Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Archive-threads
Encounters with the Supernatural
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Harry" data-source="post: 1095183" data-attributes="member: 5468"><p>I would say that you are making an important mistake in your methodology concerning the naturer of truth. Science does not, and cannot, determine truth; all that can be done is to discuss the level of uncertainty held with a given proposition.</p><p></p><p> To take this to (perhaps) an extreme as an example, it is not a scientific truth that the Sun will appear to rise in the east tomorrow morning, it is an application of hliocentric theory in which we have a great deal of confidence. Therefore, nothing can ever be proven 100%, or disproven 100% as a matter of science. The question becomes "what level of confidence does this have, and is it enough to choose to consider this as an option?" For example, the idea of a flat Earth is well below the 1% mark (very well below), so I do not even think that that is worth considering. If someone else did consider worth sufficient time to devise a way of testing a flat-Earth model, that would be their lookout. If they claimed to have succeeded, then others in the field would begin to examine their data.</p><p></p><p> If there is no scientific evidence for a proposition *and* the proposition violates scientific principles that are well-established and fruitful, it ain't science.</p><p></p><p> I do not hold that every question can be answered scientifically (what makes something esthetically beautiful?), but if a situation can be addressed scientifically, I will need for that to be done before I accept it as part of the world. </p><p></p><p> An example of a way in which this approach can be short-circuited is by accepting that some circumstance is scientifically impossible, and leaves no evidence, but is held as a miraculous religious event, with the confidence of belief due to an internal emotional experience. This, however, is a very personal decision, the truth of which cannot be conveyed to another person unless that person has enough faith in the speaker for that faith to provide the emotional leap.</p><p></p><p> I am (in general) enjoying this thread very much, not because I think that anything paranormal in here is real, but because the human reactions, and the understanding of how we process the signals our senses give us in our brain is incredibly fascinating. When I was getting my astronomy degree at Villanova, the local police would route UFO calls to the astronomy department (I don't know if it was because they liked us, or didn't like us) and some of us did our best to help people figure out what they had seen. I'd recommend the books of Phillip Klass to anyone curious about this topic.</p><p></p><p> I only write now as Hawkeye's comments touch on my profession.</p><p></p><p>Harry, Ph.D., Physics</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Harry, post: 1095183, member: 5468"] I would say that you are making an important mistake in your methodology concerning the naturer of truth. Science does not, and cannot, determine truth; all that can be done is to discuss the level of uncertainty held with a given proposition. To take this to (perhaps) an extreme as an example, it is not a scientific truth that the Sun will appear to rise in the east tomorrow morning, it is an application of hliocentric theory in which we have a great deal of confidence. Therefore, nothing can ever be proven 100%, or disproven 100% as a matter of science. The question becomes "what level of confidence does this have, and is it enough to choose to consider this as an option?" For example, the idea of a flat Earth is well below the 1% mark (very well below), so I do not even think that that is worth considering. If someone else did consider worth sufficient time to devise a way of testing a flat-Earth model, that would be their lookout. If they claimed to have succeeded, then others in the field would begin to examine their data. If there is no scientific evidence for a proposition *and* the proposition violates scientific principles that are well-established and fruitful, it ain't science. I do not hold that every question can be answered scientifically (what makes something esthetically beautiful?), but if a situation can be addressed scientifically, I will need for that to be done before I accept it as part of the world. An example of a way in which this approach can be short-circuited is by accepting that some circumstance is scientifically impossible, and leaves no evidence, but is held as a miraculous religious event, with the confidence of belief due to an internal emotional experience. This, however, is a very personal decision, the truth of which cannot be conveyed to another person unless that person has enough faith in the speaker for that faith to provide the emotional leap. I am (in general) enjoying this thread very much, not because I think that anything paranormal in here is real, but because the human reactions, and the understanding of how we process the signals our senses give us in our brain is incredibly fascinating. When I was getting my astronomy degree at Villanova, the local police would route UFO calls to the astronomy department (I don't know if it was because they liked us, or didn't like us) and some of us did our best to help people figure out what they had seen. I'd recommend the books of Phillip Klass to anyone curious about this topic. I only write now as Hawkeye's comments touch on my profession. Harry, Ph.D., Physics [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Archive-threads
Encounters with the Supernatural
Top