5-11-08 Derek Bartholomaus, IIG Interview

[The Pair of Cats]

Originally Posted by UBERDOINK

Science has contradicted itself over and over again, and will continue to do so.
Why is science given this amazing place of ultimate, authority on everything?

Because some people are not comfortable with having a "belief" in something. They need science, religion or some other over arching authority to validate it.
Simply believing something to be true and being comfortable with that, is not enough for them, they have to put their "faith" in science or religion to tell them what to believe.

[derekcbart]

Here is the link to the Deja Vu thread I mentioned:
http://theparacast.com/forums/origin-of-deja-vu-located-t-146.html

And here is the primary link within that thread:
http://www.livescience.com/health/070607_deja_vu.html

Here are some links regarding how the brain triggers out of body experiences:
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30261720071031
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/19/coolsc.outofbody/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Loose Leaf Tea]

Yes, dull guest; more debunker than skeptic, indeed.

Anyone know a good rhyme for
"Low-hanging-fruit-plucker..." ?

[BrandonD]

Originally Posted by UBERDOINK

Why is science given this amazing place of ultimate, authority on everything?

An analogy: For many years I just didn't get it... I love nature, I'm interested in psychedelics and consciousness expansion, I have a philosophical bent... so why do I dislike hippies so much? Turns out it was because (in my experience) they are poor representatives of the ideology they presume to represent.

I would say the exact same for scientists. Science as a platonic ideal is great and wonderful, but science does not exist independently of individuals. And the individuals in our current culture are (in my experience) poor representatives of the discipline they presume to represent.

I would LOVE it if science was given a place of ultimate authority. Unfortunately, the authority of contemporary science is the authority of blind faith in science's clothing.

[BrandonD]

Originally Posted by derekcbart

Here is the link to the Deja Vu thread I mentioned:
http://theparacast.com/forums/origin-of-deja-vu-located-t-146.html

And here is the primary link within that thread:
http://www.livescience.com/health/070607_deja_vu.html

Here are some links regarding how the brain triggers out of body experiences:
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30261720071031
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/19/coolsc.outofbody/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I think you forgot the link that explains exactly what consciousness is, and how one can truly distinguish something "real" from something "unreal". Until you do this, those links cannot explain anything.

The brain triggers ALL sensations before they arrive at our conscious awareness. The brain triggers the sensation of eating a burger. And yet I ate a real burger today.

I'll restate my earlier premise in another way: It's completely probable that one can, through electrical stimulation, give a person the impression that someone is in the room with them.

And yet... there are occasions when someone is actually in a room with you.

>>The fact that one can create the artificial sensation of a phenomenon, does not negate the fact that the phenomenon can happen in reality.<<

Those experiments can go no further than showing that 'real' experiences can be simulated to a greater or lesser degree, they are entirely unable to disprove an experience which someone claims is real.

In reality, the purpose of these types of experiments isn't to prove or disprove anything. Their actual purpose is to provide dogmatic and inflexible minds an escape hatch so that they don't have to deal with experiences outside of their paradigm. And perhaps that's just as well, some people just might fall to pieces if they discovered the world wasn't as they imagined it to be.

People also generally hate the idea that another person might be able to perceive something that they cannot. But it's possible that this is the case.

In a group of color-blind people, the man who points out the number 5 within the swirl of red and green dots would be considered a nut, or someone with an overactive imagination.

(I apologize if anything is taken personally here, I don't mean it that way. I consider all the people on this forum as friends and just happen to have a passionate interest in these types of subjects)

[Aaron LeClair]

I view the brain more as a modulator than a generator.

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by BrandonD

>>The fact that one can create the artificial sensation of a phenomenon, does not negate the fact that the phenomenon can happen in reality.<<

Those experiments can go no further than showing that 'real' experiences can be simulated to a greater or lesser degree, they are entirely unable to disprove an experience which someone claims is real.

This is what science is all about.

I had lengthy discussions on here about this some months ago - scientists reproduce an affect (more often than not, inside a computer model) and then agree that this is *probably* the mechanism for a real phenomena. A lot of accepted science is exactly like this (the causes of climate change, for example).

Doesn't mean it's right though.

[BrandonD]

Originally Posted by Rick Deckard

This is what science is all about.

I had lengthy discussions on here about this some months ago - scientists reproduce an affect (more often than not, inside a computer model) and then agree that this is *probably* the mechanism for a real phenomena. A lot of accepted science is exactly like this (the causes of climate change, for example).

Yes but their approach is flawed from the start.

It's my suspicion that someone like the recent guest would say that science should strive to find an answer that doesn't involve the paranormal before seeking an answer that is paranormal.

Because that motto been pounded into our heads I think that most people would agree with it, but in my opinion it's actually not a reasonable stance. It is a biased approach which creates a tidy little box from which one never needs to emerge. If you can find a *possible* mundane cause for a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, then you must assume that this possible cause is the probable cause.

I'll make the guess that every case of our recent guest is a case like this. A possible cause has been found that doesn't involve the paranormal, and so it was concluded to be the probable cause. The perfect illustration of this is his statement "We now know what causes OOBE's".

Now connecting this to my earlier point... since the brain is the manufacturer of all physical experience, any experience can be simulated. So the cause of an experience can always be modeled in two ways, actual real experience and simulated experience.

Now put the two together. With this precept of "find a mundane explanation" and the fact that any physical experience can be written off as a false simulation, science can easily stay away from anything that it doesn't want to delve into. And since contemporary science as an institution is specifically opposed to religion, scientists generally want to avoid all subjects involving the soul or the afterlife.

Which is why they refuse to go there even when the evidence clearly points toward something significant in that area.

In my opinion, science should simply go towards where the evidence points, and not bias itself toward an explanation which fits snugly within our current shallow understanding of the world. But then again I'm just an idealistic guy on a computer, I don't have tenure to worry about.

[banning]

wouldn't anything we don't know or understand be "paranormal" ... therefore science is always looking toward the "paranormal" to explain how things we don't understand work?... never mind i just looked up the meaning of "paranormal" or "supernatural phenomena" and it says that "paranormal" is something science can not explain. So i guess thats why science doesn't ever want to delve into that stuff... cause by meaning they cant explain it and their purpose is to explain it.

slackers LOL

[Rocketsauce]

I agree with the general concensus. It's the paracast so it was worth listening to and entertaining and I appreciate Derek's stories and opinions, (Better than listening to some new age flake go off like on Coast to Cocast). But Derek did seem limited in his knowledge of the wide world of seemingly legit paranormal events, so his opinion while valid just like anyone elses, didn't add much to the conversation IMO. If you can't prove it in a laboratory it's not real.... next.

I am very interested in hearing more about both David's mother's abilities (maybe some anecdotes?) and hearing more about that guy who healed all those people that David brought up. I'll have to go through the archives to find the episode on that which was mentioned.

Regarding the 'Science debate', I think the paranormal phenomena is all science, it's just science outside of what we know. One thing I think investigators need to confront at some level is whether or not something is real if it can't be repeated in a controlled setting. I think that is dumb criteria for addressing reality but good critieria for determining which drugs to take for your asthma. So in terms of everyday practical usage you need to be able replicate things, but in terms of how to explain why people get abducted by beings, how can you replicate that in a lab, it's an experience??? What's wrong with saying, "We don't know why this happens?" instead of trying sooooo hard to find a possible logical explanation despite how unlikely it is.

Based on the interview, IMO Derek is limiting himself in his investigations.
Aside from the Meiller case, he seems only to investigate the local psydo psychic or someone who emailed him about a ghost in their house, all of whom don't hold up in a lab setting. He's also fitting this research into his really busy schedule. I don't question that he hasn't encountered any real paranormal activity, but does that mean the billions of other encounters that are reported and sometimes documented are not real? Perhaps to him it's not real until he encounters it first hand, takes it back to the lab and unwraps and then sends it to MIT and they put it through tests and then publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal for the world to see, and actually I think that's totally reasonable, but I don't think it's reality. The paranormal doesn't seem like something (for the most part) we have conscious control over, it happens when it happens.

The whole evolution/creation debate just seems so simple minded to me. A larger power guiding evolution shouldn't be some crazy revolutionary idea, I don't get why it would be? People need to stop living in boxes, life isn't that simple and never will be.