Evidence for String Theory!!

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, when you look at the data seriously, there is no evidence for the paranormal, there is a lot of evidence for the human experience but nothing so far that transcends it.

Yeah, basically. You look at everyone who says they believe in the paranormal and why, and it's much like why kids believe in Santa. It would be horrible if there was no Santa!

Yet there is not one iota of proof except for deception and "magic". All the debunking going on and my own experiences, and looking at Waco, cults, etc. -people all have their reasons for 'believing'. Then anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes!

I guess growing up with the parent I had just taught me to find the reality in the middle of all the insanity, and it never was what she was interpreting it as.

Interpretation. At the root of it all is interpretation. Was that gust of wind a ghost, or simply the wind behaving like wind does, which is actually very complex?

Why does it rain? Because of the water cycle and all the factors involved.

When you get down to the root of the incident, it is NEVER something 'paranormal'. It is never that simple, and actually far more fascinating.

When can you say something doesn't exist? When you always always find out everything people says exist as paranormal is actually something else, and makes far more sense as something else. When you know all the real reasons about why things happen the way they do. You can go for the simple answer, or follow the common sense route and find out exactly why something happens. That leads to flying, computers, modern medicine, etc.

Or you can go with the simple answers and get famine, disease, etc. and wonder why the gods are punishing you!

Well, you get famine because you have overworked the land, or whatever. Not because the gods are punishing you that year. When you figure out what is really wrong, then you can fix it.

There was a true story I heard about a peoples that killed babies if their teeth grew on the top first. I guess a baby was born that had his top teeth come in first, and there was drought that year. They had to find some reason for the drought. Well, it was that weird baby! So he was killed. Apparently they had better rain the next year. Never mind the mother's anguish and resulting depression whenever they killed a kid for having its teeth grow in the wrong order. One mom just refused to ever live with the group ever again, and became the weird lady that lived on the edge of the society in her own little hut.

Now, if those nutballs knew about weather patterns, they wouldn't be needlessly murdering innocent scapegoats to please the gods.

I'll try to dig up the reference for that. It's stuff like that just shows why simple answers are insane. Weather patterns are more complex than that.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You look at everyone who says they believe in the paranormal and why, and it's much like why kids believe in Santa. It would be horrible if there was no Santa!

That is stereotype.

A good number of people believe in 'psi', for example, because of the evidence from the vast number of experiments done and results published in peer reviewed parapsychological journals.

Yet there is not one iota of proof except for deception and "magic".

Scientists talk about 'evidence for', not 'proof'.

 

[Mark]

Really? Which universities have you contacted? What books have you read? Who are the people who advocate string theory, what do they claim, what evidence do they present?



I've been here quite a bit longer than you, Einstein.

So, Claus, it is your contention that one may only post questions on this forum if one has thoroughly researched the topic elsewhere.

Interesting...and please tell me, Herr Forum Fuhrer, how much research is required before one is judged acceptable to ask questions here?

Oops, I asked a question without first doing a doctoral thesis on abnormal psychology. Sorry.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

That is stereotype.

A good number of people believe in 'psi', for example, because of the evidence from the vast number of experiments done and results published in peer reviewed parapsychological journals.

[/b]

Scientists talk about 'evidence for', not 'proof'. [/B]

Yep, semantics. So what?

It's not a stereotype if it's true

I've seen the experiments debunked and the journals to be laughable, but that's just me.
You'll have to provide some better examples than what I've seen I guess.

Lessee...crop circles, aliens, ghosts, etc. Let's see some great examplese of experiments on those or any other paranormal phenomena of your choosing.

proof is evidence

You can't have evidence if no proof exists. Evidence verifies proof...blah blah.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

So, Claus, it is your contention that one may only post questions on this forum if one has thoroughly researched the topic elsewhere.

Interesting...and please tell me, Herr Forum Fuhrer, how much research is required before one is judged acceptable to ask questions here?

Oops, I asked a question without first doing a doctoral thesis on abnormal psychology. Sorry.

I'm picturing this coming from your avatar, including the lisps and all, lol.

Good points though.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yep, semantics. So what?

No, the difference between proof and evidence is pretty meaningful I'd say.

It's not a stereotype if it's true

Interesting belief. I wonder what else you believe?

I've seen the experiments debunked and the journals to be laughable, but that's just me.

Which specific experiments are you referring to? Which specific journals?

Lessee...crop circles, aliens, ghosts, etc. Let's see some great examplese of experiments on those or any other paranormal phenomena of your choosing.

Random number generator and Ganzfeld experiments.

I think I'm talking about scientific studies of anomalous cognition, and you're wanting me to talk about drunk senile Uncle Billybob seeing Bigfoot at 3am in the pouring rain.

You can't have evidence if no proof exists.

What? Of course you can. Are you asking me to believe that the study of forensics isn't real? One might not have proof that so and so murdered someone, but often there is evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting belief. I wonder what else you believe?

Stock retort, eh?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Claus:

I'm skeptical of string theory. I'm skeptical of 10, or 11, or whatever many it is today dimensions, and skeptical of the tininess involved.

Pure mathematics is not evidence for it. I'm not impressed by people affiriming their scientistic belief structure by saying it can be tested or it will be tested at a later unspecified date with hypothetical technology. That's not a theory being falsifiable, that is affirming your belief the theory is falsifiable.

I'm looking for actual evidence, in the here and now.

BillHo? You want to take a stab at providing the evidence?

 

[a_unique_person]

Ultimately, science, due to the need to specialise more and more in narrower and narrower fields of expertise, becomes impossible for less and less people to understand. There was once the "Renaissance Man", the person who studied all the knowledge that was known at the time. Those days are long gone. We now have to trust the scientific method as the only way to validate the work that many scientists do these days, especially in the pure research fields. Cosmology has the same problem. Scientists have claimed there is a remnant star that is essentially a massive diamond. I can't prove it, or disprove it.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Pure mathematics is not evidence for it. I'm not impressed by people affiriming their scientistic belief structure by saying it can be tested or it will be tested at a later unspecified date with hypothetical technology. That's not a theory being falsifiable, that is affirming your belief the theory is falsifiable.

In fact, string theory is falsifiable. All it has to do to be falsified is to predict something that contradicts current experiments.

 

[Mark]

I'm picturing this coming from your avatar, including the lisps and all, lol.

LOL!

 

[Chad Noles]

I guess that in my definition of paranormal, I automatically dismiss the many blatant hoaxes and beliefs, that others may include as their reasons, for not investigating the paranormal.To me,things like Waco,crop circles,bigfoot,aliens,and crystals don't even pass muster to be considered.I keep to the more tightly defined areas of the potential possibilities of what many now call esp- precognition,telepathy,clairvoiance,etc.
I think that these possiblities dealing with the functions of the human brain have the only real potential for discovery of what is currently considered paranormal.Indeed,if mechanisms of precognition,clairvoyance,etc are found,it may be that the way we think the brain functions would have to be redefined,not the physical nature of science itsself.I've read opinions where the writers claimed that if any paranormal discoveries were made, we would have to scrap all of science and start over.I believe this to be an extremely overstated false declaration.One may have to redefined their views of certain phenomena,not the whole of science.

 

[Dancing David]

A good number of people believe in 'psi', for example, because of the evidence from the vast number of experiments done and results published in peer reviewed parapsychological journals.

The last I checked the evidence very weak and did not rise above the level of random statistical probability. Could you provide a link to something better? I hope this isn't the random statistics think were the researchers at Duke found a coorelation well below the statistical random level.

Scientists talk about 'evidence for', not 'proof'.

And unfortunately in the social sciences many people publish the results of one small study and then don't publish the failed replications.

If you have good study that is based on double blind then I will consider it very highly. I believe that there are many phenomena that are inerpreted as 'psi' but i haven't seen any good evidence for psi.

It would be cool, and would also have a tremendous evolutionary benefit.

 

[T'ai Chi]

In fact, string theory is falsifiable. All it has to do to be falsified is to predict something that contradicts current experiments.

Great! Then the same can be said of 'psi'-stuff.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I think I'm talking about scientific studies of anomalous cognition, and you're wanting me to talk about drunk senile Uncle Billybob seeing Bigfoot at 3am in the pouring rain.



What? Of course you can. Are you asking me to believe that the study of forensics isn't real? One might not have proof that so and so murdered someone, but often there is evidence. [/B]

If there's evidence, then there is proof.

Billywhat?

So, where is this anomalous cognition? What scientific studies? By whom?

 

[T'ai Chi]

If there's evidence, then there is proof.

There is evidence of the Big Bang, there is not proof, for example.

So, where is this anomalous cognition? What scientific studies? By whom?

Glad you asked! Ganzfeld experiments, RNG experiments, to name a few.

 

[CFLarsen]

Glad you asked! Ganzfeld experiments, RNG experiments, to name a few.

Still repeating this, even though it is obvious you have no idea where, in these studies, is this "evidence" of anomalous cognition?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Still repeating this, even though it is obvious you have no idea where, in these studies, is this "evidence" of anomalous cognition?

You'll have to do some basic work to find some papers; those are just broad topics that have hundreds and thousands of experiments.

Here are some that I found interesting; there may be better examples. With the exception of the first one, obviously, they can all be found on the web:

(good overview of the evidence for psi): Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge.

Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade. J. Scientific Exploration, 2, No. 2, pp.155-179, 1988.*

Information and Uncertainty: 25 Years of Remote Perception Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, 2003.*

The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's STAR GATE Program: An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning, Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis

 

[Brian the Snail]

Great! Then the same can be said of 'psi'-stuff.

Sure. If there's a "psi-theory" that rules out certain things that could be seen in experiments, then in principle it is falsifiable. Though I guess I'm a little confused now, since I thought this thread was about string theory. Are you trying to make a particular point?

By the way, I'm skeptical about string theory too. Perhaps you me and iain can form a little club.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

By the way, I'm skeptical about string theory too. Perhaps you me and iain can form a little club.

If the membership criteria is "Are you sceptical about string theory?" then I think you'll need a rather large clubhouse!