You also see it all the time.
"Well, you can't prove that god/angels/faeries/the soul/reptilian aliens aren't real, can you?"
"Well, no, you can't. That's how you know they don't exist, after all."
=
"So they are not real. Simply because I say so and am incapable of proving or disproving it - or rather I'm too lazy to try to prove them."
On what basis they are not real? On what basis can't they be proven real? They can be, only it seems to not be possible with our current technology and perception.
You can prove them, only it'd require
1) massive amount of real coverage of every single fragment of the Earth, including cameras or other devices covering the skies at the same time
2) actual close research and archiving (taping, recording in any format) of most of the universe
It's like I'd say "open-sketchbook never existed, I never saw him, somebody else must write instead of him, photos provided by him may be fabricated or they may be somebody else's, I never will try to meet him in person either (just because I assume he doesn't exist and I'm too lazy to do that)".
Never ever going to try to do that and that's why it can't be proven, eh?
Just like with OOBE's - if you never tried a real out of body experience along with scanning building insides and areas you never saw during physical travels or on photos, then you never tried to find out whether ESP is possible - and therefore - you can't speak whether it's factually possible or not, only ascertain probability of that. You can still prove it, therefore it can be true or false. You still can have an OOBE or do other experiments in a reliable way, LOL.
Attributing creation of world to God or gods (forgot polytheist religions, mind you!) or force (e.g. Tao in Taoism) are common examples of how humans tried to grasp and understand the reality around them without trying to actually research and crash test them.
Many of human beliefs concerning the reality (creationism) were seemingly proven wrong, incomplete or only partially right.
"- God is your conscious, and provides you with the soul that defines your individuality! Dualism has been disproven by study of brain architecture? Oh dear..."
No, the science doesn't provide you with knowledge, and the knowledge doesn't provide you with information. The problem are definitions of "science", "knowledge" and "information" in this comparison. And there's also a question of why the brain is capable of processing abstract ideas that are ungraspable empirically.
Also, concerning reptilians aliens:
1) ever heard about dinosaurs?
2) human culture records more than just one example of deifying reptilians as gods, for example, Aztec and Chinese mythologies feature them, along with the Bible refering to a snake as a walking and talking tempter (Genesis chapter)
So what's the probability of alien reptilians, taking existence of dinosaurs into consideration? Little up?
"And back in the day, it's either gods, forces of nature, or monotheistic "God" was supposed to control everything."
There are many definitions of god - when you speak about god/gods/God, then you need to clarify what supposed creationist forces you're talking about - they may be as well human hands creating man-made tools, and the "creator" of the tool can be called a "god" of that tool.
Isn't it true that human collective awareness that may be as well called God, experiencing and learning about political, religious, scientific nuances is shaping itself? So may awareness be a creator of itself?
So isn't your reasoning capabilities gods of your own reason, and still actively shaping your own reason, because without them, you won't be reasonable at all?
Also, there's a study called psychology. Why should be it suddenly ignored when dealing with abstract ideas such as conscience or personality? Goalposts were already moved by scientists turning to purely physical phenomena, they redefined "soul" and "conscience" and other inconvenient things as things of the past and nonexistent, while ancients simply may have imagine "ignorance" as "darkness", conceptualise their fears into "devils" and mythical beasts, and deified human beings that they considered worthy of following into gods (apotheosis). Various former terms, psychological research into such concepts is still less or more valid when dealing with human behaviour despite fans of purely empirical evidence for abstract things as "personality".
Here's an easy way of thinking about this so-called "crash-testing" idea. If something really is true, then no matter what you throw at it, it will not shatter. I've heard (and personally experienced) that the "intellect" is quite capable of grasping truths when it finds them.
I think you've really touched upon one of the great dangers of falsification, that people can use it just to be lazy, but in principle, and used well, it still seems sound to me (thus far).
The problem with this logic is that non-falsifiable ideas can NEVER be proven. Science works by disproving, not by proving. Make theory. Try to disprove. If you fail to disprove, then it's true to the best of your knowledge. There is no positive proof, just lack of negative rejection. What feels to you like laziness is just pragmatism.
"No, the science doesn't provide you with knowledge, and the knowledge doesn't provide you with information. The problem are definitions of "science", "knowledge" and "information" in this comparison. And there's also a question of why the brain is capable of processing abstract ideas that are ungraspable empirically."
That funny. No offence of course. First science does mean knowledge because scientia means knowledge and scientia is the latin root of science. In any case, let take a look at your statement:
"Just like with OOBE's - if you never tried a real out of body experience along with scanning building insides and areas you never saw during physical travels or on photos, then you never tried to find out whether EPS is possible - and therefore - you can't speak whether it's factually possible or not, only ascertain probability of that. You can still prove it, therefore it can be true or false. You still can have an OOBE or do other experiments in a reliable way, LOL."
Continue reading the post below ...
...If I understood corrrectly your speaking about out-of-body-experiences right? hmmm well no you can't prove them. Besides, If they are true as many seems to pretends, those OOBE relate about souls, correct? Then if your "soul" leave your body and then experience "afterlife" what proof could they posibly return back with? Bottom line, no, things that cannot demonstrate a reproductible observation or mesurement, are impossible to provide any proof of their existence. Now, before I get the argument about other dimensions and etc etc, they have been proven mathematically so it does allow their existence. However I don't believe you can apply a mathematical proof to an abtract thing such as a soul. Therefore, I would classifie this as impossible to proove, but by probability it could be possible. Also, what did you meant by "EPS"?
What does the reptile aliens have do to in this? I am just currious.
And psychology, doesn't proove that there is a concience, it study human behaviors. Any psychology book that say otherwhise is wrong. There hasn't been any proof of such a thing as a concience. If you go out of this border it not psychology anymore it parapsychology which is not the same thing at all. It been proven many times as a fraud and being inconclusive.(astrology, numerology, ghost, psi/psychic powers) To be clear, I am not denying the possible existence of some of the effect it study, but you cannot state that you can proove it if you can't.
"The problem with this logic is that non-falsifiable ideas can NEVER be proven. Science works by disproving, not by proving. Make theory. Try to disprove. If you fail to disprove, then it's true to the best of your knowledge. There is no positive proof, just lack of negative rejection. What feels to you like laziness is just pragmatism. "
Very interesting deffinition and experiment Sketch.
Sorry I past the 2000 words limit.
First, lingua Latina disco. Second, a purely English meaning of "science" was applied here.
Sorry, not EPS, ESP. A horrible typo.
OOBEs are out of body experiences while still living - you travel with the second body, then go back to the physical one. Only a "permanent" OOBE would be an actual death.
OOBEs can't be disproven or proven, really?
Experiment would be to:
1) put a subject in a secluded room, watched 24 hours a day, with only a screen to write answers to communicate with the outside world (a one-way communication)
2) build an annex while the subject is already secluded, furnish it with special items
3) ask the subject (the one supposedly skilled in a OOBE) before the whole experiment to go out of his body, travel to the annex that is to be built when the subject is already secluded, and remember everything that is there with all details
Finally, he describes what he has seen with his other body through the screen at end of the day, the experiment ends.
The only problem would be that it would have to be extremely scam-proof.
For example, scientists involved should have another annex built (not specified in the agreement) or got "something special" to additionally test the subject and his abilities.
"Lingua Latina disco". Indeed, you probably have a deeper knowledge of latin than me. However, I still did learn a few things or two(my science teacher has though us a little) and I do not believe I was wrong. Exept, one thing I forgot to specify is that the word science is from french which has been translated into english and has the latin root scientia.
Well, OOBE as you called them, still doesn't prove you have reachen the "spirit world", walk out of their body or that you seen a glimspe of after-life. For all I know, it could simply be hallucination. Can you prove me wrong? Basically it day dreaming. You cannot actually proove that you seen the future, what await us, etc. A posse ad esse non valet consequentia.
But in the event it is possible, yes, scientific fraud will probably be a problem. As it has always been, sadly.
Science operates by constructing theories that are challenged with tests and observations to prove them wrong, and thus anything that cannot be proved wrong is beyond the reach of science.
But what if science is not our only source of knowledge? I believe that there are certain innate parts of our thinking and desires that point to the existence of a God. These things have been claimed to not exist, to be simply an evolutionary by-product, and to be evidence of God.
I'm not saying that Science is wrong, or that I don't rely on a scientific method of thinking every day: but that I don't think that it is necessarily the only way we acquire knowledge and desires, and that those things outside of it may point to the existence of a God.