# About Those Beliefs You're Ashamed of Holding..



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 18, 2011)

Here's a really simple question... Why do you hold them if you can't defend them?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 18, 2011)

Because people are not expected to defend beliefs in the everyday world. People in general are not taught to subject beliefs to doubt. Ultimately people are allowed to believe anything they want, which is fine, but before you put your belief on the table you need to be able to defend it, or else you are not adding anything valuable. Too many people think that faith is a defense for a belief. Faith is in fact the lack of defense.


----------



## thump easy (Jun 18, 2011)

i am believe. but i dont push or prove anything other than a good sunday of prayer feels realy good. thats all i can say it changed my life for the better im a more satisfied person. but i am also very crazzie person so take my word on it that i am in no way fit for this fight but i am for a fist fight.  hear i am with the boys back stage ewin dweez blu edwerds n zac mathews haven fun befor the fights ready to get knocked out.????? but i can defend it like a belt not with words but with my fist legs elbows nees.. if it were modern day i would be 300 aganest everyone i defend it till death now words im not much for that i dont bother no one i have nevor pushed it on anyone n i dont care to do so but why slay or corner one for believing? thats crazzie is it HITLER list.???? thats me on the left  Hi.....


----------



## TheGreenThumber (Jun 18, 2011)

thump easy said:


> i am believe. but i dont push or prove anything other than a good sunday of prayer feels realy good. thats all i can say it changed my life for the better im a more satisfied person. but i am also very crazzie person so take my word on it that i am in no way fit for this fight but i am for a fist fight.  hear i am with the boys back stage ewin dweez blu edwerds n zac mathews haven fun befor the fights ready to get knocked out.????? but i can defend it like a belt not with words but with my fist legs elbows nees.. if it were modern day i would be 300 aganest everyone i defend it till death now words im not much for that i dont bother no one i have nevor pushed it on anyone n i dont care to do so but why slay or corner one for believing? thats crazzie is it HITLER list.???? thats me on the left  Hi.....


Smoking weed feels really good. So does getting a blow job, but neither of those things are spiritual. 

But i lost you after the first few sentences.


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 18, 2011)

I believe midgets are evil , many people agree with me even though its not a popular belief , i will always believe this and am ashamed of it


----------



## Jeffdt1966 (Jun 18, 2011)

hate to disagree but smoking weed and getting blow jobs are very spiritual to me ... my whole religion is based on em ......


----------



## Carne Seca (Jun 19, 2011)

I believe in Bigfoot and I'm ashamed of it.... seriously. My face is red right now.


----------



## thump easy (Jun 20, 2011)

TheGreenThumber said:


> Smoking weed feels really good. So does getting a blow job, but neither of those things are spiritual.
> 
> But i lost you after the first few sentences.


what im saying is you cant spell if u diched school to get high n not go to school.. I GET PENTY OF HEAD N PENTY OF PUSSIE. N i defend my beliefs with my fist lolz if somone came n sead fuck u cuz u believe on a good sunday morning church and some coffee n with my famil, i would put my fucken dick in ther mouth im vishous n delisous. except if your gay then my foot would be better. or i put this big ass cherry bomber bud in the ass n pull a chech n chong over the shoulder bolder. hahahaha im a crazzy


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 20, 2011)

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe!


----------



## heathaa (Jun 20, 2011)

"i think you guys smoke entirely too much reefer!"


----------



## zvuv (Jun 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Because people are not expected to defend beliefs in the everyday world. People in general are not taught to subject beliefs to doubt. Ultimately people are allowed to believe anything they want, which is fine, but before you put your belief on the table you need to be able to defend it, or else you are not adding anything valuable. Too many people think that faith is a defense for a belief. Faith is in fact the lack of defense.


Where there is reason, there is no need of faith and where there is faith, there is no room for reason.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 20, 2011)

thump easy said:


> what im saying is you cant spell if u diched school to get high n not go to school.. I GET PENTY OF HEAD N PENTY OF PUSSIE. N i defend my beliefs with my fist lolz if somone came n sead fuck u cuz u believe on a good sunday morning church and some coffee n with my famil, i would put my fucken dick in ther mouth im vishous n delisous. except if your gay then my foot would be better. or i put this big ass cherry bomber bud in the ass n pull a chech n chong over the shoulder bolder. hahahaha im a crazzy


Jesus said, turn the other cheek. Do good to those who hate you. Do not replay evil with evil. Do not seek revenge on those who wrong you. 

What you seem to be saying is, "I'm am uneducated by choice and I do not tolerate any opinion that differs from my own. I answer reasonable doubt with unreasonable violence, despite it directly offending the teachings of Christ, and i'm proud of it." 

Why haven't you defended your beliefs to yourself? You haven't applied reasonable doubt to what you believe, or at least examined why you believe it? If you have, then what's the problem with simply explaining to someone else the reasons for your beliefs?


----------



## Carne Seca (Jun 20, 2011)

heathaa said:


> "i think you guys smoke entirely too much reefer!"


Yes, but are you ashamed of that belief?


----------



## thump easy (Jun 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Jesus said, turn the other cheek. Do good to those who hate you. Do not replay evil with evil. Do not seek revenge on those who wrong you.
> 
> What you seem to be saying is, "I'm am uneducated by choice and I do not tolerate any opinion that differs from my own. I answer reasonable doubt with unreasonable violence, despite it directly offending the teachings of Christ, and i'm proud of it."
> 
> ...


----------



## zvuv (Jun 20, 2011)

thump easy said:


> Heisenberg said:
> 
> 
> > ....i ended up hear in cali once again i found a cristain women who doesnt care about money butiful n a job what made me believe just piece of mind!....
> ...


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 22, 2011)

No one should be ashamed of thier beliefs. I don't know what's wrong with some of you guys that you feel the need to ridicule those who have different beliefs than you. I've seen it in various threads, you are damaging your very own karma and putting out small acts of pettiness that over tme and space will be magnified into acts of pure hate and evil. No one says you need to agree with other people's beliefs, but there's also no need to belittle anyone else. If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this negative energy. The world could be amuch better place, if only people would take more care in thier words and actions. Spread the love and smother the hate!


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 22, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> No one should be ashamed of thier beliefs. I don't know what's wrong with some of you guys that you feel the need to ridicule those who have different beliefs than you. I've seen it in various threads, you are damaging your very own karma and putting out small acts of pettiness that over tme and space will be magnified into acts of pure hate and evil. No one says you need to agree with other people's beliefs, but there's also no need to belittle anyone else. If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this negative energy. The world could be amuch better place, if only people would take more care in thier words and actions. Spread the love and smother the hate!


Yes they should. 

Yes there is.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 22, 2011)

Unless your beliefs are evil or harmful to others there's no need to be ashamed. Because of my simbiotic relationship with the universe and my ability to see beyond what's on the surface to the interconnectedness of all things, people have teased me all my life. Some guy called me a flake yesterday for trying to help him chose the path to enlightenment over obstinant ignorance. These comments don't bother me. I'm not ashamed of who I am and what I know to be true. On the contrary. I have learned to use pot and shrooms and lsd to help me see even more clearly the workings of the Universe and our direct affect on people we may not even know. If you work on your own state of grace and reach a place of inner peace, self knowledge and self love, you, too will be able to open yourself up to so much. If you are really open, you will hear the messages the Universe allows the enlightened to receive. You can transcend the bonds of your Earthly body and soar to heights you have never imagined.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 22, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> Unless your beliefs are evil or harmful to others there's no need to be ashamed. Because of my simbiotic relationship with the universe and my ability to see beyond what's on the surface to the interconnectedness of all things, people have teased me all my life. Some guy called me a flake yesterday for trying to help him chose the path to enlightenment over obstinant ignorance. These comments don't bother me. I'm not ashamed of who I am and what I know to be true. On the contrary. I have learned to use pot and shrooms and lsd to help me see even more clearly the workings of the Universe and our direct affect on people we may not even know. If you work on your own state of grace and reach a place of inner peace, self knowledge and self love, you, too will be able to open yourself up to so much. If you are really open, you will hear the messages the Universe allows the enlightened to receive. You can transcend the bonds of your Earthly body and soar to heights you have never imagined.


you've done nothing more than used pot, shrooms and lsd to delude yourself. and dont tell me i dont know what im talking about cause i have done a shit ton of all three and i know exactly what the delusions look like


----------



## Luger187 (Jun 22, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> *Unless your beliefs are evil or harmful to others there's no need to be ashamed*. Because of my simbiotic relationship with the universe and my ability to see beyond what's on the surface to the interconnectedness of all things, people have teased me all my life. Some guy called me a flake yesterday for trying to help him chose the path to enlightenment over obstinant ignorance. These comments don't bother me. I'm not ashamed of who I am and what I know to be true. On the contrary. I have learned to use pot and shrooms and lsd to help me see even more clearly the workings of the Universe and our direct affect on people we may not even know. If you work on your own state of grace and reach a place of inner peace, self knowledge and self love, you, too will be able to open yourself up to so much. If you are really open, you will hear the messages the Universe allows the enlightened to receive. You can transcend the bonds of your Earthly body and soar to heights you have never imagined.


id say the big 3 religions have some pretty evil stuff in their holy books. also the countless people that have died from these religions in the past because the attackers believed god wanted them to do it. why do ppl need to be told how to live by _humans_ that somehow know god better than them? i dont see a reason for it. IMO, religion does more harm than good.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, gee I never said anything about knowing God. If there's a God, it's the Universe that created him or her, not vice versa. Religions are the way humans who are unenlightened inturpret the vast mysteries of the Universe. AND I do not not abuse drugs. They are a tool I use at scheduled times, determined by the placement of the stars to increase my awareness and open my mind to whatever enlightenment I may be granted on my explorations.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 22, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this negative energy.


Indeed, any damage caused and observed by 'negative energy' should be seen and paid attention to. Fortunately there is no such thing as negative energy, and in fact the term is meaningless. You are saying "If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this negative measurable work potential." You are using scientific language to describe magical thinking. There is also no plausibility or proposed mechanism of how this 'energy' gets magnified over time and space to be pure evil. Good and evil are in fact human concepts that do not exist outside of the brain, and indeed mean different things to different brains.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, you talk science quite nicely, sir. But, if you really know your science you're well aware that everything is made up of molecules and atoms, which are indeed, energy. Energy can be either positive or negative. While I do not not see my thinking, insights and beliefs as magical, I do concede that magic does exist. Just look all around you. See the baby rabbit? That's magic. See the new born baby to the Mom who thought she couldn't have children? That's the best kind of magic. The rainbow you see agter a storm, magic again. Have you never been in love? Is that not magic at it's purest? I feel very sorry for you sir, your mind is so closed, you must miss out on so many wonders laid before you.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 22, 2011)

You know what they say, ignorance is bliss..

Do you even know what 'magic' means?


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what they say, ignorance is bliss..
> 
> Do you even know what 'magic' means?


Well according to fadedflower it is unlikely but still possible events that happen that make her happy. 

If there's no way to distinguish between interesting happenstance and magic, then of course the word magic loses any real meaning.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 23, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> Well, you talk science quite nicely, sir. But, if you really know your science you're well aware that everything is made up of molecules and atoms, which are indeed, energy. Energy can be either positive or negative. While I do not not see my thinking, insights and beliefs as magical, I do concede that magic does exist. Just look all around you. See the baby rabbit? That's magic. See the new born baby to the Mom who thought she couldn't have children? That's the best kind of magic. The rainbow you see agter a storm, magic again. Have you never been in love? Is that not magic at it's purest? I feel very sorry for you sir, your mind is so closed, you must miss out on so many wonders laid before you.


What you call being closed minded is simply having consistent standards for beliefs. Your standard seems to be that anything beyond your understanding becomes evidence of magic. What good are the wonders of life if we do not explore and understand them? If this is the standard you have set for yourself then fine. You seem to be feeling sorry for me because I do not settle for simply being unaware, and this pity is coming from someone who apparently doesn't understand how babies and rainbows are made.



> energy /en·er·gy/ (&#277;n&#712;&#601;r-j&#275
> The capacity or power to do work


Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. What type of energy is utilized when negative thoughts or actions get magnified into pure evil? How does this energy somehow manage to reverse entropy? Do you find questions like these to be unreasonable? Do you not require yourself to recognize how you went from 'unexplained' to 'explained by magic'? These are the standards I am talking about. If you cannot explain or reference explanations for this belief then you really aren't capable of any sort of informed opinion, and have no business shrouding your belief in science sounding words.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 23, 2011)

Here'a a peek into one of the books I've read on the subject, sir.

http://www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what they say, ignorance is bliss..
> 
> Do you even know what 'magic' means?



Magic is the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science.[1] It is in contrast to science, in that science does not accept anything not subject to either direct or indirect observation, and subject to logical analysis, whereas practitioners of magic claim it is an inexplicable force beyond logic. Magic has been practiced in all cultures, and utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship.[2] Magic is often viewed with suspicion by the wider community, and is commonly practised in isolation and secrecy.[3]
Modern Western magicians generally state magic's primary purpose to be personal spiritual growth.[4] Modern perspectives on the theory of magic broadly follow two views, which also correspond closely to ancient views. The first sees magic as a result of a universal sympathy within the universe, where if something is done here a result happens somewhere else. The other view sees magic as a collaboration with spirits who cause the effect.[5]

The 13 principles of Wiccan belief:

We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the phases of the Moon and the seasonal Quarters and Cross Quarters.

We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with nature in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept.
*
We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary it is sometimes called &#8216;supernatural&#8217;, but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all.
*
We conceive of the Creative Power in the universe as manifesting through polarity &#8211; as masculine and feminine &#8211; and that this same Creative Power lies in all people and functions through the interaction of the masculine and the feminine. We value neither above the other knowing each to be supportive of the other. We value sex as pleasure as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energy used in magical practice and religious worship.
*
We recognize both outer worlds and inner, or psychological worlds sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconsciousness, the Inner Planes etc &#8211; and we see in the interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena and magical exercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.
*
We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of themselves in leadership.

We see religion, magick and wisdom in living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it &#8211; a world view and philosophy of life which we identify as Witchcraft &#8211; the Wiccan Way.

Calling oneself &#8216;Witch&#8217; does not make a Witch &#8211; but neither does heredity itself, nor the collecting of titles, degrees and initiations. A Witch seek to control the forces within her/himself that make life possible in order to live wisely and without harm to others and in harmony with nature. 

We believe in the affirmation and fulfillment of life in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness giving meaning to the Universe we know and our personal role within it.

Our only animosity towards Christianity, or towards any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be &#8216;the only way&#8217; and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief.

As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present and our future.

We do not accept the concept of absolute evil, nor do we worship any entity known as &#8216;Satan&#8217; or &#8216;the Devil&#8217; as defined by Christian tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor accept that personal benefit can be derived only by denial to another.

We believe that we should seek within Nature that which is contributory to our health and well-being. 

I know what true Magic is just fine! You can call me ignorant all you want, if you truly read and study, you'll see the parrallels between Quantum Physics and the Wiccan religion.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 23, 2011)

> It is in contrast to science, in that science does not accept anything not subject to either direct or indirect observation, and subject to logical analysis, whereas practitioners of magic claim it is an inexplicable force beyond logic.


That alone should tell you something.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That alone should tell you something.


Only if you stop there. If you also study Quantum Physics, the parallels are clear. My family takes our basic beliefs to heart, but we do look for a deeper understanding of the connectedness of all things and quantum physics shows there are explanations for the seeminly inexplicable.


----------



## carl.burnette (Jun 23, 2011)

Apparently you've not gotten a blow job from my wife  Trust me.. VERY spiritual! 

She's a super freak, super freak, she's super freaky.. (Rick James quote) 



TheGreenThumber said:


> Smoking weed feels really good. So does getting a blow job, but neither of those things are spiritual.
> 
> But i lost you after the first few sentences.


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 23, 2011)

how do i go about getting one of those ?


----------



## carl.burnette (Jun 23, 2011)

Sorry.. No sharesies.  Get your OWN!


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 23, 2011)

its just the fact you made it sound so good , you are a lucky man carl


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 23, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> Only if you stop there. If you also study Quantum Physics, the parallels are clear. My family takes our basic beliefs to heart, but we do look for a deeper understanding of the connectedness of all things and *quantum physics shows there are explanations for the seeminly inexplicable*.


So which interpretation of QM lends credit to the idea that negative thoughts or deeds get magnified into pure hate? How well can you really understand QM without knowing that technical terms, such as energy, have precise meanings? QM by definition is all about being precise and controlled, which is why it's important to keep scale in context and remember that we live in a world that is not precisely controlled. What experiments are you referring to that suggest 'explanations for the inexplicable'?



> practitioners of magic claim it is an inexplicable force beyond logic


Isn't it interesting how any beliefs that do not hold up to the standards of reasonable doubt always want to be excused, without ever offering any justification. Also known as special pleading.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 23, 2011)

carl.burnette said:


> Apparently you've not gotten a blow job from my wife  Trust me.. VERY spiritual!
> 
> She's a super freak, super freak, she's super freaky.. (Rick James quote)


I have and you're right!


A useful exercise to explore the depth of our beliefs is in examining the use of the verb 'to be'. The to-be verbs: is, am, are, was, were, be, being, and been. 

English is interesting in it's use of this verb which does not exist in other cultures. In one sense the use of the 'to-be' verbs is efficient in that we can collapse our experience of the world into universals. A statement like 'Life *is* tough' or 'what beliefs *are* you ashamed of' create associations that over time take on a qualities of a belief. 
The statement 'life is tough' might have been used when one was experiencing emotional states in a certain time in their life that they think of as tough. The shorten form 'life is tough' conveys a meaning of the longer more accurate statement but at a subtle and at most times imperceptible cost. This cost of creating a universal *is* the price to pay when speaking english.



> E-Prime
> 
> The Problem
> 
> ...


http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/GeneralSemantics/KensEPrime.htm


----------



## karri0n (Jun 23, 2011)

Fadedflower said:


> Only if you stop there. If you also study Quantum Physics, the parallels are clear. My family takes our basic beliefs to heart, but we do look for a deeper understanding of the connectedness of all things and quantum physics shows there are explanations for the seeminly inexplicable.


Faded, here is one of the best texts I have read on magic. It seems like you'd be interested. The only issue that I have is he tends to put a wiccan dogmatic spin on things and I would prefer it if he stuck to magical principles without falling into the same old wiccan foofy crap.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Craft-William-H-Keith/dp/0806526335


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> So which interpretation of QM lends credit to the idea that negative thoughts or deeds get magnified into pure hate? How well can you really understand QM without knowing that technical terms, such as energy, have precise meanings? QM by definition is all about being precise and controlled, which is why it's important to keep scale in context and remember that we live in a world that is not precisely controlled. What experiments are you referring to that suggest 'explanations for the inexplicable'?
> 
> Isn't it interesting how any beliefs that do not hold up to the standards of reasonable doubt always want to be excused, without ever offering any justification. Also known as special pleading.



My Grams has proven that all of the following theories are true in part, but none tell the full story.
Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles

- or -

Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once

- or -

The universe is splitting, every Planck-time (10 E-43 seconds) into billions of parallel universes

- or -

The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information

----

It is the very interconnectedness of all things that causes the evolution of an act of pettiness into one of great evil over time and space. My Grams has taught me how magick does exist, but the current popular interpretation of magick is false. Nothing is truely inexplicable at all. It may appear that way, but that appearance is based only on a lack of understanding. I'm no expert, yet. I've yet to reach the level of attunement with the Universe neccesary to be granted full understanding. My Grams has given me the tools and knowledge to begin my own journey to complete understanding, but my current knowledge is far from complete.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 23, 2011)

uggg... the "k" has no meaning or signifigance - more leftover garbage spread about by wicca. Ceremonial magicians have practiced for hundreds of years and understand how magic works better than any modern wiccan author - and they feel no need to put a "k" on the end. Even Gerald Gardner, the creator of Wicca, didn't feel the need to stick a K on the end.

http://wicca.cnbeyer.com/magic.shtml


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 23, 2011)

We are not truly Wiccan. My grams bases our practices on the Wiccan beliefs, but goes beyond.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 23, 2011)

Thanks, Purple. I'll pick it up.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 23, 2011)

Pleasantly Poiple said:


> "Do what thou wilt, is the whole of the law"
> 
> Immerse yourself in the work and lust not the result, and then your magick will come full circle and the results will magnify the work....


Ok, I'll concede that Crowley used a K, and was certainly one of the most gifted magicians of his time, but his preference doesn't make it correct.

Also, are you sure it's not "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" ?


----------



## plantvision (Jun 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> . Too many people think that faith is a defense for a belief. Faith is in fact the lack of defense.


Exactely "Faith is a lack of defense", you do not defend Faith, because there is no reason to, you have complete belief in it, there is no reason to defend it.



zvuv said:


> thump easy said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like you've had a bumpy ride, thump.
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2011)

plantvision said:


> Exactely "Faith is a lack of defense", you do not defend Faith, because there is no reason to, you have complete belief in it, there is no reason to defend it.


Indeed, that was my point. People think that because they have faith in something, it is above doubt. If someone is satisfied with that standard for being convinced of a belief, who am I to insist better standards? It is when they bring this belief to the table, where it is exposed to those who apply systematic and consistent doubt to all claims, when faith is not acceptable. When someone suggests faith as motivation for believing a claim, they really aren't adding anything meaningful to the truth, and should keep their beliefs away from situations that require defense.

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency. 
-Emily D.


----------



## sk'mo (Jun 24, 2011)

I think, Heisenburg, That you are applying science to something non-scientific. The idea of 'negative' or 'positive energy' which hippies and other 'dreamer-types' talk of isn't as out there as one might believe. It is just an exaggerated explanation of how an individual's actions can impact others. An example of this might be stopping for coffee in the morning on your way to work and the server is all happy and cheery. This in turn, lightens your mood and affects how you interact with co-workers, making them a bit less stressed about their day, and on. Ergo, that server's 'positive energy' traveled through 'space and time' and was 'amplified' by you. 

The idea is to remind people that their actions, even seemingly insignificant ones, can bare consequences beyond one's immediate surroundings. In mathematics I believe it is referred to as 'Chaos Theory'.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2011)

sk'mo said:


> I think, Heisenburg, That you are applying science to something non-scientific. The idea of 'negative' or 'positive energy' which hippies and other 'dreamer-types' talk of isn't as out there as one might believe. It is just an exaggerated explanation of how an individual's actions can impact others. An example of this might be stopping for coffee in the morning on your way to work and the server is all happy and cheery. This in turn, lightens your mood and affects how you interact with co-workers, making them a bit less stressed about their day, and on. Ergo, that server's 'positive energy' traveled through 'space and time' and was 'amplified' by you.


Since actions, attitudes and feelings are all part of the natural world, they are all subject to science. The idea that kindness is likely to be returned is a well understood concept that requires no special explanation involving strange energies. My point is, If something is unscientific then do not try to gain legitimacy from scientific words and concepts. These are usually the people who, when science backs them up, praise the discovery and happily add it to there list of evidence. When science shoots them down, they discount the entire approach and label it closed minded. Science has a precise meaning for the word energy, and makes no room for exaggeration. Someone who misuses the term isn't saying anything meaningful or providing any sort of sensible explanation for their claim.


----------



## sk'mo (Jun 24, 2011)

And conversely, one should not apply scientific meaning to words not used in scientific context.

What does it mean to be "subject to science"? And, if attitudes and feelings are subject to it, why don't I understand modern art? Really, I once saw a very large hamburger sculpture. How can science explain that?

I believe the idea of karma isn't simply that kindness will be reciprocated, but that an individual's actions permeate throughout the universe (More presumably, throughout a population. Seeing as karma is all about how we treat each other, right?) and can come back ten(?)-fold. To use a simile: Picture a ripple in a pond bouncing off of the edges and many more ripples returning to where you dropped a pebble. - See that, I'm using the idea of kinetic energy to relate a social concept I find difficult to explain. 

Sometimes invoking novel ideas helps a group comprehend concepts with which they have limited understanding. Whether it is Einstein talking about traveling the speed of light to explain relativity, or the religious practices of aboriginal peoples that allowed them to understand ecology and sustainability (What better way to preserve the environment, than to see all living things as sacred, eh?.).


----------



## zvuv (Jun 24, 2011)

If it's beyond logic then it makes no sense. Or more directly, it's nonsense.

The way Faded uses the word energy is to describe some spiritual/emotional/psychological quality that has nothing to do with the meaning of the word in physics. In fact negative energy in physics is an exotic phenomenon and not common at all. Apparently in the spiritual realm there is a surplus of negative energy.

QM is not magic nor even mysterious. We can predict quantum behavior with very great accuracy. QM is used routinely in mundane banal applications such as electronics. The your cell phone or computer depend on components designed according to QM theory.

You might enjoy hearing Tiffany explain Quantum Physics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA680ysYoB0

All physical laws are mysterious in the sense that we can never get to the bottom of them. When we find an explanation for gravity in terms of deeper principles, we will begin to ask why those underlying principles are the way they are. QM is no different from any other law of physics in this regard. In fact any human knowledge about anything at all is bottomless. This is not an open door for magic or supernatural phenomena.

Yes I do think there are beliefs that are shameful and people who should be ashamed of holding those beliefs. What would you say to a racist or a terrorist?

In general I don't see religious people as dupes, unenlightened or stupid. I have known some highly intelligent, extremely well educated people who are fervent believers. I think they are mistaken in their reasoning but not because they are idiots and haven't thought deeply on the subject.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2011)

sk'mo said:


> And conversely, one should not apply scientific meaning to words not used in scientific context.
> 
> What does it mean to be "subject to science"? And, if attitudes and feelings are subject to it, why don't I understand modern art? Really, I once saw a very large hamburger sculpture. How can science explain that?
> 
> I believe the idea of karma isn't simply that kindness will be reciprocated, but that an individual's actions permeate throughout the universe (More presumably, throughout a population. Seeing as karma is all about how we treat each other, right?) and can come back ten(?)-fold. To use a simile: Picture a ripple in a pond bouncing off of the edges and many more ripples returning to where you dropped a pebble. - See that, I'm using the idea of kinetic energy to relate a social concept I find difficult to explain.


Anything that is of the natural world is subject to science, as science is the study of the natural world. "subject to science" simply means subject to study and evaluation. Understanding how people respond to acts of kindness or abuse is not outside of science, as was suggested. Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results.

Scientific terms can not be used outside of scientific context and still hold any sort of credible substance. Energy must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or else it is not energy. The term energy is being used in an attempt to explain karma, not to liken it to something else for the sake of comprehension. You comparison to ripples in a pond certainly helps to put the idea of karma into perspective, but lends no merit to the theory. Especially since the energy powering the ripples is subject to entropy, as all energy is, which is the opposite of amplification. This is why the pebble does not translate into a tsunami. Suggesting that karma uses energy as a mechanism, and that this energy is not bound by the laws of thermodynamics, either implies the person does not understand the fundemental truths of the universe, or else understands them to the point of being a theoretical physicist.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2011)

zvuv said:


> In general I don't see religious people as dupes, unenlightened or stupid. I have known some highly intelligent, extremely well educated people who are fervent believers. I think they are mistaken in their reasoning but not because they are idiots and haven't thought deeply on the subject.


This is a completely fair statement and something I also find to be true. A lot of religious people have thought deeply on the subject, but still neglect to apply rigorous doubt, do not understand the pitfalls of invalid reasoning, or else excuse religion from the standards they set for other beliefs. I doubt many religious people would take a drug based on a claim that has not been put through a process of doubt and passed consistent standards of merit. So while I would not make the statement that religious people are stupid, I would say that they are either unaware, under vigilant, or inconsistent.


----------



## mouthmeetsoap (Jun 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> This is a completely fair statement and something I also find to be true. A lot of religious people have thought deeply on the subject, but still neglect to apply rigorous doubt, do not understand the pitfalls of invalid reasoning, or else excuse religion from the standards they set for other beliefs. I doubt many religious people would take a drug based on a claim that has not been put through a process of doubt and passed consistent standards of merit. So while I would not make the statement that religious people are stupid, I would say that they are either unaware, under vigilant, or inconsistent.


You're the man Heisenberg. I'd rep you again if I could, but you say things I agree with far too often.


----------



## zvuv (Jun 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> ... or else excuse religion from the standards they set for other beliefs. I doubt many religious people would take a drug based on a claim that has not been put through a process of doubt and passed consistent standards of merit. So while I would not make the statement that religious people are stupid, I would say that they are either unaware, under vigilant, or inconsistent.


 
Yes, inconsistent. IMO humans are not naturaly consistent in their thinking patterns or their behavior. This is a discipline that we have to learn and we never achieve more than partial mastery. People who are extremely intelligent in one area can be amazingly stupid about other things.

About language and technical terms. Many ordinairy words that have a legitimate non technical meaning are used in a specialized way by technical and other disciplines. For example the mathematical term 'irrational number' uses the word 'irrational' to mean something quite different from its use in ordinairy speech. Likewise the words power, force, work and energy were part of the English language long before they were adopted for special purposes in physics. There is nothing wrong with using 'energy' in its ordinairy sense of vigor or even in its New Age sense as some kind of driving spiritual element. The problem occurs when people think physics is talking about the same thing just because it uses the same words.

As Heisenberg points out: The ripples in the pond and kinetic energy perhaps serve as an analogy to _understand_ the idea of Karmic Energy but the analogy does nothing to establish the _validity_ of the idea. In the end the stone and the ripples are quite different. The structure of the original wave degrades, breaks up into incoherent reflections and eventualy just becomes noise. Eventually all traces of the wave will fade. And while energy itself is immortal, the pebble tossed into the pond permanently reduces the amount of useful energy in the universe. Speaking metaphoricaly, there are only so many pebbles that can be thrown into ponds.


Quantum Entanglement in fact does not allow the transmission of information faster than light.

The Many Universes 'Theory' is speculative and not an established fact.

Physics teaches us the much of the universe is disconnected. Beyond the limits of the observable universe, regions of space are receding from us at velocities faster than light and are _causaly disconnected_. What happens in those regions can have no effect on us.

Even putting aside these quibbles, I am not sure what these 'facts' would have done to establish the existence of Karmic Energy.



> ...Nothing is truely inexplicable at all...


 How do you explain Existence?


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jun 24, 2011)

I believe I'll have a cold beer.


----------



## sk'mo (Jun 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Anything that is of the natural world is subject to science, as science is the study of the natural world. "subject to science" simply means subject to study and evaluation. Understanding how people respond to acts of kindness or abuse is not outside of science, as was suggested. Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results.
> 
> Scientific terms can not be used outside of scientific context and still hold any sort of credible substance. Energy must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or else it is not energy. The term energy is being used in an attempt to explain karma, not to liken it to something else for the sake of comprehension. You comparison to ripples in a pond certainly helps to put the idea of karma into perspective, but lends no merit to the theory. Especially since the energy powering the ripples is subject to entropy, as all energy is, which is the opposite of amplification. This is why the pebble does not translate into a tsunami. Suggesting that karma uses energy as a mechanism, and that this energy is not bound by the laws of thermodynamics, either implies the person does not understand the fundemental truths of the universe, or else understands them to the point of being a theoretical physicist.


I forgot to mention that there is no entropy in my pond... Well, maybe a little, but not too much. 
Have you ever heard the song "Positive Vibration" by Bob Marley? You would take literally the assertion that a Rastaman gives off specific, quantifiable resonance? Does that discredit the message of the song?
Faded's original post did not read as anything more than 'spiritualistic'. Faded may have used the word 'energy', but not in any scientific sense. You inferred that connection yourself. Now, where that leapt into quantum physics... I don't know, but Faded isn't the only person who describes religious/spiritual experience or an aspect of their beliefs as an energy in a non-physical sense. There are multiple meanings for many words. This a good example. 

Is art subject to science? How do I use science to make art?


----------



## zvuv (Jun 24, 2011)

Faded did in fact conflate the two meanings of energy.



> Well, you talk science quite nicely, sir. But, if you really know your science you're well aware that everything is made up of molecules and atoms, which are indeed, energy. Energy can be either positive or negative.


----------



## Fadedflower (Jun 24, 2011)

This is exactly what my Grams has taught me. I was home schooled until College, all my cousins and sibs, too. She has studied both quantum theories and natural magic (left yhe 'k' off, happy?) and has discovered they support each other, if one looks beyond the magic as 'unexplainable' and instead sees it is truly the science of nature and the Universe working together.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 24, 2011)

Can you give me an example of something you would describe as magic or magical?


----------



## DelSlow (Jun 25, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Can you give me an example of something you would describe as magic or magical?


Unicorns and Harry Potter!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 25, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> Unicorns and Harry Potter!


Perfect examples to illustrate my point, thank you.

If unicorns exist and we could see them and interact with them in reality, would they then be 'magic'? If Harry Potter could perform magical spells in our reality before our eyes, would it be 'magic', or would it be just a skill set that he has?

So basically, magic is something outside our reality if that's the case, the previous question is invalid.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 25, 2011)

sk'mo said:


> I forgot to mention that there is no entropy in my pond... Well, maybe a little, but not too much.
> Have you ever heard the song "Positive Vibration" by Bob Marley? You would take literally the assertion that a Rastaman gives off specific, quantifiable resonance? Does that discredit the message of the song?
> Faded's original post did not read as anything more than 'spiritualistic'. Faded may have used the word 'energy', but not in any scientific sense. You inferred that connection yourself. Now, where that leapt into quantum physics... I don't know, but Faded isn't the only person who describes religious/spiritual experience or an aspect of their beliefs as an energy in a non-physical sense. There are multiple meanings for many words. This a good example.
> 
> Is art subject to science? How do I use science to make art?


A claim was made. 



> Small acts of pettiness over time and space will be magnified into acts of pure hate and evil
> 
> If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this *negative energy*. The world could be amuch better place, if only people would take more care in thier *words and actions*.


I then asked which type of energy this was, to be answered that it is a special energy that evades thermodynamic rules and is described by quantum mechanics. I believe scientific context has been well established.

I have no problem with people using the word energy as a description for something they lack a better term for. My problem comes when they use energy as an explanation, and expect that science somehow lends credit to the idea of this energy, and that is exactly what FF did. When someone puts forth a theory such as that, they really aren't even explaining what the theory says, since the terms become ambiguous. They are in essence saying 'something that I cant really describe is doing this specific thing that I can't verify and in a way that I can't really describe.' When they say that, are they really saying anything at all? At best it is simply an observation.

Is art subject to science.. Well is art part of the natural world? Can art be observed? Can we make predictions about art? I'll grant you that art is subjective, while science is objective, which may or may not limit the usefulness of the scientific method as applied to art, but it certainly doesn't make art exempt from science.

How do you use science to make art.. is there any science behind the functionality of an electric guitar? Do you consider the mandelbrot set to be art? Do you see any video games as artistic? These are some examples of how scientific theory can be utilized to make art.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 25, 2011)

While spiritual "energy" may not fit the scientific definition of energy, it acts in a similar fashion. I find it difficult to explain the phenomena of various different types of magic without any form of energy being involved. An explanation may be found in that energy doesn't act exactly the same on a different plane than the physical.

In addition, both thermal energy and sound has been measured coming off the hands of experienced qi gong healers. The "energy" that you are saying doesn't comply with the laws of thermodynamics can be felt when hands are lain on or above the body. The phenomena of energy meridians existing in the human body and being manipulated by skilled healers was described before the advent of modern science, so who is it exactly that is using the wrong term?


----------



## zvuv (Jun 25, 2011)

Science and technology are deeply involved in creating art. The chemistry behind the paints, the electronics and accoustic technology that goes into modern instruments and the sound systems that they use, the manufacturing and distribution systems that make these products available to artists all over the world, the books, photographs and computers that make it possible to view works of art in distant places all these depend on scientific research and technology.

But what about the artistic process itself and its counterpart, the appreciation of art? As an atheist, I see no reason to think the brain is anything more than a meat machine whose functioning is entirely determined by natural laws. At the present time, we are overwhelmed by the complexity of the brain and the difficulties of understanding the strange internal language it uses to store information. Much about the brain is mysterious but mysterious is not the same as mystical. We don't know how it works. This doesn't mean it works by magic.

IMO the processes in the brain that give rise to the desire to make art and also the appreciation of art will eventualy yield to scientific investigation. It's my speculation that these phenomena are the result of the brain's nature as a pattern recognition machine and the fact that intelligent brains need play in order to develop fully. Art has its basis in the playful exploration of patterns. A speculation, nothing more. But it shows the possibility of a mundane explanation for the artistic and aesthetic functioning of the brain without having to invoke the supernatural.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 25, 2011)

karri0n said:


> In addition, both thermal energy and sound has been measured coming off the hands of experienced qi gong healers. The "energy" that you are saying doesn't comply with the laws of thermodynamics can be felt when hands are lain on or above the body. The phenomena of energy meridians existing in the human body and being manipulated by skilled healers was described before the advent of modern science,


sorry but have you got a *credible* source for that?


> so who is it exactly that is using the wrong term?


a. the people who usage of it is so vague that even they cannot describe it properly
b. the people who have set out strict rules for it's usage and forms 
one of thems right....


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 25, 2011)

karri0n said:


> While spiritual "energy" may not fit the scientific definition of energy, it acts in a similar fashion. I find it difficult to explain the phenomena of various different types of magic without any form of energy being involved. An explanation may be found in that energy doesn't act exactly the same on a different plane than the physical.
> 
> In addition, both thermal energy and sound has been measured coming off the hands of experienced qi gong healers. The "energy" that you are saying doesn't comply with the laws of thermodynamics can be felt when hands are lain on or above the body. The phenomena of energy meridians existing in the human body and being manipulated by skilled healers was described before the advent of modern science, so who is it exactly that is using the wrong term?


Please link to this literature. It doesn't seem unusual to me to detect heat and sound coming from a persons hands. I have no doubt some people believe they are feeling something, but that is not the same as saying there is something to be felt.

I am aware of this experiment


> Some healers claim they can feel the energy of these elusive and ineluctable biofields, vibrations, auras, or rays. Therapeutic touch (TT) practitioners make this claim. Twenty-one practitioners, who knew from much experience that they could feel the energy around the bodies of patients, were tested. They had never been tested, however, in a situation where they could not see the source of the alleged "energy field." Nine-year-old Emily Rosa tested these energy healers to see if they could feel her life energy when they could not see its source. The test was very simple and seems to clearly indicate that the subjects could not detect the life energy of the little girls hands when placed near theirs. They had a 50% chance of being right in each test, yet they correctly located Emily's hand only 44% of the time in 280 trials. If they cant detect the energy, how can they manipulate or transfer it? What are they detecting? Most likely they are detecting what has been suggested to them by those who taught them this practice. Their feelings of energy detection appear to be manufactured in their own minds. Krieger has been offered $1,000,000 by James Randi to demonstrate that she, or anyone else for that matter, can detect the human energy field.


So even though in preliminary testing, which in this case amounts to personal experience, there seems to be a detectable energy. When we apply only the slightest of controls, the effect disappears.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 25, 2011)

And the frustration comes because you guys should already know this stuff. If we each took the time to understand a claim and then went out and tested to see, or researched to see if it was true or false, there's no reason you can't do the same. Especially when people like Randi make it so easy. 

Understanding the scientific method is extremely valuable, this is a perfect example of why.


----------



## DelSlow (Jun 25, 2011)

Devil's advocate here, what if something happened to you that you couldn't explain? (I have no idea what it might be, use your imagination)


----------



## zvuv (Jun 25, 2011)

I know of no reliable scientific study that has successfuly measured any kind of unusual energy coming from a person's hands. Such phenomena seem to vanish when subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. If it can't be tested with reproducible results it's not science. These techniques may help a patient because of psychological factors. i.e. the placebo effect.

If healing energy does more than just alleviate pain and actually cures people then it must make observable physical changes in the body which would produce by products that should be detectable. Killing cancer cells for example would produce changes in the blood as it carried away waste products. Yet AFAIK these effects have not been detected.

Also, any physical changes require energy, physical energy, which is baffling because apparently healing energy is exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics which means it can have nothing to do with physical energy. Entropy is not some kind of add on, some kind of gotcha, it is fundamental to the modern understanding of energy itself. In fact it is the 2nd Law that drives life, it is responsible for its creation and its perpetuation. If anything can be called a 'life force' it is the 2nd Law.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 25, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> Devil's advocate here, what if something happened to you that you couldn't explain? (I have no idea what it might be, use your imagination)


That's the thing, nothing is "unexplainable". Some people substitute "I don't know" for "magic!" because human brains are easily conditioned to think certain ways. 

Do enough research and you will find an explanation for anything.


----------



## DelSlow (Jun 25, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's the thing, nothing is "unexplainable". Some people substitute "I don't know" for "magic!" because human brains are easily conditioned to think certain ways.
> 
> Do enough research and you will find an explanation for anything.


Ah, I see. That makes sense. 

I don't really have any beliefs that I'm ashamed of, but some have told me I should be ashamed for believing that cannabis helps certain medical conditions. They also say that I should be in jail for smoking it. I'm so torn Lmfao!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 25, 2011)

Neither do I because I feel I can explain _why _I believe what I do. 

If you believed in fairies, people would think you're crazy because there's no evidence for the existence of fairies, you would feel ashamed and embarrassed no doubt to hold that belief. This, I feel, is the same reason believers feel embarrassed or ashamed or automatically take offense to anyone questioning their beliefs.

Someone asks me why I believe the theory of evolution is a scientifically accurate account of life on Earth, I'll say "this is why, this is the data, here's the evidence, clearly it's correct, how could you argue with ALL that?". How accurate could your belief really be if the defense mechanism is to say "don't question it!"?


----------



## DelSlow (Jun 25, 2011)

If we never asked questions, there would be no answers


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 25, 2011)

And what leads to questions better than doubt? In the end, the beliefs we should be ashamed of are the ones that we have not subjected to proper doubt, or we feel are above doubt, yet still defend to others. A lot of people come up with explanations and then go looking for evidence to support them, but very few laymen will then take the extra step of trying to prove themselves wrong. They have no problem quickly sighting evidence and deciding that evidence is conclusive, but spend no time entertaining the possibility that they could be mistaken. That neglect to think; the act of telling us you believe something and wanting respect for it without even understanding it yourself, the act of trying to belittle others when they critically examine the belief, should be the source of shame.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> And what leads to questions better than doubt? In the end, the beliefs we should be ashamed of are the ones that we have not subjected to proper doubt, or we feel are above doubt, yet still defend to others. A lot of people come up with explanations and then go looking for evidence to support them, but very few laymen will then take the extra step of trying to prove themselves wrong. They have no problem quickly sighting evidence and deciding that evidence is conclusive, but spend no time entertaining the possibility that they could be mistaken. That neglect to think; the act of telling us you believe something and wanting respect for it without even understanding it yourself, the act of trying to belittle others when they critically examine the belief, should be the source of shame.


Although I agree with you, I think there's a fundamental double standard that is operating here - outside oriented looking in vs. inside oriented looking out.

Science has done much to expand our understanding of the natural world but if we were to look at the world today, the status of all living things. I doubt that one could hold the pursuit of science and the development of technology the ultimate answer to our collective problems. 

Critical thinking can do much to discern what is worthwhile to believe but without a connection to the more advanced forms of information analysis such as intuition, hunches, and gut feelings, it too falls under the same criticism it promotes.

To me, it appears that the greatest achievements in science came from people who had a moment of insight, clarity or revelation - all inner experiences. 


btw, for the scientifically inclined, how would you explain the cultural practice and phenomenon of fire-walking (uninjured)?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 26, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Science has done much to expand our understanding of the natural world but if we were to look at the world today, the status of all living things. I doubt that one could hold the pursuit of science and the development of technology the ultimate answer to our collective problems.


Who ever said science was "the ultimate answer to our collective problems"?

Those of us who support science and it's unlimited applications are only saying this is the best system devised by humans to date to determine the most accurate account of reality. Other systems have design flaws or don't account for human error, these systems are what we oppose because we know they are subject to error.



rosecitypapa said:


> Critical thinking can do much to discern what is worthwhile to believe but without a connection to the *more advanced forms of information analysis* such as intuition, hunches, and gut feelings, it too falls under the same criticism it promotes.


Exactly what I mean. "intuition", "hunches" and "gut feelings" are not scientific. You cannot use these _tools_ to figure out the world around you as they are all subject to human error.



rosecitypapa said:


> btw, for the scientifically inclined, how would you explain the cultural practice and phenomenon of fire-walking (uninjured)?


[youtube]7dgpsI1MdQI[/youtube]

[youtube]-W5FRl0qhOM[/youtube]


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 26, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Although I agree with you, I think there's a fundamental double standard that is operating here - outside oriented looking in vs. inside oriented looking out.
> 
> Science has done much to expand our understanding of the natural world but if we were to look at the world today, the status of all living things. I doubt that one could hold the pursuit of science and the development of technology the ultimate answer to our collective problems.
> 
> ...


Fire-walkers actually walk on embers, not fire. Embers have a poor ability to transfer what small amount of thermal energy they have; a low conductivity. Foot skin has a moderate conductivity, and a capacity to hold more thermal energy than the embers. So, the embers don't have much energy to give, can't give it efficiently, have little time to accomplish any of it during a single step, and your foot can absorb a lot before heating up. Fire-walking is normally done at night to enhance the red glow of the embers, which makes them appear hotter than they are.

I would ask you to explain how intuition and gut feelings qualify as more advanced forms of information analysis than the scientific method. These are in fact things that have been well documented to distort research data, namely in the forms of bias. It amounts to background noise and as we place better controls on experiments we can eliminate their interference, something we see demonstrated in the decline effect. I am not sure how the state of the world today as compared to the past has anything to do with the validity of science, but I indeed agree that the pursuit of science/technology is not any sort of ultimate answer to societies problems. Who is making that statement?



> "In cases where prior knowledge is available, the alternative to 'an open mind' is not a 'closed mind'. It is 'an informed mind'. In such contexts, any appeal to 'keep an open mind' is an appeal to prefer ignorance over knowledge. This is not advisable." - Ian Rowland


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 26, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Neither do I because I feel I can explain _why _I believe what I do.
> 
> If you believed in fairies, people would think you're crazy because there's no evidence for the existence of fairies, you would feel ashamed and embarrassed no doubt to hold that belief. This, I feel, is the same reason believers feel embarrassed or ashamed or automatically take offense to anyone questioning their beliefs.
> 
> Someone asks me why I believe the theory of evolution is a scientifically accurate account of life on Earth, I'll say "this is why, this is the data, here's the evidence, clearly it's correct, how could you argue with ALL that?". How accurate could your belief really be if the defense mechanism is to say "don't question it!"?





Padawanbater2 said:


> Who ever said science was "the ultimate answer to our collective problems"?


Not specifically you, it's just the unscientific 'vibe' I get when I interpret people using science as a religion.



Padawanbater2 said:


> Those of us who support science and it's unlimited applications are only saying this is the best system devised by humans to date to determine the most accurate account of reality. Other systems have design flaws or don't account for human error, these systems are what we oppose because we know they are subject to error.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what I mean. "intuition", "hunches" and "gut feelings" are not scientific. You cannot use these _tools_ to figure out the world around you as they are all subject to human error.


Actually, I would view it as human perfection. I don't subscribe to the idea of 'original sin' or that we are flawed in any way. Personally, I think humans are perfect. Perfection defined as a dynamic state of being that includes the capacity/ability to improve upon itself.

However, that still doesn't address that fact that most breakthrough achievements came in science from these states of mind that you define as subject to human error.



Padawanbater2 said:


> [youtube]7dgpsI1MdQI[/youtube]
> 
> [youtube]-W5FRl0qhOM[/youtube]


Interesting video, totally proves my point. The science guy burned his feet, the mystics did not (or at least claimed to).

Edit: oops didn't see the second vid. Ok, so they end with the claim that the science guy's confidence in the mechanics is what kept him unscathed.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 26, 2011)

Make no mistake, the mechanisms behind fire-walking are well understood and well documented. The physics theory behind why fire-walkers are not harmed makes replicable predictions that explain whats happening, without the added assumption that consciousness is involved.

One theory works within the known laws of thermodynamics, the other introduces new information which must cause reexamination of everything learned about physics so far. The added assumption is not necessary, so why prefer it?



> Not specifically you, it's just the unscientific 'vibe' I get when I interpret people using science as a religion.


In other words, it was a straw-man.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 26, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Not specifically you, it's just the unscientific 'vibe' I get when I interpret people using science as a religion.


Do you understand what the definition of 'religion' is? 

How would one use science as religion?



rosecitypapa said:


> Actually, I would view it as human perfection. I don't subscribe to the idea of 'original sin' or that we are flawed in any way. Personally, I think humans are perfect. Perfection defined as a dynamic state of being that includes the capacity/ability to improve upon itself.


That isn't the definition of 'perfect'. What you seem to be doing is taking words and ascribing your own personal definition to them, then calling it a day.. 

First, perfection is 100% subjective. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", similarly, perfection is as well.

What about our 'design' flaws? If humans were perfect, why would we have these? 

-humans with glasses (eyes, clearly imperfect)
-hearing aids (ears, imperfect)
-pace makers (heart, imperfect)
-diseases
-baldness
-ego
-apendix
-midgets are perfect to you? 



rosecitypapa said:


> However, that still doesn't address that fact that most breakthrough achievements came in science from these states of mind that you define as subject to human error.


Right, and science does absolutely nothing to hinder human curiosity, infact, completely on the contrary, science promotes and improves upon human curiosity.

I've heard this argument plenty of times before, essentially what you're saying is "if something sparks an interest in someone, or leads someone to discover something, such as human intuition, a hunch or a gut feeling, that _thing_ is automatically good, and can further be trusted/accepted/utilized in future science experiments." I have pointed out the flaws in this reasoning. Your intuition, your hunches AND your gut feelings are NOT SCIENTIFIC. It doesn't matter if that's what led you to a new discovery. The ends do not justify the means unless you properly use the scientific method.



rosecitypapa said:


> Interesting video, totally proves my point. The science guy burned his feet, the mystics did not (or at least claimed to).


No, watch the second video, that's why I posted two.. 

The reason people don't burn their feet is because of physics and preparation, not because they're altering their state of mind somehow and "believing" they won't burn their feet. Carbon (which the what the embers of the fire they're walking on is made of) is a poor conductor of heat, so it doesn't transfer the heat from the coals to the feet very well.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 26, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Right, and science does absolutely nothing to hinder human curiosity, infact, completely on the contrary, science promotes and improves upon human curiosity.


Science allows the experiences arsing from human curiosity to be counted as genuine. As you point out, rather than hinder or exclude intuition, science validates it.

I would not say that intuition and hunches are unscientific. The first three steps of the scientific method welcome human intuition. 

1. Observation - see something happening, document

2. Ask questions, identify points of inquiry, research known facts

3. form a hypothesis 

From this point on we start experimenting and applying controls in order to validate the hypothesis. We know that human intuition and bias ultimately equates to background noise, so we control for it. But we wouldn't even get to this step without intuition in the first place.

So science does not discount intuition and gut feelings, it simply evaluates them. But your point is not lost. The human experience is riddled with pitfalls, and can never be used to draw conclusions, it simply allows us to identify a starting point.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Fire-walkers actually walk on embers, not fire. Embers have a poor ability to transfer what small amount of thermal energy they have; a low conductivity. Foot skin has a moderate conductivity, and a capacity to hold more thermal energy than the embers. So, the embers don't have much energy to give, can't give it efficiently, have little time to accomplish any of it during a single step, and your foot can absorb a lot before heating up. Fire-walking is normally done at night to enhance the red glow of the embers, which makes them appear hotter than they are.


Since I've done firewalking and can speak from personal experience, you certainly have a point. However the only thing that got me across those coals was 'getting in state' as opposed to the scientific explanation of why I was in no danger. In contrast, if the science is sound, then why do so many get burned if they are not in the proper mental state?




Heisenberg said:


> I would ask you to explain how intuition and gut feelings qualify as more advanced forms of information analysis than the scientific method. These are in fact things that have been well documented to distort research data, namely in the forms of bias. It amounts to background noise and as we place better controls on experiments we can eliminate their interference, something we see demonstrated in the decline effect. I am not sure how the state of the world today as compared to the past has anything to do with the validity of science, but I indeed agree that the pursuit of science/technology is not any sort of ultimate answer to societies problems. Who is making that statement?


I am making that statement.

This isn't on the only source, but it framed the thoughts I had around the intuition as an advanced form of information processing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)


The discovery of benzene came in the form of a dream:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene


The discovery of DNA while popularized as happening while daydreaming may have occurred under the influence of LSD:
http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_crick_dna_lsd.html


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Make no mistake, the mechanisms behind fire-walking are well understood and well documented. The physics theory behind why fire-walkers are not harmed makes replicable predictions that explain whats happening, without the added assumption that consciousness is involved.
> 
> One theory works within the known laws of thermodynamics, the other introduces new information which must cause reexamination of everything learned about physics so far. The added assumption is not necessary, so why prefer it?


Ok, so tell me why the discrepancy between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics and why the latter is causing a reexamination of the former?

Just for kicks Heisenberg, what's you take on crop circles?




Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you understand what the definition of 'religion' is?
> 
> How would one use science as religion?


Apparently to you, I do not.

As simply as being a dogmatic description of reality, self-righteous in it's existence and it's proclaimed benefit for EVERYONE.




Padawanbater2 said:


> That isn't the definition of 'perfect'. What you seem to be doing is taking words and ascribing your own personal definition to them, then calling it a day..


Of course, that's how I consciously create meaning in my life. I'm defining the terms as I use them for my own subjective experience of an 'objective' reality that science claims exist.




Padawanbater2 said:


> First, perfection is 100% subjective. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", similarly, perfection is as well.
> 
> What about our 'design' flaws? If humans were perfect, why would we have these?
> 
> ...


I'll state it again; my definition of perfection is a dynamic state that includes the state of improvement. In each of those cases, one could either start that one is flawed and essentially try to get from 'bad' to 'good'. Or in those cases, one could start that the state is perfect just the way it is and improvement would be even better - going from 'good' to 'better'.




Padawanbater2 said:


> Right, and science does absolutely nothing to hinder human curiosity, infact, completely on the contrary, science promotes and improves upon human curiosity.
> 
> I've heard this argument plenty of times before, essentially what you're saying is "if something sparks an interest in someone, or leads someone to discover something, such as human intuition, a hunch or a gut feeling, that _thing_ is automatically good, and can further be trusted/accepted/utilized in future science experiments." I have pointed out the flaws in this reasoning. Your intuition, your hunches AND your gut feelings are NOT SCIENTIFIC. It doesn't matter if that's what led you to a new discovery. The ends do not justify the means unless you properly use the scientific method.


Actually I'm not saying that at all. I can understand that is what you heard. To clarify, the point that I'm making is that the scientific method is of tremendous value. Intuition and gut feelings are at the heart of discovering new ways of thinking, they also have their limitations that scientists are all too quick to point out. When it comes down to it, is the world more beautiful and mysterious or less so? We could use either religion or science as our reason.



Padawanbater2 said:


> No, watch the second video, that's why I posted two..
> 
> The reason people don't burn their feet is because of physics and preparation, not because they're altering their state of mind somehow and "believing" they won't burn their feet. Carbon (which the what the embers of the fire they're walking on is made of) is a poor conductor of heat, so it doesn't transfer the heat from the coals to the feet very well.


I've heard the standard explanation plenty of times, it wouldn't work for me when facing those coals. Maybe it'll work for people that put science on the same pedestal that religion used to occupy.


----------



## zvuv (Jun 26, 2011)

We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because that's only in that way can we find progress. Richard Feynman.

Intuition can be seriously wrong. When Galileo argued that the Earth spun on its axis, people knew intuitively he was wrong. Intuition is important but without someway of checking the accuracy of what it tells you, it's about as dangerous as it is useful. As often as not, scientific discoveries contradict our intuition.

Talented scientists and mathematicians depend heavily on their intuition in their work. They start with a hunch. But that's just the start. The idea must then be developed to the point where it can be tested against the facts and most 'great ideas' fail at this point. We hear all about Einstein's flashes of brilliant insight. What is usually passed over is the many years of study and disciplined rigorous training that it took to develop this kind of intuition and then, more importantly, the years of meticulous work and calculations it took to convert his ideas into a testable scientific hypothesis. We rarely hear about the vast number great insights that didn't pan out.

People often mistake a feeling of certainty for knowledge. "I just know it's so" is a response I have heard too often. In fact you don't know. If you can't justify your belief, it's not knowledge. It's just a belief. The Scientific Method is essentially an epistemology - a standard for deciding what can be accepted as knowledge. It is the only rational, useful method _ever_ devised for checking our ideas about the world we live in. It is one of the most important developments in human thought and it came very late in our intellectual history. Galileo in the 16th century was the first known practitoner of the Scientific Method in Western culture. Before him there were no scientists in the modern sense of the word. ( Avicena, an Arab living in the 10th century, described the SM but it was not taken up by the culture of that time.) With a few, childishly simple experiments, Galileo demolished Aristotle's theories on Mechanics which had dominated Western thought for 2000 yrs. 


Some important ideas in the SM are:

1. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. (Most of the time it's the only good answer)
2. The facts trump any theory. (Every scientific theory is constantly at risk of being shown false by the next experiment)
3. If there is no way an idea could be shown to be false it's useless.
4. It's not enough to explain what is already known, a theory must predict new information.
5. While it is possible to prove with certainty that an idea is wrong, it is never possible to prove with the same certainty that it is the truth.

This is a very loose description and not meant to be a rigorous or complete description of the Philosophy of Science.

An interesting consequence of #2 is that in the scientific sense, there can be no such thing as a supernatural event. No observation can ever be counted as a 'Violation of the Laws of Nature'. Nature is the law and whatever she does is right. If we see something that contradicts what we thought we knew about nature, we get to rethink our ideas. In the meantime, the answer must be 'We don't know'.

(Just in case anyone raises this old saw: Einstein did not fail math. He was a very strong mathematician. If you read his papers you will find them deeply mathematical as is all of physics since the 19th century. He had formidable mathematical skills, he just wasn't an Einstein in math.)


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 26, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Since I've done firewalking and can speak from personal experience, you certainly have a point. However the only thing that got me across those coals was 'getting in state' as opposed to the scientific explanation of why I was in no danger. In contrast, if the science is sound, *then why do so many get burned if they are not in the proper mental state*?


Ahh, a loaded question. Your premise assumes the conclusion. The question is simply, why do so many get burned. The answer is that not all the coals are burned down. The dynamics of fire-walking make it unlikely to get burned, but not impossible. When someone is burned, it is then attributed to their mental state ex post facto. This is just a form of confirmation bias. Does anyone ever get burned for reasons other than improper mental state? If so, how do we distinguish between the two?




rosecitypapa said:


> Ok, so tell me why the discrepancy between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics and why the latter is causing a reexamination of the former?
> 
> Just for kicks Heisenberg, what's you take on crop circles?


Classic physics apply to decoherent systems, quantum physics apply to coherent systems; they are not in competition. I did not mean to imply that if a result causes us to question the fundamentals of an entire field of research we should automatically dismiss it. Indeed, such an event may point to undiscovered knowledge. But I was speaking about two competing theories which make the same predictions and equally explain the evidence. One makes no more assumptions that necessary, the other goes on to assume human consciousness plays a part. My question was, since that extra assumption causes us to question everything we know, and is not necessary to explain the evidence, why favor it? 

I can explain my toaster by the heat radiating from the elements and cooking the bread. I can then say the heat can not cook the toast without first gaining permission from an invisible, weightless demon that lives inside. I can then say that sometimes areas of the toast get burned, and that is evidence that permission was not properly sought from the demon before turning on the toaster. Both theories explain what's happening, one makes assumptions not necessary. Which should we favor?

Crop circles are man made creations, 100% of the time, unless you are talking about simple crude circles that are a result of confused animals walking in circles or fungus rings rotting the crop.

Please read about anomaly hunting.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 26, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Actually, I would view it as human perfection. I don't subscribe to the idea of 'original sin' or that we are flawed in any way. Personally, I think humans are perfect. Perfection defined as a dynamic state of being that includes the capacity/ability to improve upon itself.


Dude we eat and breathe out of the same hole in our face. How fucked up of a design is that? I think anyone that has choked to death would vehemently disagree with you.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jun 27, 2011)

Midgets are not evil until pissed off or pissed on,then the evil little man comes out.But inherently not evil.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 27, 2011)

zvuv said:


> We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because that's only in that way can we find progress. Richard Feynman.
> 
> Intuition can be seriously wrong. When Galileo argued that the Earth spun on its axis, people knew intuitively he was wrong. Intuition is important but without someway of checking the accuracy of what it tells you, it's about as dangerous as it is useful. As often as not, scientific discoveries contradict our intuition.
> 
> ...


Interesting points, although I would say in the first example that you mention a better metaphor would be when learning to come out of a stall in flying. That thing that you call intuition in Galileo's example I have no idea if it was indeed so, my guess it's those pesky non-consciously challenged and non scientifically derived thoughts that turned into unconscious beliefs.

It's true, the state of consciouseness that we can individually get to is certainty, we need another pov in agreement to get to reality.




zvuv said:


> Some important ideas in the SM are:
> 
> 1. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. (Most of the time it's the only good answer)
> 2. The facts trump any theory. (Every scientific theory is constantly at risk of being shown false by the next experiment)
> ...


Cool, would you mind explaining the existence of the bacteria flagellum from a SM's pov?
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html




Heisenberg said:


> Ahh, a loaded question. Your premise assumes the conclusion. The question is simply, why do so many get burned. The answer is that not all the coals are burned down. The dynamics of fire-walking make it unlikely to get burned, but not impossible. When someone is burned, it is then attributed to their mental state ex post facto. This is just a form of confirmation bias. Does anyone ever get burned for reasons other than improper mental state? If so, how do we distinguish between the two?


Sorry, I just not buying the 'carbon poor conductor of heat' theory. I go through the winters with wood heat, which means I build fires and work with coals more than I like to. The heat coming from a coal can burn things without touching them, can ignite wood through proximity. Granted it's not the timing like a momentary footstep. But in this case, yes science can create a plausible explanation. In many cases, it's the simple explanation that is better description of reality. But in this case the simple explanation is surprisingly far-fetched.




Heisenberg said:


> Classic physics apply to decoherent systems, quantum physics apply to coherent systems; they are not in competition. I did not mean to imply that if a result causes us to question the fundamentals of an entire field of research we should automatically dismiss it. Indeed, such an event may point to undiscovered knowledge. But I was speaking about two competing theories which make the same predictions and equally explain the evidence. One makes no more assumptions that necessary, the other goes on to assume human consciousness plays a part. My question was, since that extra assumption causes us to question everything we know, and is not necessary to explain the evidence, why favor it?
> 
> I can explain my toaster by the heat radiating from the elements and cooking the bread. I can then say the heat can not cook the toast without first gaining permission from an invisible, weightless demon that lives inside. I can then say that sometimes areas of the toast get burned, and that is evidence that permission was not properly sought from the demon before turning on the toaster. Both theories explain what's happening, one makes assumptions not necessary. Which should we favor?
> 
> ...


I'd be willing to buy the 'The dynamics of fire-walking make it unlikely to get burned, but not impossible.' theory over the 'crop circles are man-made creations 100% of the time' theory. 

If you can look at this complexity and still believe that ropes, strings and people made these, I don't think that is a stellar example of keeping an open mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Z3kZr4fNQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM5pL5tuuOI&feature=related

Your joking yes?
Crop circle being formed

This is not proof from my pov, however it is more likely imho, than pranksters working undiscovered at night over the last twenty years knocking out 20 of these things in a season with ropes, strings and sticks.


Ropes, strings and sticks? Overnight? Come'on!?





guy incognito said:


> Dude we eat and breathe out of the same hole in our face. How fucked up of a design is that? I think anyone that has choked to death would vehemently disagree with you.


Actually, I don't think they would. It's my belief that we all choose the time and manner of our death. (on some level of awareness)


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jun 27, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Your joking yes?
> Crop circle being formed


bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha HA!!!

thats what you bring to the table?

sorry give me a minute to pick myself off the floor your killing me here

[thread=442357]Enlightenment Here[/thread]


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Jun 27, 2011)

*"Actually, I don't think they would. It's my belief that we all choose the time and manner of our death. (on some level of awareness)"

*I recently received an email from my ex wife informing me that my "day is coming" and you will never see it hit you. BUT, the thing is, is that she was only half right for once  

While no man alive can see his own fate, every man alive HAS HIS DAY COMING.....She had no comment to my regurgitation of ignorance  

If we all choose our time and manner I am sure my dearest friend Darrell Abbott would not have been murdered, or anyone for that matter


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 27, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> I'd be willing to buy the 'The dynamics of fire-walking make it unlikely to get burned, but not impossible.' theory over the 'crop circles are man-made creations 100% of the time' theory.
> 
> If you can look at this complexity and still believe that ropes, strings and people made these, I don't think that is a stellar example of keeping an open mind.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Z3kZr4fNQ
> ...


Specific heat Try placing a frying pan over the fire-walking path and see what happens when you step on it. Same amount of thermal energy, better conduction. Maybe first you should get some steaks or otherwise raw meat, heat it up to body temperature, and strap it to your feet. See if the meat is harmed when you walk across the embers. In fact this has been done many times, and the answer is no, there is no significant burn damage. If the meat is dead and not conscious, how does it manage to remain unharmed?


Saying 'I can not understand how humans could make crop circles' does not mean humans aren't able to do it. The 'crop circles being formed' video is am admitted hoax, as are the first ever recorded (complex) circles. Doug Bower and Dave Chorley confessed to making over 250 circles in the 70's and 80's. If you look at the history of crop circles, complex patters didn't show up until these two started making them, and they got more complicated each year after. Isn't it odd that a mysterious force felt the need to step in and mimic hoaxers?

Here is an example of a circle that was created by men overnight. This photo is not in dispute; it was planned and made by men who are pointing to no mysterious force as an explanation.







In fact, here is an entire website documenting the groups who do these circles, who sell books and guides on how you can do it to. They document circles being made. So again, just because you can not fathom how it could be done by humans, doesn't mean it can't. 

From Skeptoid


> In fact, it's hard to find any picture of crop circle investigators where everyone in the shot is not holding a camera or binoculars or something, finger on the trigger. So my question to Colin Andrews would be, "Did you not ask these crop circle investigators who witnessed the formations why, in every single case, they failed to produce a single photograph or frame of videotape showing this wonderful creation?" If I were Colin Andrews, these investigators are not those whose testimonials I would flaunt to the world. Instead I would tell them they screwed up, and probably even accuse them of trying to hoax me. How can they spend all day and night camped out on the hilltop, finger on the video camera trigger, witness a crop circle forming, and produce only a lengthy list of verbal reports, and no video? Inexcusable for a conscientious researcher.
> 
> *There is one famous video of white balls of light actually creating an entire crop circle*, in seconds. It's called the Oliver Castle video, and you can find it on YouTube. It was made by John Wabe in 1996 or 1997, a partner in a small video production company called First Cut Studio. He took some simple video of the completed crop circle, and ran it through their Quantel Paintbox. *In a video subsequently broadcast on the Discovery Channel and on National Geographic*, he showed how he rubber-stamped other pieces of the wheatfield background to "erase" the crop circle, and then un-erased it bit by bit underneath some flying white dots that he added. He then added some shake and some artificial generation loss to the video, and presto, a great hoax was done.



It seems keeping an open mind often requires one to be uninformed.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 27, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Saying 'I can not understand how humans could do this' does not mean humans aren't able to do it. The 'crop circles being formed' video is am admitted hoax, as are the first ever recorded (complex) circles. Doug Bower and Dave Chorley confessed to making over 250 circles in the 70's and 80's. If you look at the history of crop circles, complex patters didn't show up until these two started making them, and they got more complicated each year after. Isn't it odd that a mysterious force felt the need to step in and mimic hoaxers?
> 
> Here is an example of a circle that was created by men overnight. This photo is not in dispute; it was planned and made by men who are pointing to no mysterious force as an explanation.
> 
> ...


Those two? Have you seen their method?

Well I looked through the site, maybe it's me but I can't find a single crop circle that they claimed they have made. It looks more like a parody site to me. They claim to make circles and then show crop circles and their audience can infer that they made the circles they posted. I see no process shots. If you can show me just ONE in process documentation of self-proclaimed crop circle makers that is of the same class and caliber of the recent crop circles, I'm sold. 

I'll even not consider:
rare radioactive isotopes
plant abnormalities

I would especially be interested in the story of the men who made that circle that you use as evidence.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 27, 2011)

[video=youtube;qjGtxmClNZc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGtxmClNZc[/video]

Meteors did it. That'll be $20.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jun 27, 2011)

Missed the last part of that post. Good one on the forming crop circle exposed hoax!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMeRd5EdBwE

Reminds me of stunt plane landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lJy1idHwCc


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 27, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Those two? Have you seen their method?
> 
> Well I looked through the site, maybe it's me but I can't find a single crop circle that they claimed they have made. It looks more like a parody site to me. They claim to make circles and then show crop circles and their audience can infer that they made the circles they posted. I see no process shots. If you can show me just ONE in process documentation of self-proclaimed crop circle makers that is of the same class and caliber of the recent crop circles, I'm sold.
> 
> ...


Watch the Nat Geo documentary to see a circle being made in 5 hours, and read again about anomaly hunting. That site is not meant to debunk, but to celebrate the art. Part of the art is to maintain a mysterious nature, and the mystery also is necessary to avoid being charged for damaging crops, however they do occasionally show plans for the patterns they plan for the season, and they certainly show many pics of circles they made themselves, including some for corporations and advertisers, as well as from other groups. They even show formations they've made in sand without the slightest hint of human tracks. This article shows that even though they prefer to remain mysterious, they are not trying to fool anyone, and in fact get upset when others do. This includes those who claim anomalies are found at the circle sites. 

From a different article


> Interestingly, after more than a decade of study biophysicist WC Levengood has only recently noticed that the characteristic 'anomalies' (primarily lengthened nodes) of genuine crop patterns *are also to be found in wind-damaged or 'lodged' crop.* This would appear to negate Hasselhof's assertions, as it implies that there is nothing unusual in flattened crop displaying subtle physiological changes due to, say, phototropism or trauma. But with impressive illogic Levengood and his followers assert the precisely opposite: rather, the same supernatural force that makes the patterns also flattens indiscriminately, and what we would dismiss as weather-damage may be something mysterious.
> 
> So much for Occam's razor, but to compare this to a purely honest quest for knowledge using actual facts is to miss the point. To the outside world there is no real secret to the patterns' provenance. The science of cerealogy could really be as simple as discreetly mimicking (hoaxing) a pattern and observing how this generates the same effects and claims as the 'genuine' article. Only a fool would subsequently favour vague and apocryphal, low-grade evidence over a practical demonstration. But, here, truth is relative and answers are invariably obscured by 'blind eye' insulation from outright recognition, as if the spell will be broken by discovery.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 28, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Neither do I because I feel I can explain _why _I believe what I do.
> 
> If you believed in fairies, people would think you're crazy because there's no evidence for the existence of fairies, you would feel ashamed and embarrassed no doubt to hold that belief. This, I feel, is the same reason believers feel embarrassed or ashamed or automatically take offense to anyone questioning their beliefs.


Not a single person that I've ever met who works with Fae is ashamed of the fact that other people don't think they exist, much less ashamed about their own "beliefs". That said, they also don't approach people with no knowledge on the subject and berate them about being wrong or stupid for _not_ believing. (Or make posts on pot forums about it)


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 28, 2011)

When does it become appropriate to question someones belief?


----------



## karri0n (Jun 28, 2011)

Questioning is appropriate, as is challenging. Insulting someone's intelligence is never appropriate. Acting like you don't know this or don't know the difference is disingenuous.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jun 28, 2011)

God Rest Dime he was a Light in this world ill never forget!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 28, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Questioning is appropriate, as is challenging. Insulting someone's intelligence is never appropriate. Acting like you don't know this or don't know the difference is disingenuous.


I ask why someone believes the things they do, they give me reasons like faith or some shaky foundation they can't justify, these crazy beliefs harm people, so I think it's highly appropriate to tell someone exactly how I feel about it.


----------



## Rootsgirl (Jun 28, 2011)

I believe violence is the first resort of a weak mind... thump easy's post proves my point.


----------



## Winter Woman (Jun 28, 2011)

Actually, if I have my translations right and I believe it is. That saying about' turn the cheek' referred to an insult given back in those times. See, if you are right handed and slapped a person on the right cheek, you'd have to use the back of your hand, a very big insult back in those times. 

It is an insult that challenges you to retaliate. It is an attempt to shame you and get you to either back down in utter humiliation or lash out and escalate the conflict. 

It did not imply do good to other people (though I think that is a good idea) it implied, &#8220;I will not seek revenge because I am stronger than that&#8221;. It also says, I will not respond in shame because I have dignity in Christ.



Heisenberg said:


> Jesus said, turn the other cheek. Do good to those who hate you. Do not replay evil with evil. Do not seek revenge on those who wrong you.
> 
> What you seem to be saying is, "I'm am uneducated by choice and I do not tolerate any opinion that differs from my own. I answer reasonable doubt with unreasonable violence, despite it directly offending the teachings of Christ, and i'm proud of it."
> 
> Why haven't you defended your beliefs to yourself? You haven't applied reasonable doubt to what you believe, or at least examined why you believe it? If you have, then what's the problem with simply explaining to someone else the reasons for your beliefs?


----------



## thump easy (Jun 28, 2011)

Rootsgirl said:


> I believe violence is the first resort of a weak mind... thump easy's post proves my point.


i might have a week mind i cant hold true to my religion but im trien i cant fight with u guys only heinburg knows the reson its big tym i cant right it .... but i live at piece more now then ever i realy do i sit on the shiter n read the bible n every tym i do it answers my problem... i once ran into a dude that owd me money im a big guy i almost slaterd him at the hydro store he stole my lights n stuff i tried to pound him but the cameras n the guys at the hydro store were like thump thump please our racks our racks dont damage anything so i wated outside he didnt come out i finaly found the guy..... i prayed on it i prayed n i prayed the guy knocks on my door n pays me.... not all my money, he did.... i pray on alot of stuff but i always fall short... i had a women didnt believe in god native american she got me for money n got me for my heart, clients owed me money and larry webster regional champion boxer, owner of a boxing gym in phx, got me for my credit for material at lumber yard ex manufacturer of sips steel stud panels energy effiecent walls, he was my partner, and my tools n my bissness he left causing me to loose the licence, i owned home town builders he ran off with all my money i cant prove it.... but i gave up n broke down my week mind i pray to god Y have u left me to loose it all...... Y..... y if i dont sell drugs no more Y.... well im at piece i dont have the trophy girl i dont have the fancy trucks i dont have anything left i dont work endlessly till the night i dont get fucked as much n i feel at peice know i found a women i found piece i cant explain it but my reaction is an ass woopen to someone who fucks with my im still working on it im not violent at all i just trip out on people the human nature of a person is a trip to me... i often fight with this forum i fight with the joint in my hand or the beer or the crazzy sex i fight with myself.... i cant figure it out but that brings me peice im sorry i cant defend it because im not that type of fighter.... but i do feel a hole lot better some tyms n its so hard to do as it seas.. but im trying im gona have to give up the pantie room n this forum... soon so i enjoy u guys but im geting to that point.. DONT WORRY IM NOT GONA KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR..... because ill probley take your weed n smoke it.....


----------



## zvuv (Jul 2, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> When does it become appropriate to question someones belief?


As soon as you realize you believe something.

@rosecity. I will answer your question about the flagellum in a later post.

@thump. I'm sorry to say I don't understand your posts. I have been trying but between the spelling and the grammar it's very difficult. I am not a grammar nazi or a snob but if you break enough rules of the English language, at some point you become unintelligible.

Here's what I get from your posts: You used to deal. You used to be quite violent. You reformed and went into the construction business. People fucked you over. You thumped some of them. Now you have found a good woman and peace of mind from reading the bible.

That's wonderful. So what?


----------



## beardo (Jul 4, 2011)

I believe in G.G. Allin


----------



## 808toker (Jul 5, 2011)

my beliefs is that all living things are compostions of energy. and thats it. energy. our soul is our energy that leaves when e die.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Jul 5, 2011)

thump easy said:


> what im saying is you cant spell if u diched school to get high n not go to school..


Well... I can't argue with that.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 5, 2011)

808toker said:


> my beliefs is that all living things are compostions of energy. and thats it. energy. our soul is our energy that leaves when e die.


You are saying our souls are quantifiable work potential? After all E=MC2, so which type of energy makes up our soul? How dose this energy remain perpetual? 

Energy is a measurement. You seem to be saying nothing meaningful. At best, you are saying "Something inside of us I can't describe(soul) is made of of this thing I can't describe(energy) and that thing leaves our body when we die". In fact, you really aren't saying anything at all. When you can't even describe a belief then how can't you have justified it to yourself? When you hold a belief that you haven't even tried to understand, it is definitely a belief you should be ashamed of.


----------



## thump easy (Jul 5, 2011)

im gona wright a book one day n its gona have edditors.... hahaha it will be a good one believe me.... ul c....


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 5, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Watch the Nat Geo documentary to see a circle being made in 5 hours, and read again about anomaly hunting. That site is not meant to debunk, but to celebrate the art. Part of the art is to maintain a mysterious nature, and the mystery also is necessary to avoid being charged for damaging crops, however they do occasionally show plans for the patterns they plan for the season, and they certainly show many pics of circles they made themselves, including some for corporations and advertisers, as well as from other groups. They even show formations they've made in sand without the slightest hint of human tracks. This article shows that even though they prefer to remain mysterious, they are not trying to fool anyone, and in fact get upset when others do. This includes those who claim anomalies are found at the circle sites.
> 
> From a different article


Heisenberg, I've looked all through that site. The only process pics of a crop circle creation is the one of the minivan. There are a bunch of dead links and still no sign of the National Geographic special. Would you post it?

I'm keeping an open mind, however the example that you've illustrated is falling short of facts that I can verify.





zvuv said:


> As soon as you realize you believe something.
> 
> @rosecity. I will answer your question about the flagellum in a later post.


zvuv, I'd love to hear how evolution created a mechanism that is composed of ~30 distinct parts that must all be in place for the thing to work.




Heisenberg said:


> You are saying our souls are quantifiable work potential? After all E=MC2, so which type of energy makes up our soul? How dose this energy remain perpetual?
> 
> Energy is a measurement. You seem to be saying nothing meaningful. At best, you are saying "Something inside of us I can't describe(soul) is made of of this thing I can't describe(energy) and that thing leaves our body when we die". In fact, you really aren't saying anything at all. When you can't even describe a belief then how can't you have justified it to yourself? When you hold a belief that you haven't even tried to understand, it is definitely a belief you should be ashamed of.


Ok, so if science can't quantify it, then it doesn't exist? Wasn't there a sound bite a while ago claiming that the body loses 21 grams at the moment of death?

Regardless if you believe in the existence of the soul or not, the physical body is animated by something that's not there when compared to something that is dead.

As for meaning, that in an of itself is entirely personal. We all make up our own meaning in the field of sensory stimulus. We also have no control over the meaning that another individual entity creates for itself, even if based on the same stimulus.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Heisenberg, I've looked all through that site. The only process pics of a crop circle creation is the one of the minivan. There are a bunch of dead links and still no sign of the National Geographic special. Would you post it?
> 
> I'm keeping an open mind, however the example that you've illustrated is falling short of facts that I can verify.


[video=youtube;jMeRd5EdBwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMeRd5EdBwE[/video]



> zvuv, I'd love to hear how evolution created a mechanism that is composed of ~30 distinct parts that must all be in place for the thing to work.


Type two words in a google search and you will find many answers that show your premise is incorrect. Flagellum evolution comes up with many hits that give possible explanations but more importantly show that not all parts have to be in place for it to be functioning. The type III secretion system has only a few of the 40 or so proteins of the flagella but has a perfectly useful function. 
Here's more

[video=youtube;SdwTwNPyR9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w[/video]

The fact that you have never found these explanations on your own makes me believe that you were quite satisfied with the answers of the anti-evolutionists and never even bothered to question whether their claims had any merit. Why would anyone that claims to be interested in truth do such a thing unless they had some underlying agenda?


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> [video=youtube;jMeRd5EdBwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMeRd5EdBwE[/video]


This topic was covered in the thread already. Yes, this video was a hoax, but still no evidence of crop circle artists creating a complicated pattern overnight.



mindphuk said:


> Type two words in a google search and you will find many answers that show your premise is incorrect. Flagellum evolution comes up with many hits that give possible explanations but more importantly show that not all parts have to be in place for it to be functioning. The type III secretion system has only a few of the 40 or so proteins of the flagella but has a perfectly useful function.
> Here's more
> 
> [video=youtube;SdwTwNPyR9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w[/video]
> ...


Nope, no underlying agenda. just like debate and here to explore with an open mind. When I first learned of it, it was quite fascinating and there were no readily available counter explanations at the time. Thanks for your contribution although, imho, it would be better to keep it focused on content rather than an interpretation of my motivations and psyche. 

This is a better description of the bacterial flagellum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_flagellum#Bacterial


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 5, 2011)

On that second vid, I checked out the poster's other vids. He definitely has an agenda. On transitional forms in the fossil record, there was this documentary that I haven't explored yet about the idea that we could be known as homo toxicus. Since WW II, over 100,000 new chemicals have been introduced into the environment that is fully embedded in the food chain. 
http://www.homotoxicus.com/english/index.htm

On the whole, what really matters?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> On that second vid, I checked out the poster's other vids. He definitely has an agenda.


Yes, that agenda is called education and countering the ridiculous claims of anti-scientific fundamentalists.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

I agree with mp, in that the BF has been widely covered, Ken Miller explains; 
[youtube]m2alpk8PUd4[/youtube]

What creationists do is pick tiny things (using science) they think go contrary to the theory of evolution while they dismiss all the observations and data collected that supports it. The BT is too complicated for creationists to understand, just like evolution, so they don't accept it's explanation. 

This is a very common thing for creationists or anti-evolutionists to bring up..


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 5, 2011)

Nice vid, he explains it pretty well. Although his argument isn't the same as Behe's statement: if you take one component away, the whole doesn't work. Ken is explaining that if you take a subset away there is still subset that remains functional. Not quite the same thing because it is no longer a flagellum - but as he further explains each subset exists currently in the cell although with a completely different function. 

I think it comes down to whether one believes consciousness derives from matter or if matter derives from consciousness. Each has a worldview that will gather data to support it's pov. For me it's not so much _either/or_ as so much _and/also_. Either pov on it's own is flawed and incomplete. 

It is only through transcending the mental construct of duality by being with paradox that the experience of unity is possible (at least for me).

btw, I'm mention e-prime again for the last several posts in this thread are illustrations of it or rather the non-use of it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 6, 2011)

Rose, no offense intended, but you seem to have fallen for all the text book fallacious arguments. Fire walking, crop circles, irreducible complexity... these are things used as examples in critical thinking classes to illustrate logical pitfalls. 

The nat geo vid is about an hour, but here is a short summary vid. You'll have to catch the full length vid on tv I guess.

Here are some short podcasts which give critical thought to these subjects.

Irreducible complexity

Crop Circles and Crop Circles


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Rose, no offense intended, but you seem to have fallen for all the text book fallacious arguments. Fire walking, crop circles, irreducible complexity... these are things used as examples in critical thinking classes to illustrate logical pitfalls.
> 
> The nat geo vid is about an hour, but here is a short summary vid. You'll have to catch the full length vid on tv I guess.
> 
> ...


No offense taken Heisenberg, however I must say I'm still waiting to see evidence of a crop circle created by 'crop circle artists' that are complex. All I see are links of descriptions, commentary, debate, all inferring that crop circle are simply made by humans because that is the 'only' logical explanation. Isn't this an application of critical thinking? Am I just to believe you because of the (my perceived) smug tone of your posts and links that affirm what you believe? Where is that irrefutable evidence that a complex geometrical crop circle is made by crop circle artists and hoaxers? 

Still *NO* process shots beginning to end of one being made. From drawing board to overhead photo with all the steps in between. Oh wait, the mystery is part of the 'art',... well how convenient.

As a firewalker myself, sorry but I'm trusting my own experience over anything anybody else says about it. I've been burned by coals and not burned. I find the science explanation laughable. However that vid with the science guy walking over the coals was definitely an eye opener. Can I explain it? Nope. Will the powers of critical thought keep you from burning your feet as you try this at home? Let me know how it goes. 


There are people who learn from books and there are people who learn from experiencing the world. Critical thinking has a lot to offer, however when not balanced by emotions and spiritual inspiration it imho is empty of providing any real meaning. 

Let's move on to some other topics.

If you are really a critical thinker, I challenge you to build some of these machines:
http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Science-Strange-Machines-Build/dp/0689115628

Here's one, it's a psi wheel. I'm curious how you would deconstruct this:
Psi wheel under glass

They are pretty easy to make and play with, and I have no explanation on why it does what it does.

This is an attempt to debunk a psi wheel: 
psi wheel static electricity?

I'd give an A for effort but it falls short. The movement is not the same.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

lol rose

[youtube]9BIWhNh5V6Q[/youtube]


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

Derren Brown! I love this guy! He's got some great vids out of some street hypnosis that he does.

btw, gw that doesn't address the psi wheel under glass with the blow dryer. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges, psi wheel under glass with the participant's hands 3 ft away is not a psi wheel in open air with someone's hands right next to it.

Give it another debunk try there buddy!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Derren Brown! I love this guy! He's got some great vids out of some street hypnosis that he does.
> 
> btw, gw that doesn't address the psi wheel under glass with the blow dryer. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges, psi wheel under glass with the participant's hands 3 ft away is not a psi wheel in open air with someone's hands right next to it.
> 
> Give it another debunk try there buddy!


a large part of derren browns career is based on showing the old "tricks" are just that "tricks" you say you love him but you think he's lying too?

i dont feel the need to debunk a youtube vid they are so easily faked defintative proof they are not....

if you feel its so real and your in touch with your TK side then why dont you repeat it and show us?

even better get the person who did that vid to repeat it in front of a group of people that will check his methods it will give you guys the tools to shut us skeptics up for ever

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

the moment someone can do that experiment in a controlled environment all your beliefs will be vindicated. untill then your just blowing smoke and embarrassing yourself by showing us "proof" from youtube


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 6, 2011)

You have been duped. The author of the video is a skeptic. He created a video magic trick and you fell for it. 

Some time after publicizing his videos, the author, &#8220;Mattman&#8221;, finally revealed:

&#8220;The two videos were both social experiments, and both illusions. I got the idea in my head to make a telekinesis video as a means to show that, despite what people may think, these videos are absolutely worthless as &#8216;evidence&#8217; for the phenomenon known as telekinesis. The idea was to make the most convincing (amateur) psi wheel video on the internet, have people rally their support around it as a result, and then when the moment was right, to confess that this video was an illusion, and make the point that no matter how convincing these videos may seem, to always see things like this with a *healthy* level of skepticism, even if you are otherwise a believer in such things.&#8221;

http://forgetomori.com/2009/skepticism/psychic-powers-video-proof/


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You have been duped. The author of the video is a skeptic. He created a video magic trick and you fell for it.
> 
> Some time after publicizing his videos, the author, &#8220;Mattman&#8221;, finally revealed:
> 
> ...


my psychic powers are tingling...

i predict rose ingores relevance of this and quickly skips onto a new line of nonsense that is "definative proof"


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 6, 2011)

Some people continue to believe in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. I would like to believe, but as a magician, I have performed and watched stunts that put the majority of 'true' psychics to shame. Funny how the best psychics in the world can't even give a demonstration that is better than an admitted tricksters like Derren Brown or Keith Barry.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

the worst thing is theres people out that the believe that derren brown isnt even faking it. pretty scary really


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> No offense taken Heisenberg, however I must say I'm still waiting to see evidence of a crop circle created by 'crop circle artists' that are complex. All I see are links of descriptions, commentary, debate, all inferring that crop circle are simply made by humans because that is the 'only' logical explanation. Isn't this an application of critical thinking? Am I just to believe you because of the (my perceived) smug tone of your posts and links that affirm what you believe? Where is that irrefutable evidence that a complex geometrical crop circle is made by crop circle artists and hoaxers?
> 
> Still *NO* process shots beginning to end of one being made. From drawing board to overhead photo with all the steps in between. Oh wait, the mystery is part of the 'art',... well how convenient.


 There is nothing wrong with providing links for context and further explanation. If you were to be swayed by my arguments simply because of a smug tone and impressed by the number of links, I would have yet another reason call you a sloppy thinker. 

I never claimed to have irrefutable evidence for crop circles being hoaxed. I simply showed that humans can do this and are doing this and it was never a phenomena until humans started doing it. I find it unnecessary to believe some sort of supernatural force decided to step in at some point and mimic humans. Without any evidence, we must favor the null hypotheses, which in this case has elevated to a reasonable explanation. We have one theory with supported, replicable evidence and others with no evidence or real explanation. I simply don't see any reason to favor the supernatural explanation, and you certainly haven't given any. The best you can put forth is saying "I don't understand how humans could do this". That is evidence that you don't understand, and nothing more. I don't fully understand the natural explanation of how the sun manages to be a seemingly perpetual ball of flaming gas, but that doesn't mean I should go looking for a supernatural explanation. In support of your explanation you sighted a video that is a well known hoax, which causes me to wonder about your ability to research and evaluate evidence before you decide on a belief.



> As a firewalker myself, sorry but I'm trusting my own experience over anything anybody else says about it. I've been burned by coals and not burned. I find the science explanation laughable. However that vid with the science guy walking over the coals was definitely an eye opener. Can I explain it? Nope. Will the powers of critical thought keep you from burning your feet as you try this at home? Let me know how it goes.


If there is one thing that is rudimentary to critical thinking it is that the human experience can not be trusted to determine valid conclusions. When you say you will trust your own experience no matter what anyone says about it, it reveals your true nature; you favor your beliefs over any evidence. If one is to trust the human experience, we must be aware of the well documented, well understood mistakes of logic, perception and memory that humans are sure to make, as well as applying reasonable doubt. Note that reasonable doubt is not the same as general distrust. There are hundreds of papers and experiments documenting precisely what these human vulnerabilities are. Not only are people easily fooled by others, they are extremely adept at fooling themselves.

You engage in the truest sense of ignorance by cherry picking only what you want from experiences and evidence to back up your presumptions. It has been well demonstrated that someone who is interested in the truth first looks at the evidence and then decides on an explanation. Although you are willing to hear oppositions to your belies, you are not willing to pay attention to them, and only consider them to the point of finding a reason to dismiss them.

Ultimately you can not explain why you favor supernatural explanations over natural ones, except to say that the natural ones do not make sense to you. When you point out why they don't make sense, it comes across as a person who simply doesn't understand the information, and not just someone with an open mind. In other words, your views do not seem genuine.



> There are people who learn from books and there are people who learn from experiencing the world. Critical thinking has a lot to offer, however when not balanced by emotions and spiritual inspiration it imho is empty of providing any real meaning.


People who seek the truth learn from both books and experience. Critical thinking is the result of a trained mind and can be applied to all aspects of thinking, including creative, emotional and spiritual thinking. It is an approach to interpreting the world; skepticism. It is in fact a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic and standards to evaluate the results. What part of this do you have a problem with? Is it being systematic, being careful and thorough, or having consistent logic and standards? To abandon critical thinking is to embrace ignorance, negligence, and inconsistency, since these are all things skepticism addresses. 

It seems that others are addressing your further links, and as I have not had a chance to follow them before being sleepy, I will withhold any comments for now.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

> a large part of derren browns career is based on showing the old "tricks" are just that "tricks" you say you love him but you think he's lying too?


No, I never said he is lying. As a fellow hypnotist, I respect him highly. It's just that his video did not sufficiently explain the phenomenon to me, *based on my on experiments*.

My favorite Derren Brown videos are the ones where he gets a stranger to hand over his wallet and keys not once but twice on the street, the one in the mall where he gets everyone to unconsciously raise their hand and the pick up one with the three women in the club.




> i dont feel the need to debunk a youtube vid they are so easily faked defintative proof they are not....
> 
> if you feel its so real and your in touch with your TK side then why dont you repeat it and show us?
> 
> ...


Personally, I understand beliefs to be like a warddrobe. Accumulated over time, themed or mismatched and easily exchanged like a shirt. 

But only if one is willing to _have_ a belief, rather than a belief _having _them.

Skepticism or True Believer? Either label creates a limitation that skews sensory information into a perpetual worldview.




mindphuk said:


> You have been duped. The author of the video is a skeptic. He created a video magic trick and you fell for it.
> 
> Some time after publicizing his videos, the author, &#8220;Mattman&#8221;, finally revealed:
> 
> ...



mindphuk, that's a *great *debunk! Good on ya! 

Now that we established that the video is an illusion, I'm not going to talk about my experiences with the psi wheel, I did my own experiments but had the wheel under glass from across the room,.. let's just say I'm keeping an open mind. Does that mean I'm dismissing your debunk? Of course not. 

As for proof in psychic powers, I think using a test group of psychics and correlating their predictions on winning lottery numbers would be way more practical. 

mindpuck, willing to take on a scientific explanation why a razor's edge gets preserved when placed within a pyramid? 

How about dowsing or water witching?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> my psychic powers are tingling...
> 
> i predict rose ingores relevance of this and quickly skips onto a new line of nonsense that is "definative proof"





> As for proof in psychic powers, I think using a test group of psychics and correlating their predictions on winning lottery numbers would be way more practical.
> 
> mindpuck, willing to take on a scientific explanation why a razor's edge gets preserved when placed within a pyramid?
> 
> How about dowsing or water witching?


more proof??? i just showed my psychic prowess


do i win a million dolars?? lol


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> There is nothing wrong with providing links for context and further explanation. If you were to be swayed by my arguments simply because of a smug tone and impressed by the number of links, I would have yet another reason call you a sloppy thinker.
> 
> I never claimed to have irrefutable evidence for crop circles being hoaxed. I simply showed that humans can do this and are doing this and it was never a phenomena until humans started doing it.


You are right you did not, however you implied it with the following:



Heisenberg said:


> Saying 'I can not understand how humans could make crop circles' does not mean humans aren't able to do it. The 'crop circles being formed' video is am admitted hoax, as are the first ever recorded (complex) circles. Doug Bower and Dave Chorley confessed to making over 250 circles in the 70's and 80's. If you look at the history of crop circles, complex patters didn't show up until these two started making them, and they got more complicated each year after. Isn't it odd that a mysterious force felt the need to step in and mimic hoaxers?
> 
> Here is an example of a circle that was created by men overnight. This photo is not in dispute; it was planned and made by men who are pointing to no mysterious force as an explanation.
> 
> ...


To which I'm still waiting to see the evidence for the above circle. What's so sloppy about wanting to see evidence for your claim?



> In support of your explanation you sighted a video that is a well known hoax, which causes me to wonder about your ability to research and evaluate evidence before you decide on a belief.


Actually, I'm being a pretty good sport here, making an evaluation, posting links, soliciting others opinions, and re-evaluating, in the face of criticism. But with the crop circles, the jury's still out. No definite proof by any of the evidence that you've brought to the table that proves beyond a reasonable doubt what you say here;



> Crop circles are man made creations, 100% of the time, unless you are talking about simple crude circles that are a result of confused animals walking in circles or fungus rings rotting the crop.


You said something earlier,



Heisenberg said:


> I did not mean to imply that if a result causes us to question the fundamentals of an entire field of research we should automatically dismiss it. Indeed, such an event may point to undiscovered knowledge. But I was speaking about two competing theories which make the same predictions and equally explain the evidence. One makes no more assumptions that necessary, the other goes on to assume human consciousness plays a part. My question was, since that extra assumption causes us to question everything we know, and is not necessary to explain the evidence, why favor it?


This idea of whether to favor extra assumptions is very useful. 




Heisenberg said:


> If there is one thing that is rudimentary to critical thinking it is that the human experience can not be trusted to determine valid conclusions. When you say you will trust your own experience no matter what anyone says about it, it reveals your true nature; you favor your beliefs over any evidence. If one is to trust the human experience, we must be aware of the well documented, well understood mistakes of logic, perception and memory that humans are sure to make, as well as applying reasonable doubt. Note that reasonable doubt is not the same as general distrust. There are hundreds of papers and experiments documenting precisely what these human vulnerabilities are. Not only are people easily fooled by others, they are extremely adept at fooling themselves.


Pardon, but my experience of the phenomenon is evidence. If I didn't have the experience of firewalking and refuted your explanation I would say your statement is true. However, I do have evidence of my experience (unburned feet) that supports my belief.

Walk your talk. Go firewalk without any mental preparation beforehand and show me your evidence.




Heisenberg said:


> You engage in the truest sense of ignorance by cherry picking only what you want from experiences and evidence to back up your presumptions. It has been well demonstrated that someone who is interested in the truth first looks at the evidence and then decides on an explanation. Although you are willing to hear oppositions to your belies, you are not willing to pay attention to them, and only consider them to the point of finding a reason to dismiss them.


That's funny, imho, with that statement, you are the kettle calling the pot black.



Heisenberg said:


> Ultimately you can not explain why you favor supernatural explanations over natural ones, except to say that the natural ones do not make sense to you. When you point out why they don't make sense, it comes across as a person who simply doesn't understand the information, and not just someone with an open mind. In other words, your views do not seem genuine.


My friend, now you're just being inflammatory,... we were having such a civil discussion. 

EDIT: The question was never put to me but I'll answer it. However I'll frame it a slightly different way. I favor inquiry over explanations. I favor living in a question that have the possibility of expanding my knowledge base and worldview irregardless if the explanations are based on the scientific method or not. The natural world contains phenomenon some of which we understand, some of which we do not and most of which we have not even formed the questions for. 

My worldview is inclusive with the central premise being that we are fundamentally a blended being, one that is informed by the the outer world where I exist as an individual identity and an inner world where there is no "I". This inner world, this inner experience is the basis by which I focus my thoughts. Ultimately, why do some thoughts feel good and others do not? 

To illustrate my point, back to the topic of this thread, "About those beliefs you're ashamed of holding". In other terms; thought and the corresponding emotion. It's useful to go the other way. Feel. What does it feel like to be in your body right now? Ok, if it's not so good, then I propose that there is an underlying thought that is out of integrity with what one truly desires. What's more important is to just simply think a better feeling thought. And right there my friends is the difference between being subject to one's circumstances or having true freedom. 





Heisenberg said:


> People who seek the truth learn from both books and experience. Critical thinking is the result of a trained mind and can be applied to all aspects of thinking, including creative, emotional and spiritual thinking. It is an approach to interpreting the world; skepticism. It is in fact a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic and standards to evaluate the results. What part of this do you have a problem with? Is it being systematic, being careful and thorough, or having consistent logic and standards? To abandon critical thinking is to embrace ignorance, negligence, and inconsistency, since these are all things skepticism addresses.


I've got no problems with critical thinking at all. I embrace it. 

To think is not the same as feeling. If you think you can apply thinking to _*feeling *_then I suspect you also aren't very successful with the opposite sex. If you think you analyse spiritual inspiration, that somehow to me is missing the point. I understand that you state you can apply critical thinking to these domains but that's like a person with a hammer thinking every problem is a nail. 

I'm sure you've had the experience of 'being in the zone' that star athletes claim. What is so difficult about viewing the natural world with natural laws as simultaneously understandable and mysterious? What is so difficult about being so 'in the moment' that there is no thought?




ginjawarrior said:


> my psychic powers are tingling...
> 
> i predict rose ingores relevance of this and quickly skips onto a new line of nonsense that is "definative proof"


Fail.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> You are right you did not, however you implied it with the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok so whats the relevance of you bring to the table a video deliberately made by a skeptic to fool people then?? 

it might have been a good video but its purpose was to show how people get fooled so very easily....


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> ok so whats the relevance of you bring to the table a video deliberately made by a skeptic to fool people then??
> 
> it might have been a good video but its purpose was to show how people get fooled so very easily....


I admit, I was fooled by the video but not easily. That author did quite a bit of preparation. It was my intention to use as proof since I have no videos of the phenomenon of myself doing it. I've done the experiment, with glass bowl and put it across the room. I get inconsistent results. Sometimes the wheel moves when I focus my intention, other times it does not. Sometimes I can get the wheel to move slower or faster, stop or change direction. The wheel doesn't move at all though without some attention on my part. But it's all super inconsistent. I haven't used a hair dryer to test the quality of my seal, so that's the next step.

I first learned of the psi wheel in the that Frontiers of Science by Stine book (which has some interesting and quite puzzling machines). So even though the video is a hoax and claimed social experiment (which I thought was brillant), it does not refute my own conclusions and continued explorations in strange phenomenon. To be clear, I've concluded that all the scientific explanations are valid in the right circumstance but I don't know really what's at work here.

EDIT: Imho, just accepting a scientific explanation as the only possible explanation would curtail an otherwise interesting field of inquiry.


I'm an artist, explorer, inventor, tinkerer and hound dog. I prefer to live in questions rather than in answers, it's more fun and entertaining, plus it gets better mileage with the chicks!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> I admit, I was fooled by the video. It was my intention to use as proof since I have no videos of the phenomenon of myself doing it. I've done the experiment, with glass bowl and put it across the room. I get inconsistent results. Sometimes the wheel moves when I focus my intention, other times it does not. The wheel doesn't move at all though without some attention on my part. I haven't used a hair dryer to test the quality of my seal, so that's the next step.
> 
> I first learned of the psi wheel in the that Frontiers of Science by Stine book (which has some interesting and quite puzzling machines). So even though the video is a hoax and claimed social experiment (which I thought was brillant), it does not refute my own conclusions and continued explorations in strange phenomenon. To be clear, I've concluded that all the scientific explanations are valid in the right circumstance *but I don't know really what's at work here*.
> 
> I'm an artist, explorer, inventor, tinkerer and hound dog. I prefer to live in questions rather than in answers, it's more fun and entertaining, plus it gets better mileage with the chicks!



then why add a psychic label to it?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> I admit, I was fooled by the video but not easily. That author did quite a bit of preparation. It was my intention to use as proof since I have no videos of the phenomenon of myself doing it. I've done the experiment, with glass bowl and put it across the room. I get inconsistent results. Sometimes the wheel moves when I focus my intention, other times it does not. The wheel doesn't move at all though without some attention on my part. I haven't used a hair dryer to test the quality of my seal, so that's the next step.
> 
> I first learned of the psi wheel in the that Frontiers of Science by Stine book (which has some interesting and quite puzzling machines). So even though the video is a hoax and claimed social experiment (which I thought was brillant), it does not refute my own conclusions and continued explorations in strange phenomenon. To be clear, I've concluded that all the scientific explanations are valid in the right circumstance but I don't know really what's at work here.
> 
> I'm an artist, explorer, inventor, tinkerer and hound dog. *I prefer to live in questions rather than in answers*, it's more fun and entertaining, plus it gets better mileage with the chicks!


Indeed, you are consistent with this statement in all your responses. You like exploration, but you prefer not knowing to knowing; ignorance over knowledge. Your goals are not understanding and aptitude, but fun and entertainment, and apparently, pussy. When you ask what's wrong with this attitude, the answer is of course, it leads to false belief in silly phenomena like fire walking and crop circles, and makes you gullible to hoaxes. You covet the mystery simply for the sake of feeling wonderment, and avoid controls that would address factors of human experience since you seem to feel that without unfiltered human experience the knowledge is meaningless. This is a true appeal to ignorance. In the end if this improves your life and makes you happy, then that's great for you. For most of us, the limitless of ignorance might be appealing, but we refuse to except ignorance as a reason to hold a belief, or as any sort of worthy position. It is never prudent to ignore answers for the sake of living in questions.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Indeed, you are consistent with this statement in all your responses. You like exploration, but you prefer not knowing to knowing; ignorance over knowledge. Your goals are not understanding and aptitude, but fun and entertainment, and apparently, pussy. When you ask what's wrong with this attitude, the answer is of course, it leads to false belief in silly phenomena like fire walking and crop circles, and makes you gullible to hoaxes. You covet the mystery simply for the sake of feeling wonderment, and avoid controls that would address factors of human experience since you seem to feel that without unfiltered human experience the knowledge is meaningless. This is a true appeal to ignorance. In the end if this improves your life and makes you happy, then that's great for you. For most of us, the limitless of ignorance might be appealing, but we refuse to except ignorance as a reason to hold a belief, or as any sort of worthy position. It is never prudent to ignore answers for the sake of living in questions.


Wow, must of touched a nerve. Now I'm perceiving that you are being judgmental, insulting and calling names. Thank you for such a stellar demonstration of an enlighten pov. <sarcasm>

From wiki:


> Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge)[1]. The word "ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult. "Ignoramus" is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a name of someone who is overwhelmingly ignorant.
> 
> Ignorance should be distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts. Also, if important information is available, one may fail to acquire it due to lack of intelligence (not realizing its importance, or not understanding it). The informal use of ignorant is the same as rude and discourteous.


Walk your talk their buddy, your self-righteousness is off putting. Imho, you've got quite the blind spot. In conclusion, I respect your opinions, and your worldwiew however your communication skills have room for improvement when you are pushed up against the very standards you hold to others.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Wow, must of touched a nerve. Now I'm perceiving that you are being judgmental, insulting and calling names. Thank you for such a stellar demonstration of an enlighten pov. <sarcasm>
> 
> From wiki:
> 
> ...


Yes, the term 'ignorant' can be offensive, understood. The way Heis was using it to describe your approach to this subject was simply an observation. I myself am ignorant about tons of things. You are ignorant about unanswered events... or what you perceive as unanswered... Your ignorance clouds your judgment and you end up with beliefs that you can't sufficiently justify or explain. If you can't justify or explain it, why do you believe it?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 6, 2011)

"If I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
~ Bertrand Russel


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 6, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Yes, the term 'ignorant' can be offensive, understood. The way Heis was using it to describe your approach to this subject was simply an observation. I myself am ignorant about tons of things. You are ignorant about unanswered events... or what you perceive as unanswered... Your ignorance clouds your judgment and you end up with beliefs that you can't sufficiently justify or explain. If you can't justify or explain it, why do you believe it?


Because a belief is simply a thought that has been thought repeatedly. So far, it appears that I'm the only one willing to look at my own beliefs and in the context of this thread, when presented with new evidence, admit to validity outside my normal pov.

Firewalking, video demo of science guy walking uninjured with no injury. Although persuasive, from my own experience, jury still out.
Crop Circles, video hoax proven yet still no proof of complex circles made by artists, so jury still out.
Bacterial Flagellum, acknowledgment of new info. 
Psi Wheel, video hoax proven, yet from own experiments, jury still out.
Pyramids and razor blades, no one's taken this one on yet.
Dowsing, no ones' taken this on yet either.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 6, 2011)

A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. *None of them was more reliable than chance*.[17] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that *none of them showed better than chance *results. [18]

In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."[19]

Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright, a professor of physiology and a leading skeptic who emphasised correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with statistical fluctuations and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim,"[20] stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized." Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses,"[21] he noted that *the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.0004%*. The study's authors responded, saying "on what grounds could Enright come to entirely different conclusions? Apparently his data analysis was too crude, even illegitimate."[22] The findings of the Munich study were also confirmed in a paper by Dr. S. Ertel,[23] a German psychologist who had previously intervened in the statistical controversy surrounding the "Mars effect", but Enright remained unconvinced.[24]

More recently a study[25] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate, however *the results were no better than chance.*


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 6, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Wow, must of touched a nerve. Now I'm perceiving that you are being judgmental, insulting and calling names. Thank you for such a stellar demonstration of an enlighten pov. <sarcasm>
> 
> From wiki:
> 
> ...


Other than a subtle ad hominem attack of me and my point of view, you did not address any of the points I made. I was simply exploring the implications of your statements. To say "I trust my own experience over anything anybody else says about it" is the same as saying "I favor my beliefs over any evidence presented to me". To say "I prefer living in questions rather than living in explanations" is, in addition to a false dichotomy, the same as saying "I prefer living in ignorance rather than knowledge". When I say ignorant I mean either unaware or purposely ignoring, and never do I mean stupid. You seem to be generally favoring the appeal of mystery and rejecting answers because they diminish the mystery. That is a true appeal to ignorance. Which is not to say you are ignorant (we are all ignorant) but that you are pointing to ignorance (ignoring evidence) as a valid way to find truth. What you perceive as self righteousness is exasperation from the contrast of you claiming to be even minded, while falling for the most basic of tricks, whether they be others tricks or tricks of your own mind. The reasons you then give for favoring ignorance is entertainment, fun and women. None of these are proper motivations for reaching the truth. I have no problem with you criticizing my standards, I in fact asked you what part of my standards you have a problem with. You should have no problem with me criticizing yours. Indeed you should criticize them yourself (as I do mine) as they have, evidently, lead you to believe in several well known hoaxes. It only takes the most elementary of research skills to uncover these tricks. I am not saying you are too dumb to understand, I am simply saying that you do not apply yourself, and have trained your mind to be careless rather than careful.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 6, 2011)

I am a skeptic myself when it comes to supernatural phenomenon, but could it be possible that only certain people can see/feel that kind of stuff? I ask because I know people who can feel/see things that I can't. The only reason I think there is a side of truth to the crazy shit I hear is because I have seen pictures of some strange stuff. 

And none of the people I know run any kind of "supernatural-ghost-tour" type gigs. So does it really make sense to lie about paranormal stuff? Other than those ghost-hunter guys who obviously want ratings.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 6, 2011)

That's the thing man, these days, a picture just isn't enough evidence to conclude anything scientific. You need something more. I don't think these people are lying, as you said, what reason would they have to lie? They're lowering their standards of proof for unexplained/able things in favor of, essentially, best guess.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 6, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> I am a skeptic myself when it comes to supernatural phenomenon, but could it be possible that only certain people can see/feel that kind of stuff? I ask because I know people who can feel/see things that I can't. The only reason I think there is a side of truth to the crazy shit I hear is because I have seen pictures of some strange stuff.
> 
> And none of the people I know run any kind of "supernatural-ghost-tour" type gigs. So does it really make sense to lie about paranormal stuff? Other than those ghost-hunter guys who obviously want ratings.


I think it would be possible that some people could be more intuned with the paranormal than others, but I think those interactions with the natural world would still leave some evidence. People lie about ghost stuff when they have motivation. That motivation could be money or fame, or simply the desire to tell a good story. People don't always lie about ghost experiences, many are quite genuine, but still fall victim to mistakes of perception, memory and reasoning. Then there are some cases where a person is as careful and vigilant as possible and still has an unexplained experience, but there is no validity to the assumption that these can be explained by ghosts, beyond a guess.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. *None of them was more reliable than chance*.[17] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that *none of them showed better than chance *results. [18]
> 
> In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."[19]
> 
> ...


Interesting mindphuk, I searched a bit to find the source and came up with this, it contains details of what you referenced above:Failure of the Munich Experiments

In contrast, there is this:

December 7, 2004 12:00 AM
(Published in the November 1998 issue of Popular Mechanics)
Experts explain how we can save and purify the world's water supply.

Usually, the boundary between science and science fiction is as distinct as the difference between the 6 o'clock news and "The Simpsons." Wherever the line blurs, you're bound to find contentious debates. One of the longest-running of these disagreements centers on dowsing, a supposed sixth sense that enables people to find underground water using a forked branch, pendulum or pair of bent wires. There is no scientific reason why dowsing should work. Yet, it apparently works well enough and reliably enough to keep the practice alive.
The success of dowsers doesn't surprise the people who know the most about finding underground water, hydrogeologists for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They point out that the United States is so water-rich you can get wet drilling just about anywhere, if you drill deep enough. Far harsher criticism of dowsing and dowsers comes from outside the mainstream scientific community. Two organizations, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), http://www.csicop.org/si, and the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), http://www.randi.org, are actually working to discourage the practice, which they both dismiss as paranormal nonsense. To make their point that dowsing is a sham each has staged demonstrations in which dowsers were asked to find buried pipes. Dowsers did no better than the laws of chance predict. JREF is so confident of its position it promises to pay $1.1 million to anyone who can "prove" dowsing works.
Yet Dowsers Flourish
Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly, dowsers don't let the skeptics get them down. In fact, the ranks of dowsers have been steadily growing. Forty years ago, about 50 dowsers and curiosity seekers were drawn to Danville, Vt., for a 1-day National Dowsing Convention. That get-together led to the creation of the American Society of Dowsers (ASD), www.newhampshire.com/dowsers.org, which now counts about 4200 members. Lest you dismiss dowsing's popularity as just another New Age fad, take a close look at the 16th century drawing to the left. The men wearing traditional miners' clothing are holding the same type of forked stick in use by many dowsers today.
Now comes a massive set of data that suggests there may be some validity to dowsers' claims. The encouraging words are contained in a study financed by the German government and published in the Journal Of Scientific Exploration, http://www.jse.com/betz_toc.html, which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published at Stanford University.
The project was conducted by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit in the hope of finding cheaper and more reliable ways of locating drinking water supplies in Third World countries.
Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent.
"In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent," says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group.
"We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses," he says. What's more, virtually all of the sites in Sri Lanka were in regions where the odds of finding water by random drilling were extremely low. As for a USGS notion that dowsers get subtle clues from the landscape and geology, Betz points out that the underground sources were often more than 100 ft. deep and so narrow that misplacing the drill only a few feet would mean digging a dry hole.
As impressive as this success rate may seem, it doesn't do much to change the minds of skeptics. Their preference is to test dowsing under more controlled conditions. Back To The Lab
Anticipating this criticism, the German researchers matched their field work with laboratory experiments in which they had dowsers attempt to locate water-filled pipes inside a building. The tests were similar to those conducted by CSICOP and JREF, and similarly discouraging. Skeptics see the poor showing as evidence of failure. Betz sees the discrepancy as an important clue. He says that subtle electromagnetic gradients may result when natural fissures and water flows create changes in the electrical properties of rock and soil. Dowsers, he theorizes, somehow sense these gradients and unconsciously respond by wagging their forked sticks, pendulums or bent wires.
Low-Energy Sensor
There is ample evidence that humans can detect small amounts of energy. All creatures with eyes can detect extremely small amounts of electromagnetic energy at visible light wavelengths. Some researchers believe the dark-adapted human eye can detect a single photon, the smallest measurable quantity of energy. Biologists also have found nonvisual electric and magnetic sensing organs in creatures from bacteria to sharks, fish and birds. Physiologists, however, have yet to find comparable structures in humans.
Betz offers no theories of how dowsers come by their skill and prefers to confine his speculation to his data. "There are two things that I am certain of after 10 years of field research," he says. "A combination of dowsing and modern techniques can be both more successful, and far less expensive, than we had thought."


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 7, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Interesting mindphuk, I searched a bit to find the source and came up with this, it contains details of what you referenced above:Failure of the Munich Experiments
> 
> In contrast, there is this:
> 
> ...


http://www.scientificexploration.org/

"
*About the SSE*

*The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE)* is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology."


so the (pseudo)"scientists" managed to get "results" from dowsers right up until the minute that they added proper controls? 

interesting...


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 7, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Other than a subtle ad hominem attack of me and my point of view, you did not address any of the points I made. I was simply exploring the implications of your statements. To say "I trust my own experience over anything anybody else says about it" is the same as saying "I favor my beliefs over any evidence presented to me". To say "I prefer living in questions rather than living in explanations" is, in addition to a false dichotomy, the same as saying "I prefer living in ignorance rather than knowledge". When I say ignorant I mean either unaware or purposely ignoring, and never do I mean stupid. You seem to be generally favoring the appeal of mystery and rejecting answers because they diminish the mystery. That is a true appeal to ignorance. Which is not to say you are ignorant (we are all ignorant) but that you are pointing to ignorance (ignoring evidence) as a valid way to find truth. What you perceive as self righteousness is exasperation from the contrast of you claiming to be even minded, while falling for the most basic of tricks, whether they be others tricks or tricks of your own mind. The reasons you then give for favoring ignorance is entertainment, fun and women. None of these are proper motivations for reaching the truth. I have no problem with you criticizing my standards, I in fact asked you what part of my standards you have a problem with. You should have no problem with me criticizing yours. Indeed you should criticize them yourself (as I do mine) as they have, evidently, lead you to believe in several well known hoaxes. It only takes the most elementary of research skills to uncover these tricks. I am not saying you are too dumb to understand, I am simply saying that you do not apply yourself, and have trained your mind to be careless rather than careful.


Thank you for the clarification. The statement "I trust my own experience over anything anybody else says about it" is in the context of my personal experience of firewalking. If one hasn't firewalked, then I don't give as much credibility to their theories. 

The comparisons that you make with this statement;


> To say "I prefer living in questions rather than living in explanations" is, in addition to a false dichotomy, the same as saying "I prefer living in ignorance rather than knowledge".


 I disagree, they are not the same. The second implies a meaning distinctly different than what I said or intended.

As for not addressing some points that you brought forth, I must have missed them. 

You state:


> I have no problem with you criticizing my standards, I in fact asked you what part of my standards you have a problem with. You should have no problem with me criticizing yours.


After repeated requests, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim


> Here is an example of a circle that was created by men overnight. This photo is not in dispute; it was planned and made by men who are pointing to no mysterious force as an explanation.


From what I perceive, you rely on critical thinking and the use of the scientific method to seek truth. You've demonstrated in your posts the capacity to apply critical thinking to others claims yet have not brought proof to bear with a claim you yourself have made. This claim is based on a belief (100% of crop circles created by humans). That is a double standard.

I would have that belief too, if I saw evidence of what you have claimed. I followed the links you posted, listened to the podcasts and have not been able to verify what you said. 

The known hoaxes are a different story. When confronted with the facts, I admit the new information and acknowledge it.

It's my assumption that you are unwilling to acknowledge that you made a false statement. That to me is my biggest beef with the scientific method as it is currently practiced and funded. Knowledge is economically and politically motivated in our culture. There is such a huge investment of time, people and resources that when something is uncovered that doesn't quite fit the model, it's excluded. 

If I were an expert in a field that I devoted my entire life to, and I uncovered data in the lab that threatens the body of work I've created thus far. I'd have second thoughts about including it, especially if it meant whether I would receive further funding or not.






Padawanbater2 said:


> That's the thing man, these days, a picture just isn't enough evidence to conclude anything scientific. You need something more. I don't think these people are lying, as you said, what reason would they have to lie? They're lowering their standards of proof for unexplained/able things in favor of, essentially, best guess.


I'm curious, what do you make of this:
Nasa ufo footage compilation
Especially Astronaut Mitchell interview starting ~ at 4 min.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 7, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> If I were an expert in a field that I devoted my entire life to, and I uncovered data in the lab that threatens the body of work I've created thus far. I'd have second thoughts about including it, especially if it meant whether I would receive further funding or not.
> .



if you were an expert in a field and you uncovered data that turned the original paradigm on its head then you would recieve a *Noble Prize* simple as that

all that would be expected of you is that you were rigorous with your data collection and analysis


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 7, 2011)

It is not a double standard to reach an evidence based conclusion once it has been through a process of careful and rigorous doubt, in fact, that _is_ the standard. As always, all skeptical conclusions are predicated on the understanding that new evidence can change things, and starts the doubting process over again. I have explained the logical process which leads me to the conclusion that crop circle evidence points to humans, and suggests nothing more. It is the same conclusion that the overwhelming majority of researches have came to when examining the phenomena, which is not an appeal to popularity, but indication of replicable results. If further evidence is presented which points to supernatural or alien interactions, then I would have to reconsider. For now, the only evidence you can sight is the fact that you don't understand how humans could do it. As I have pointed out, you are sighting the lack of understanding as a reason to believe something other than human ingenuity. For many reasons, a lack of understanding does not support any conclusions. This is actually a specific type of appeal to ignorance known as an argument from personal incredulity, which, observationaly speaking, seems to be a theme with you. 

It completely amazes me how a human can create complex 3D sidewalk art, and often do so in a day. I can not even fathom the process of going from that fist line of chalk to the finished artwork. I am sure vids exist of the process and seeing it would dispel the mystery, but lets assume they do not. I could not ever explain or demonstrate how a human could do this, but at the same time there is nothing to suggest it's supernatural. What if sidewalk artists only created their art in the dead of night and only in secluded deserted places, and none of them claimed credit. That seems extremely eccentric and unlikely, but these are artists, and it's not that much different than a magician keeping his art mysterious. What I am left with is the sudden appearance of a complex design that I can not comprehend humans creating, especially in such a short time. Should I then assume that there is a supernatural or alien involvement? Wouldn't it be more prudent to, without evidence suggesting otherwise, believe that is is just sneaky and ingenious artists? Especially when other artists are saying they do see how it's possible and even presenting similar works, although no vids from start to finish. You might say that examples of art are all around us, and if examples of crop circles were all around it would be different. But human creativity is all around us, and examples of complex designs whether on the scale of size or detail, are all around us as well. 

Virtually all circles can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be human made, and while a very small number may remain unproven, the assumption that they are also human made is valid in the absence of contrary evidence. 

I did not mean to take your statements out of context, but to use them along with your apparent vulnerability to hoaxes, to illustrate what I see as the flaws in your thinking process which have lead you to believe these myths. Am I saying my thinking process is perfect; of course not. I am simply identifying the faults I have found in my experiences, faults that are documented by a plethora of data. It is not impossible to reach the truth using your approach, but far less likely. If you are saying that skepticism is subject to error and failure, then I have to agree, but it is indeed as fool proof as humans can currently hope to be.

Incidentally, do you believe the sentiment of this bit? 


> "Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly"


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 7, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> if you were an expert in a field and you uncovered data that turned the original paradigm on its head then you would recieve a *Noble Prize* simple as that
> 
> all that would be expected of you is that you were rigorous with your data collection and analysis


Although I would love to believe that, I think this is a bit naive. Perhaps it is true in some cases and I would give you the benefit of the doubt but understanding human nature it is not quite that simple.




Heisenberg said:


> It is not a double standard to reach an evidence based conclusion once it has been through a process of careful and rigorous doubt, in fact, that _is_ the standard. As always, all skeptical conclusions are predicated on the understanding that new evidence can change things, and starts the doubting process over again. I have explained the logical process which leads me to the conclusion that crop circle evidence points to humans, and suggests nothing more. It is the same conclusion that the overwhelming majority of researches have came to when examining the phenomena, which is not an appeal to popularity, but indication of replicable results. If further evidence is presented which points to supernatural or alien interactions, then I would have to reconsider. For now, the only evidence you can sight is the fact that you don't understand how humans could do it. As I have pointed out, you are sighting the lack of understanding as a reason to believe something other than human ingenuity. For many reasons, a lack of understanding does not support any conclusions. This is actually a specific type of appeal to ignorance known as an argument from personal incredulity, which, observationaly speaking, seems to be a theme with you.
> 
> It completely amazes me how a human can create complex 3D sidewalk art, and often do so in a day. I can not even fathom the process of going from that fist line of chalk to the finished artwork. I am sure vids exist of the process and seeing it would dispel the mystery, but lets assume they do not. I could not ever explain or demonstrate how a human could do this, but at the same time there is nothing to suggest it's supernatural. What if sidewalk artists only created their art in the dead of night and only in secluded deserted places, and none of them claimed credit. That seems extremely eccentric and unlikely, but these are artists, and it's not that much different than a magician keeping his art mysterious. What I am left with is the sudden appearance of a complex design that I can not comprehend humans creating, especially in such a short time. Should I then assume that there is a supernatural or alien involvement? Wouldn't it be more prudent to, without evidence suggesting otherwise, believe that is is just sneaky and ingenious artists? Especially when other artists are saying they do see how it's possible and even presenting similar works, although no vids from start to finish. You might say that examples of art are all around us, and if examples of crop circles were all around it would be different. But human creativity is all around us, and examples of complex designs whether on the scale of size or detail, are all around us as well.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent informative post. I can see where you are coming from more clearly. Using your comparison, I too would come to the same conclusions. 

When first examining crop circles, I looked at the circle designs of those clowns in the 70's debunking circles and it wasn't even close to replicating the most complex circles at the time. Could there have been as you suggest a talented crop circle magician or group of magicians that prefer to stay out of the limelight? To tell you the truth, I've never considered it but it is certainly plausible. Kinda like Banksy, but even he had a signature style. I supposed it comes down to believing if we are the only intelligence life in the universe or not. I assert that it is this premise that allows one to see interconnections that are not perceivable unless one had that belief. It reminds me of those magic eye stereograms where the underlying pattern only becomes evident when one is able to gaze a particular way.





However we both know that there is no such thing as a closed system, if we were to look at crop circles in and of themselves. How would you account for the persistence of certain themes over the course of our history? ie. ufo's, ufo cover-ups, dowsing, paranormal phenomenon, etc?

How about this can of worms - let's take on 9-11, specifically the reports and visual identification of explosives, the lack of evidence of an airplane strike on the pentagon despite the official story, the reporting of wtc 7 coming down when clearly it is visible in the live coverage as well as the fact that it was never structurally compromised. Admittedly, this is a sensational site but it does bring up some evidence that doesn't fit the official story: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/




> Incidentally, do you believe the sentiment of this bit?


The statement "Like bees unaware they are too aerodynamically challenged to fly", is interesting and novel, if I wasn't in present company personally assign some truth to it and also be guilty of perpetuating the soundbit as pseudo fact. However since this is not the case, I would explore if there have been any scientific studies and evidence to back up this claim, observe if they followed proper protocol, and after careful deliberation apply occam's razor to identify whether or not this claim proved to be true.


We've looked at the structure of some of my tendencies and although I don't personally like some of the comparisons that you made, can see the validity of your pov. The intention behind the structure of my beliefs, is more as a platform to accept new information as plausible and seeing what is possible from there vs dismissing new info from a skeptical mindset. This might be a false dichotomy but it is my assertion that one day I'll observe a genuine phenomenon that will open a new exciting field of research for me and others. Would I have the discipline to apply a rigorous scientific mindset to it? Probably not, but that why there are people like you with your way of thinking to keep things honest.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 7, 2011)

Complex crop circle being made with explanations of techniques, and finished product.


You may want to start here in your bee aerodynamics research. It is simply a press release.


Lets address the issues you brought up one at a time. It seems we are currently on dousing, and I suggest you read about and consider the ideomotor effect. At first it seems like a typical go to skeptical explanation, but what happens when we design dousing experiments which control for ideo-motor responses?


----------



## karri0n (Jul 7, 2011)

The bees being unable to fly thing was debunked quite some time ago - the guy who originally said it was drunk, and made some mathematical errors when jotting shit down on a napkin, including using the forumlas required for a fixed-wing aircraft rather than something with moving wings such as an insect. A helicopter can't fly using those equations, either.. He completely retracted his statement the very next day, but somehow it got caught in the annals of history and to this day is quoted by people looking to prove "science doesn't work"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_bee#Flight

Considering that there are thousands of sources showing otherwise available to you, the belief that bumblebees cannot fly according to the known laws of aerodynamics is one you should be ashamed of holding.



Heisenberg said:


> Complex crop circle being made with explanations of techniques, and finished product.


I've seen many comparisons between real crop circles and hoaxes. Man made circles are certainly impressive, but are nearly always a bit "sloppier" than their unexplained counterparts. I've even seen an attempt to reproduce some of the magnetic anomalies on some history/science channel/discovery/learning channel show. The result is that they were able to reproduce a few of the anomalies such as higher occurrence of magnetized iron and such, but nowhere near the time alloted. Had professional circle makers done the crop flattening work and these reasearchers used their "sparkler" device to go over the whole thing, maybe they couyld have done it in time.

However, this was a far cry from reproducing all of the anomalies found in crop circles which include radioactive isotopes with extremely short half-lives that could not be found in any controls. One paper detailing such:

http://execonn.com/cropcircles/isotopes.html


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 7, 2011)

karri0n said:


> The bees being unable to fly thing was debunked quite some time ago - the guy who originally said it was drunk, and made some mathematical errors when jotting shit down on a napkin, including using the forumlas required for a fixed-wing aircraft rather than something with moving wings such as an insect. A helicopter can't fly using those equations, either.. He completely retracted his statement the very next day, but somehow it got caught in the annals of history and to this day is quoted by people looking to prove "science doesn't work"
> 
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly
> 
> ...


To be fair, he claimed to be skeptical about the statement. Many people, including scientists outside the field, believed this was true until technology allowed us to introduce new evidence. Once the myth got out, people of course believed it was true, because science could not provide an explanation. They confused unexplained with inexplicable, and assumed since the bee wasn't aware of its plight, it defied it. They went from unexplained to explained by psychic activity without proper justification, simply because of the lack of knowledge otherwise. Whats shameful is this was sighted by a reputable magazine.


I have not ignored this question, but again am sleepy. 


> How would you account for the persistence of certain themes over the course of our history? ie. ufo's, ufo cover-ups, dowsing, paranormal phenomenon, etc?


The UFO magic eye pic made me chuckle. Now if that stereogram were to show up in a crop large scale, I would seriously have to reconsider.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 7, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> To be fair, he claimed to be skeptical about the statement.


Skeptical that it defied physics, not skeptical that we cannot explain it. Note my response did not say "believing that it defies aerodynamics", but "believing that it defies known aerodynamics."





Heisenberg said:


> The UFO magic eye pic made me chuckle. Now if that stereogram were to show up in a crop large scale, I would seriously have to reconsider.


Nearly impossible. For whatever non-human entities are making these circles, to create working stereograms would require that their brains process 3-dimensional optical information in exactly the same way as ours do. While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the requirement you are setting goes beyond what would be required in this case.

On the other hand, if we assume that they are being created only for our benefit, then I suppose it would be safe to assume whatever entities these are posess the level of intelligence, knowledge, and technology to understand how we process optical data and would be quite capable of making stereograms that work for our otpical systems.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 7, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> How about this can of worms - let's take on 9-11, specifically the reports and visual identification of explosives, t*he lack of evidence of an airplane strike on the pentagon despite the official story*, the reporting of wtc 7 coming down when clearly it is visible in the live coverage as well as the fact that it was never structurally compromised. Admittedly, this is a sensational site but it does bring up some evidence that doesn't fit the official story: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/


go onto google and type pentagon plane debris. click on images

its not that hard to look it up yourself, instead of just believing it


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 7, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> How about this can of worms - let's take on 9-11, specifically the reports and visual identification of explosives, the lack of evidence of an airplane strike on the pentagon despite the official story, the reporting of wtc 7 coming down when clearly it is visible in the live coverage as well as the fact that it was never structurally compromised. Admittedly, this is a sensational site but it does bring up some evidence that doesn't fit the official story: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/


you really arent going to stand still enough to listen to any of the explainations given to you are you? its all about throwing as much nonsense out there in the hope that any we dont answer will vindicate everything for you....

try this site http://www.debunking911.com
unfortunately it doesnt seem to have any of the sensationalism you seem to crave

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon


----------



## beardo (Jul 7, 2011)

spell Illuminati backwards and type it into your browser
Im afraid I believe in the NWO


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 7, 2011)

So? Some guy buys a web domain and redirects it to the NSA? 
Sort of funny when the conspiracy nuts freak out about it.


----------



## beardo (Jul 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So? Some guy buys a web domain and redirects it to the NSA?
> Sort of funny when the conspiracy nuts freak out about it.


 Call it what you will, I call it a sign of the end times.


----------



## apollo4 (Jul 7, 2011)

i think to each is own im not but dont push,one luv my bros


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 7, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Complex crop circle being made with explanations of techniques, and finished product.


Good on ya! Although it is not the image that you referenced earlier, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. That was a complex crop circle shown in process from start to end, created by humans. I'll have to reconsider, perhaps crop circles are not what they seem. 



> You may want to start here in your bee aerodynamics research. It is simply a press release.
> 
> 
> Lets address the issues you brought up one at a time. It seems we are currently on dousing, and I suggest you read about and consider the ideomotor effect. At first it seems like a typical go to skeptical explanation, but what happens when we design dousing experiments which control for ideo-motor responses?


Ok, the aerodynamically challenged bees are not so challenged after all. 

However the ideomotor effect is well known among dowsers. What is interesting is that if it has no merit as modern science suggests, why the persistence. My personal experience with it has been mixed. When it's on though, I can find plumbing in the middle of a concrete slab with no exterior clues as to the pipes location or orientation. It's like if there is anything on the line it doesn't want to work but when one is detached it performs in spades.




karri0n said:


> I've seen many comparisons between real crop circles and hoaxes. Man made circles are certainly impressive, but are nearly always a bit "sloppier" than their unexplained counterparts. I've even seen an attempt to reproduce some of the magnetic anomalies on some history/science channel/discovery/learning channel show. The result is that they were able to reproduce a few of the anomalies such as higher occurrence of magnetized iron and such, but nowhere near the time alloted. Had professional circle makers done the crop flattening work and these reasearchers used their "sparkler" device to go over the whole thing, maybe they couyld have done it in time.
> 
> However, this was a far cry from reproducing all of the anomalies found in crop circles which include radioactive isotopes with extremely short half-lives that could not be found in any controls. One paper detailing such:
> 
> http://execonn.com/cropcircles/isotopes.html


karri0n, that's a good article. I like how exhaustive they were in ruling out mundane explanations. Aside from the complexity of the design and layered coding, the present of the short half-life isotopes are difficult to explain easily. 




Heisenberg said:


> The UFO magic eye pic made me chuckle. Now if that stereogram were to show up in a crop large scale, I would seriously have to reconsider.


haha, thought you'd appreciate that one.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Jul 8, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> go onto google and type pentagon plane debris. click on images
> 
> its not that hard to look it up yourself, instead of just believing it


Yeah, I've seen those images. However the same could be said about you.

There are still some unsatisfactory answered questions:
The Pentagon is one of the most secure facilities in the world. Why is there not a single image from a security camera capturing the approach and collision of a plane? 
Why is there such a discrepancy with the entrance hole with no evidence of airplane tail and wing collison?
Why is there no photo of the structural damage to the south face of the wtc7?
But more significantly, why is wtc7 reported as coming down, when in fact you can see it still standing in the background of the live coverage?


This was a good link that shows some of the debris inside the building:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

I admit, there sure looks like some plane parts.




ginjawarrior said:


> you really arent going to stand still enough to listen to any of the explainations given to you are you? its all about throwing as much nonsense out there in the hope that any we dont answer will vindicate everything for you....
> 
> try this site http://www.debunking911.com
> 
> ...


That statement is not accurate. I've responded to everything the skeptics have been bringing up. It's true, my human nature has a tendency to crave sensationalism. We are sensual creatures btw. 

Those links are fun to explore. I like the one where the quotes of the emergency response teams where compared to the whole quote and the edited version. *It's a great demonstration on how one can be subtle in ones intended implication.*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 8, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Yeah, I've seen those images. There are still some unsatisfactory answered questions:
> The Pentagon is one of the most secure facilities in the world. Why is there not a single image from a security camera capturing the approach and collision of a plane?


because cctv is normally pointed at the ground where theres things to watch 

and the cctv doesnt film like your video camera it couldnt otherwise you need huge data storage for each camera 
they take a picture every second or so and the picture isnt even of the whole second just a tiny proportion of it
that easily leaves enough time for something (even a big ol plane) thats traveling at 500miles per hour to sneak on past



> Why is there such a discrepancy with the entrance hole with no evidence of airplane tail and wing collison?
> 
> 
> This was a good link that shows some of the debris inside the building:
> http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm


hang on why you looking for cctv footage when there is clearly aircraft wreckage in those photos?






> That statement is not accurate. I've responded to everything the skeptics have been bringing up. It's true, my human nature has a tendency to crave sensationalism. We are sensual creatures btw. Those links are fun to explore. I like the one where the quotes of the emergency response teams where compared to the whole quote and the edited version. It's a great demonstration on how one can be subtle in one intended implication.



while you might answer . it seems everyone that we answer you add 5 on top of it. 911 has got nothing to do with spirituality or anything else we've been talking about yet you still chose to lump it in there...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 8, 2011)

Considering the number of crop circles that have been investigated, and considering the sheer determination they put into finding something abnormal, I would think it strange if they didn't produce odd findings. This is called anomaly hunting, and is the reverse procedure of the scientific method. If those anomalies were typical of crop circles, as you guys elude to, then that would be evidence, but all we have are some strange readings from a certain piece of land, while they admit a crop circle made around the same time in the same area did not have these anomalies, and they called this the control sample? This paper was published in 91, have the same anomalies been documented since? Was the paper peer reviewed? Have botanists and other experts been consulted? Could these materials be from an exploded meteor that just happened to coincide with the this one circle? The document is well put together and cites sources, but science is absolutely littered with well intended and well put together papers that ended up having no merit.

In any case we are left with an unexplained, and again you can not justify how we go from unexplained to a non-human intelligent explanation.


Conspiracy theories do have common traits which set them apart from other theories. The most problematic is probably the conspiracy of silence. Especially with something huge like JFK or 911. You are expecting a government that couldn't cover up Clinton's blow job to remain completely silent on other subjects. Some conspiracy theories involve hundreds and thousands of people, and out of all the theories and all the people, not one person has found Jesus and come forward, not one deathbed confession has been made, not a single betrayal of trust; what an amazing feat just in itself.

The second thing that identifies a conspiracy theory is this fact; Any evidence presented against the theory, becomes evidence for the theory. For example, some people claimed the gun Oswald used was given to him just before the shooting. When a picture was found of him holding the gun taken years before, which is reasonable evidence that the gun existed in his possession prior to that day, conspiracy theorists say the picture was simply doctored, and now sight the picture as evidence that the conspiracy is true. A conspiracy theory has no problem making as many assumptions as it needs to justify itself, which of course is not a reliable way to reach the truth. So it becomes a fruitless tasks to address conspiracy thoery points one by one, as you just end up providing the conspirist with what they perceive as further evidence.

Why are conspiracy theories so compelling? Because it is our brains doing exactly what they were meant to do.

From skeptoid


> The human brain evolved in such a way as to keep itself alive to the best of its ability. For the past few million years, our ancestors faced a relatively straightforward daily life. Their job was simply to stay alive. Like us, they had different personalities, different aptitudes, different attitudes. This was borne out in many ways, but the classic example that's often used is that something would rustle in the tall grass. Some of our ancestors weren't too concerned, and figured it was merely the wind; but others were more cautious, suspected a panther, and jumped for the nearest tree. Over the eons, and hundreds of thousands of generations, the nonchalant ancestors were wrong (and got eaten) just often enough that eventually, more survivors were those who tended toward caution, and even paranoia. In evolution, it pays to err on the side of caution. The brains most likely to survive were those who saw a panther in every breath of wind, an angry god in every storm cloud, a malevolent purpose in every piece of random noise. We are alive today as a race, in part, because our brains piece random events together into a pattern that adds up to a threat that may or may not be real. As a result, we are afraid of the dark even though there's rarely a monster; thunder frightens us even though lightning is scarcely a credible threat; and we perceive the menace of malevolent conspiracies in the acts of others, despite the individual unlikelihood of any one given example.
> 
> Not all detection of purposeful agency sees something evil. For example, we now know that the sun, moon, planets, stars, and constellations are simply other bodies floating through space and doing their thing, much as our Earth does. But early human cultures, who lacked better knowledge, suspected them to be purposeful entities that existed only to influence humankind on this one particular rock. This brain function that kept our species safe from threats also formed the basis for pagan religions, the great polytheistic European cultures, and astrology. Note that astrology still thrives today. Astrology is psychologically similar to conspiratorial thinking. Both represent the healthy brain's perception of purposeful agency in ordinary phenomena, but one sees danger while the other sees comfort. All of our brains naturally take us there, and it is only our learned intellect that reins us back. We're all hard wired to experience a deep-rooted excitement at the thought of opening a fortune cookie, though most of us have learned to put little stock in the fortune. And if handed today's horoscope, few can deny that their brain will go straight to their own zodiac sign to see what it says. There is no need to be embarrassed about doing either of these. It's one of the things your brain is supposed to do.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 8, 2011)

[video=youtube;2SGuXfGl3z8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SGuXfGl3z8&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Considering the number of crop circles that have been investigated, and considering the sheer determination they put into finding something abnormal, I would think it strange if they didn't produce odd findings. This is called anomaly hunting, and is the reverse procedure of the scientific method. If those anomalies were typical of crop circles, as you guys elude to, then that would be evidence, but all we have are some strange readings from a certain piece of land, while they admit a crop circle made around the same time in the same area did not have these anomalies, and they called this the control sample?



It's not anomaly hunting. It would seem to me that with the growing popularity of crp circles as well as more and more widespread knowledge of the techniques for making them is spread via the internet, that the majority of crop circles, especially recent ones, would be man made. The minority would be genuine crop circles, and it's in the minority that we do see these anomalies. I never claimed or inferred(and if I did unintentionally I apologize) that the majorityof crop circles have these anomalies or that they were typical. However, The prevalence of the anomalies referenced is much higher than your proposed solution of an "exploding meteor" would point to, especially when there is no other evidence of a meteor exploding in the vicinity.

I'm not sure you interpreted the paper correctly - the control sample was an area "several dozen feet away" from the circle they were investigating. They referenced another formation in the paper, but once again referenced "control" samples that they had taken from there, presumably meaning they took the control several dozen feet away from the formation, just as they did in this investigation. Anomalies were recorded in this one as well. The control sample was taken several dozen feet away from the circle that contained the anomalies, and it did not have them. This also rules out the potential "exploding meteor" hypothesis because it would be expected that the same anomalies would be present, if not in slightly lower quantities. Instead, the sample did not show them at all.

Please bear in mind that I am not making any sort of jump to "aliens did it". I'll ask you to not assume that I am making conclusions that I'm not. Here's what I, and the research paper, are saying.

1. there is a circle
2. there are nuclear anomalies found inside but not immediately surrounding the circle
3. hoaxsters could not have produced these anomalies.
4. There is no known natural phenomena that could have produced these anomalies
5. There was no known exposure to equipment or other radioactive decay (such as from chernobyl or a nearby nuclear reactor) that would have affected the test sample but not the control.

These are the only conclusions anyone is making in regards to this paper. 

There is by no means whatsoever evidence to support that crop circles are man-made 100% of the time.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> It's not anomaly hunting. It would seem to me that with the growing popularity of crp circles as well as more and more widespread knowledge of the techniques for making them is spread via the internet, that the majority of crop circles, especially recent ones, would be man made. The minority would be genuine crop circles, and it's in the minority that we do see these anomalies. I never claimed or inferred(and if I did unintentionally I apologize) that the majorityof crop circles have these anomalies or that they were typical. However, The prevalence of the anomalies referenced is much higher than your proposed solution of an "exploding meteor" would point to, especially when there is no other evidence of a meteor exploding in the vicinity.
> 
> I'm not sure you interpreted the paper correctly - the control sample was an area "several dozen feet away" from the circle they were investigating. They referenced another formation in the paper, but once again referenced "control" samples that they had taken from there, presumably meaning they took the control several dozen feet away from the formation, just as they did in this investigation. Anomalies were recorded in this one as well. The control sample was taken several dozen feet away from the circle that contained the anomalies, and it did not have them. This also rules out the potential "exploding meteor" hypothesis because it would be expected that the same anomalies would be present, if not in slightly lower quantities. Instead, the sample did not show them at all.
> 
> ...


So these anomalies have not become typical of crop circles, nor has any sort of pattern emerged? It's been 20 years since this paper, which seems to be the only source of this information out there. Assuming the paper is accurate, we are still left with simply an unknown that may or may not be connected with the crop circle, and can not be used to make any sort of predictions. From this you assume that most crop circles are hoaxed and a small amount are genuine, which may be an accurate assumption, but it doesn't seem to be backed up by the evidence, and to me it simply says that within the sheer number of crop circles studied a few were found to have unexplained and inconclusive data which may or may not be qualities, which is what I would expect. 

The crude and sloppy circles which you say often point to being man made are the only ones we saw in the late 70's and early 80's. The complex patterns that mystify didn't start showing up till 90's-ish. To me this says that as the hoaxers got more practice the art evolved, which is typical of hoax phenomena. If only the complex or anomalous circles are non-human creations, then some intelligent force had to step in and start mimicking humans, and with no apparent reason, mechanism, or definitive distinction.

Considering the overwhelming amount of evidence that humans are responsible, the overwhelming lack of evidence that anything else is responsible, and the relatively tiny amount of unknown data that may or may not mean anything, I think I have done my job of supporting my conclusion that crop circles are evidently created by men 100% of the time.


----------

