Is being psychic a matter of quantum entanglemen?

Kxiii

Pointless is asking the same question repeatedly in as many ways as you can.

It seems your not willing to read up on these things yourself and find the answers. ''Quantum Theory Cant Hurt You'' by Marcus Chown might be a good place to start.

There are a number of things we still don't have the answers for but thats why science still keeps chipping away at these problems. As Dara O Briain said if science had all the answers. It would stop.

And just out of wonder what pointless thing is science speculating about in your opinion?

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

that all depends on how you define 'pointless'.

People as in that there are possibly an infinite number of unknown forces or physical process that could explain it.

With no scientific grounding to actually test if any of these exist and are facilitating the phenomena it becomes pointless to speculate given that you have no way of telling if any of your guesses are accurate or not.

maccored wrote: »

theres many pointless things that are speculated about in science.

Speculation isn't science.

maccored wrote: »

I wonder if ye's realise how weird the world is or in the collective eyes of the skeptics forum, is the world a nice little, neatly explained parcel (minus the actual explainations)?

You are slightly missing the point.

I'm not saying don't query things, I'm saying it is pointless to arbitrarily pick one theory in science and then start saying for no particular reason that perhaps an unknown aspect of the theory is responsible for a phenomena.

Since there is no way to test that it is un-scientific and thus pointless.

Science is about investigating actual tangible explanations for phenomena, not pondering the infinite number of possible though unknown explanations.

If you can't test it then it ain't science.

maccored

@ Kxiii - wtf are you on about? (if you dont mind me asking?) This is a forum where debate is encouraged - that's all Im trying to do .. start a bit of discussion. Im quite well read on thing quantum thanks very much. Pity theres many people commenting and not too many starting threads.

@wicknight - I agree completely. As I said, just trying to stimulate some conversation in here. Im beginning to believe its best not to do that, since theres many here who prefer to snipe from the sidelines (I dont mean yourself) rather than either start a conversation or say anything other than 'that cant happen'. Its a bad day for skeptics when debate cant start.

maccored

Kxiii wrote: »

There are a number of things we still don't have the answers for but thats why science still keeps chipping away at these problems. As Dara O Briain said if science had all the answers. It would stop.

exactly. a point ive been making. its pretty handy then you arent a scientist, otherwise you would have given up by now. you cant have it both ways - you cant say the above and then try and claim this and that cant happen. not unless theres something vaguely scientific to back it up. As yet no-one knows enough about entanglement to say so theres no point trying to preach the gospel to me on that one.

Nick Dolan

If your after a conversation about something you cant complain when people disagree with you.

CiDeRmAn

When it comes to the more "esoteric" (being kind there) theories on the world, that is the supernatural, psychic abilities and religion to name a few, are those who question this stuff called "skeptics", as if those who subscribe to a fact/logic based view of the world around us are somehow the quacks, the intolerant, rather than the other way around?

Surely those that don't believe in esp, ghosts and that the world was created over a 7 day period some 6,000 years ago are in the majority?

And as for the OP, why do believers in such metaphysical matters insist on shoehorning scientific language into their world-view to lend it legitimacy? I have seen the same thing done with "psychic healing" where they seemed to sprinkle the word "quantum" liberally through out the literature, deary deary me.

steddyeddy

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

When it comes to the more "esoteric" (being kind there) theories on the world, that is the supernatural, psychic abilities and religion to name a few, are those who question this stuff called "skeptics", as if those who subscribe to a fact/logic based view of the world around us are somehow the quacks, the intolerant, rather than the other way around?

Surely those that don't believe in esp, ghosts and that the world was created over a 7 day period some 6,000 years ago are in the majority?

And as for the OP, why do believers in such metaphysical matters insist on shoehorning scientific language into their world-view to lend it legitimacy? I have seen the same thing done with "psychic healing" where they seemed to sprinkle the word "quantum" liberally through out the literature, deary deary me.

Well actually in the past the typical skeptical has often been in the wrong and actually held back scientific progress, this is only the case however when skeptics dont take a proactive take on matters they cant explain rather than say to the believer wheres the proof over and over again in some sort of mantra rather than activly seeking to disprove it themselves.

kylith

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually in the past the typical skeptical has often been in the wrong and actually held back scientific progress, this is only the case however when skeptics dont take a proactive take on matters they cant explain rather than say to the believer wheres the proof over and over again in some sort of mantra rather than activly seeking to disprove it themselves.

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well actually in the past the typical skeptical has often been in the wrong and actually held back scientific progress

A skeptic being wrong does not hold back scientific progress, skeptics love being wrong.

What skeptics require is a large amount of evidence and support for the idea being put forward, and this can hardly hold back scientific progress, can it? Science is about building a case for one model over another model (theory), the stronger the evidence and support the better the model. That is what science is.

steddyeddy wrote: »

this is only the case however when skeptics dont take a proactive take on matters they cant explain rather than say to the believer wheres the proof over and over again in some sort of mantra rather than activly seeking to disprove it themselves.

You are saying skeptics hold back scientific discovery by not discovering things themselves?

Could you not say that about anyone? Lawyers and film directors hold back scientific progress by not being scientists? Damn Spielberg and his continuous stunting of science.

Do you know how silly that argument sounds?

There is no onus on a skeptic, from what ever walk of life, to do anything with any claim other than require that in order to accept it they are presented with strong support for the claim. It is ridiculous to say that they stunt scientific progress by not dropping everything and trying to find out an alternative explanation for the claim.

steddyeddy

Wicknight wrote: »

A skeptic being wrong does not hold back scientific progress, skeptics love being wrong.

What skeptics require is a large amount of evidence and support for the idea being put forward, and this can hardly hold back scientific progress, can it? Science is about building a case for one model over another model (theory), the stronger the evidence and support the better the model. That is what science is.



You are saying skeptics hold back scientific discovery by not discovering things themselves?

Could you not say that about anyone? Lawyers and film directors hold back scientific progress by not being scientists? Damn Spielberg and his continuous stunting of science.

Do you know how silly that argument sounds?

There is no onus on a skeptic, from what ever walk of life, to do anything with any claim other than require that in order to accept it they are presented with strong support for the claim. It is ridiculous to say that they stunt scientific progress by not dropping everything and trying to find out an alternative explanation for the claim.

Ill clarify my point its not all skeptical views i have a problem with. If someone announces that their psychic for example then yes the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence. However if he then comes up with what he considers evidence ie predicting a death in someones family its the skeptics duty to provide alternitve explanations like coincidence or cold reading, i love these skeptics their a credit to science and include people like derren brown and joe nickel.

Now were i have a massive problem is self proclaimed skeptics who fail to counter what the psychic or whoever claims is evidence and simply repeats i dont have to counter evidence theres no conclusive proof this is complete rubbish and extremly unscientific, they dont bother to provide a alternative explanation they just presume that they must be right as thats what science currently knows, they consider science a absoulute not a matter of probability which it is.

A good example is the bili apes recently discovered with sightings going back a hundred years, some scientists coming back from the jungle said that tribal members descibed a new type of ape "the lion killer" the tribes presented evidence footprints faeces ect but the "skeptics" clamied again and again its rubbish they have no proof.

So here we have a good example of the type of skeptic i dont like they were presented with what the people who made the claim considered as evidence however the scientists just used the skeptical no proof mantra to dispute it. they didnt scientificly examine the evidence as they felt that the proof that there is no bili ape is that science know of no bili ape.

Now this could be zoological science only however its still science and skeptics like these have held back discoverys of the mountain gorilla, the congo peacock, okapi, six foot fruit eating lizard, the giant anaconda, the bonobo, the billi ape, the giant squid, the megamouth shark, the platypus, homo florseiensis and komodo dragon. If scientists had tried to present a alternative explantion for these maybe they would have taken a closer look so these animals could be discovered earlier and protected.

There is definatly onus on a skeptical scientist to provide an alternative explanation. hiding incompetence in current scientific knowledge isnt progressive.

steddyeddy

kylith wrote: »

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I have to disagree a animal called the chupacabra was puported to exist around mexico ect and many people beleived it and again some skeptics completly went down the whole no proof road and just repeated that they dont beleive it to the media, now a second group of skeptical zoologists looked closely at this and pretty much determined that the whole phenomenon originated from a website!!

So yes you can look into a phenomenon and prove it as negative/postive or you can blindly beleive in its reality or blindly reject its reality and that is extremly unscientific

steddyeddy

By the way wick night after the giant squid was discovered body and all many skeptics failed to beleive it was anything other than a once off mutant and i have come across that again and again in zoology so you cant blame me for being skeptical of both skeptics and beleivers to a certain degree. Science is not absolute therfore neither are my beliefs.

kylith

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to disagree a animal called the chupacabra was puported to exist around mexico ect and many people beleived it and again some skeptics completly went down the whole no proof road and just repeated that they dont beleive it to the media, now a second group of skeptical zoologists looked closely at this and pretty much determined that the whole phenomenon originated from a website!!

So yes you can look into a phenomenon and prove it as negative/postive or you can blindly beleive in its reality or blindly reject its reality and that is extremly unscientific

Your above quoted post says is that a bunch of people didn't believe in the chupacaba and were vindicated, so what's your point if you're disagreeing with me? They didn't believe in it, research showed that it was probably all caused by a website, therefore they were right to disbelieve until they had conclusive proof. However you don't mention all the people, including some cryptozoologists, who did believe in El Chupacabra despite the lack of evidence and how very, very silly they must feel now that they've been shown to be probably incorrect.

Now, if they'd said that nothing that could be called a chupacabra could never possibly exist anywhere I'd disagree with them, but to say that you don't believe that something exists is a perfectly acceptable statement.

You mention the giant sqiud also, and give the impression that you think the scientists who were sceptical that the first example of the species found was a new species were somehow wrong. I disagree with that, and I find it surprising that someone who claims to be a zoologist would think it more correct to declare a new species than to investigate the possibility that it is a mutation of a known species. It is rational to be sceptical until you have accumulated evidence. I would think less of them as scientists if they had joyfully announced that they'd found a new species and then had to contradict themselves later than I do for their reticence to declare it a new species until they had ruled out the possibility that it was a mutation of a known species. Within our own species, for example, there can be a huge amount of variation, yet it would be wrong to assume that because a member of the Masai is black and 6'6'' they are a different species to one of the Amazonian Pygmies who's brown and 4'11'', or someone with acondroplasia who's white and 3'10''. Therefore I believe that the scientists were correct, at the time, to assume that the giant squid was a normal squid with a form of gigantism than a seperate species. Obviously once more were found, and presumably DNA studied, it was accepted that they were a species in their own right.

steddyeddy

Your above quoted post says is that a bunch of people didn't believe in the chupacaba and were vindicated, so what's your point if you're disagreeing with me? They didn't believe in it, research showed that it was probably all caused by a website, therefore they were right to disbelieve until they had conclusive proof. However you don't mention all the people, including some cryptozoologists, who did believe in El Chupacabra despite the lack of evidence and how very, very silly they must feel now that they've been shown to be probably incorrect.

right you misunderstood me i have tremendous repect for the people who disproved the existence of the creature i was responding to your assertion that you cant prove a negative, maybe not always but you can certainly attempt to provide a different explanation. I was also using this to point out the difference between those skeptics who actively try to provide alternitive explantions for a proposed phenomenon and those who sit back convinced in the reality or unreality of the phenomenom.

When i used the term skeptical zoologist i didnt mean that they didnt beleive in the creature, belief has little place in science, they went into the investigation with a neutral postition that most good scientists have ie "i dont know yet". People who blindly disbelieve are the same as those who blindly believe in my book a scientist should be completly objective.

Now, if they'd said that nothing that could be called a chupacabra could never possibly exist anywhere I'd disagree with them, but to say that you don't believe that something exists is a perfectly acceptable statement.

Again i mean the word skeptical in not in terms of people who blindly disbeleive something rather than go into a investigation objectivly, i did not say they didnt beleive in the chupacabra, to me skeptical means critical thinking and that includes being critical of established science not just unestablised science.

You mention the giant sqiud also, and give the impression that you think the scientists who were sceptical that the first example of the species found was a new species were somehow wrong. I disagree with that, and I find it surprising that someone who claims to be a zoologist would think it more correct to declare a new species than to investigate the possibility that it is a mutation of a known species. It is rational to be sceptical until you have accumulated evidence. I would think less of them as scientists if they had joyfully announced that they'd found a new species and then had to contradict themselves later than I do for their reticence to declare it a new species until they had ruled out the possibility that it was a mutation of a known species. Within our own species, for example, there can be a huge amount of variation, yet it would be wrong to assume that because a member of the Masai is black and 6'6'' they are a different species to one of the Amazonian Pygmies who's brown and 4'11'', or someone with acondroplasia who's white and 3'10''. Therefore I believe that the scientists were correct, at the time, to assume that the giant squid was a normal squid with a form of gigantism than a seperate species. Obviously once more were found, and presumably DNA studied, it was accepted that they were a species in their own right.

Right first of all it didnt happen with just the giant squid recently it happened with homo floresiensis and the colossal squid even when they had multiple specimens, its not a matter of science its a matter of clinging onto old beleifs, some scientist is even saying that homo floresiensis was forged just because he refuses to accept that his ideas of evolution may be outdated!

Secondly even after they had several giant squid some still refused to accept it as a new species, you say mutation and that your surprised i didnt consider it. Ill give you my science of it, if its a mutation as their suggesting a mutation of what? The humbolt squid grows up to 8 or 9 feet give or take a average size for the giant squid is 60 feet, they calimed it was a mutation but a mutation does not grow 50 feet in a short time and if it does then its a new species! their blind beleif in their view of the world led them to complelty forget the science!

steddyeddy

kylith wrote: »

Your above quoted post says is that a bunch of people didn't believe in the chupacaba and were vindicated, so what's your point if you're disagreeing with me? They didn't believe in it, research showed that it was probably all caused by a website, therefore they were right to disbelieve until they had conclusive proof. However you don't mention all the people, including some cryptozoologists, who did believe in El Chupacabra despite the lack of evidence and how very, very silly they must feel now that they've been shown to be probably incorrect.

Now, if they'd said that nothing that could be called a chupacabra could never possibly exist anywhere I'd disagree with them, but to say that you don't believe that something exists is a perfectly acceptable statement.

You mention the giant sqiud also, and give the impression that you think the scientists who were sceptical that the first example of the species found was a new species were somehow wrong. I disagree with that, and I find it surprising that someone who claims to be a zoologist would think it more correct to declare a new species than to investigate the possibility that it is a mutation of a known species. It is rational to be sceptical until you have accumulated evidence. I would think less of them as scientists if they had joyfully announced that they'd found a new species and then had to contradict themselves later than I do for their reticence to declare it a new species until they had ruled out the possibility that it was a mutation of a known species. Within our own species, for example, there can be a huge amount of variation, yet it would be wrong to assume that because a member of the Masai is black and 6'6'' they are a different species to one of the Amazonian Pygmies who's brown and 4'11'', or someone with acondroplasia who's white and 3'10''. Therefore I believe that the scientists were correct, at the time, to assume that the giant squid was a normal squid with a form of gigantism than a seperate species. Obviously once more were found, and presumably DNA studied, it was accepted that they were a species in their own right.

I think your giving some scientists too much credit mate.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ill clarify my point its not all skeptical views i have a problem with. If someone announces that their psychic for example then yes the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence. However if he then comes up with what he considers evidence ie predicting a death in someones family its the skeptics duty to provide alternitve explanations like coincidence or cold reading, i love these skeptics their a credit to science and include people like derren brown and joe nickel.

I'm not sure what your point here is?

Are you saying that as soon as someone comes up with evidence for something, no matter how weak, skeptics should go "Yes we accept what you are claiming"?

That would defeat the whole point of skepticism. A skeptic is not someone who says that you have to have evidence. He/she is someone who says you have to have strong consistent evidence that can actually support your theory.

Anyone can produce evidence for anything. Think aliens exist? Well that blurry video of a UFO shot on a camera phone is evidence. That question is is it compelling consistent evidence that strongly supports the explanation being forward.

Rather than thinking of skeptic as a person think of it just as a standard. A skeptic is simply someone who requires all evidence in support of claims to reach a certain standard before the claim is accepted.

That doesn't mean the claim is wrong. It means it is unsupported. It might be right, but until that standard is reached we don't know and as such it is pointless. A claim that cannot be supported is useless even if the claim turns out to be correct.

You seem to be saying that as soon as someone finds any evidence for their claim it then falls on the skeptic to disprove the claim. That is nonsense. A skeptic doesn't have to do anything, a skeptic is merely someone who requires that claims be backed up with a certain standard of support.

Think of it like a driving instructor. A driving instructor requires that you pass a test to a certain standard to be able to convinced you can drive to the desired standard.

If you hope in a car turn the engine on and managed to get the car out the drive way there is no point turning to the driving instructor and saying "See, evidence I can drive, now if you don't believe me you prove I can't drive"

The driving instructor will simply saying "I'm not saying you can't drive, I'm saying you have not demonstrated to my standard that you can drive"

steddyeddy wrote: »

Now were i have a massive problem is self proclaimed skeptics who fail to counter what the psychic or whoever claims is evidence and simply repeats i dont have to counter evidence theres no conclusive proof this is complete rubbish and extremly unscientific, they dont bother to provide a alternative explanation they just presume that they must be right as thats what science currently knows, they consider science a absoulute not a matter of probability which it is.

As opposed to what exactly? What non-science knows?

The only question for a skeptic is whether a claim has been supported to a certain standard. If it has great, if it hasn't then it need to be before it will be accepted.

They do not need to supply any alternative explanation, that would be just stupid. A claim does not become accepted by default just because no one can come up with an alternative explanation.

Aliens exist doesn't become excepted because that is what one UFO watcher is claiming and I can't figure out what the blurry thing on his home video is. That would be stupid.

A skeptic does not have to provide an alternative explanation. "We don't know" is a perfectly fine explanation, as is "No current claims are supported enough to be accepted"

I don't know where you got this idea that a claim becomes accepted by default just if the no one else can prove an alternative.

maccored

Nick Dolan wrote: »

If your after a conversation about something you cant complain when people disagree with you.

I dont mind disagreement - its the standard theory that something cant happen rather than consider discussing it that bugs me. It just ends up I cant be arsed being involved in the conversation.

ciderman wrote:

And as for the OP, why do believers in such metaphysical matters insist on shoehorning scientific language into their world-view to lend it legitimacy?

I have no idea. Where are these 'believers in such metaphysical matters' that you talk of? If you are referring to me, then you're way off the mark.

steddyeddy

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point here is?

Are you saying that as soon as someone comes up with evidence for something, no matter how weak, skeptics should go "Yes we accept what you are claiming"?

That would defeat the whole point of skepticism. A skeptic is not someone who says that you have to have evidence. He/she is someone who says you have to have strong consistent evidence that can actually support your theory.

Anyone can produce evidence for anything. Think aliens exist? Well that blurry video of a UFO shot on a camera phone is evidence. That question is is it compelling consistent evidence that strongly supports the explanation being forward.

Rather than thinking of skeptic as a person think of it just as a standard. A skeptic is simply someone who requires all evidence in support of claims to reach a certain standard before the claim is accepted.

That doesn't mean the claim is wrong. It means it is unsupported. It might be right, but until that standard is reached we don't know and as such it is pointless. A claim that cannot be supported is useless even if the claim turns out to be correct.

You seem to be saying that as soon as someone finds any evidence for their claim it then falls on the skeptic to disprove the claim. That is nonsense. A skeptic doesn't have to do anything, a skeptic is merely someone who requires that claims be backed up with a certain standard of support.

Think of it like a driving instructor. A driving instructor requires that you pass a test to a certain standard to be able to convinced you can drive to the desired standard.

If you hope in a car turn the engine on and managed to get the car out the drive way there is no point turning to the driving instructor and saying "See, evidence I can drive, now if you don't believe me you prove I can't drive"

The driving instructor will simply saying "I'm not saying you can't drive, I'm saying you have not demonstrated to my standard that you can drive"



As opposed to what exactly? What non-science knows?

The only question for a skeptic is whether a claim has been supported to a certain standard. If it has great, if it hasn't then it need to be before it will be accepted.

They do not need to supply any alternative explanation, that would be just stupid. A claim does not become accepted by default just because no one can come up with an alternative explanation.

Aliens exist doesn't become excepted because that is what one UFO watcher is claiming and I can't figure out what the blurry thing on his home video is. That would be stupid.

A skeptic does not have to provide an alternative explanation. "We don't know" is a perfectly fine explanation, as is "No current claims are supported enough to be accepted"

I don't know where you got this idea that a claim becomes accepted by default just if the no one else can prove an alternative.

Yes wicknight you did misunderstand my point, apologies i could have put it better to simplifiy im saying that some skeptics dont examine the evidence they think its good enough to contradict the claim without examining the available evidence (if indeed there is any im aware theres often not).

maccored

theres a surprising and interesting interview in the latest episode of this about the whole general idea of quantum things. interesting (to me anyway) as I thought she was going to be another person selling books to people who'd believe anything, but she seems to have her head screwed on.