 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Dec 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dunedin, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Only if garnered within the established laws of scientific method, practice, and principle:
Any research claiming such "evidence" or "proof" must be reproducible and incontrovertible. Those aren't my rules. They are from the rules of science.
IMHO - The lack of credibility that permeates the field of paranormal research is due almost exclusively to the failure to apply the scientific process.
Old Guy,
I am one of those Old Guy, retired engineers, raised in the belief that "reproducible and incontrovertible" are the Gold Standard of the scientific method by which the truth can be found. I now understand that there are some areas of investigation in which those factors don't work. There are some areas of subjective human experience in which the scientific methods' "reproducible and incontrovertible" standard simply cannot be used to measure what is true and what is false. And, lacking reliable physical instrumentation capable of detecting communication from the deceased, subjective experience is the only tool we have available.
Before radio receivers existed the existence of radio waves could not be "proven" using the Scientific Method. Same goes for the present state of instrumented afterlife exploration. A reliable instrument is needed. Until such a device is available it does little good to chose to believe an afterlife exists, or does not exist. Lacking a reliable test instrument the Scienific Method has nothing to say on the matter. We are often left with the argument you make, "there is no scientific proof for the afterlife's existence, therefore it does not exist.' In my view a true scientist is someone who would, instead, say, "there is no scientific proof for the afterlife's existence, we have no instrumentation to test the hypothesis, therefore we can come to no conclusion regarding the afterlife's existence, yet."
Then there are things like the Remote Staring Experiment run multiple times by Wiseman and Schlitz (on my website http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/relg-sci.html and the actual paper at http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/staring1.pdf) that demonstrate "reproducibly and incontrovertibly" that the scientific method itself is unreliable and is suseptable to direct, unintended influence of even the most rigorous, well trained scientist.
I am also an Old Guy who has, through my own direct experience, proven to myself that our afterlife exists and that communication with verifiable information can be obtained directly from the deceased. I have taught thousands of others to do this for themselves. At this point we don't have a reliable instrument to prove that to anyone else. It can only be done through our own direct experience. My "proof" will never convince anyone else of our afterlife's existence. Until an instrument is available that method is all you, me or anyone else has to come to a conclusion regarding the Afterlifes' existence.
So, metaphorically, instead arguing before radios existed that radio waves can't possible exist because there wasn't any scienific evidence, some of us are working at trying to build working prototypes of radios so we can test the afterlife hypthesis.
Bruce