenomena observed, that there is a scientific answer. The answers are there, you simply need to know where to look.

And looking is via observation, and what countless amount of people do observe, despite you narrow look on things (just like how you think all proof must be via an acceptance, which is CERTAINLY DOES NOT), some people beleive it or not, believe in what they observe and this is what science begs an answer for.

 

[Reiku]

Science revolves around observation and measurement. Nothing more and nothing less. Theories however are strengthened by a proof. I don't deny this.

But many scientists would argue that observation of such a phenomena to such an extent, is to declair a type of proof. Otherwise saying, that scientists do not deny this phenomena, otherwise, it is the largest conspiracy man has ever come up with, and i MUST BE one of them, in this case.

 

[Oli]

You're missing the point, but I've come to expect that of you.
Quantum theory is accepted without being believed (by some).
Because it works: belief is NOT required.


Belief without evidence is merely that: belief.
Not science.

 

[Reiku]

That was my point.

Did you forget it was yourself who invited quantum theory as some kind of amunition that science discludes things that are only of observational value?

 

[Reiku]

(Apart from the latter. I don't aree with that).

 

[Oli]

That was my point.

Did you forget it was yourself who invited quantum theory as some kind of amunition that science discludes things that are only of observational value?

Again you miss the point, and you're mixing your threads.
I brought in quantum theory as an indicator that belief is not required for a theory to be adopted, accepted and used.
I.e. exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming.

 

[Reiku]

No, you totally swing, and miss the point by less than a mile.

In most social situations, there is no belief without an acceptance. An example is seriouws now. Have you ever thought about something without a belief when simply accepting it?

Don't take me as a fool. I know many people come to accept things without the prior need of any absolute proof.

 

[Oli]

Belief is not acceptable as evidence.

Oh, but it can be. The very beginning of acceptance, is via belief.

In most social situations, there is no belief without an acceptance.

Oh we're talking social situations now?

An example is seriouws now. Have you ever thought about something without a belief when simply accepting it?

I don't understand you.
There's lots I accept socially but don't necessarily believe.
Most things don't get that much thought.

Don't take me as a fool. I know many people come to accept things without the prior need of any absolute proof.

Change of tack again?
You claimed (see quotes at top of this post) that belief precedes acceptance., whereas it's the other way round.

 

[Reiku]

It's not one way.

That was my point.

 

[tiama]

the only way i can possibly come up with for psychic anomalies such as seeing the future or or reading thoughts. would be this, according to some theorists it is to percieve that all things happen they way they were supposed to no matter what. for lack of better words at the moment an un written divine plan. events can be calculated to a precise percentage or possibly calculate what will happen and when. it is well known that only a small percentage of the brain is active in construcing thought. if somehow a person developed the use of a much larger portion of their brain even for short intervals, it is plausible that the future could be calculated with a rather large degree of certainty. as for reading peoples minds, people speak quite loudly through the body and the eyes. it is possible and plausible to calculate what one is thinking just by body language

 

[Tnerb]

As Read_Only would say, there's a more possible and plausable explaination than that, following it's suit of course. That is to say, that some people have difficulties in the areas of manipulating others, through will and mind power itself. Can lead to tremendous anxiety and trouble for the experiencer. Usually it comes down to the unfortunate nature of what the person is going through and why it is always a sham to consider it as realistic--- because realistically by that perspective it isn't. But realistic or not is simply a matter of coecidence.

What is best called psychic is that area of concern which other people have no idea exists when the experiencer experiences such things, and is best considered reconfiguration from a plane where science doesn't accept.

Should it afterall accept influence outside of that which is known. Dunno.