What about the facts?

[Podshell]

Originally Posted by Altair

Yeah, as if that would settle it....
Maybe slightly more possible if this was still the 2000s. These days forums like this aren't popular at all. Most people are on social media.

The point is he would have likely got ample feedback before writing loads on something based on just jumping to a conclusion,it helps to get a bit of feedback,I am hoping to do a few papers/essays for some courses I plan to do,and I will be trawling through some of my posts on here re-checking the replies.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

I don't agree. Science studies the known world. Spiritual phenomena are immaterial, which is probably the consensus here.

But when it comes to the unknown world of what may happen after death then science is only too eager to assert its opinion that there is no life after death without knowing anything about the subject.

Originally Posted by Altair

I detect a frustration with science and scientists that they can't prove spiritual phenomena. Why is it an issue? Correct me if wrong.

I have no need for science and scientists to prove anything about spiritual phenomena. Such proof is irrelevant to me. I do not need science to give its seal of approval to such matters.

But I do find it bizarre that science makes such judgements about things it does not yet understand and so many people embrace these judgements, quoting the opinions of science as the ultimate authority.

Originally Posted by Altair

... you can't then expect others to simply accept that there are people out there that can levitate. ... Anecdotes are not scientific proof.

Again, I have little interest in scientific proof whereby something happens in a laboratory watched by scientific observers. If something happens in a cave watched by non-scientific observers then that is sufficient for me to accept that such a thing may be possible.

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Podshell

The point is he would have likely got ample feedback before writing loads on something based on just jumping to a conclusion,it helps to get a bit of feedback,I am hoping to do a few papers/essays for some courses I plan to do,and I will be trawling through some of my posts on here re-checking the replies.

And he has to do it here on SF, or else he isn't to be taken seriously?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by iamthat

But when it comes to the unknown world of what may happen after death then science is only too eager to assert its opinion that there is no life after death without knowing anything about the subject.

I have not seen this, only description of what happens to the body: organs stop functioning, consciousness can't be detected, body decays.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Again, I have little interest in scientific proof whereby something happens in a laboratory watched by scientific observers. If something happens in a cave watched by non-scientific observers then that is sufficient for me to accept that such a thing may be possible.

Sure, but in the context of this subforum it is entirely reasonable to ask for experiments in controlled environments.

[muffin]

Originally Posted by Altair

consciousness can't be detected

Good afternoon Altair

It's already flown the coop

[Mora321]

... consciousness can't be detected....

This is an interesting proposition. I rather think that some people are aware of when particular others wake.

Does a mother often know when her infant awakes even if on the other side of the dwelling?

[Busby]

Originally Posted by iamthat

This presumes that those who have mastered the ability to levitate have any interest in proving it in a controlled environment. Maybe they do not consider such proof to be particularly important.

So the only evidence is anecdotal which science will not accept, even if levitation occurs in front of many witnesses.

Peace

As far as I know no-one has ever mastered the ability to levitate. Nor have I ever heard or seen of any such masters performing in front of many witnesses - nor have I ever witnessed a miracle of any sort and I've devoted time enough over many decades.

As an aside; the Indian Rope Trick lost its arcane glamour the moment cameras came onto the market.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Busby

As far as I know no-one has ever mastered the ability to levitate. Nor have I ever heard or seen of any such masters performing in front of many witnesses - nor have I ever witnessed a miracle of any sort and I've devoted time enough over many decades.

Indeed. I have no direct knowledge of levitation since (somewhat surprisingly) I am unable to levitate, nor have I ever seen anyone else levitate.

But there are sufficient accounts of people levitating in front of eye-witnesses to persuade me that levitation is possible.

A well known example is Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-1886).

For example, at a seance in Connecticut in 1852:

Also present that night was a local journalist, F.L. Burr, whose assignment it was to find something incriminating against Spiritualism in general and especially about Home, who had debunkers in an uproar with his excellent reputation. However, instead of writing an article that exposed Home as a fraud, Burr wrote:

"Suddenly, without any expectation on the part of the company, Home was taken up into the air. I had hold of his hand at the time and I felt his feet -- they were lifted a foot from the floor. He palpitated from head to foot with the contending emotions of joy and fear which choked his utterances. Again and again, he was taken from the floor, and the third time he was taken to the ceiling of the apartment, with which his hands and feet came into gentle contact."

But how was this accomplished? Home claimed not to know himself. He stated that an “unseen power” simply came over him and lifted him into the air.

And later in Britain:

In December 1868, his most famous feat took place at the home of Lord Adare. During the evening, Home reportedly went into a trance and floated out the window of the third floor, then floated back in another window - all before the eyes of a number of stunned witnesses. The event occurred in front of three irreproachable members of London’s high society, Lord Adare, his cousin Captain Charles Wynne and the Master of Lindsay.

Do we just dismiss these accounts because we do not understand how such things happen? Or do we consider that the world may be far more mysterious than we might suppose?

Peace

[Podshell]

There is also that footage from Russia of the young girl in the woods.Hasn't science also levitated stuff,I recall a news item showing a floating frog-in any case reports of levitation are rare anyway so probably not worth the hassle of trying to study.(one thing science could consider is the physical/chemical differences between a living and a dead body as they both should be the same but some animating factor has left the dead one so conclusions can be made.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

the chosen statement of fact relies on whim even if we do decide that the facts themselves are as immutable as they seem.

I'm into the sports science and nutrition end of it, and you basically nailed it here.

It starts off completely arbitrary, and you see something, wonder how that works, and make an educated guess. Then you think of a way to test it, do the experiment, and get a result. But the result isn't proof. Maybe the methodology of the experiment was flawed. So, you discuss the results in the discussion section and other scientists see flaws in method (there are always flaws) and think up better ways to test it. Other people say the same thing can be tested in a completely different way, and a bunch of people do experiments to see what they can find out. In most cases the first idea confirmed by the first experiment turns out to be wrong, so those headlines that say 'New Study Reveals...' are just about always nonsense.

The ideas that are right withstand all sorts of experiments with different methodologies, and these together basically prove the original idea because they work every time no matter what. Usually a researcher will then collect all the research on the topic and filter out studies with small sample sizes, poor methodology etc. and publish a meta-analysis of all the quality research... and it's really only then that a scientist accepts the idea is true.

Laypeople don't know that, so they think 'A Recent Study Reveals...' proves something, but it doesn't. It's very hard to be right in science, and even when you are, there's another layer to it. At some level it vanishes into the unknown and we don't know why it works.

However, your sentence I quoted above is precarious because people just say anything is true when they are wrong. That's what the internet is in the 'post truth era'. I wonder if you came across a supposed scientific truth that undermined one of your beliefs or biases, or you came across what everyone said was a scientific truth that was wrong and used to mislead people.