What about the facts?

[Mora321]

From what I have read it was 50 years before it was possible to have a journal publish a paper contrary to Einstein's proposition that the speed of light was constant.

More recently Harvard University has demonstrated that light can be stopped and re-started.

I suspect the previous suppression of papers was to conceal military technology

[Podshell]

With Brown ,one aspect is he dedicates time to recreating scenarios of contact with the dead and because he is able to create them seems to think that is proof of fakery,so I asked if I manage to CGI a Donald Trump is the conclusion then that all the footage of Trump and he himself is fake? (will see if I can find the stuff I wrote on Randi)

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Podshell

he's simply duped people and because it is what they want to believe it strengthens it that for them.

If you say so..
Valuing their input doesn't mean rejecting spirituality.

[Podshell]

But the rejection of the existence of paranormal abilities results from what I am certain are tricks set up in what look like fair and good tests.If anyone reading this has studied or even been part of the process of these test it may be worth me going through how the trick works again just to confirm it to myself as I am unable to find my previous writings on it (there is also some info/footage I watched once but am unable to locate re Randi and his comments on crystal dowsing,that may be of interest as I am sure he said it was the only topic that stumped him on a program where they were putting unusual abilities to the test)

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Podshell

But the rejection of the existence of paranormal abilities results from what I am certain are tricks set up in what look like fair and good tests.

There are obviously those things which we do not understand. Saying or admitting that doesn't mean for one moment that those things (whatever they are) come from some sort of spirit or paranormal plane.
Asking scientists (and you'd have to define which field of science they should represent) to join some blokes for a night in a reportedly haunted house won't get anyone very far.
There are lots of things in which we believe (I don't) which haven't the slightest foundation of evidence. I won't make a list to spare some blushes.

However I'm not averse to 'strange' happenings as I spoke to my father a few minutes after his death and he was 800 miles away from me at that moment.
A few weeks after my wife died I saw her in the kitchen. Both of these 'events' I have reported elsewhere in SFs, as well as a few others which have played a great part in my life.

I cannot conceive that anyone was playing tricks with me here nor did both occurences lead me to believe in anything paranormal or religious.

In fact I have an explanation which satisfies my curiosity but wouldn't satisfy yours.

The easiest way to get science to grips with say levitation would be to get a Yogi (they seem to be kicking around all over the place) to hover in the air whilst scientists make measurements and calculations around his position, they would be more than grateful because theyv'e been looking for anti-gravity forces for decades now.

But I agree that there will come a time when science will be forced to look under all stones to explain some of the odd occurences reported throughout history and in the present. The umpteen reports of, for example, UFOs and little green men and so on needs to be cleared up.

[Podshell]

Sometimes anomalies can be put on the back burner,I have done it myself and normal explanations appear years later for some of them,one I saw recentiy was the djvorak?? Pass mystery where they revisited the special avalanche theory and it seems plausable after 70yrs of it being a mystery,some just dismiss these strange anomalies-another one brought up recently was the NASA moon bell experiments,which can throw up interesting theories for me but the person I was speaking to rejected the science,simply I think because it may have gave credence to those who believe in an hollow møon-is there a name for such thinkers?I worked with a very annoying person who seemed to ignore any science that gave weight to biblical stories,something frightened her about it I think.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Busby

'Scientists' are actually allowed to discuss anything. In fact that is their calling.
Should there be sufficient evidence of ghosts (whatever they may be) or of levitation - bring it on - all scientists would be thrilled to investigate and plumb the depths of these as yet unspecified traits.

This is the ideal, but unfortunately the reality is very different.

Again, I suggest reading Dean Radin. He conducted a meta-analysis of various experiments concerning the paranormal and found that by current standards of scientific measurement the evidence for paranormal activity was conclusive, the results showing statistical significance rather than being due to chance.

But when he submitted his paper to Nature, the scientific journal, they refused to publish it. He pursued it with the editors and they eventually admitted that there was nothing wrong with his methodology but Nature did not want to be associated with anything supporting the paranormal.

In general, scientists are not open-minded, willing to pursue the truth wherever it may lead. They have their pet theories and they can be as blinkered as any religious fundamentalist.

Peace

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

Indeed. The career one can make from such a discovery would be unprecedented.

However, what I'm getting from the OP is conspiracy instead. There must be some grand plot to prevent 'ze good people' from learning ''the Truth'' because scientists are coerced and stopped from 'getting the info out', heck they may be doing it deliberately. It's an appeal to conspiracy.

Or perhaps there is no grand plot but just very rigid thinking.

Because if life after death or levitation were proved to be facts then science would have to discard their current beliefs and rethink all their theories about what it means to be a human being. And they would have to accept that much of their learning is based on false premises. Which is a step too far for most.

As someone once said, when a new truth is presented then at first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and finally it is accepted as fact. Standard science is still at the stages of ridicule and opposition.

Maybe scientists in 100 years will look back at today's scientific ideas and wonder how people could be so ignorant while believing themselves to be so well-informed.

Peace

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

Watch some Derren Brown or James Randi.

They may be entertaining stage magicians who can use stage props to produce convincing illusions but they are hardly shining examples of deep thinkers who have penetrated the mysteries of life.

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Podshell

But the rejection of the existence of paranormal abilities results from what I am certain are tricks set up in what look like fair and good tests.

Who is rejecting ''the existence of paranormal abilities'' ?

That's pretty strong, when technically only the conclusion that that specific experiment is ''paranormal'' (needs to be defined also) can be rejected.