Can science agree with the concept of life after death?

@NoOne phil,

NoOne;93521 wrote:

So, mod, are you saying that I should ask myself if a method can agree or disagree with a concept?

I am so confused! I knew there was a reason I never passed an English class!

I am not sure that I like the sound of the scientific method becoming a stammering method method. I would be afraid that people would laugh at me.

I can tell there's sarcasm present, but to be honest, I don't understand the point with which it's accompanying.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

I will keep that in mind and never accompany you to an archery range. thank you.

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

NoOne;93521 wrote:

So, mod, are you saying that I should ask myself if a method can agree or disagree with a concept?

I am so confused! I knew there was a reason I never passed an English class!

I am not sure that I like the sound of the scientific method becoming a stammering method method. I would be afraid that people would laugh at me.

In ordinary English, to say, for example, that science says (or agree) that Mars is the fourth planet, means that the body of scientists who are experts in this kind of thing (astronomers) agree that Mars is the fourth planet. No problem that I can see.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;93529 wrote:

In ordinary English, to say, for example, that science says (or agree) that Mars is the fourth planet, means that the body of scientists who are experts in this kind of thing (astronomers) agree that Mars is the fourth planet. No problem that I can see.

The problem arises when you begin anthropomorphizing "science" to the extent that you blame science for things, or accuse science of things, without being specific regarding which scientists and what science is in question. It seems to me that many view science as this overarching, all-knowledgable (or should be) entity, and attack this method of acquiring knowledge for whatever reason, when from where I sit, it doesn't make any sense to. If science isn't able to be applied to a topic one is interested, it's silly to complain that it cannot apply or isn't flexible enough; we shouldn't ask for the scientific method to be more than it is. I've been seeing this a lot in the forums lately.

Science is what it is, and if it doesn't satisfy people, they can go find another method with which they may acquire knowledge. Another problem arises when people come back with their newfound unscientific knowledge and/or speculation and call it scientific, or say that it should be scientific. It's not, and it shouldn't. This is what we're seeing with Stevenson, if he's really going to call those testimonies science.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;93529 wrote:

In ordinary English, to say, for example, that science says (or agree) that Mars is the fourth planet, means that the body of scientists who are experts in this kind of thing (astronomers) agree that Mars is the fourth planet. No problem that I can see.

Ordinary people say, "The Bible says" ect ect, but a wise man always used this "Is it not written in your Laws?"

How can one possible love wisdom and yet ignorant about his own usage of terms? We all make mistakes, and should be thankful when corrected--if we do in fact love. . . . .

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Science never finds the need to examine that which it feels unworthy. Now science is not an aloof entity, that hovers over our existance like a brooding god, full of its own importance, it is the societies that explores the various fields of science, that maintain these scientific dogmas.

Those bodies have become fundamental and their followers obey its dogmatic approach. Any of its followers who break these dogmas are exorcised or verbally castrated by their peers, in the fall glare of the scientific media.

Pseudo science, quacks, deluded,magicians,alchemists all these are reserved for those who try to take observed experiences as reason to explore the human condition and believe the accumulation of these experiences need more than the cursory glance or cynical grin.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

xris wrote:

Those bodies have become fundamental and their followers obey its dogmatic approach.

If you mean that scientists follow the scientific method, then by golly I think you're right. In fact, they have to by definition. Just as a bachelor must be single by definition.

Quote:

Pseudo science, quacks, deluded,magicians,alchemists all these are reserved for those who try to take observed experiences as reason to explore the human condition and believe the accumulation of these experiences need more than the cursory glance or cynical grin.

No, those names are reserved for those who try to present things which are unscientific as scientific.

You have a habit of scapegoating science and religion because it's easier to blame abstract concepts than address your real concerns, which take, in general, much more critical thinking.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93543 wrote:

If you mean that scientists follow the scientific method, then by golly I think you're right. In fact, they have to by definition. Just as a bachelor must be single by definition.

No, those names are reserved for those who try to present things which are unscientific as scientific.

You have a habit of scapegoating science and religion because it's easier to blame abstract concepts than address your real concerns, which take, in general, much more critical thinking.

Im not denying science has to follow certain rules of engagement ,but certain aspects of this subject should not be expected to be repeated as if they where laboratory experiments. Naturalists can claim sightings of a snow leopard by the ability of a photo, try gaining the same reaction to a photo of a yeti, it comes down to accepted views expressed by the scientific community.

A habit of scapegoating! you will have to be more precise in your criticism rather than make broad accusations.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

xris wrote:

Im not denying science has to follow certain rules of engagement ,but certain aspects of this subject should not be expected to be repeated as if they where laboratory experiments. Naturalists can claim sightings of a snow leopard by the ability of a photo, try gaining the same reaction to a photo of a yeti, it comes down to accepted views expressed by the scientific community.

I don't think it's about "accepted views", is what I'm saying. The reason why a yeti wouldn't get the same reaction isn't because scientists are discriminating against yetis, it's not a popularity contest, it's because there is no reproducable method with which they can acquire scientific evidence for yetis (like there is for snow leopards). Rare occurences (supposed or otherwise) obviously aren't going to be deemed scientific unless there is scientific evidence. Thus, it's no wonder why things like this aren't going to be accepted by the scientific community. If someone could reproduce the occurance, event, whatever, and progressed through the scientific method, and a group of scientists still ignored the scientific evidence, I would have to agree with you. Keep in mind, that in this case, it wouldn't be "science" that is discriminating against anything, but rather said group. And you'd have to be specific as to what group and what branch of science you're speaking about.

Quote:

A habit of scapegoating! you will have to be more precise in your criticism rather than make broad accusations.

Yes, you assign problems to "science" and "religion", when the actual problems have nothing to do with the methods or practices. It's easy scapegoating. In order to not appear broad in my accusation, I am specifically speaking about the thread regarding religion we posted in a few weeks ago (if you want, I'll try to find link) and this one regarding science.

What I'm actually saying is that I think you're confused. I'm not trying to insult you, but I don't think you're probing for the real problems, but rather assigning problems to abstract notions. It's common - people do this with "government" all the time. The reality is that it's more complicated than blaming a method, practice or institution for a problem, as methods, practices and institutions are run by people - and in many different ways. Specificity is so, so important.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93560 wrote:

I don't think it's about "accepted views", is what I'm saying. The reason why a yeti wouldn't get the same reaction isn't because scientists are discriminating against yetis, it's not a popularity contest, it's because there is no reproducable method with which they can acquire scientific evidence for yetis (like there is for snow leopards). Rare occurences (supposed or otherwise) obviously aren't going to be deemed scientific unless there is scientific evidence. Thus, it's no wonder why things like this aren't going to be accepted by the scientific community. If someone could reproduce the occurance, event, whatever, and progressed through the scientific method, and a group of scientists still ignored the scientific evidence, I would have to agree with you. Keep in mind, that in this case, it wouldn't be "science" that is discriminating against anything, but rather said group. And you'd have to be specific as to what group and what branch of science you're speaking about.

Yes, you assign problems to "science" and "religion", when the actual problems have nothing to do with the methods or practices. It's easy scapegoating. In order to not appear broad in my accusation, I am specifically speaking about the thread regarding religion we posted in a few weeks ago (if you want, I'll try to find link) and this one regarding science.

What I'm actually saying is that I think you're confused. I'm not trying to insult you, but I don't think you're probing for the real problems, but rather assigning problems to abstract notions. It's common - people do this with "government" all the time. The reality is that it's more complicated than blaming a method, practice or institution for a problem, as methods, practices and institutions are run by people - and in many different ways. Specificity is so, so important.

You fail to understand the example of a photo of the snow leopard, it could be fake but as it is an accepted species it does not encourage the same vigour of investigation.

You are still making general remarks, you will have to be more precise in your criticism of my opinions for me to consider them. Criticising a faith or an institution does not imply a blinkered or actual error..... does it?

0 Replies

@Leonard,

xris wrote:

You fail to understand the example of a photo of the snow leopard, it could be fake but as it is an accepted species it does not encourage the same vigour of investigation.

There's a lot more than just a photo supporting the claim that there's an animal known as the snow leopard. What on earth are you talking about? Yetis are mythological creatures until proven otherwise. There is practically no evidence for their existence. There are some that have had vigor to investigate the yeti (as far as I know), and they've never provided any evidence. Thus, most people regard the yeti as mythological.

Should we be concerned that scientists aren't searching for hobgoblins? I think Tolkien has them in his books. Or do you just assume they're fantastical creatures? If so, why? Isn't it science's fault?! They should be investigating!

Quote:

You are still making general remarks, you will have to be more precise in your criticism of my opinions for me to consider them. Criticising a faith or an institution does not imply a blinkered or actual error..... does it?

I can't be bothered finding every remark you've made which oversimplifies issues and places the blame of problems on abstract notions. You just did it when I point it out to you, so that's a specific example. Criticizing a faith or institution is not an error, per se. You can criticize a religion just like you can criticize a book. It does deserve a lot more scrutiny when you begin saying X problem is due to Y religion, though. And even more scrutiny when you're addressing the whole of the method or institution, like just saying "science" or "religion", without being specific regarding what about "science" or "religion" you're referring to.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Oh for goodness sake cant you see that the photo of the leopard is accepted without proof because of a certain recognition but could be just as false as the yeti photo. Im not claiming yetis are a fact or anything like it, its the scientific worlds attitude, im pointing out...

If you cant be bothered to prove your accusations, dont make wild silly claims about my attitude or i will take it as goading, for some obscure motive. These personality attacks are not conducive to a reasoned debate and if you pursue it without proof, i will ask, no demand, for an apology.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

xris wrote:

If you cant be bothered to prove your accusations, dont make wild silly claims about my attitude or i will take it as goading, for some obscure motive. These personality attacks are not conducive to a reasoned debate and if you pursue it without proof, i will ask, no demand, for an apology.

They are not personal attacks. Rather, I'm criticizing the arguments you've established against "science" and "religion". I apologize if you think I'm personally attacking you, that's not my intention. However, I think you're oversimplifying when you blame X problem on "religion" or "science". I have absolutely nothing wrong with you as a member, but I do feel your arguments in this thread and the religion one are immature. You're just choosing to blame an abstract concept without probing further into the matter. Also, I've explained why and have lent proof for my criticism. If you really require more proof (more examples of you doing this), I'll be more than happy to dig through the other thread later tonight after work. Let me know.

Quote:

Oh for goodness sake cant you see that the photo of the leopard is accepted without proof because of a certain recognition but could be just as false as the yeti photo.

... there is proof of snow leopards.

Snow Leopard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93584 wrote:

They are not personal attacks. Rather, I'm criticizing the arguments you've established against "science" and "religion". I apologize if you think I'm personally attacking you, that's not my intention. However, I think you're oversimplifying when you blame X problem on "religion" or "science". I have absolutely nothing wrong with you as a member, but I do feel your arguments in this thread and the religion one are immature. You're just choosing to blame an abstract concept without probing further into the matter. Also, I've explained why and have lent proof for my criticism. If you really require more proof (more examples of you doing this), I'll be more than happy to dig through the other thread later tonight after work. Let me know.

... there is proof of snow leopards.

Snow Leopard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are making personal attack and i do need examples, i can dispute. I dont take kindly to off the cuff remarks made as a defence of ones opinions.

OOOO mmmy, I have told you I believe snow leopards exist. Im making the point the photo was accepted without thought of its authenticity. In your own small way you are enforcing my point, but you dont even realise it.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

xris wrote:

OOOO mmmy, I have told you I believe snow leopards exist. Im making the point the photo was accepted without thought of its authenticity. In your own small way you are enforcing my point, but you dont even realise it.

I could draw a picture of a Hampherfish (I made it up) and show it to a scientist right now. Should I become perturbed if he or she doesn't immediately assume the authenticity of my picture? Photos of creatures are not just blindly accepted like you think they are. There is tons of evidence that the snow leopard exists, so therefore when a picture of a snow leopard is shown, it makes sense why people don't question it's authenticity.

Quote:

You are making personal attack and i do need examples, i can dispute. I dont take kindly to off the cuff remarks made as a defence of ones opinions.

That post I quoted was an example. I'll provide you more later.

I didn't just make an off the cuff remark. I wrote paragraphs on my critique and why I believe your argument is immature. I'll write even more if you'd like, just not right now.

You haven't chosen to respond to what I've said about your argument. Instead, you've chosen to play the victim game, ignoring my criticisms. It appears you've backed up into the proverbial ad hominem corner when you couldn't defend yourself intellectually. That's fine, I'll appease you and prove to all those watching that I'm not just playing some stupid ad hominem game and making malicious remarks. Afterwards, you'll have no excuse not to address my criticisms. If you still ignore my criticisms, then I'll assume you understand you're wrong.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

if you fail to see the reasoning of accepting unproven photos just because the subject exists, then i have failed in my example but i feel it is you being purposely obtuse to my reasoning.

Don't waffle after your abuse, all you gave me was irrelevant rhetoric in an attempt to defend your snide remarks. Yes i will accept your offer, serve up your examples as soon as possible, please.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

xris wrote:

if you fail to see the reasoning of accepting unproven photos just because the subject exists, then i have failed in my example but i feel it is you being purposely obtuse to my reasoning.

What is a "proven" photo to you? Because a photo of a snow leopard is "proven" to me.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93606 wrote:

What is a "proven" photo to you? Because a photo of a snow leopard is "proven" to me.

The scenario is that the leopard is possible extinct and a photo is produced, now do you trust the image? The photographer is well known, now what do you say? The point im making, you jumped to the conclusion without question that the leopard existed but the yeti did not. You never asked who took the photos , the photo of the yeti was taken by the same man as who took the leopard, now what do you say?

Science decides by previous inbuilt prejudices, inspired by the societies that survive by its dogma.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93489 wrote:

Ugh, it seems you've either ignored, or didn't understand, my writings from earlier.

Science has no attitude for or against anything. Science is a method, a practice, of acquiring knowledge. If there is nothing to be evaluated on a particular topic through the scientific method, one does not call it science. Science isn't avoiding the life after death question, it just has nothing to evaluate at the moment which can be extrapolated to a scientific model.

Beg to differ, I am not ignoring it, nor misunderstanding it, in fact as I said, I agree with you in many respects. But the case of Ian Stevenson's evidence of "children who recall their past lives" is compelling. There are cases where children remembered their previous names, occupations, names of family members, numerous features of the landscape around where they lived, and in some cases the circumstances in which they died. These are also supported, somewhat eerily, but birthmarks corresponding to places where injuries were received in the previous existence. In these cases, Stevenson was able to verify that there was such a person, living at such a place, who died in those circumstances, and so on. As mentioned previously, he has over 100 such cases, and discarded many others which he felt could not be validated. He went to a lot of trouble to eliminate auto-suggestion, fraud, psychoses, and other possible causes. He still ended up with indisputable evidence of children who remembered details from a former life. He never said this 'proved that re-incarnation occurs'. The most he would say was that it 'suggests' it.

(I am not going to reproduce all the details here, books on and by Stevenson are in wide circulation, the most accessible is Old Souls, by Thomas Shroder, a journalist.)

Now, as to the point about 'science' again. Most scientists will, and did, dismiss Stevenson out of hand. This is not a statement of prejudice on my part, or a demonstration of my ignorance about 'the scientific method' or anything else. It is a simple statement of fact. Throughout his career, he was ignored by most other academics and scientists in cognate areas of research. Some of them tried to disprove his claims, but most simply ignored him.

And it is a fact that many people who consider themselves 'scientific' will not consider the evidence for such things as rebirth, parapsychology, and the like, on the basis that even to consider these phenomena is a sign of superstition or gullibility. There is an entire industry of 'professional sceptics' whose whole effort is aimed at disproving, debunking, shooting down or otherwise undermining any evidence that anything 'paranormal' has ever, or could ever, occur.

I can cite three texts, The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin, Irreducible Mind, by Kelly, and Parapshychology and the Sceptics, by Chris Carter, which in my view definitely prove the existence of paranormal phenomena. The last one in particular documents in exquisite detail the lengths to which conservative scientists will go to debunk anything which threatens their essentially materialist depiction of nature. There is an excerpt here if you wish to peruse it.

So don't get all righteous about the supreme objectivity of science and how it is beyond all such things as human prejudices and the like, because it is practised by humans, and developed by humans, and very much subject to human attitudes and interpretations. And generally speaking, science will not admit the existence of the paranormal. It has a big investment in the idea that the normal is real, and that there ain't no other reality. 'Cosmos' said Sagan 'is all there is'. And nearly every scientist would agree with him.

---------- Post added 09-26-2009 at 09:11 AM ----------

Actually I take back something I wrote there, but rather than edit it out, I will withdraw it. I don't think any of these books 'definitely prove the existence of the paranormal'. They, like Stevenson, do suggest it. And I don't really have a big stake in whether there are such phenomena, or not. But to say that the scientific establishment is disinterested in such questions, in the true sense of 'disinterest', is, I feel, a misrepresentation.

1 Reply

@Leonard,

jeeprs wrote:

And it is a fact that many people who consider themselves 'scientific' will not consider the evidence for such things as rebirth, parapsychology, and the like, on the basis that even to consider these phenomena is a sign of superstition or gullibility

Why would they? By definition scientists deal with things which can be evaluated by the scientific method. If there's no evidence, there's nothing to consider, no hypothesis to be made! They don't deal with superstition or supernatural phenomenon which can't be reproduced. Scientists aren't fantastical children's book writers. Should they be? You seem to think so.

Why do you seek the acceptance of the scientific community so much? Why can't you just say, "I think what Ian Stevenson says is true" and be done with it? Why do you need his claims to be dubbed scientific in order to be content? Do you think that if we don't call it scientific that we're just dismissing his claims completely? This is not true! An unscientific claim can be very, very enlightening and important! Just because it doesn't follow the scientific method (isn't scientific), doesn't mean it can't have an impact on the world! It also doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue (although, from the looks of it, with Stevenson's case, it looks untrue).

Quote:

And it is a fact that many people who consider themselves 'scientific' will not consider the evidence for such things as rebirth, parapsychology, and the like, on the basis that even to consider these phenomena is a sign of superstition or gullibility. There is an entire industry of 'professional sceptics' whose whole effort is aimed at disproving, debunking, shooting down or otherwise undermining any evidence that anything 'paranormal' has ever, or could ever, occur.

There are many different kinds of people in the world and many different kinds of scientists. If you don't like those who don't consider paranormal activity (in their personal lives, not their profession), that's fine, but don't think it's science's fault per se! We don't criticize culinary arts for not "accepting" masonry, do we? Why? Because culinary arts has nothing to do with masonry, and we damn well wouldn't criticize a French chef for making a French delicacy, such as creme brulee, instead of laying bricks, would we? Likewise, we shouldn't criticize a professional scientist for not considering the paranormal; it's out of the scope of science until there's evidence that can be reproducible and able to put through the vigors of scientific method.

Quote:

So don't get all righteous about the supreme objectivity of science and how it is beyond all such things as human prejudices and the like, because it is practised by humans, and developed by humans, and very much subject to human attitudes and interpretations. And generally speaking, science will not admit the existence of the paranormal. It has a big investment in the idea that the normal is real, and that there ain't no other reality. 'Cosmos' said Sagan 'is all there is'. And nearly every scientist would agree with him.

Why would science "admit the existence of the paranormal"?!

If there's nothing that can be evaluated by the scientific method, it can't be science! Of course it has a big investment in what is real, that's what science works with! Again, should we criticize culinary arts for not working with laying bricks or engineering steam engines?

I've never said that science holds "supreme objectivity", or whatever high and mighty descriptive claim you think I've made about science -- in fact, I've insinuated the opposite. I'm the one that has been saying you shouldn't put more weight on science's shoulders than science is responsible for. You're misunderstanding science, and you're misunderstanding me.

0 Replies

Can science agree with the concept of life after death?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know