Spirit photography

[SusanDoris]

rupert Sheldrake is the bloke I'm thinking of
Look him up if you can be bothered 👍

Wikipedia has him summed up well I think.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you know of one such scientist? If not, then there doesn't seem much point considering the hypothetical I think.

So you don't have to evidence your positive claim? A big hello to the NPF.

[Nearly Sane]

Wikipedia has him summed up well I think.

Except he is a scientist but then you want to use the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Walter]

Know of him well. Think it is pseudoscience BUT tons of scientists have beliefs I disagree with. There is a false divide proposed in SusanDoris's post

thats a bit vague and sweeping NS Have you got any examples ?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I have discussed this many times here.  I don't understand why people think that the findings of science somehow automatically rule out spirits and ghosts? There is no connection at all between them and they are not mutually exclusive in any way. 

Many people seem to have this impression merely because science has disproved certain religious mythology....such as Adam & Eve, six day creation and so on. Because of this people tend to think that all spirituality is disproved. This is not so.

Spirit is a word that relates to what each of us really is individually. You can use the word Consciousness or Self or any other if you are not comfortable with the word spirit. The Sanskrit word Atma suits me well.  The word spirit need not come with religious or mythological baggage. 

The nature of the body and the nature of the external world are unaffected by the fact that we are spirits who occupy the body. Nature  and its mechanisms are independent of that reality.  Even in ancient philosophies such as Samkhya and Yoga there is a clear separation of spirit and Nature. Just because we understand certain aspects of Nature does not in any way exclude or deny the spiritual world.

It is like a person sitting inside a car and driving it. The structure and mechanisms of the car do not tell us anything of the nature of the person driving it. They are two independent and unrelated issues.

A car mechanic may know a lot about the car but he cannot be blind to the fact that a human being drives the car. Similarly a scientist need not be blind to the fact that spirit/consciousness are independent of the body but are instrumental in driving it.  A dead body is enough to tell us what the body is without Consciousness/spirit/Atma.

What a ghost really is could be a little more complicated but more on that some other time.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

I have discussed this many times here.  I don't understand why people think that the findings of science somehow automatically rule out spirits and ghosts?

It's not so much that science rules them out, more that there is nothing substantive to rule them in.

Spirit is a word that relates to what each of us really is individually. You can use the word Consciousness or Self or any other if you are not comfortable with the word spirit. The Sanskrit word Atma suits me well.  The word spirit need not come with religious or mythological baggage. 

Consciousness/self in themselves do not imply baggage, but it is the claim that such things are independent of body that introduces unnecessary woo to the terms.

It is like a person sitting inside a car and driving it. The structure and mechanisms of the car do not tell us anything of the nature of the person driving it. They are two independent and unrelated issues.

That's just a hugely naive analogy, as I've pointed out many a time.  In reality, the two aspects of being are intimately and tightly related, like two sides of the same coin.

[Sriram]

It's not so much that science rules them out, more that there is nothing substantive to rule them in.

Consciousness/self in themselves do not imply baggage, but it is the claim that such things are independent of body that introduces unnecessary woo to the terms.

That's just a hugely naive analogy, as I've pointed out many a time.  In reality, the two aspects of being are intimately and tightly related, like two sides of the same coin.

The point  is .....people cannot argue that... 'Science had discovered this and that and so the idea of Spirit and after-life  is not valid any more'.  This argument is  meaningless because the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Maeght]

That is not what people are saying Sriram. Rather it is that science has found no evidence for spirits etc so their existence is purely a matter of personal belief

[ippy]

The point  is .....people cannot argue that... 'Science had discovered this and that and so the idea of Spirit and after-life  is not valid any more'.  This argument is  meaningless because the two are not mutually exclusive.

This self destruct post of yours Sriram points out clearly that it's you missing the point, again.

ippy

[Sriram]

That is not what people are saying Sriram. Rather it is that science has found no evidence for spirits etc so their existence is purely a matter of personal belief

No...please read Susan's post 166.

[Shaker]

No...please read Susan's post 166.

I've just read it again and it still doesn't say what you want it to say.

Unsurprisingly.

[Nearly Sane]

thats a bit vague and sweeping NS Have you got any examples ?

There are lots of scientists who are religious.

[Walter]

There are lots of scientists who are religious.

I once found a list by faculty showing percentages of religious 'scientists' and from memory , physics showed lowest right down to social sciences which showed highest number of religious.

I think in physics it was lower than 12 percent

iv just had a look for it but cant bloody find it .  perhaps it was in a book !

[Nearly Sane]

I once found a list by faculty showing percentages of religious 'scientists' and from memory , physics showed lowest right down to social sciences which showed highest number of religious.

I think in physics it was lower than 12 percent

iv just had a look for it but cant bloody find it .  perhaps it was in a book !

Not challenging those figures - it's still a lot in the sense of a large number

[Walter]

Not challenging those figures - it's still a lot in the sense of a large number

to be honest ,I only count physicists as proper scientists , anything else is just 'stamp collecting ' 

[Walter]

No...please read Susan's post 166.

I've read it again and agree with Shaker

[Nearly Sane]

to be honest ,I only count physicists as proper scientists , anything else is just 'stamp collecting ' 

Arguably a lot of physics could be in the realms of the unfalsifiable and is therefore not science under the usual current definition  - which is why Sean Carroll (one of the posters that Vlad has on his walls around his shrine to Dawkins) has argued that the definition needs to be changed.

[Maeght]

No...please read Susan's post 166.

Read it and seems to a match for what I posted.

[Enki]

I would suggest that science does not validate in any way the presence of spirits or ghosts. This doesn't mean that they don't exist of course, but they don't seem to be amenable to serious scientific inquiry. So, if one wants to believe in such things, no problem, but it will almost certainly be on the basis of personal experience or/and anecdotal accounts.

Yes, you do get some scientists who think that belief in the paranormal is justified scientifically, but the methodology of science doesn't seem to substantiate their findings. One such is Rupert Sheldrake, but the methodology he has employed in his experiments is extremely suspect and generally found wanting.

[Walter]

Arguably a lot of physics could be in the realms of the unfalsifiable and is therefore not science under the usual current definition  - which is why Sean Carroll (one of the posters that Vlad has on his walls around his shrine to Dawkins) has argued that the definition needs to be changed.

yes , I've been reading and watching him on this matter and he seems to be sticking his neck out a bit . I am not qualified enough to argue against him and I realise he is shaking things up around perceived and accepted methods to include human experience in some circumstances. I haven't looked into it for a while so don't know if any conclusions have been arrived at yet

[Nearly Sane]

yes , I've been reading and watching him on this matter and he seems to be sticking his neck out a bit . I am not qualified enough to argue against him and I realise he is shaking things up around perceived and accepted methods to include human experience in some circumstances. I haven't looked into it for a while so don't know if any conclusions have been arrived at yet

To an extent the problem is that while there is a current consensus on what science is which clusters around Popper's approach, that hasn't really been the case for most of the time science has been carried out, and was hardly in place before it was challenged by Kuhn and then Foucault.

The extremely abstruse nature, even for people who might have followed much of physics, of theoretical physics now presents a barrier where even basic conversation seems impossible. For me, too many physicists dismiss ..... It's that word....giving you warning....Philosophy but then appear to do a form of philosophy that doesn't feel like physics e.g. Kaku

[Walter]

To an extent the problem is that while there is s current consensus on what science is which clusters around Popper's approach, that hasn't really been the case for most of the time science has been carried out, and was hardly in place before it was challenged by Kuhn and then Foucault.

The extremely abstruse nature, even for people who might have followed much of physics, of theoretical physics now presents a barrier where even basic conversation seems impossible. For me, too many physicists dismiss ..... It's that word....giving you warning....Philosophy SNF then appear to fo a form of philosophy that doesn't feel like physics e.g. Kaku

I don't think it is necessary to mention any of the people you have referenced from the past or use the word ph...ph...phi
to encompass a new way of thinking , which is what Carroll is espousing . I view it as in his work Carroll has experienced anomalies which don't fit exactly into the scientific method and is looking for a way to expand it , no need to look at what people said in the past . He strikes me as brave enough and has the knowledge and courage of his convictions added to a brilliant skill of explaining his ideas. I shall follow more closely I think
Mr Kaku also brilliant is a master of self publicity , if you've got it use it , that's what I say 

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it is necessary to mention any of the people you have referenced from the past or use the word ph...ph...phi
to encompass a new way of thinking , which is what Carroll is espousing . I view it as in his work Carroll has experienced anomalies which don't fit exactly into the scientific method and is looking for a way to expand it , no need to look at what people said in the past . He strikes me as brave enough and has the knowledge and courage of his convictions added to a brilliant skill of explaining his ideas. I shall follow more closely I think
Mr Kaku also brilliant is a master of self publicity , if you've got it use it , that's what I say

That's nice but if you don't understand how recently that idea is from Popper then it's easy to get sucked into the impression that what Carroll is arguing is against the history of science. Which is why it isn't really a new way of thinking.

[Walter]

That's nice but if you don't understand how recently that idea is from Popper then it's easy to get sucked into the impression that what Carroll is arguing is against the history of science. Which is why it isn't really a new way of thinking.

Popper? sorry I thought you were talking about my granddad!

couldn't resist that

[Nearly Sane]

Popper? sorry I thought you were talking about my granddad!

couldn't resist that

Not the first thing that comes to mind for me