Have you ever witnessed anything paranormal?

While i would love to see the aliens but i think what i experienced was relatively mild.

A few months ago, i wake up in the middle of the night after 2:30 -3 am and i see this black robe tall figure walking right across me. I rub my eyes thinking im imagining but it continues to walk.

I am so fckng scared to even turn on the lights from my phone but i did eventually. Opened the door of my room. Could not sleep for an hour after that but eventually went to sleep.

Have you experienced anything spooky?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BlueSkyKing · M

My adage is: If it’s not science, it’s superstition. All there is for paranormal claims are say-so anecdotes and stories. Nothing that remotely qualifies as evidence. Our senses and brain are the poorest data collectors. Countless things can fool our senses and alter our thoughts.

SW-User

@BlueSkyKing I like to keep an open mind. There was a time scientist rejected the idea of aliens and spacecraft and now they are being interviewed in documentaries

BlueSkyKing · M

@SW-User That’s true but my point is testimonies isn’t good enough. Scientists do not accept say-so, they want physical evidence.
[media=https://youtu.be/gZDjel3dyv0]

ElRengo · 70-79, M

@BlueSkyKing
"That’s true but my point is testimonies isn’t good enough. Scientists do not accept say-so, they want physical evidence."

I appologize as my post is not about the original stuff.
Even so the persistence of some pop asertions abut Science and scientists deserve IMO some answer as well.

Scientists, as the makers of any other human activity play a dual rol.

As scientists and part of the sientific community they use some criteria to take something as at least a serious candidate to be considered scientific.
Their only provisory acceptance or rejection is about THAT specific quality (to be scientific) of events and not necessarily an opinon about the potential truthness of what is brought by less strict scrutiny.
For that scope, Science, material facts are a promisory foundation, given certain conditions.
While personal testimony is not.
In best cases, like in History Archeology and other about society culture, oral or written testimonies are admited...as evidence of what preople believe or believed.
Of course not as proof that what was believed haves a solid substance.

As also humans, they may (or not) have personal non scientific believes which are taken as such.

There MAY be some clash WHEN a non scientific view tries to explain the natural world by no natural means.
That´s when they take the attitude given by someone around 1060 A.D.

"There are no absolute thruths but certainly there also are some evident lies"

Best wishes to ya all.

BlueSkyKing · M

@ElRengo Science is a neutral method, not a position. It makes models based on evidence that can be detected, measured, and tested. By anyone. Also falsification is involved. When new and better evidence is found, science is self correcting. Far from perfect, just try to find an alternative that works as well.

ElRengo · 70-79, M

@BlueSkyKing
You are quite right and I agree with your description.
May be we may have a milder dissagreement on the mainly methodological approach to the core of research.
Karl Popper, though brought a needed perspective (falsability, a must of course) is far from being the only voice about.
That is, the proof aspect of Science is a strong necessary part of it but not near to be enough to define it.