[maymay417]

With every type of mental disorder, psychological phenomenon, and natural cause that needs to be ruled out when deeming true "paranormal" phenomena, we look towards science to confirm what is and isn't real. Science has done a great job at convincing followers than most religions. Has it caused us to be a culture of doubters? Where nothing is credible unless it can be proven? Science is in the position of authority on "what is", as it dictates what science can understand and define should be all that we believe is correct and real. Does provable equal real?

I read a book about unexplained powers of the human mind, case studies of people who sensed that they are being stared at by someone other than those in front of them, then turned around to find someone doing just that. Most of us have had such experiences, though science calls them coincidences. Science says we imagine false explanations for events that are nothing more than coincidences or events that could be explained otherwise by scientific study. Even then, case studies are not the same as proof.

There are some things about life, truths and realities, that we don’t understand. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. It simply means that we can’t explain them. So why do we need science to judge what is normal, what is natural, what is reality and what is truth?

[Deanna Karie]

I am a believer in the paranormal though I tend to be very skeptical of a high percentage of people's stories. My rational side tends to crave an explanation that science can define. I think as humans, it is comforting to hear strong facts in black & white. It appeals to us because it is something we can test and understand.

And science has in fact made me a bigger skeptic than believer. The problem with that is it leaves a group of people calling an experience natural and one person standing on their own calling it paranormal. Perception is reality. As long as we allow science to label it a coincidence, that is what it will be.

However, I hope that one day science will be able to help prove the paranormal. Imagine the possibilites of that.

[survivalgirl]

I dont think we need science to be the judge but I do think breaking down the makeup and understanding how something works can be important. Science makes us continue searching and asking questions, just like spirituality does..Shouldnt really matter where the search comes from, as long as we still search. No-one/thing has all the answers.

[Lt_SoPacParanrml]

Science has its place in the paranormal field however you cannot judge someones personal experiences by scientific method. If you are going to use scientific devices such as photos, EVPs, video, Franks Box Etc... Then you better be prepared to support your evidence with the ability to prove it through scientific method. As far as personal experiences go whether someone believes another's report of a personal experience isn't really that important. The person that had the experience has received the answer. You cannot force anyone to believe personal paranormal experience. You may be lucky enough to witness someones paranormal experience but all that does is make you a eyewitness to someones story it does not prove it true. Both parties may have been deceived. It may be a long while before the study of the paranormal will be a science.

[ArminiusVicious]

With every type of mental disorder, psychological phenomenon, and natural cause that needs to be ruled out when deeming true "paranormal" phenomena, we look towards science to confirm what is and isn't real. Science has done a great job at convincing followers than most religions. Has it caused us to be a culture of doubters? Where nothing is credible unless it can be proven? Science is in the position of authority on "what is", as it dictates what science can understand and define should be all that we believe is correct and real. Does provable equal real?

I read a book about unexplained powers of the human mind, case studies of people who sensed that they are being stared at by someone other than those in front of them, then turned around to find someone doing just that. Most of us have had such experiences, though science calls them coincidences. Science says we imagine false explanations for events that are nothing more than coincidences or events that could be explained otherwise by scientific study. Even then, case studies are not the same as proof.

There are some things about life, truths and realities, that we don’t understand. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. It simply means that we can’t explain them. So why do we need science to judge what is normal, what is natural, what is reality and what is truth?

A great amazonian Shaman once put it this way....

The regular person walks around with like a veil on their face. This veil only lets them see what they want to see.
The truth and reality itself is visible only in what they perceive to be the world around them.
One needs to lift the veil off, and see the world for what it truly looks like, and the beings that live in it.

[Intriguing]

I don't know if science is the ultimate authority, at least that is my belief. I think people feel that others will be more likely to believe them when there is some scientific evidence to back up their claims., validation. We need science to be able to rule out certain possibilities, and come to some conclusions.

[CaveRat]

Science may not be the ultimate authority on the unexplaiined but when science can explain something it is counterproductive to continue to disregard the explainable in search for some other less plausible reason for the occurrance.

[leatherboy2006]

Thanks for this great thread Maymay.
I always thought we as mankind was kinda of stuck on ourselfs, just because our science says life can't exist on lets say Mecury, then there must not be life there. Maybe there are things out there we don't know or understand and yet we deem it to be concrete and factual. I hope how I worded this made as much sense in words as it is in my head. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[simsgap]

Science can and will not explain everything, even though many think it can and does. Remember science also once had a beginning, just like the paranormal is having or has had. In my mind though, science is scared of what it cannot explain and itself makes up rational explanations of the unexplainable just so that it can understand it. Hope you understand that wording.

[maymay417]

Thanks everyone and I agree with what everyone is saying. If reality is influenced by our own perception(scientist included) what determines truth? From an instrumentalist perspective, truth of a theory is determined by its success in the active solution of a problem and that the value of ideas is determined by their function in human experience. Realism would say "yes" to "does science try to find truth", while instrumentalist would say "no".

Scientist in the 1950's who studied the structure of DNA were aiming for a theory that would describe the actual structure of DNA. They wanted to find the truth, so they were realists. Before 1953, however, their claims were modest, because all of their theories had a low truth-plausibility. They were evaluating critically, in an effort to achieve their realist goals. But after 1953 the claims for truth became adventurous, and those who were most knowledgeable quickly decided that the double helix structure deserved to have a very high plausibility because it almost certainly was true.

Do most scientists usually search for truth? Of course. But is searching for truth the only goal? Scientists( and certainly not all of them) are also motivated by the satisfaction of solving problems, and by practical things such as getting grants, earning a salary, gaining respect from scientific colleagues and nonscientists, and constructing accurate theories. Don't we want our theories to be true by corresponding to the reality of what is happening in nature?

Attitudes toward utility and truth differ in science and design. An engineer whose main goal is to design an improved product will tend to be more satisfied with viewing a theory only in terms of its usefulness in promoting progress toward this goal, without thinking too much about whether the theory is true. When a theory is viewed as a practical tool whose function is to be useful during the process of design, the question of truth becomes less important than in science where accurate understanding is the main goal.

Does this make any sense?

Are there limits to logic?