Sam Parnia in Newsweek article

(1): Firstly, what is and is not incontrovertible is completely subjective just like all evidence which is why the concept of something being "self-evident" is ridiculous since what counts as evidence got that way because of someone's interpretation. In this case incontrovertible can only mean in your personal opinion. Secondly, actually looking for "incontrovertible" evidence is probably the least possible scientific position to hold. It completey denies statistcal reasoning. According to your argument an engineer who's designing a house MUST be a psuedo-scientific crackpot because there is no evidence, incontrovertible or otherwise, that THAT particular house will be structurally sound because it does not yet exist for such evidence to be collected. But of course engineers don't take a wait and see approach because it

Statistically, the evidence of psi is completely incontrovertible regardless of there not being one single smoking gun study. The reasons for there not being such a study are what should get debated. Because chances are the answer will have a lot more to do with funding, education, technology and general resource allocation than anything to do with psi itself.

(2): Literally you are saying that people are only allowed to believe what you tell them they are allowed to believe. Heated debate about what may, be thought to be, or desired to be true is one of the fundamental lynchpins of organized and established science. I mean, peer reviews are not for the faint of heart  so I've heard since the whole idea is to nitpick every possible thing about your study and your conclusions. It isn't possible for someone to just "show you the evidence" asyou suggest because as I said above evidence is ultimately just a belief. Thus the idea that it's just hopeful thinking unless someone can do that without debate or touching on what they think might be true or whatever is just retarded. It cannot be done, certainly not in a non-ideological way. It is not a rational position to hold.

When I wrote this:

My position is don't argue what might be true, what you want to be true and what you think is true. It's, show me it's true. If that isn't done then it's all just hopeful thinking.

It is a response to the - you don't take us seriously outcry I here from persons whom believe in the paranormal. Some people seem to want to be legitimately recognized by the scientific establishment. And for that to happen there must be empirical evidence. If you or anyone really thinks evidence is just belief, then what is belief without evidence?

It is a response to the - you don't take us seriously outcry I here from persons whom believe in the paranormal. Some people seem to want to be legitimately recognized by the scientific establishment. And for that to happen there must be empirical evidence. If you or anyone really thinks evidence is just belief, then what is belief without evidence?

You sound like you're using the term "evidence" as if it is an intrinsic property that is objectively a part of some phenomena. Which it isn't. Evidence is the label that someone gives to one or more observed effects that they believe to be related in some specific way to another effect or group of effects. However since a person has no actual proof that such a relationship exists it is always possible for another person to disbelieve the "evidence" on that, very logical, basis. Therefore, what is and is not considered evidence by a person is completely based on their own desires, what they want or don't want to be true.  It is possible for them to see the relationship, but still come to a radically different conclusion as to why that relationship exists, and there's no logical way to disprove them. Since they are just choosing to believe or not believe that certain relationships are how others claim they are.

If this were not true you wouldn't have so much debate weven in mainstream science about who's theories on what are or are not true especially when all have some "evidence" to back them up. This gets far more into a the concepts of evidence formatting. Something I refer to as the "Coffee House Problem" where you imagine two people having a private conversation over coffee, no other witnesses. They then report that they had such a conversation to others.

The problem is that it is irrational to believe or disbelieve the claim, since the people have no real evidence that the conversation took or didn't take place. There is nothing the two people can provide that proves the conversation to others. Even if they had transcripts, even if they had video evidence, nothing proves it 100% since everything can be faked via another thing I call the "Provers Paradox" which states that all mediums of proof are also mediums of hoaxes. Example, two identical videos, one captured, one faked using special computer software, both displaying the exact same thing, it is impossible to tell which is real and which is fake. Making the question meaningless.

The two people can know they are telling the truth, but there is no way to ever prove it to others, all formats they could use could also be forged. Their own senses may not even be correct. Thus only emotional factors can be used to pick a side and decide what is and is not evidence of what. Meaning, if more people happen to be on one side than the other, then that's what's true. Thus what is and is not "true" in a society is determined by power, not logic. The scientific establishment, therefore, does not take people seriously not because of lack of "evidence" but lack of "theories that fit their desires." and the only reason anyone wants the establishment to take them seriously is because the establishment has power.

In many cases the establishment is right, particularly when it come to moralistic theories about "how we should live", the likes of which can be, quite easily, logically disproven without the need for, and despite the presence of, "evidence" for them. Things like life being intrinsically about "love", something that lacks the ability to be objective defined. Or the obligation of someone to obey a soul contract they don't remember making let alone questions about whether it might've been made under duress, coercion, or outright forged by someone else. Same goes for obedience to one or more deities for any reason, the question of whether or not they created anything is irrelevant.

If someone does not want to be subjugated under a diety, do not wish to obey a contract they don't even think is valid, defines love differently than someone else, or whatever other moralistic theoretical framework you can think of, chances are they will disbelieve that there is any evidence of such a theory at all and it will be impossible to convince them otherwise.

These are the things that cause the scientific establishment to dismiss parapsychology and all the evidence it has found outright. The idea of objective morality has already been long shown to be a logical fallacy and thus anything based on it is also false. Many proofs exist for people to find in places like youtube and the like if people are interested. The rejection by mainstream science is thus very statistically sound, if the majority of what they see coming out of supporters of parapsychology is stuff that has already been logically disproven, then it is likely that whatever evidence these people claim to have is probably also logically unsound in its conclusions. It's still just a belief on behalf of the establishment, but that's where it's coming from. If the spiritualists want to be taken seriously they should start by getting rid of all those ideas in their ranks and clean up the optics of parapsychology to appear just as serious as mainstream science. Then it will be taken more seriously by them. If the mainstream continues to see supporters acting like their feelings objectively matter, they will continue to not take you, or any of the evidence, seriously.

You sound like you're using the term "evidence" as if it is an intrinsic property that is objectively a part of some phenomena. Which it isn't. Evidence is the label that someone gives to one or more observed effects that they believe to be related in some specific way to another effect or group of effects. However since a person has no actual proof that such a relationship exists it is always possible for another person to disbelieve the "evidence" on that, very logical, basis. Therefore, what is and is not considered evidence by a person is completely based on their own desires, what they want or don't want to be true.  It is possible for them to see the relationship, but still come to a radically different conclusion as to why that relationship exists, and there's no logical way to disprove them. Since they are just choosing to believe or not believe that certain relationships are how others claim they are.

If this were not true you wouldn't have so much debate weven in mainstream science about who's theories on what are or are not true especially when all have some "evidence" to back them up. This gets far more into a the concepts of evidence formatting. Something I refer to as the "Coffee House Problem" where you imagine two people having a private conversation over coffee, no other witnesses. They then report that they had such a conversation to others.

The problem is that it is irrational to believe or disbelieve the claim, since the people have no real evidence that the conversation took or didn't take place. There is nothing the two people can provide that proves the conversation to others. Even if they had transcripts, even if they had video evidence, nothing proves it 100% since everything can be faked via another thing I call the "Provers Paradox" which states that all mediums of proof are also mediums of hoaxes. Example, two identical videos, one captured, one faked using special computer software, both displaying the exact same thing, it is impossible to tell which is real and which is fake. Making the question meaningless.

The two people can know they are telling the truth, but there is no way to ever prove it to others, all formats they could use could also be forged. Their own senses may not even be correct. Thus only emotional factors can be used to pick a side and decide what is and is not evidence of what. Meaning, if more people happen to be on one side than the other, then that's what's true. Thus what is and is not "true" in a society is determined by power, not logic. The scientific establishment, therefore, does not take people seriously not because of lack of "evidence" but lack of "theories that fit their desires." and the only reason anyone wants the establishment to take them seriously is because the establishment has power.

In many cases the establishment is right, particularly when it come to moralistic theories about "how we should live", the likes of which can be, quite easily, logically disproven without the need for, and despite the presence of, "evidence" for them. Things like life being intrinsically about "love", something that lacks the ability to be objective defined. Or the obligation of someone to obey a soul contract they don't remember making let alone questions about whether it might've been made under duress, coercion, or outright forged by someone else. Same goes for obedience to one or more deities for any reason, the question of whether or not they created anything is irrelevant.

If someone does not want to be subjugated under a diety, do not wish to obey a contract they don't even think is valid, defines love differently than someone else, or whatever other moralistic theoretical framework you can think of, chances are they will disbelieve that there is any evidence of such a theory at all and it will be impossible to convince them otherwise.

These are the things that cause the scientific establishment to dismiss parapsychology and all the evidence it has found outright. The idea of objective morality has already been long shown to be a logical fallacy and thus anything based on it is also false. Many proofs exist for people to find in places like youtube and the like if people are interested. The rejection by mainstream science is thus very statistically sound, if the majority of what they see coming out of supporters of parapsychology is stuff that has already been logically disproven, then it is likely that whatever evidence these people claim to have is probably also logically unsound in its conclusions. It's still just a belief on behalf of the establishment, but that's where it's coming from. If the spiritualists want to be taken seriously they should start by getting rid of all those ideas in their ranks and clean up the optics of parapsychology to appear just as serious as mainstream science. Then it will be taken more seriously by them. If the mainstream continues to see supporters acting like their feelings objectively matter, they will continue to not take you, or any of the evidence, seriously.

I do believe all motion is relative. I don't believe gravity is a repulsive force. I don't believe when  I throw a ball up it will continue traveling up. Those three things apply to every single human on this planet no matter what ism they fancy. Those three things plus many more are all founded upon empirical evidence.

I do believe all motion is relative. I don't believe gravity is a repulsive force. I don't believe when  I throw a ball up it will continue traveling up. Those three things apply to every single human on this planet no matter what ism they fancy. Those three things plus many more are all founded upon empirical evidence.

That is true, but it's still just a belief. And despite it holding true up to this point in time there is no reason to believe it will stay that way forever or is otherwise an intrinsic, immutable property of the universe. That last part is the most important point, since it's when someone believes that an observed pattern is absolute and immutable that they've become ideological and unscientific. That is the general criticism of mainstream science, that they think they have all the answers already, even though new mainstream discoveries come along all the time too and shatter them. Gravity, for example, is now know to travel rather than being an ever present field. But before it was just a "fact" that this wasn't the case.

Gravity happens to be one of those scientific concepts which underwent a complete theoretical shift from the classical Newtonian idea of a force to Einstein's curved space explanation. Yet it is still discussed in Newtonian terms as a force while even Wikipedia accepts that Einstein had it correct:

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

So empirical evidence can seem to point to one explanation until somebody comes along with a different way of thinking and everyone else goes "Ah, I see!". To claim that we now know how the universe works is not only hubris but also a statement of faith. Even now, people are challenging Einstein too:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkab...-was-wrong

 To claim that we now know how the universe works is not only hubris but also a statement of faith. 

Just to add: the faith appears to be, not in empirical evidence, but in the orthodoxy: the orthodox explanation of the evidence. Just as with gravity, the orthodoxy was Newtonian - the explanation of a force made absolute sense so why question it? Until someone did.

That is true, but it's still just a belief. And despite it holding true up to this point in time there is no reason to believe it will stay that way forever or is otherwise an intrinsic, immutable property of the universe. That last part is the most important point, since it's when someone believes that an observed pattern is absolute and immutable that they've become ideological and unscientific. That is the general criticism of mainstream science, that they think they have all the answers already, even though new mainstream discoveries come along all the time too and shatter them. Gravity, for example, is now know to travel rather than being an ever present field. But before it was just a "fact" that this wasn't the case.

We're using different definitions of what belief means. I always use it in regards to science as trust. It's not just a belief- that implies the belief is on such shaky ground that it could be overturned with a hand wave. Excluding pre-Einstein times there aren't any theories which have superseded present day theories that I'm aware of. Anything can be proven wrong in the future, but if there is a measurable dimension that supports a theory, that theory would be considered probable

Actually gravity is a field, it's the gravitational wave that like a guitar string when plucked sends a ripple across space at the speed of light. All of the atoms making up your body create a gravitational field.

Gravity happens to be one of those scientific concepts which underwent a complete theoretical shift from the classical Newtonian idea of a force to Einstein's curved space explanation. Yet it is still discussed in Newtonian terms as a force while even Wikipedia accepts that Einstein had it correct:


So empirical evidence can seem to point to one explanation until somebody comes along with a different way of thinking and everyone else goes "Ah, I see!". To claim that we now know how the universe works is not only hubris but also a statement of faith. Even now, people are challenging Einstein too:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkab...-was-wrong

It's described as a force for convenience.
The Standard Model is overwhelmingly good at predicting the behavior of particles, forces and their interactions.

Professor Erik Verlinde has an interesting theory.

We're using different definitions of what belief means. I always use it in regards to science as trust. It's not just a belief- that implies the belief is on such shaky ground that it could be overturned with a hand wave. Excluding pre-Einstein times there aren't any theories which have superseded present day theories that I'm aware of. Anything can be proven wrong in the future, but if there is a measurable dimension that supports a theory, that theory would be considered probable

Actually gravity is a field, it's the gravitational wave that like a guitar string when plucked sends a ripple across space at the speed of light. All of the atoms making up your body create a gravitational field.
It's described as a force for convenience.
The Standard Model is overwhelmingly good at predicting the behavior of particles, forces and their interactions.

Professor Erik Verlinde has an interesting theory.

Yeah, I could see that.

Just as with gravity, the orthodoxy was Newtonian - the explanation of a force made absolute sense so why question it? Until someone did.

To understand gravity, one has to understand the principle of the Prime Particle (Radiant).