That’s the problem with trying to think in a language that’s not your own I guess… and with browsing for other type of (ehem) content in the web while typing

“the investigation of whether the Higg’s Bossom exists or not”

Given that Higgs is male, it’s not a question of whether his bos(s)om exists or not, but rather how large it is.

(That should be “boson” )

“Strieber has noted that these beings seem to straddle both the physical world and the realm of the dead.”

That may be exactly what they want us to believe.

“Strieber has noted that these beings seem to straddle both the physical world and the realm of the dead.”

That may be just what they want us to believe.

Quantum mechanics is irrelevant to our non-subatomic reality — unless you can demonstrate that a human being can go through both slits of an interferometer at the same time. It is only a mystery to particle physicists, but many New Age types misconstrue quantum physics to apply to everything when it clearly only applies to subatomic particles.

“I’m getting the feeling that you’re kind of reaching a bit with your argument”

Which as you can see, your feelings prove nor disprove that claim — just like I said those kinds of “arguments” would be unable to do.

“Oh! so in science there has NEVER been a change of interpretation of the facts”

That is not what I said. All interpretation is mis-interpretation, even when scientists do it. Do not confuse scientists with science and do not confuse facts with the interpretation of facts.

“BTW, did you know that one of the very first proponents of the ocurrence of the Big Bang theory was a CATHOLIC PRIEST?”

But it was never the same Big Bang theory as we know it. It was a much different theory with the same name.

“There’s no need to embark in the investiation of whether the Higg’s Bossom exists or not, because, according to you, we have already discerned the total aspect of reality”

Again, that is not what I said. I said that we have been able to DISCERN reality, not that we already KNOW everything there is to know about reality.

“I migh even add that, to some of us, our faith is also based on doubt”

That depends on how you (mis)use the word “faith”. That is an example of the logical fallacy of ambiguity. I was not talking about faith in the sense of “trust” but in the sense of “belief without evidence”.

“I hope we can continue our discussions without embarking in byzantine diatribes to prove the other one wrong. But I’m beginning to doubt it”

I would doubt that too when someone uses words like “byzantine”.

“Have a good weekend”

Thanks. You too.

“You feel whatever you want to feel, so feelings can prove nor disprove anything except that you feel whatever you feel like feeling”

Well, I’m getting the feeling that you’re kind of reaching a bit with your argument

“Facts need no interpretation. The only things that have varying interpretations are politics, religion, and arbitrary opinions.”

Oh! so in science there has NEVER been a change of interpretation of the facts? Well, I’ll be! That’s the first time I’ve heard that one. So scientists have believed ALL the time that the universe is more than 13 billion years old and that originated after the Big Bang eh?

BTW, did you know that one of the very first proponents of the ocurrence of the Big Bang theory was a CATHOLIC PRIEST? the belgian Georges Lemaître. In act the term “Big Bang” was a used to mock such preposterous idea. After Hubble and others confirmed the fact that the Universe expanded, the term sticked. So science is not without a bit of irony, it seems.

“The fact that we have been able to discern reality is proof that your conclusion is not valid”

Mmmm, I’ll better hurry and send an urgent e-mail to CERN then, to stop them of spending so much time and energy in the building of the Large Hadron Collider. There’s no need to embark in the investiation of whether the Higg’s Bossom exists or not, because, according to you, we have already discerned the total aspect of reality. And you call ME faihful my friend?

Look Sage, as I’ve written ealier, I welcome skepticism when it’s based on a fair openness to look at new things with an unbiased judgement. You say science is based on doubt, and you are absolutely right on that. I migh even add that, to some of us, our faith is also based on doubt. People who do not doubt they might be wrong are fundamentalists, and you can find them filling ranks not only in religius sects, but also in the halls of Academia. If you don’t believe that science is also based on consensus that can sometimes be completely wrong, you should ask for a refund in that “Scientific Reasoning” course you took in college.

I hope we can continue our discussions without embarking in byzantine diatribes to prove the other one wrong.

But I’m beginning to doubt it.

Have a good weekend.

Unfortunately most self-styled sceptics seem unaware that Science has changed a little since Newton’s era.

In my opinion, the difference between Science and Skepticism is that scientists are always willing to explore new possibilities, while skeptics are not. Science is forward-looking, while skepticism is backward-looking.

(RP) “Well, what about God for starters? Yeah I know, another fairytale figure isn’t it?”

Exactly.

“Ok, using more ’scientific terms’, how about that sense of oneness…”

There is nothing scientific about any vague “sense” of anything. You feel whatever you want to feel, so feelings can prove nor disprove anything except that you feel whatever you feel like feeling. Some people have feelings of love for spinach and some people do not. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

(SAGE) “It is interesting that you would use lucid dreaming to try and support a belief in the paranormal.”

(RP) “I merely tried to put an example of experiences that cannot be measured with empyrical methods and that have varying subjective interpretations from person to person”

Facts need no interpretation. The only things that have varying interpretations are politics, religion, and arbitrary opinions.

And lucid dreams can be studied empirically, otherwise you would not have ever heard of them.

(SAGE) “Your taste testing example only proves my view all the more, since the experience of tasting tells us nothing about reality, since ten different people can all taste the same wine and come away with ten different descriptions”

(RP) “To say that would then be to conclude we will NEVER be able to discern reality in itself, since all experiences are subject to personal interpretation”

The fact that we have been able to discern reality is proof that your conclusion is not valid. Certainly all experiences are subject to personal interpretation but all experience is also able to be subjected to scientific methodology to determine if that experience — no matter what the personal interpretation may or may not be — was based on reality or imagination.

(SAGE) “Science has an extremely successful history to back itself up with. No other method can even come close, let alone take us further than science ever has or could”

(RP) “Yes, science is great, when dealing with the HOWs of life, but I don’t think it’s the best instrument when dealing with the WHYs. To assert than only science is the valid method to contemplate everything in the Universe, seems to me also a FAITHFUL posture, and I choose… to doubt it”

You need to learn the difference between faith and fact. Science is founded on doubt, not faith. And it is the only method that has *SUCCESSFULLY* been demonstrated over and over that it works. No other method has had *ANY* significant success. No religion, no other philosophy, no political ideology — nothing. Do you want to stick with what you hope and wish will work, or do you want to go with a winner?

I’m convinced that much of what you say is indeed correct. Strieber has noted that these beings seem to straddle both the physical world and the realm of the dead.

And it may well be that this is due to technological developments, rather than anything “supernatural” or “spooky”, or via the stereotypical image of rapping on tables and asking if “there’s anybody there whose name begins with G…”

I also agree that I think that the development of how these things appear and manifest to us is indeed based upon our own cultural conditioning.

But it’s these issues that make me wonder if we are dealing with aliens (in the ET sense), or something that is literally alien beyond words and that we are still nowhere near understanding - certainly in terms of origin, and for the most part with respect to its intent too.