Same with sailors, who've been repairing rogue waves for centuries, but it wasn't until it was recorded scientifically on an oil rig that scientists took it seriously.
Still an awesome picture.
0. https://ztresearch.blog/2014/07/03/unique-image-showing-ligh...
"Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down."
We were going over a pretty rural area. I saw what looked like the fan of headlights but in these large marbleized shapes like large lightning-crackles. They just sort of moved across the ground and then fizzled out. The movement patterns would be kind of like clouds dissipating but it definitely looked like lights? Very weird.
From your link.
Just because some common folks think they seen something, it does not mean it exists! It was probanly gas leak explosion, or something!
It makes you wonder what obvious thing is being ignored right now due to these politics. I would not be 100% surprised if people in the future accepted things like 'ghost experiences' as normal things. There's just way too many stories and experiences to entirely write it off, but who knows. I feel like hand wavey excuses like third-man, carbon monoxide suddenly everywhere, thought experiments about brains releasing chemicals, calling everything a hallucination, intuition impossible to know conventionally just called luck, etc is the system trying hard to deny this.
Not really, 40% of the US believes they were created (or are descendant of) by a divine being (creationism), in spite of all evidence, so pass that hurdle first
> I would not be 100% surprised if people in the future accepted things like 'ghost experiences' as normal things.
Like 20%-66% of the US believes this today? No one is experiencing the reality you are, ever, something to keep in mind, IMO.
The US is very odd, not only in having large numbers of members of creationist churches, but also in tat a lot of members of churches that oppose creationism and Biblical literalism are quite often creationist.
The good news is that there is a downward trend in creationism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...
I am not saying its unexplained, just that I do not understand it personally (I really do not understand the American culture and society at all well).
There's a difference of holding firm in one's existing belief/understanding and not just changing the beliefs as the winds change, but only with strong compelling evidence. It's entirely different when that evidence is presented in multiple forms and yet one still chooses to ignore it.
There's also the dynamics of having lots of variants of Christianity competing for attention (perfect for the age of televangelism) versus Europeans losing faith in established churches
Could you point to any literature on evidence that refutes creationism? I'm not saying there isn't any. I'm just admitting my ignorance of it. Please enlighten me.
This is a common sentiment, but it is also a declaration of epistemic bankruptcy, thus incompatible with the scientific method.
Back to the original point of this thread, science doubts until certainty, or as close to certainty as our current capabilities will allow, is achieved. That doubt is what allows it to change with the introduction of new information. This is why the religious hold on to what they do, the paranormal believers cling to what seems like misunderstood phenomenon to the rest of us; they don't doubt, and are thus barred from discovery of the truth.
Or those who aren't students of philosophy, just never read everything they said, seems more likely, no?
> Keep in mind the philosophers who came before had great contributions to the big thought-experiment we call existence, but many of them argued from emotionally or socioeconomically tainted positions and nobody has gotten it 100% right yet, or we would not be having this discussion.
Okay? What does that mean? We have 300 years of society embracing this perspective of Hume and the (at least) tens of thousands of scholars that followed him. I think it is well established that we believe this, even if you have some special knowledge or something enqueued.
Are you going to debunk all philosophy of the 18th century because they were arguing from an "emotionally or socioeconomically" stance (whatever that means)? It seems like an argument from an extremely weak position rhetorically, and I am being generous.
I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you. Take your own suggestion. But don't just read about Hume; get a broader intro to the subject so you can understand how ontology, epistemology, ethics, and politics tie into one another.
I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you.
Hume might have enjoyed this past century's Dialetheism of Graham Priest and Richard Sylvan as a solution to paradox arising from strict rationalism, it's more probable Hume would have lacked any passion for it.
It's all too easy for the less skeptical to be misguided. :/
not many polls on people understanding a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation even, who knows what people know
That's crazy
Even if the experiences becomes accepted (although i think it unlikely) but not necessarily as really being what people who believe in ghosts think them to be.
it is quite common for things to turn out to be real observations but not to be what the observers thought they were (e.g. flying saucers).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project_(U.S._Army_un...
Max Planck
Born 1858, died 1947, pretty much everything known about anything changed somewhat in that time period, and he was literally part of a lot of it, and helped convince people and change their minds without them dying.
Almost like the quote is utter bullshit.