Acceptable scientific discussions.

#1
For the past 2 months or so I've been following with interest the skeptic\believer discussion and just now I came up with two terms that are relevant in this matter.

Scientistically correct-a set of ideas/theories/hypotheses/discussions that are deemed acceptable discourse by the scientific community and academia and are in accord with the current materialistic paradigm(eg. evolutionary theory,big bang theory,brain-based consciousness,illusion of free will,selfish gene hypothesis etc.)

Scientistically incorrect-a set of ideas/theories/experiences/discussions that are deemed unacceptable discourse by the scientific community and academia, that may cause career suicide(when working in a scientific establishment or academia) or ridicule by skeptic organizations/media and are in conflict with the current materialistic paradigm(NDE research,ESP research,ufology,more specifically alien abduction and contactee experiences)

Do these terms make any sense to you?
 
#3
For modern science it has been hard to shake Newton off after all of his impact in the 18th century's Age of Enlightenment, which is why some seem so hell bent in keeping Newtonian physics alive in some form despite the success of quantum mechanics and the rise of the counterintuitive views of reality. However, there is also the anti-religion narrative as well. The boundaries have been more or less the same since the French Revolution, that is unless you count the spiritualist craze, which is hard to judge since it was plagued by charlatans that saw a chance to make a buck.

I am under the impression that a good portion of the skeptics oppose things like psi and NDE-research more due to an innate fear that religion will creep back into power than for their loyalty to the materialist paradigm. It not casualty that atheism is so heavily tied with liberalism nowadays (not that one is a requisite for the other). A post-enlightenment hangover of sorts.
 
Last edited:
#5
They make sense but IMO add nothing new or helpful to the discourse. (Though, at this point, I think the discourse itself only serves the status-quo) I've also seem the term "sciencism" used to encapsulate those things.
Right. Science has become a belief system, in the larger "science as authority" sense, not necessarily as it's actually practiced by individual scientists. However, this is damaging to science as a whole because the big mouths that claim to speak "for science" just so happen to be liberal materialists/atheists.

This has and will more so, I believe, end up in the very long term biting "science" in the butt. This "war on science" isn't so much a backlash against science as industry or concept/tool. It's a backlash against the NSF, the Dawkins', Tyson's, Cox's and Nye's. All these "science" mouth peices/media darlings that open their big fat mouths every chance they get and bash anyone and anything that dare question their authority, or dare to believe that there might be some kind of god, afterlife or psi ability. Or, as it stands now, anyone who dare believe they are more than just the movement of molecules.
 
#7
Brain-independent consciousness in NDE's and OBE's,dream telepathy,aspects of alien abduction such as telepathic contact with alien entities,the objective reality of the places visited in the OBE state(such as the astral island from the astralpulse forum),premonition & precognition,cases of xenoglossy and birthmarks indicative of past lives and in the same tone the efficacy of past life regression therapy in healing physical and emotional trauma.
 
#8
Brain-independent consciousness in NDE's and OBE's,dream telepathy,aspects of alien abduction such as telepathic contact with alien entities,the objective reality of the places visited in the OBE state(such as the astral island from the astralpulse forum),premonition & precognition,cases of xenoglossy and birthmarks indicative of past lives and in the same tone the efficacy of past life regression therapy in healing physical and emotional trauma.
Right, well a sound scientific approach would be to cite actual research that showed that some or all of those phenomena don't exist! The problem is that is not what is happeneing right now (as opposed to the past when well known scientists such as William Crookes took an interest in 'paranormal' phenomena) mainstream scientists barely do any research into these topics, and scoff at those who do - such as Rupert Sheldrake.

David
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#9
Brain-independent consciousness in NDE's and OBE's,dream telepathy,aspects of alien abduction such as telepathic contact with alien entities,the objective reality of the places visited in the OBE state(such as the astral island from the astralpulse forum),premonition & precognition,cases of xenoglossy and birthmarks indicative of past lives and in the same tone the efficacy of past life regression therapy in healing physical and emotional trauma.
Lots of people study these things. Perhaps by "scientistically incorrect" you mean "not yet accepted by most of the scientific community."

~~ Paul
 
#11
Right, well a sound scientific approach would be to cite actual research that showed that some or all of those phenomena don't exist
Aside from the actuality that such phenomena are "more real" than the physical itself, any such genuine research is itself outside the status-quo science canon. So the OP's point is valid.
 
#12
Aside from the actuality that such phenomena are "more real" than the physical itself, any such genuine research is itself outside the status-quo science canon. So the OP's point is valid.
Well, not totally. If you come up with evidence that information can be gleaned 'out three' that could not otherwise have been obtained, you can break the status-quo - think of remote viewing.

David
 
#13
I think it might be that scientists rarely like to take on a case that might lead them in directions they are not comfortable with - or have to reach conclusions that totally contradict their biased ideologies.

It's like the Hessdalen-phenomenon - many don't want to "peek behind the curtain". Sure, there are investigations done in Hessdalen, and some curiosity from the international scientific community was shown. But the amount of interest, and resources, one would think should go in to study such an phenomenon, is very poor, considering.

There has been a few theories, but they each cover just fractions of the whole phenomenon reported. Like the quartz-grains-dust which produce some fine dust, with intense charge, when rocks are under great pressure, and then it would create plasma in the atmosphere when the dust reaches it. Also a radon-theory, basically suggesting a similar plasma-created phenomenon. The theory, though, leaves out the different colours witnessed and recorded - since their theory only involve green plasma discharges.

They also try to explain the immense speed of the light sighted, but then leave out the sightings and recordings, when the phenomenon moves slowly, and speeding up, and standing still for hours on end, and then moves with "purpose", following roads etc - and in some cases also people. They also leave out that the phenomenon has been observed on radar as well - and the sightings of actual physical objects.

It's like; "we need this "to go away", so concoct a theory and "hammer it in" until people accept it as the one-true-explanation".

 
Last edited:
#14
Well, not totally. If you come up with evidence that information can be gleaned 'out three' that could not otherwise have been obtained, you can break the status-quo - think of remote viewing.

David
?? I'm not claiming the status-quo is correct. Far from it. And it has "been broken" for a while now. The thing is that many people, for various reasons, still buy into it and some want to foist it upon everyone. And even RV can be and has at times been forced into a physicalist perspective. It doesn't quite fit but that's true for many things the status quo claims. The purveyors of that view do have one strong advantage - by widespread dissemination of their views from sources seen as authoritative they weave a narrative that is lalmost seamless. Many people don't notice that it's self-referential.
 
Top