The Science Delusion?

Zillah

So, the thing with the rats and crystals, were they controlled experiments with published results or are they just anecdotal conclusions?

Undergod

The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality.

The Science Delusion Delusion is the belief that science believes it already understands the nature of reality.

nagirrac

Rather than trying to respond to all you crankly atheists individually, here is my take on science and the scientific method. Regrettably, this will be my final offering for your amusement for the evening as I have a life to attend to.

Science has been around as long as man has been self aware and questioned observed reality. To say science started in the 17th century is just moronic and displays a complete ignorance of history. The modern scientific method was defined in the 17th century, not science itself. The Philosophy of Science is a more recent concept and like all philosophy is open to interpretation.

As for modern scientific method, in short summary you ask a question, you develop a hypothesis to provide an answer to the question, you make predictions on the consequences of your hypothesis, you conduct experiments to validate or invalidate your predictions, you do an analysis of your experiments, and you reach conclusions (your theory).

Let's take an ESP experiment like the Ganzfeld. The question is can people communicate via some mental process. The hypothesis is that some people can and the predictions are that statistical results will indicate this if it exists. You conduct experiments in controlled conditions and analyze the data. There are numerous numerous studies that have been done following strict adherence to the scientific method that lead scientists to the conclusion that ESP exists. Maybe they are wrong and there is some other completely unrelated explanation, but you cannot just dismiss the science because you don't like its conclusions.

To say the above is not science because you do not like the outcome is closed minded. It is the same as saying I do not like the conclusions of quantum mechanics because it contradicts my worldview that the universe is made of little solid balls of matter in rigid structures.

MagicMarker

Zillah wrote: »

So, the thing with the rats and crystals, were they controlled experiments with published results or are they just anecdotal conclusions?

I think nagirrac was watching the Crystal Maze and just got confused.

Zillah

nagirrac wrote: »

As for modern scientific method, in short summary you ask a question, you develop a hypothesis to provide an answer to the question, you make predictions on the consequences of your hypothesis, you conduct experiments to validate or invalidate your predictions, you do an analysis of your experiments, and you reach conclusions (your theory).

Great. So, the thing with the rats and crystals, were they controlled experiments with published results or are they just anecdotal conclusions?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Let's take an ESP experiment like the Ganzfeld. The question is can people communicate via some mental process. The hypothesis is that some people can and the predictions are that statistical results will indicate this if it exists. You conduct experiments in controlled conditions and analyze the data. There are numerous numerous studies that have been done following strict adherence to the scientific method that lead scientists to the conclusion that ESP exists. Maybe they are wrong and there is some other completely unrelated explanation, but you cannot just dismiss the science because you don't like its conclusions.

Again you've made several critical errors. First and formost, the studies weren't doen with strict controls or adherence to the scientific method.
Second, even if the studies genuinely reached the purported results, there is no reason at all to conclude that it was due to ESP or that ESP exists, as it lacks an experimental model and falsifiable tests and is laughably vague.
Third, even if the last two problems were overcome, there is still no reason to assume that the experiments link to other claims of what you call "psi" to sound cool, nor is there a valid reason to believe that one experiment lends credence to the others.

And fourth we are not rejecting the results cause we don't like the conclusions, we are rejecting them because of sloppy and dishonest science and dishonest and unscientific behaviour by the promoters of the experiment. I personally would very much like the conclusions of the experiments to be true, if they stood up to scrutiny.
Why would I or anyone not like the conclusions?


All of these problems would be apparent to another with a basic understanding of science... yet with so many years of research experience, here you are not seeing the flaws, using dishonest emotive arguments.....

Zillah

I would like to state for the record that I desperately want psychic powers to be real, to have them and to excel in their use beyond the wildest imaginings of humankind, and it is with a sense of vague disappointment that I swat down the pseudo scientific claims of their existence.

DB21

Zillah wrote: »

I would like to state for the record that I desperately want psychic powers to be real, to have them and to excel in their use beyond the wildest imaginings of humankind, and it is with a sense of vague disappointment that I swat down the pseudo scientific claims of their existence.

Magneto wan't psychic. A hint toward his mutation is in his name :P

ShooterSF

DB21 wrote: »

Magneto wan't psychic. A hint toward his mutation is in his name :P

He could make nets using only magazines?

pauldla

ShooterSF wrote: »

He could make nets using only magazines?

Don't forget his half-brother, Cornetto, who could maniuplate ice cream using only a spoon.

Sofaspud

nagirrac wrote: »

There are numerous numerous studies that have been done following strict adherence to the scientific method that lead scientists to the conclusion that ESP exists.

No there aren't.

If ESP existed it would be huge news as it would prove that SOMETHING supernatural exists, and would bring the entire world view of a huge number of people into question. If ESP existed, everyone would know and it wouldn't be tucked away safely in the "alternative" cupboard along with healing crystals and rumpology.

nagirrac

Sofaspud wrote: »

If ESP existed it would be huge news as it would prove that SOMETHING supernatural exists, and would bring the entire world view of a huge number of people into question. If ESP existed, everyone would know and it wouldn't be tucked away safely in the "alternative" cupboard along with healing crystals and rumpology.

The people who worry about their world view being overturned are theists. Scientists should not and generally do not worry about their worldview being overturned. In the history of science it is quite commonplace for worldviews to be overturned.

From all studies I have read a majority of people worldwide* already believe in the supernatural, so why would their worldview be brought into question by something regarded as supernatutral?
*Obviously this varies from country to country but even in countries where religion is not commonly practiced, Japan for instance, a majority of people self identify as spiritual.

However, the larger point is I do not believe ESP is supernatural, I believe it is natural and in time will be commonplace. It is quite common in human history for something that appears supernatural to later turn out to be natural. Imagine sitting a group of people down in the middle of the 19th century and showing them a movie on a portable DVD of people getting into a plane and flying from Europe to America in a matter of hours. How do you think they would react? Imagine going into your local pub even 50 years ago and pulling out your smart phone and starting to text your friends and send pictures back and forth. Can you imagine the reaction?

Humans are an evolving species. The brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe and we are only starting to scratch the surface of understanding it (and may never understand it fully). We know the brain and mind continue to evolve in terms of capability. Lets assume for a moment that ESP does exist and that it is an evolving mechanism of the brain (remember evolution moves very slowly). How might it work?

We know that EM fields carry information (radios, cell phones) and we know that the brain generates EM signals. One theory is that communication between brains is possible through low frequency EM. More radical theories involve the mind interacting with as yet undetected fields using a resonance process, and the various quantum theories of the mind (Bohm, Pribram, Stapp). Why are such abilities so hard to accept, the existance of sensory mechanisms beyond our normal understanding is becoming more commonplace. How birds navigate was once a mystery, now we know birds and other species "see" magnetic fields.

To say that such effects cannot exist does not hold up to intelligent scrutiny. For example, we are surrounded by electric fields and naturally occuring electricity (lightning, static electricity) but for thousands of years hundreds of millions of humans lived their lives without any knowledge of the existance of electricity. We have to assume that the future will be similar to the past, humans will continue to evolve and our understading of our universe will continue to evolve. There is no such thing as settled science.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

We know that EM fields carry information (radios, cell phones) and we know that the brain generates EM signals. One theory is that communication between brains is possible through low frequency EM. More radical theories involve the mind interacting with as yet undetected fields using a resonance process, and the various quantum theories of the mind (Bohm, Pribram, Stapp). Why are such abilities so hard to accept, the existance of sensory mechanisms beyond our normal understanding is becoming more commonplace. How birds navigate was once a mystery, now we know birds and other species "see" magnetic fields.

Cept for some wee tiny problems with that conjecture in that there is no structures in the brain or body that allow for that, the brain does not transmit EM signals very far, studies have shown repeatedly that humans cannot detect EM signals naturally, there's no mechanism by which EM signals could go back in time....

Oh and then there's the issue of the effect not actually being observed in conditions that exclude known, more likely explanations, such as people being **** scientists with an agenda.

Dades

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here and say I don't rule out some variation of ESP. Nothing supernatural, mind, and I'm not pimping a book about it. Lets just say I've an open mind!

Just sayin'.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Cept for some wee tiny problems with that conjecture in that there is no structures in the brain or body that allow for that, the brain does not transmit EM signals very far, studies have shown repeatedly that humans cannot detect EM signals naturally, there's no mechanism by which EM signals could go back in time....

Oh and then there's the issue of the effect not actually being observed in conditions that exclude known, more likely explanations, such as people being **** scientists with an agenda.

I agree EM is unlikely, at least based on our current knowledge. We are on very thin ice though talking with any certainty regarding mechanisms in the brain and in particular when we get to the areas of thought and consciousness. We don't understand how a "thought" originates, let alone what physical attributes it has and the mechanism involved in focussed thought. What we do know is that thought can be used to rewire the brain (neuroplasticity), so it clearly involves some form of energy field.

All scientists have an agenda generally driven by who is supplying their paycheck.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree EM is unlikely, at least based on our current knowledge. We are on very thin ice though talking with any certainty regarding mechanisms in the brain and in particular when we get to the areas of thought and consciousness.

We don't understand how a "thought" originates, let alone what physical attributes it has and the mechanism involved in focussed thought. What we do know is that thought can be used to rewire the brain (neuroplasticity), so it clearly involves some form of energy field.

But you can't just dismiss what we do know about the brain to suit your nonsense. To detect and decipher signals (especially ones that appareently can go undetected by all other methods) and then translate them into something we can understand or react to would require a section of the brain comparable to the areas of the brain associated to the other senses, not to mention to have an organ which is able to send or receive such signals.
Nothing like this in the brain exists. There is no structure that could possibly fulfil these actions.

To say that because we don't know everything about something we know nothing is wrong. To say because we don't know something, therefore {insert psuedoscience here} exists is unscientific. And to claim (as you are probably going to attempt) that it works by some other mechanism which we can't detect, is supernaturalism.

Oh and again, there's the teeny issue that none of the effects you claim have ever been shown to happen in well controlled trials, which really makes all of the above moot...

nagirrac wrote: »

All scientists have an agenda generally driven by who is supplying their paycheck.

Lol, nope, just in the minds of people trying to excuse their own failings. One most scientists wouldn't be paid enough not to make a breakthrough. Two, the there is not a single plausible reason why any funding agency would ever be adverse to not fund a breakthrough. Three, there are hundreds of instances of very very silly pseudo-scientific research being funded. Four, there's nothing stopping Sheldrake et al using the profits from their "research" <cough> booksales<cough> to fund their research. And five and most importantly of all, scientists become scientists because they like science. Any scientist worth his salt would love to make a new discovery, especially a revolutionary one like the one you think is real. The fact you think otherwise, yet again, calls into question your claimed profession.

And of course this objection you have no doubt doesn't apply to Sheldrake et al as there's no possible financial gain to be had by exposing pseudo-scientific beliefs..... :rolleyes:

Sarky

These "30 years in research" wouldn't have been devoted to morphic resonance, would they? Because that's the only way I can think of a long-term scientist actually being a proponent of such ****.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And of course this objection you have no doubt doesn't apply to Sheldrake et al as there's no possible financial gain to be had by exposing pseudo-scientific beliefs..... :rolleyes:

James Randi and many other skeptics have made quite a significant career / financial gain out of exposing "pseudo-scientific" beliefs.

It can be argued that Sheldrake, Radin et.al. would have benefitted far more financially and professionally if they stuck to "mainstream" science as there is no question they were excellent and respected scientists before they headed for the fringes. Your argument falls apart on that inconvenient fact.

You are obviously a firm skeptic so we will likely (again) find no common ground.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

These "30 years in research" wouldn't have been devoted to morphic resonance, would they? Because that's the only way I can think of a long-term scientist actually being a proponent of such ****.

Happy New year to you too.
My area of research is fMRI as I think I have said already. Do you know what that is or do I have to explain it to you? Perhaps you think that is **** as well.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

James Randi and many other skeptics have made quite a significant career / financial gain out of exposing "pseudo-scientific" beliefs.

Yes, and? I'm not rejecting anyone's conclusions purely because of the money they make. You are. You say that main stream scientists can't be trusted because they make a profit from the status quo. Yet the fact that your heroes also make a profit from their bull**** does not make you question their motivations.
This is because you have a double standard.

nagirrac wrote: »

It can be argued that Sheldrake, Radin et.al. would have benefitted far more financially and professionally if they stuck to "mainstream" science as there is no question they were excellent and respected scientists before they headed for the fringes. Your argument falls apart on that inconvenient fact.

It can be argued all you like, but you're the one who's got to back it up. You reject the work of some people because they gain from that work. Your cranks gain from their work, but you don't hold them to the same standard because you prefer what they say.
This is not scientific thinking. It's fuzzy, illogical conspiratorial thinking.

Oh then there's the fact that even if they make less money as professional bull****ters, you have to factor in that making up bull**** is a lot easier than doing actual science with none of that inconvenient oversight or scrutiny. In science, crap experiments get you fired, in pseudo-science it gets you another book deal.

nagirrac wrote: »

You are obviously a firm skeptic so we will likely (again) find no common ground.

I'm a firm skeptic because I hold claims up to scrutiny. Ignoring points and decrying everyone who doesn't then just believe you as closed minded is not going to convince anyone. Nor is it debate you'd expect from a mature scientist.

I made a bunch of points in the very last post, ignoring them does not make the go away, they just highlight the fact you can't address them.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Humans are an evolving species. The brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe and we are only starting to scratch the surface of understanding it (and may never understand it fully). We know the brain and mind continue to evolve in terms of capability. Lets assume for a moment that ESP does exist and that it is an evolving mechanism of the brain (remember evolution moves very slowly). How might it work?

We know that EM fields carry information (radios, cell phones) and we know that the brain generates EM signals. One theory is that communication between brains is possible through low frequency EM. More radical theories involve the mind interacting with as yet undetected fields using a resonance process, and the various quantum theories of the mind (Bohm, Pribram, Stapp). Why are such abilities so hard to accept, the existance of sensory mechanisms beyond our normal understanding is becoming more commonplace.

How birds navigate was once a mystery, now we know birds and other species "see" magnetic fields.

The point you are ignoring is that we are not psychic species. We do not have ESP.

In the species of birds that have the ability to detect magnetic fields they all do it. We notice this ability and then attempted to explain how, which we did.

In terms of ESP there is no phenomena here. You are assuming the existence of a phenomena and then looking for an explanation. You are doing this not to explain a commonly observed but not understood phenomena (such as bird migration), but to invent the phenomena in the first place because life would be much more exciting if we imagine this phenomena existed.

Its like saying "Science doesn't know everything, what if we can walk through walls. Now how would that work?"

The answer to that question is not to ponder a scientific explanation for our ability to walk through walls, but to merely point out we can't walk through walls, thus a scientific explanation is unnecessary.

A scientific explanation for how ESP works is unnecessary, because we are not a species that can do that, thus there is no observed phenomena to explain.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and? I'm not rejecting anyone's conclusions purely because of the money they make. You are. You say that main stream scientists can't be trusted because they make a profit from the status quo. Yet the fact that your heroes also make a profit from their bull**** does not make you question their motivations.
This is because you have a double standard.

I made a bunch of points in the very last post, ignoring them does not make the go away, they just highlight the fact you can't address them.

Where have I said I reject mainstream scientists conclusions and they can't be trusted? I understand you are fascinated with conspiracy theories but that does not allow you invent what others say. I am a mainstream scientist, so should I not trust myself?

Your argument is nonsensical in your rabid attack on scientists that you deem not worthy of the profession. You are the one constantly harping on about book deals. Who do you think makes more on book deals? Richard
Dawkins for the "God Delusion" or Rupert Sheldrake for "Science Set Free?
At least Sheldrake's book is actually about science rather than using science to have a dishonest bash at religion.

You were the one who raised the financial question, with nothing to back up your claim that "fringe" scientists are in it for the money (as you have consisently implied). They are clearly not in it for the money and clearly not in it for prestige as any sniff of "pseudo-science" is a death knell to professional careers.

I didn't respond to your comments on the brain as clearly you have no knowledge in this area and I have no interest in educating you. The points you raised on financial motivation of scientists are just nonsense, so that's not worthy of response either.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Happy New year to you too.
My area of research is fMRI as I think I have said already. Do you know what that is or do I have to explain it to you? Perhaps you think that is **** as well.

Do you understand what a falsifiable predictive theory is in science?

If so can you detail what, if any, theory of ESP or morphic resonanse or any of the other bunk we have discussed so far, is a falsifiable predictive theory.

Turtwig

I'd actually make the suggestion that both Nagirrac and King Mob are doing science on this thread. This obviously will depend on how detailed their discussion will become, but assuming they can leave out attacks of a personal nature, one side is trying to critically diminish the views of another and the other side is trying to critically validate them. It may not be the most romantic view but that pretty much is in essence what science turns out to be : conflict between various social structures. Eventually one side wins out and all we know so far is that somehow the process mysteriously appears to work. You guys might not think it, but we sort of need people who will, despite everything, stick resolutely to the one position regardless of the experimental evidence obtained. It's an irrational position yes, but also a necessary one.


For what it's worth. I'm with Dades, ESP could be very well be a statistical fluke. Or it could be a very real phenomena, I don't know, but I don't like shunning those who research it and labeling them all to be quacks. I've no doubt there are quacks, but I've also got faith that there are some genuinely pursuing their investigations. They might make glaring errors and be too egotistic to acknowledge them, but that's doesn't change the fact that they are doing science. To me, science is first and foremost about following what makes you curious and if by that curiosity you end up discovering 2,000 ways to not make a light bulb then so be it!

Also, it shouldn't matter what qualifications or expertise a person has. I couldn't give a damn if they've won Nobel Prizes or not. In fact, as well all known many of the greatest scientists who win Nobel Prizes have held utterly whacky views on other topics. Linus Pauling's cancer being cured by vitamin C is the guy who loves falling out of my head.

Happy New Year too.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Where have I said I reject mainstream scientists conclusions and they can't be trusted? I understand you are fascinated with conspiracy theories but that does not allow you invent what others say. I am a mainstream scientist, so should I not trust myself?

All scientists have an agenda generally driven by who is supplying their paycheck.

nagirrac wrote: »

Your argument is nonsensical in your rabid attack on scientists that you deem not worthy of the profession. You are the one constantly harping on about book deals. Who do you think makes more on book deals? Richard
Dawkins for the "God Delusion" or Rupert Sheldrake for "Science Set Free?
At least Sheldrake's book is actually about science rather than using science to have a dishonest bash at religion.

Again, I do not reject anyone claims based on what they make. You did.
I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

nagirrac wrote: »

You were the one who raised the financial question, with nothing to back up your claim that "fringe" scientists are in it for the money (as you have consisently implied). They are clearly not in it for the money and clearly not in it for prestige as any sniff of "pseudo-science" is a death knell to professional careers.

Nope you were the one who brought it up. You can't really lie about it when there's a record of it here in this thread. Though I imagine it's because you aren't really reading what I post, nor reading what you write...

nagirrac wrote: »

I didn't respond to your comments on the brain as clearly you have no knowledge in this area and I have no interest in educating you. The points you raised on financial motivation of scientists are just nonsense, so that's not worthy of response either.

lol, yet you decided to respond to one... almost as if you were trying to deflect from points you cannot answer....

Please point out a structure in the brain that could possibly be used to send or receive signals. Or else please explain what else I said that was wrong or showed that I ad no knowledge in the area.

Otherwise, it will look to everyone that it was just a pathetic dodge on your part.

And if you could also please address the question Zombrex and other have been asking you for a while.
Cause again, dodging it isn't going to make it disappear and is only discrediting you each time you ignore it.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out a structure in the brain that could possibly be used to send or receive signals.

The fact that you are talking about functions and structures of the brain in the manner you are indicates you know very little about current understanding in this area. It was thought that specific functions were localized to certain structures in the brain but this has largely been shown to not be the case. Read up on neuroplasticity and we can get on the same page. How do you think people recover function after one part of the brain is destroyed by a stroke? Its because another part of the brain is rewired to carry out that same function. The brain is not hardwired, it is a fluid organ that constantly changes due to its environmental exposure and behavior.

There's no point asking me what the mechanism is for ESP as I don't know nor does anyone that I know of. I suspect when we discover the mechanism for formation of "thought" that will lead us in the right direction. It is a little silly asking how a thought can be communicated when we don't actually know what a thought is or the mechanism by which it is formulated, stored and recalled.

You were the one who said certain scientists have "agendas". All scientists have an agenda which is to do their science. They can do their science because someone else is funding it, unless thay are self funded which is rare.

What did Xombrex ask, I missed it?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

The fact that you are talking about functions and structures of the brain in the manner you are indicates you know very little about current understanding in this area. It was thought that specific functions were localized to certain structures in the brain but this has largely been shown to not be the case. Read up on neuroplasticity and we can get on the same page. How do you think people recover function after one part of the brain is destroyed by a stroke? Its because another part of the brain is rewired to carry out that same function. The brain is not hardwired, it is a fluid organ that constantly changes due to its environmental exposure and behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_geniculate_nucleus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_cortex

So then no you cannot show any structures that might be able to do what you are suggesting.

nagirrac wrote: »

There's no point asking me what the mechanism is for ESP as I don't know nor does anyone that I know of. I suspect when we discover the mechanism for formation of "thought" that will lead us in the right direction.

But you were the one that suggested this possible mechanism...
I'm just pointing out the rather glaring problems with it.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is a little silly asking how a thought can be communicated when we don't actually know what a thought is or the mechanism by which it is formulated, stored and recalled.

And it's even sillier for you then to assume whatever magic you want to stick in simply because we have yet to explain it.

nagirrac wrote: »

You were the one who said certain scientists have "agendas". All scientists have an agenda which is to do their science. They can do their science because someone else is funding it, unless thay are self funded which is rare.

Yes, which is why we subject them to scurtiny. Some people don't stand up to it and try to avoid it.

Do you think that this funding makes proper scientists less trustworthy? If so, why are your cranks not subject to the same problems?

nagirrac wrote: »

What did Xombrex ask, I missed it?

Lol you really aren't reading what people are posting :rolleyes:

Do you understand what a falsifiable predictive theory is in science?

If so can you detail what, if any, theory of ESP or morphic resonanse or any of the other bunk we have discussed so far, is a falsifiable predictive theory.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_geniculate_nucleus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_cortex

But you were the one that suggested this possible mechanism...
I'm just pointing out the rather glaring problems with it.

Yes, in a general sense in normal brain development functions appear to be located in predictable specific areas. However, the relevant fact is that they can (and will) locate anywhere depending on environment, behavior and injury for example. If you are able to look up the two examples you found then you are surely capable of looking up neuroplasticity, or is it too difficult for you as it does not fit with your static worldview?

I said I do not "know" what the mechanism for ESP is, to "know" something is different to "believe" something. There are many theories for how thoughts are generated, stored, recalled, communicated etc. In terms of ESP the major proposals are EM, resonance between fields in the brain and as yet undetected fields outside the brain, and quantum based effects. There are for example at least 5 quantum theories that purport to explain ESP. I do not "know" if any of these are correct or if it some other as yet unknown mechanism. However, as I have passed the point where I now accept that ESP exists, for me it is mainly a question of how it works.

I will get to the Xombrex question in due course, the Philosophy of Science is not one to be tacked when one is revving up for the New Year.
On that note..

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, in a general sense in normal brain development functions appear to be located in predictable specific areas. However, the relevant fact is that they can (and will) locate anywhere depending on environment, behavior and injury for example.

So can you point to similar structures that could work as transmitters or receivers of EM or other signals or as a centre to process this information, yes or no?

nagirrac wrote: »

If you are able to look up the two examples you found then you are surely capable of looking up neuroplasticity, or is it too difficult for you as it does not fit with your static worldview?

Lol, where did I say that neuroplasticity is not a thing?
What has it to do with your claims other than as a very transparent technobabbly dodge?

nagirrac wrote: »

I said I do not "know" what the mechanism for ESP is, to "know" something is different to "believe" something. There are many theories for how thoughts are generated, stored, recalled, communicated etc.

And another dodge. I never said you "know". I just pointed out the flaw in your conjecture. This is an important part of the scientific process unfortunately.

nagirrac wrote: »

In terms of ESP the major proposals are EM, resonance between fields in the brain and as yet undetected fields outside the brain, and quantum based effects. There are for example at least 5 quantum theories that purport to explain ESP. I do not "know" if any of these are correct or if it some other as yet unknown mechanism.

And all of those things would require a complex structure in the brain to receive and process. A structure no one can point to.
If you are claiming that it needs no such structure, unlike all of our other senses, then you are going to have to support this conjecture.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, as I have passed the point where I now accept that ESP exists, for me it is mainly a question of how it works.

Yet you cannot provide any sort of coherent mechanism...

Oh and then there's the fact that none of us buy into your conclusion cause of that pesky critical thinking..

nagirrac wrote: »

I will get to the Xombrex question in due course, the Philosophy of Science is not one to be tacked when one is revving up for the New Year.
On that note..

No you won't. They've been asking you for a few days. I repeated it for you and you had time to post of tangential points. You're going to ignore it because you can't answer it.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

The point you are ignoring is that we are not psychic species. We do not have ESP.

A scientific explanation for how ESP works is unnecessary, because we are not a species that can do that, thus there is no observed phenomena to explain.

Its hard to know where to start. As for "inventing the phenomena in the first place", the observation that people somehow acquire information through unexplained means is incredibly common and quite established now in human culture. The idea has been around for at least the past century and a half and studied seriously for decades. ESP using Ganzfeld experiments has been demonstarted reproducibly at the 32% hit rate level (25% is predicted) in broad populations and at much higher hit rate among populations with a creative leaning e.g. musicians, artists.

As for a "falsifiable predictive theory", let's take the rat experiment that suggests Morphic Fields. The hypothesis is that learning seems to spread though a species, once a rat learns a new behavior it is then easily spread to the broader rat population. The experiment is set up as follows: A maze is built and individual rats in differnet geographic locations are monitired to see how well they learn to navigate through the maze. Once a single rat figues out the maze other rats figure it out quicker, but independently. Future experiments show that the learning rate continues to accelerate among the rat population until it becomes commonplace.

The theory is that information spreads among a species and becomes a habit. It is of course testable as outlined above and of course falsifiable if no learning behavior or acceleration in learning behavior is observed. Just like ESP experiments such as the Ganzfeld, what is observed is real and statistically significant.

To say this is not science is to not understand science. Science is asking "why" questions regarding anything we observe in our environment and then conducting predictive experiments to try and come up with a theory to explain "how". The specifics of how science is conducted is open to interpretation, the Philosophy of Science is a contentious subject that many scientists disagree on. There are scientists that believe that every proposed hypothesis has to be pursued in exactly the same manner and scientists who believe that no progress would ever have been made in science if we had such rigid rules. The most efficient approach surely lies in between, a creative spark that germinates a new paradigm followed by meticulous adherence to the scientific method to conduct detailed studies. This approach has seemed to serve us well in the past, as many great discoveries some from moments of creative insight and not laborious experiment.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Its hard to know where to start. As for "inventing the phenomena in the first place", the observation that people somehow acquire information through unexplained means is incredibly common and quite established now in human culture.

The "idea" is sure, because people keep talking about it and supposing it might be true, a bit like saying "Umm, I wonder if we can walk through walls".

But then that wasn't the point. We don't, as a species, have this ability. I don't get up, have a shower and then have a look through my minds eye at what the neighbours are doing.

A century and a half ago people started pondering "Wouldn't it be cool if we could do this" and then started trying to discover evidence that we could. What wasn't what happened was that everyone was doing it and scientists set out to explain how.

That is the reverse to how science is supposed to work. We can't even demonstrate that there is a phenomena to study, let alone how it happens. The Ganzeld experiments have been attacked from all quarters for not properly controlling the environment, thus you can't even say anything extra ordinary is actually happening, let alone try and explain how it is happening.

The idea that the human species is supposed to have evolved this amazing ability yet none of us can actually use it it is frankly laughable. How was it selected by natural selection is none of us use it?

nagirrac wrote: »

As for a "falsifiable predictive theory", let's take the rat experiment that suggests Morphic Fields. The hypothesis is that learning seems to spread though a species, once a rat learns a new behavior it is then easily spread to the broader rat population. The experiment is set up as follows: A maze is built and individual rats in differnet geographic locations are monitired to see how well they learn to navigate through the maze. Once a single rat figues out the maze other rats figure it out quicker, but independently. Future experiments show that the learning rate continues to accelerate among the rat population until it becomes commonplace.

The theory is that information spreads among a species and becomes a habit. It is of course testable as outlined above and of course falsifiable if no learning behavior or acceleration in learning behavior is observed. Just like ESP experiments such as the Ganzfeld, what is observed is real and statistically significant.

You apparently didn't understand the question.

What is the theory (ie the model), what is its prediction (the outcome of a run of the model) and how is it falsifiable?

A notion (information somehow spreads among a species) is not a scientific theory as it is not a model.

nagirrac wrote: »

To say this is not science is to not understand science.

Explain to me again what area of science you work in ... ?

nagirrac wrote: »

Science is asking "why" questions regarding anything we observe in our environment and then conducting predictive experiments to try and come up with a theory to explain "how".

No its not. Science is coming up with the how (a scientific theory is a model of what may be happening) and then testing the out put of this model (its predictions) against the observations to see if the theory is accurate.

Lets take the rat example above. You say the idea is that information spreads among species.

Ok, that should be the output of the model, but what is the actual model. In the same way that "a ball will fall to the ground" is the output of the theory of gravity.

What is the model that produces this output? How does the theory propose that this happens?

I suspect it doesn't propose how this happens, and thus is not a scientific theory.

You are confusing attempts to discover if there actually is an observable phenomena in the first place (such experiments seems to make up the vast bulk of paranormal research), which actual scientific experiments that attempt to explain observed phenomena.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

No its not. Science is coming up with the how (a scientific theory is a model of what may be happening) and then testing the out put of this model (its predictions) against the observations to see if the theory is accurate.

You appear to be confusing the terms theory and hypothesis. A scientific theory (theory in its specific scientific understood meaning), is the output of science not the input. A scientific theory does not exist until it has been confirmed through experiment. Unless we are talking past each other you are using terms in a non standard way, at least to describe science broadly.

from Wiki: "A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation for some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been confirmed through repeated experiments or observations. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, and then gather evidence to test the accuracy."

This is how science in a broad sense has been conducted for the past (at least) thousand years. Science was not invented a few hundred years ago as someone previously claimed on this thread.

1. Formulate a question. Gather as much existing information as you can on the question.
2. Develop a hypothesis to answer the question.
3. Come up with predictions that would follow if your hypothesis holds up.
4. Experiment to test the hypothesis against the predictions.
5. Come up with your theory, based on the hypothesis and the results of the experiments.

The theory can then be tested using other hypotheses and experiment. The more predictions that can be made and verified through experiment, the stronger the theory becomes.

I agree fully that Sheldrake and Radin's theories are weak theories in this regard.

Leaving aside the scientific method, the whole area of how science should be conducted (the Philosophy of Science) is highly controversial. In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn argued (against Karl Popper) that the whole idea of falsification can be a detriment to the progress of science, as science by its nature is always incomplete and imperfect and putting constraints around it limits scientific discovery. I agree with Kuhn but as it is a Philosophy question it can be debated endlessly.

In my view there is a place in science for strict adherence to methodology (drug discovery and development for example) and there is a place in science for wild speculation and everything in between. What I object to is scientists working on not well understood phenomena being classified as "cranks", as many breakthroughs in science were made by such people. If we had shunned highly creative people, because they are a little "mad", in my opinion the history of science would be much poorer.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

In my view there is a place in science for strict adherence to methodology (drug discovery and development for example) and there is a place in science for wild speculation and everything in between. What I object to is scientists working on not well understood phenomena being classified as "cranks", as many breakthroughs in science were made by such people. If we had shunned highly creative people, because they are a little "mad", in my opinion the history of science would be much poorer.

Again, not calling them cranks because they are working on out there ideas. (You've yet to explain why I wouldn't want them to be right, you ignored those questions.)
I call them cranks because of the sloppy science they use, their shady practices, their conspiracy theories and their general dishonesty, which you gladly replicate.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

I call them cranks because of the sloppy science they use, their shady practices, their conspiracy theories and their general dishonesty, which you gladly replicate.

Those are incredible allegations to make towards scientists who have devoted a significant portion of their careers to studying observed and as yet unexplained effects in nature. I actually know a few of these people personally and they are the most humble, open minded, dedicated and honest scientists you could meet. If they were dishonest they would have stayed in mainstream science and reaped the rewards, rather than pursuing what fascinated them.

If you mean crank as in someone who is grouchy and overly zealous, then I suggest you have a long look in the mirror. Not everything is a conspiracy theory, except for those that obsess about conspiracy theories that is.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Those are incredible allegations to make towards scientists who have devoted a significant portion of their careers to studying observed and as yet unexplained effects in nature. I actually know a few of these people personally and they are the most humble, open minded, dedicated and honest scientists you could meet. If they were dishonest they would have stayed in mainstream science and reaped the rewards, rather than pursuing what fascinated them.

If you mean crank as in someone who is grouchy and overly zealous, then I suggest you have a long look in the mirror. Not everything is a conspiracy theory, except for those that obsess about conspiracy theories that is.

That's not the definition I used. I said a crank was someone who used bad science (which both you and they do) use non-scientific arguments to cover for their bad science (a prime example is the above) and generally make nonsensical non-scientific claims.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

You appear to be confusing the terms theory and hypothesis. A scientific theory (theory in its specific scientific understood meaning), is the output of science not the input. A scientific theory does not exist until it has been confirmed through experiment. Unless we are talking past each other you are using terms in a non standard way, at least to describe science broadly.

A scientific theory is a conceptual model of the process we believe most accurately mirrors the actual natural process taking place that produces the observed phenomena.

Like all models it has input, initial starting variables (which often come from other models) and outputs which are the predictions the model makes.

The more the model can produce predictions that then match the observed phenomena the more confidence scientists have that the theory itself is accurate.

In science you can't simply say "Oh well possibly some how the rats learn from the environment how to beat the maze" and think you are therefore doing science. You aren't modelling anything, you are just thinking up possible explanations without working out how they might work and then testing if these models produce the same output as observation.

When ever you see someone stating that they are doing "science" in relation to paranormal claims the first question to ask is where is your model and what predications is your model making.

Most likely they won't have any, and this is not due to some rejection by the rest of the scientific community, or because they outsiders, or because everyone else has to open their minds.

It is because they aren't doing science. Science is often not particularly fun and often very boring, where as "paranormal research" is about excitement and wondrous pondering.

nagirrac wrote: »

This is how science in a broad sense has been conducted for the past (at least) thousand years.

Science was not invented a few hundred years ago as someone previously claimed on this thread.

You are confusing science with natural philosophy. Science is a sub-form of natural philosophy, but not all natural philosophy is science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

nagirrac wrote: »

Leaving aside the scientific method, the whole area of how science should be conducted (the Philosophy of Science) is highly controversial

Yes, particularly when people don't like that it is ruining all the excitement and ponder. Its far more fun to just imagine all these things are happening.

nagirrac wrote: »

In my view there is a place in science for strict adherence to methodology (drug discovery and development for example) and there is a place in science for wild speculation and everything in between.

Yeah, you might want to re-think that position the next time you are in an aircraft, on an operating table or operating a high voltage appliance.

nagirrac wrote: »

What I object to is scientists working on not well understood phenomena being classified as "cranks", as many breakthroughs in science were made by such people. If we had shunned highly creative people, because they are a little "mad", in my opinion the history of science would be much poorer.

They aren't shunned because they are a "little mad". They are shunned because they refuse to do the actual science, refuse to accept they cannot support their beliefs scientifically, refuse to accept it when the results contradict their beliefs.

To do science you have to be prepared to accept that a notion you had, no matter how exciting or amazing it would be if true, might turn out to be wrong, or unsupported by the data.

This is why these cranks are shunned because they are little more than religious zealots, people who believe in these claims because they are exciting and refuse to accept that they are wrong.

You love to mention Galileo, but in reality these people are not Galileo, who simply followed the evidence where it lead him, they are in fact the religious zealots of the Catholic Church, who refused to acknowledge that their held ideas were being shown to be wrong or unsupported. They were threatened by this because they were invested, emotionally, financially, spiritually, in their notions being true, and Galileo was coming along and saying "No actually everything is a bit more boring than that" (of course the true nature of reality is never boring, but it can appear boring to those who have invested in exciting fantastical ideas).

You are the Catholic Church in this story nagirrac, clinging to ideas not because they are scientifically supported but because you are emotionally invested in them, because they are exciting and wondrous and "OMG wouldn't be amazing if true".

This is your religion. And science, and natural philosophy before it, has been destroy the dreams of the religious for centuries. Most people simply move on. Others though refuse to accept this and continue to argue that No there is something here, you cannot destroy my dream, my wonder.

Which is fair enough, but don't expect science to pander to this.

Galvasean

nagirrac wrote: »

Those are incredible allegations to make towards scientists who have devoted a significant portion of their careers to studying observed and as yet unexplained effects in nature. I actually know a few of these people personally and they are the most humble, open minded, dedicated and honest scientists you could meet. If they were dishonest they would have stayed in mainstream science and reaped the rewards, rather than pursuing what fascinated them.

That explains a lot actually.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Those are incredible allegations to make towards scientists who have devoted a significant portion of their careers to studying observed and as yet unexplained effects in nature. I actually know a few of these people personally and they are the most humble, open minded, dedicated and honest scientists you could meet. If they were dishonest they would have stayed in mainstream science and reaped the rewards, rather than pursuing what fascinated them.

Explain how these "unexplained effects in nature" are observed.

What phenomena do I observe in relation to ESP. Where do I go, what do I do, that will allow me to observe what people claim is ESP.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Explain how these "unexplained effects in nature" are observed.

What phenomena do I observe in relation to ESP. Where do I go, what do I do, that will allow me to observe what people claim is ESP.

The simplest way would be to examine the many Ganzfeld studies that have been done over the past several decades. If you decide after looking at it critically to dismiss the ESP conclusion, then I would suggest you set up your own Ganzfeld experiment. It is fairly straightforward.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

The simplest way would be to examine the many Ganzfeld studies that have been done over the past several decades. If you decide after looking at it critically to dismiss the ESP conclusion, then I would suggest you set up your own Ganzfeld experiment. It is fairly straightforward.

Before anyone ran a Ganzfeld experiment had anyone observed the phenomena they were attempting to explain?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

You are the Catholic Church in this story nagirrac, clinging to ideas not because they are scientifically supported but because you are emotionally invested in them, because they are exciting and wondrous and "OMG wouldn't be amazing if true".

lol, this is so funny on so many levels that it hardly deserves a response.

Although atheists love to blame the Catholic Church for everything bad that ever happened in human history, the entire worldview of all cultures in the 16th century was geocentric. Copernicus was the "fringe" at the time in this regard as was anyone else who suggested alternatives to "mainstream" thought. It was the invention of the telescope that eventually allowed the experiments that overturned geocentracism, demonstrating that the fringe belief was correct.

The fallacy both King Mob and yourself are expressing is equating fringe science with crank science. Crank science is conducted by charlatans who have little or no science education. I have no issue with skeptics targeting these people and exposing them as frauds. However, keep in mind for balance that some of the more hysterical skeptics like James Randi are cranks as well and have no science background and cannot distinguish fringe science from crank science.

I will give you an example from my own field to expand this point of fringe versus crank.

The brain is thought to be hard wired after early development. This is still the prevailing "mainstream" view in neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry. Mention neuroplasticity to most mainstream professionals in these fields and they will roll their eyes and define that as fringe (not crank, fringe). However, evidence for neurogenesis in developed brains has been around for a long time, people regaining function after strokes, etc. Claims that serious mental conditions such as OCD (used here as an example) could be successully treated by therapy as opposed to medication were scoffed at in mainstream thought (in fact the whole field of Psychology has been seriously questioned by mainstream thought).

As is becoming clear now that we have the technique to study the regions of the brain with great resolution (fMRI), we can see the reality that the brain is not permanently hard wired and we are not stuck with our brain structure after development. In fact the brain is constantly being rewired due to every experiences we have. When we lose function due to disease or injury, that same function can develop elsewhere in the brain. You can physically see neurogenesis (formation of new neurons) occuring as patients undergo treatment. The treatment involved is focussed mindfulnes or meditation. Try and explain this to a broad spectrum of people and the majority will deem you a crank or a quack as "everyone" knows the brain is hardwired.

This is the distinction between fringe and crank. I am pretty much done with this discussion, as the labelling of scientists working on the fringes of science as cranks is deeply offensive to me.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

The fallacy both King Mob and yourself are expressing is equating fringe science with crank science. Crank science is conducted by charlatans who have little or no science education.

No, science education does not prevent a person from being unscientific, making unscientific claims and using fallacious arguments.
Again something you display nicely in that post.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Before anyone ran a Ganzfeld experiment had anyone observed the phenomena they were attempting to explain?

Of course they had.

Leaving aside reports from spiritual and religious traditions, the concept of thought-tranferance is quite old. Telepathy as it is now called, the most common form of ESP, dates from the late 19th century. There were many earlier studies before Ganzfeld was developed (Thoughts through Space, Wilkens and Sherman, from the 1930s).

This subject has nothing to do with religious belief.

Bannasidhe

pauldla wrote: »

Don't forget his half-brother, Cornetto, who could maniuplate ice cream using only a spoon.

May I just say this is my current favourite post of 2013.

Carry on.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Of course they had.

Leaving aside reports from spiritual and religious traditions, the concept of thought-tranferance is quite old. Telepathy as it is now called, the most common form of ESP, dates from the late 19th century. There were many earlier studies before Ganzfeld was developed (Thoughts through Space, Wilkens and Sherman, from the 1930s).

This subject has nothing to do with religious belief.

Ok, so outside of a Ganzfeld experiment how do I observe this phenomena. Like naturally, in nature. How do I observe a normal person just day to day using telepathy.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, so outside of a Ganzfeld experiment how do I observe this phenomena. Like naturally, in nature. How do I observe a normal person just day to day using telepathy.

Not trying to be facetious but what is a "normal" person? If you ever meet one let me know.

People vary all over the map on what they believe. When it comes to topics like telepathy there are 3 broad categories; 1) dogmatic believers who have a religious type belief and are unlikely to have their belief shaken, 2) dogmatic skeptics who refuse to consider the possibility or look at the evidence with a neutral mindset and are unlikely to have their belief shaken, and 3) open minded agnostics who believe there is something there and it is not well understood. I belong to the latter category.

As to your question, have you heard of intuition? Ever talked to anyone who related their intuitive experiences? Ever had one yourself? People tend to be either left brain biased (analytical), right brain biased (creative) or balanced. People who are right brain biased tend to be more intuitive, in fact while ESP tests indicate a certain % of ESP type effects in the general population, these are roughly double in studies involving right brain biased populations (musicians, etc).

Dogmatic believers regard intuition and telepathy as evidence for the supernatural, dogmatic skeptics think it is coincidence, and people like me think there is something interesting there and it should be investigated further.

DB21

nagirrac wrote: »

Not trying to be facetious but what is a "normal" person? If you ever meet one let me know.

People vary all over the map on what they believe. When it comes to topics like telepathy there are 3 broad categories; 1) dogmatic believers who have a religious type belief and are unlikely to have their belief shaken, 2) dogmatic skeptics who refuse to consider the possibility or look at the evidence with a neutral mindset and are unlikely to have their belief shaken, and 3) open minded agnostics who believe there is something there and it is not well understood. I belong to the latter category.

As to your question, have you heard of intuition? Ever talked to anyone who related their intuitive experiences? Ever had one yourself? People tend to be either left brain biased (analytical), right brain biased (creative) or balanced. People who are right brain biased tend to be more intuitive, in fact while ESP tests indicate a certain % of ESP type effects in the general population, these are roughly double in studies involving right brain biased populations (musicians, etc).

Dogmatic believers regard intuition and telepathy as evidence for the supernatural, dogmatic skeptics think it is coincidence, and people like me think there is something interesting there and it should be investigated further.

So you're just going to Filibuster until people agree?

By normal, I'd assume he/she meant just a person. Any person. So whether you meant to be facetious or not, you were.

You forgot a 4th type of person; People who ascribe to the FACTS of science. Fact: ESP has NEVER been proven under laboratory condition testing. Thus, as yet, it is unproven to exist. I'm sure if any person who could actually use ESP were to present themselves for tests, any scientist worth their salt would welcome them.

Your intuition argument is bollocks, tbh. Nothing is proven with intuition. And vague statistics. How cute.

Finally, stooped reading at the words "...believers use....as proof".

nagirrac

DB21 wrote: »

So you're just going to Filibuster until people agree?

By normal, I'd assume he/she meant just a person. Any person. So whether you meant to be facetious or not, you were.

You forgot a 4th type of person; People who ascribe to the FACTS of science. Fact: ESP has NEVER been proven under laboratory condition testing. Thus, as yet, it is unproven to exist. I'm sure if any person who could actually use ESP were to present themselves for tests, any scientist worth their salt would welcome them.

Your intuition argument is bollocks, tbh. Nothing is proven with intuition. And vague statistics. How cute.

Finally, stooped reading at the words "...believers use....as proof".

Please desist from ascribing beliefs to me due to your inability to read. Hilarious that your rant talks about FACTS and you cannot even get the actual words I used correctly let alone their meaning.

Where did you find "believers use.. as proof" in my post?

You are actually making my point about people, although I suspect it goes right over your head. You read my post and ascribed a belief to me that I didn't even express. I said "dogmatic believers regard intuition and telepathy as evidence for the supernatural". I happen to disagree with these people, my belief is that ESP is naturally occurring and is an evolving trait in humans.

Where did I say ESP has been proven? There is mountains of data from dozens of studies involving thousands of people that suggest it, not prove it. Read Dean Radin's Entangled Minds if you want to learn anything about the studies that have been done. The majority of scientists who have looked at the data agree there is an effect, so they belong in my category 3. The very few scientists who are dogmatically opposed to the idea of ESP belong to category 2. There is no category 4, in science at least. People who rant the most about ESP not existing like James Randi are not scientists, so if there is a category 4 as you suggest it is largely populated by non scientists.

As an aside I couldn't give a rats ass whether anyone agrees with me or not.

Waking-Dreams

nagirrac wrote: »

As an aside I couldn't give a rats ass whether anyone agrees with me or not.

And yet your behaviour in this forum would seem to suggest otherwise. I mean, you do post here quite frequently trying to have your views (and the views of the many authors, scientists, etc. you cite) taken seriously, so if you truly don’t care then why all the effort? Who are you REALLY trying to convince here?

Carry on, by all means, but as a lurker who posts infrequently, your exchanges with the likes of King Mob, Zombrex and the others only serves to highlight how skewed your thinking is on a myriad of topics and is a great example of the kind of specious reasoning which allows superstition, pseudoscience et al. to flourish in society.

nagirrac

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

And yet your behaviour in this forum would seem to suggest otherwise. I mean, you do post here quite frequently trying to have your views (and the views of the many authors, scientists, etc. you cite) taken seriously, so if you truly don’t care then why all the effort? Who are you REALLY trying to convince here?

Carry on, by all means, but as a lurker who posts infrequently, your exchanges with the likes of King Mob, Zombrex and the others only serves to highlight how skewed your thinking is on a myriad of topics and is a great example of the kind of specious reasoning which allows superstition, pseudoscience et al. to flourish in society.

The purpose of an online forum is to express opinions surely? I am an agnostic deist and the posters you referenced and yourself are atheists, it is to be expected surely that our opinions would differ on certain subjects (although if you actually did any research you would see I agree on many topics with the majority view here , opposition to the Catholic church, pro-choice, pro secularism, etc). This is the atheism and agnosticism forum after all and not the "only atheists allowed " forum.

As for trying to get people to agree to my view, as an agnostic I am not convinced myself. I am expresing an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.