Eric, you bring up an interesting point. What is science anyway?
I guess it could mean different things to different people. For some it might be about certain rules, the status quo, a belief system, a hierarchy, certain methods and prejudices, and dogma not unlike a religion. Not something that has truth and logic as it's guideposts. You suggest that people feeling a sensation can't be scientifically considered proof. But logically it is evidence and it would eventually be enough to be counted as proof could it not, at least if truth and logic are your guideposts. Proof of what could be debated of course. Yes the circumstances must be considered, if I were a stage hypnotist or a magican and they felt these things in person with me, then you could have an alternative explanation. Sticking doggedly to certain rules of what is and is not enough evidence to be considered proof (or, even evidence as evidence) is not logically defensible if the weight of evidence is enough in volume and absent of any other possible explanation. But it might be scientific, if scientific does not mean logical and truthful. But when I say scientific, I mean logical and truthful. John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> You could argue that nothing really proves anything. >>> Even atoms are still just considered a theory, sure a popular one with >>> tons of evidence. >>> >> >> Yes, good point. When it comes down to it, nobody has seen an atom. >> It's all inference. >> >> >>> Atoms are of course redefines, quantum physics changed understanding of >>> the atom, was the previous model incorrect? >>> That is a very hard thing to answer, it certainly wasn't complete. >>> >> >> I do not believe previous models are incorrect, generally speaking -- >> previous models are often correct within the scope of their applicability. >> In astronomy, the Copernican system does the trick for figuring out where >> most of the heavenly bodies are going to be if you're willing to do all of >> the math. We just have happened upon a model we like better for doing the >> things we want to do these days (i.e., a heliocentric model of the solar >> system). We find it more conceptually elegant and useful. >> >> >>> So this is evidence for a substance to space, for an energy that does >>> not fit into the engineering and physics definition of energy. >>> >> >> I am very open to the existence of an energy that does not fit within the >> engineering and physics definition of energy. I guess my view is simply >> that when we step outside of engineering and physics, we've stepped outside >> of science and are now contemplating questions of a different nature; e.g., >> ones that you can't prove in the context of science. >> > > I disagree that it is outside of science. > However it is an area of science that the rules of scientific evidence and > the instruments we have cut us off from working in this area > almost entirely. > > But it is real and detectable (with difficulty), it is logical and can be > engineered. > > But at the same time it does connect to consciousness, and do various > other things that make it a bit spooky. > Not to mention, I know a lot about it, but I can't give you > any equations for it, but that may be my own mathematical shortcomings. > > > >> >> >>> Now does one person feeling something prove it, well no. >>> But a significant percentage of people do feel this. >>> >> >> I do not believe intersubjective agreement on the existence of a >> phenomenological experience is sufficient to prove a scientific conjecture. >> Really it suggests that the experience is widely shared. But it could be >> the widely shared experience of neurons randomly firing off. Something >> more is needed to "prove" something, at least, scientifically speaking. >> > > Well if this were promoted by the leader of a religion, then the weight of > evidence of those within that belief system agreeing would be of no value. > > However if *everyone* no matter what their belief system is feels > something strongly (in a low pressure environment, such as an email), then > that is in fact very strong evidence. > No matter what the customs of scientific evidence say about it, if it > disagrees then it is merely rigged.. > > Now this is not the former and is closer to the later, except only some > people feel it strongly and some people don't at all. > And many others feel something but it is at a level they > can't immediately gain confidence in. > > So is it proof, maybe not. Is it evidence, yes. > > > >> >>> Let's say this, there is based on the evidence I have been able to >>> gather definitively something that is not normally understood (and there is >>> already some degree of evidence on list) and it follows the rules that I >>> have found by modeling it on an aether. >>> >> >> I should clarify that I do not doubt that you have come across evidence >> of something unusual in your investigations and that it could point to >> something deeper about reality. I guess my doubt primarily concerns >> whether what you have found fits in the same basket as frame dragging and >> quantum mechanics and ether in the context of physics -- it seems to be of >> a nature altogether different from these. >> > > It is only different in so much that the degree where the aetheric > dynamics I am creating do not seem to reliably or obviously cross over to > the physical in any way readily observed. > > In other words, all that is needed is to perfect the form (and likely make > these in electrical form) and the results will be physical anomalies. > >> >> *So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether? >>> **None.* >> >> >> I think the main question at issue here is epistemological -- it's about >> what constitutes scientific knowledge. I don't think you can establish the >> scientific basis for something by showing that no evidence has been found >> that it doesn't exist. That does not detract from its possible >> significance in other areas of life, of course. >> > > Yes, but if it was a concept in physics, and exists in many cultures and I > have evidence for it and there are many bits of evidence from hard physical > science for it in various ways, then evidence exists for it and none > against it. > > > John >
