It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Belief through proof, or proof of beliefs?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by zelaar
 


I agree with you to some degree. I think it was Mark Twain who said something like there are no wonders because they do not oppose the laws of nature, only our knowledge about the laws of nature. So if you don't know it, there's still an answear, but if you're sure, you still can be wrong.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
There's just one problem about empiricism. It doesn't always function these days; sometimes there are gaps, which has to be filled out with other parts of the scientific methodology.

E.g. with logical concepts as mathematics or second-generation empirical observations such as when experiments are made, where processes can't be observed directly at the particle level, but their consequences can.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I think it still works pretty well. Science is about making more and more accurate models. If you have data that shows the models suggested are inaccurate, new models are proposed. You might want to read up on how we went from the plumb pudding model of an atom to our modern model.
edit on 28-10-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Hi 547000

Hope you don't misunderstand me. I'm all for science, only not for exclusive science, where dogmas exclude certain kinds of experience. That means, that eventually e.g. paraphysics and metaphysics will have to be taken seriously.

Not on a basis of evidence presently being conclusive or uniform, but simply because there's such an overwhelming amount of observations, that it's impossible to disregard it.

If the paranormal and/or metaphysical is studied, it may turn out, that much of it just originates from 'normal' sources (explainable by natural laws), alternatively really IS a-cosmic or is something we make up in our minds. Such a more inclusive scientific approach would also take a human potentiality for extra-physical-sensory perception into consideration with our minds as an object for study.

Without drawing too farreaching conclusions, it's already now possible to say, that extended or enhanced human perception isn't a closed direction. Take just a simple example: How much does mankind miss of what's REALLY going on around us, because we can't see ultraviolet as a colour (as bees can).



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join