Science is the art of explaining observable actions, behavior, phenomenon, etc. Therefore, if something doesn't fit within the boundries of science as described above, does it exist? Personal experience, although subjective, claims "paranormal events occur". If they are not repeatable, or don't conform to our notions of real, do they exist? Is there an objective external reality to which we are slaves to? I think there has to be.
2007-03-11 23:59:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atx5tJYjJT4262BNl5I1RxAAAAAA?qid=20070305153911AASA5oY
2007-03-12 00:04:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't mean that such things don't exist, if means that science has not developed the equipment, techniques or theories to discern or measure those things that we think of as paranormal.
For example, if someone walked in to a cave full of radioactive minerals, and came out, and got sick, at one time people would have chalked it up to spirits, and would have avoided the cave out of fear of bad spirits, or an evil God or demon. Then science discovered ways to measure and use radioactivity, and it's effects, and the "demons" have been "exorcised".
Until science can come up with the appropriate means to create an observable effect, then subjective experience is all we have. And maybe there are a few things we simply aren't meant to understand through science. Nothing wrong with a little mystery to keep things interesting.
2007-03-12 00:55:43 · answer #2 · answered by beatlefan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What you call "paranormal events" are the results of chance. For example, if someone has a bad dream, and on the next day something bad happens, he will qualify his bad dream as "foreboding", "bad omen" or so. This is entirely subjective, for a neutral person there is no significance in it since it is a matter of chance in all probability (or a result of a self-fulfilling prophecy). The job of science is to separate the subjective and non-repeatable results from the objective and repeatable ones.
2007-03-12 00:18:47 · answer #3 · answered by NaturalBornKieler 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Personal experience" teaches us that the world is flat, that people who are not like us are evil, and that we can psychicially predict what color the next card drawn from the deck will be (half the time, anyway).
There may well be things that we cannot even in principle observe. I don't know of any scientist who denies that. What we do deny is that those things that we cannot observe can be observed. That's an outright logical contradiction, and yet "psychics" and religious people and the like regularly claim to be able to observe those things. Oops - obviously they're simply wrong.
To say "Science cannot measure this" and then turn around and say "I know from personal experience that it's true" is really a good solid way to say "I'm ignorant and narrow-minded".
2007-03-12 00:14:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
history is not really subject to repeatability and testability the same was as medicine technology and agriculture might be. This applies broadly to origin theories and historical investigations
The way God made the world and the way God sustains the world don't have to be the same
as far as paranormal etc.. thats also hard for additional reasons ... you have the subjective person involved who might interpret a 'liver quiver' as something significant... but hard to dissmiss out of hand... and hard to study as well
still.. there are obviously realities not subject to repeatability... many in history... so... yes... there are realities not strictly covered by the scientific method... most of history would be included
2007-03-12 00:10:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Natural processes and 'things' exist independently of our understanding of them.
Science is an accepted methodological approach towards improving our understanding of these natural processes.
It's quite possible that paranormal events exist and we just don't have the technological capacity -- or perhaps the right questions -- to figure it out.
My opinion is that 'paranormal events' are more misperceptions of brain states. Something occurs and our brains try to make sense of it. They often get it not quite right, whether it's the white light before death or starvation-induced 'divine' visions.
2007-03-12 00:17:51 · answer #6 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
some things are not observable and some experiments are not repeatable. the big bang is not repeatable, but science can still investigate some of its features.
2007-03-12 00:05:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If something has no effect it is the same asit not existing; therefore anything that cannot be detected either needs more sensitive equipment, or it does not exist.
With things like the CERN LHC around, I think we can safely see that all that paranormal balderdash is just wrong. :)
2007-03-12 00:02:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Either way it is supernatural and by definition outwith the boundaries of science. Science doesn't say there is no supernatural, it can and does say nothing about it.
2007-03-12 00:15:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you already have made up your mind and ASSUME a conclusion don't call it science. Your "science" may work in church but in the physical world YOUR "science" couldn't hold a molecule of water.Keep your "science" in church where it belongs and out of public schools.
2007-03-12 00:07:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
We can't really prove that observable repeatable experiments exist. All we have to show of them are our memories and records. We can't say they actually happened.
We can show that we have record books and memories of repeatable experiments, but we can only show them one time: Now.
2007-03-12 00:07:23 · answer #11 · answered by manna eater 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋