Foxfyre wrote:ILZ writes:
Quote:First of all, the burden of proof lies on the people who claim such things exist, not on the scientists (read: rational people) who claim they do not. You're asking scientists to prove a negative.
I don't see it as a burden of proof on anybody. I see no need to prove or disprove what another person reports as his/her experience though it is sometimes prudent to do our own research before accepting the truth or interpretation of what the other person reports.
Nonsense. By asking me to prove a spirit world
doesn't exist, you are asking me to prove a negative. and that never makes sense. Ever.
Quote:Having said that, I think one does not need to accept scientific theories as any more than 'theories' in order to be rational. Many scientific theories hold up only until better science comes along. Somewhere in my reading, I seem to call that Eistein's theory of relativity holds up when the numbers expand to probable infinity, but it breaks down as they are contracted. (My math isn't good enough to test that for myself however.)
Some scientists once taught that the sun revolved around the earth, even that the earth itself was flat. Other scientists disagreed, albeit in those days it was wisest to agree with the science that agreed with the view favored by the monarch or pope de jour lest one lose one's head.
When the movie "Day after Tomorrow" came out recently, the papers were reporting that scientific gurus were protesting it as 'bad science'. Then this week the papers reported that other scientists were 'warming' to the idea. Even now all scientists do not agree on the probable origin of the universe, whether there is unnatural global warming, whether there is an unnatural hole in the ozone, etc.
And there is no agreement among scientists as to whether paranormal phenomenon is imaginary or fact or whether there is a spirit world or whether people have souls. And many know we do not (yet) have the science necessary to prove or disprove a spirit world.
This argument seems to be recycled in various forms alot in this forum. It surprises me, considering how hollow it is. Let me elaborate:
The fact that scientific ideas are expressed as "theories" doesn't make them any less credible than any other form of knowledgle. Of course, there are varying degrees of likelihood, but to dismiss a thoery outright simply because it has the stigma of the word "theory" attached to it is facile and retarded.
Science is a self correcting process, whereupon the predeccessors lay the groundwork that thier followers build and improve upon. For example, we know Newtonian mechanics is flawed. It's not exactly wrong though, just incomplete. Withen its range of validity - low speed, weak gravity, large size - it is highly useful and accurate to a high degree. Now we laugh at the naivite of those who at the end of the 1800's believed that Newtonian Mechanics, along with Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics, was all there was to physics. But it is not that my homeboy Newton was wrong really, his theory was just incomplete because the evidence that would put the lie to his theories was not available yet.
So, are today's theories wrong? Absolutely. In fact, we know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are irreconcilable and thus one or both must be replaced. But that doesn't warrant the conclusion that scientific theories are no more valid than belief in an ethereal non-physical spirit realm. And it doesn't warrant the conclusion that scientists don't base thier theories on evidence, like some cult of the intelligentsia with a vested interest in propagating a wholly naturalistic worldview.
I don't believe in a spirit realm because no evidence exists to compell belief in such a thing, and because history has shown us that such delusions are inevitably dispelled by science once the evidence becomes available. Does that mean that a spirit world absolutely does not exist? No. But it does mean that believing in such things constitutes delusion, because I could believe that purple penguins are going to fall from the sky with the same degree of certainty.
In any case, I find this topic stimulating, and I may start a thread on it depending on whether or not this thread continues to generate discussion.
