um...i understand...basically the idea.. but i just want to say..if it's so easy to prove...n so realistic that can be captured by device.. then it's really easy to prove..n there wont be so many arguments about god and ghosts la.
i just don't understand how to apply this analogy to psychics, or any matters related to ghost....
ghosts/god/or a psychic = photograhpy blindman = ppl don't believe in god/ghosts
then????
sure photography is sth that exists n u can use it anywhere anytime u like.
the problem is just that i can't call a ghost/god anytime anywhere, or is it a "flaw" in the eyes of disbeliever???
how about asking a disbeliever to do this kind of experiments with a psychic???????Perhaps this's the best way. I think theoretical this is a way to prove. But practically..not sure.
I think what the example suggests is basically anything can be proven by doing a strict and serious experiements...
you may say some of the things cant, well its not that we cant'... we just dunno how yet..
imagine believing the world is round, the world is 6.5 billions yrs old, tell ppl 100 yrs before, they dun believe and they dun even believe there are methods to test...
but the most important pt is not that
the exmaple wants to show is that a flaw is much easier to detect in psychics, ghost stories or god-related stories...
its kinda hard to prove it doesn't exist, but its kinda much easier to prove the story itself is not making sense, by using some statistical measure, or simply... common sense. ( like why ghost mostly appear in dark places bemuses me , or why would god test you honesty if he knows what everyone is thinking? )
the analogy itself is not trying to prove that we have methods to prove if sth is correct, it is the ability otherwise~
look at this video, the world is getting freaking strange now!! ^^" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
5 則留言:
你仲好在意 !
???
在意什麼？？
um...i understand...basically the idea..
but i just want to say..if it's so easy to prove...n so realistic that can be captured by device..
then it's really easy to prove..n there wont be so many arguments about god and ghosts la.
i just don't understand how to apply this analogy to psychics, or any matters related to ghost....
ghosts/god/or a psychic = photograhpy
blindman = ppl don't believe in god/ghosts
then????
sure photography is sth that exists n u can use it anywhere anytime u like.
the problem is just that i can't call a ghost/god anytime anywhere, or is it a "flaw" in the eyes of disbeliever???
how about asking a disbeliever to do this kind of experiments with a psychic???????Perhaps this's the best way. I think theoretical this is a way to prove. But practically..not sure.
Have anyone ever carried out this kind of tests??
I think what the example suggests is basically anything can be proven by doing a strict and serious experiements...
you may say some of the things cant, well its not that we cant'... we just dunno how yet..
imagine believing the world is round, the world is 6.5 billions yrs old, tell ppl 100 yrs before, they dun believe and they dun even believe there are methods to test...
but the most important pt is not that
the exmaple wants to show is that a flaw is much easier to detect in psychics, ghost stories or god-related stories...
its kinda hard to prove it doesn't exist, but its kinda much easier to prove the story itself is not making sense, by using some statistical measure, or simply... common sense. ( like why ghost mostly appear in dark places bemuses me , or why would god test you honesty if he knows what everyone is thinking? )
the analogy itself is not trying to prove that we have methods to prove if sth is correct, it is the ability otherwise~
look at this video, the world is getting freaking strange now!! ^^"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
and one more thing..
the reason this example uses psychic
is simply because its a proven job of deceiving ppl.
see project alpha as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha
發佈留言