Al, actually there is nothing happening here but real science. Nothing in the scientific method has changed since the advent of modern physics (by "modern" I mean quantum mechanics and relativity). What happened in that transition is that theories that made falsifiable predictions ran into situations where their predictions were not accurate. At this point, the theories were either modified or replaced by theories whose falsifiable predictive were more accurate over a greater range.
These changing situations are my point
As our body of knowledge grew we learned to make better decisions. What was once considered solid science in one era was either replaced or subsumed as we learned greater understanding. Unfortunately, other relevant elements, may have been ignored because they didn't fit the new mold (e.g.- Einstein's Cosmological Constant).
An interesting note that is pertinent to this discussion- the study of
sigils has been relegated to mostly ancient history with supposedly little practical use today, but these letters/markings were supposed to have definite practical applications. Could this be an additional or alternate factor in why the rice spoiled more quickly in the negative containers?
There is nothing mystical or magical about quantum mechanics or relativity. Their hypotheses are just as falsifiable as the classical hypotheses they replaced. That quantum mechanics is a probabalistic treatment does not mean it is somehow less falsifiable or magical or something.
Nope. They all produce falsifiable predictions that have accumulated a record for accuracy.
The world of the quantum is indeed "magical" in a certain sense because elements of it
cannot be predicted (i.e.- predicting the position of an electron). By acknowledging that once you get to the Planck scale that physics as we know it starts to change, that in itself opens up possibilities. How deep do those levels go? Is there a level where our thoughts become "materialized"? If so,
how does what happens on that scale interact with the scale that we can observe?
These are all thought experiments but they are important nonetheless.
Not sure what that means.
I was referring to the outcome, which suggests that intent plays a part in the experiments.
That is a reasonable scientific question. And it can only be answered by someone forming a falsifiable hypothesis and demonstrating that its predictions are accurate through the use of good hard experimental science. Anything else is just interesting bar room conversation.
Some would think that these subjects are worthy of more than bar room talk
Science does not claim that only the observable is true. All it does is to provide a methodology for building certainty about explanations that describe things that are observable.
For those things that are not observable, you are free to make up any methodology you want. All you need to do is demonstrate how that methodology reaches any kind of certainty or any kind of truth.
Another thought experiment (I'm not referring to the rice experiment in this case)- What if the results of something correlates to something
internal. What if these things happen in a way that's purely subjective but that happens with such frequency, synchronicity and accuracy that the observer has to take notice of it? There might come a point where the observer will not be able to deny that something intangible is occurring. Those outside of the observer's scope of experience would likely consider him mad or insult him, but what position is "true"? It's important to be critical when conducting tests but just how much have we lost by not accepting data because it didn't fit into our narrow framework of criteria.
But if you don't but insist that it is still scientific, you are simply being a crackpot.
One thing you might consider, though, is that if something is not observable, how does one decide it exists. In the case of religous faith, we accept things as articles of faith in a way that is somewhat arbitrary. Although I am a Christian and accept that the God of Abraham exists, I cannot tell demonstrate to you that he exists any more than Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
So that leaves you with no way to determine if these "unobservables" are simply products of an overactive imagination or not.
An allusion to Pastafarianism- that made me smile
Before I proceed, this next portion of the discussion could easily be construed in a manner that could make some folks get upset. That's certainly not my intention. This next section is merely for pondering purposes only, is rhetorical, and is being mentioned in response to the previous poster's statement.
The statement in question: "In the case of religous faith, we accept things as articles of faith in a way that is somewhat arbitrary."
Do
you believe in your particular faith because you've had insights and revelations, and because you have a personal relationship with your Creator; or do you "believe" what you do because that's what you were taught or because you fear some kind of divine retribution if you don't?
Would you attempt to apply the "scientific method" in a similar manner to your belief system or do you make an exception in this case? If not, then why do you believe what you do? The criteria for something as important as your faith and the destiny of your soul should definitely take precedent over simple experiments with rice, should they not?
Why does something that falls out of the typical definition of science have to be labeled "crackpot"? I would truly appreciate an attempt at keeping these reactionary words to a minimum- they create bias and that's not what the intention of this thread was for.
To those of us that had revelations and experiences that solidify our faith(s)- should we be considered "crackpots" because our experiences cannot be translated using the scientific method?
A few hundred years ago people were severely punished for expressing beliefs contrary to the churches in power in those times; a process that was repeated by certain Atheistic political factions on a very large scale in the last century except that they were punished for having faith in a system outside of those approved by their State. the reasons were the same though- to establish control and fear.
What is it about the unknown that captivates some and scares many.
And finally, where we have no information about something, we can conclude nothing about it. To use the lack of information about something as an argument that it might exist is called an Argument From Ignorance. It is of the form: "X exists because you we have no evidence that it does not."
It would be a mistake to state that there's "no" information in the conclusions of these rice experiments. There's plenty of data- but not all of it can be explained. That doesn't mean we give up and stop trying to figure out
why.
If the information is sparse then that's where thought experiments come in
That's also why there's two main classifications of knowledge- "A priori" (independent of experience), and "a posteriori" (based on experience).
Very nice, but this has no point to it. The transition from classical to modern physics was pretty drastic and amazing, but it proves nothing else but the fact that science, in adhering to the principle of prediction and falsifiability, has the amazing ability to improve and correct itself no matter how much improvement or correction it takes.
The drastic transition is not an indication of the weakness of science but rather an indication of the strength of it. What other field of intellectual pursuit do you know of that can overturn 350 years of extremely useful and reliable intellectual property when a better one comes along that is more useful and more accurate?
That statement can be interpreted in many ways, and not all of them positive. What about the relics of ancient wisdom and history that tell of times when our understanding of the world around us was much more connected? Surely by "outsourcing" much of what we do in an attempt at greater convenience we've lost a lot of that connectedness- along with whatever benefits came with it. Why does a method that's been used with great success for long periods of time need to be replaced unless it was initially unsound to begin with? Who's to say that when we finally discover a way to decipher our timeless mysteries that we won't find out we've either been really far off track or just completely wrong about how things really work.
Perhaps we're really doing things the hard or long way, and by doing so are creating even greater distance between us and the rest of the universe.
There is no term called "traditional science" unless you mean to distinguish good science from bad science.
We're splitting hairs here. My mention of "traditional" in this sense refers to "mainstream" science.
If you mean that after pursuing science for a few hundred years we don't actually know everything yet, then yes? But what is your point? That science doesn't work very fast? Have you considered that you are posting this on a high speed computer the size of a book to a high speed global network whereas your great grandfather read books by whale oil lamp.
My point is that the more we learn the more questions we uncover; so while we're making progress we're also finding out just how much farther we still have to go. Each discovery has the possibility of opening up new realms of thinking.
And we would only know that if that was actually done. That is the point. One needs a statistically meaningful set of experiments. Until you get that, it is all simply anecdotal. We figured this out a few hundred years ago.
And if the experiments were as astonishingly badly conducted as the ones in the video, then the results will simply be random. The moment they started to wash stuff and leave it outside to dry and then pretend it was "sterile" is the moment one begins to realize that these are a bunch of crackpots.
Not if the experiments were conducted properly, and there were a statistically significant number of trials, and it was duplicated by other independent investigators. At that point, you have undeniable science and it doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is.
But guess what? If you do bad science and put it on youtube, people won't take you seriously. And then if one whines about how mainstream science is in denial about it, one has demonstrated that one is a pure crackpot.
More on this later....
How many trials?
Who determines what is "proper"?
Next- another lovely thought experiment
We're a few years in the future at a cutting-edge high tech university where these experiments are being conducted with greater scrutiny. A scientist decides that the experiment wouldn't be valid unless an electron scanning microscope was used to ensure that there are no other substantial variables affecting the experiment. The experiment concludes and nothing tangible is found to explain why the rice with negative words/intent results in greater decay and pronounces the experiment a failure or at best- inconclusive.
Sometime later, a colleague of his decides to use the newest "5 Dimensional Yoctoscope" as the experiment is being repeated and actually finds something observable [or at least what translates to observable in that dimension] happening! The problem now is that we can't translate what that something
is because we have no frame of reference for it, yet the experiment does make a connection between thoughts/intent and the rice.
Was the first scientist "wrong"?
My point in all of this is not to disagree with you (although
healthy debate is good)- only to point out that out current level of knowledge and technology may not be sufficient to answer these questions. It is almost always critical but flexible open minds that take us to the next level in any field of learning.