Paranormal Events

[Stefan]

By "what they are" I meant what causes the phenomenon. Sorry for the confusion.

You missed the real point. You said it's obvious ghosts exist. I don't think so, so I'd like to know your definition of ghosts (and then maybe how their existence is obvious).

So are you saying that there are more real numbers than natural numbers?

Yes. You didn't know?

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

I hope that's sarcasm because my head doesn't quite see how "infinite < infinite" makes sense

 

[Specs112]

I hope that's sarcasm because my head doesn't quite see how "infinite < infinite" makes sense

It's not even a debatable fact. It's mathematically proven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

The problem here is your head.

 

[MTGjumper]

I hope that's sarcasm because my head doesn't quite see how "infinite < infinite" makes sense

What if I told you there were as many integers (ie ... -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 ...) as there are natural numbers (ie 0, 1, 2 ...)?

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

Which is why I said my head doesn't understand.
Besides, why do people have a habit of making analogies and then saying because their analogy is proven to be one thing, the actual topic is also proven as this?
I'm not sure if I made that clear, it is rather late, I just wanted to reply before I forget to.
Also "debatable fact" seems like a bit of a contradiction to me; if it is fact, how can it be up for debate? jus' sayin'.

 

[Jaycee]

Also "debatable fact" seems like a bit of a contradiction to me; if it is fact, how can it be up for debate? jus' sayin'.

But he said

It's not even a debatable fact. It's mathematically proven.

See my point? It's a fact; therefore is not debatable. And even if that's not what he meant to say, who cares? It was pretty easy to understand that he said it's not debatable.

 

[Stefan]

But he said [it's not even a debatable fact]

Um... saying a particular thing isn't a debatable fact suggests that there are other things that are debatable facts. Otherwise the term "debatable fact" doesn't make sense. And now even you yourself said "It's a fact; therefore is not debatable". Make up your mind about whether debatable facts exist, please, then answer Zinc's perfectly legitimate question appropriately. Or don't, cause it would just be speculation anyway and only Specs can really answer how he meant that.

Which is why I said my head doesn't understand.

In short: mathematicians distinguish different infinities, two infinite sets being the same "size" if you can pair up their elements. For example integers (on the left) and natural numbers (on the right):

0 <-> 0
1 <-> 1
-1 <-> 2
2 <-> 3
-2 <-> 4
3 <-> 5
-3 <-> 6
...

That's a simple rule to match all integers with all natural numbers, so they're considered the same size. You can't do that with natural numbers and real numbers, so in this sense there are more real numbers than natural numbers.

why do people have a habit of making analogies and then saying because their analogy is proven to be one thing, the actual topic is also proven as this?

Well, maybe they're right. Can you show the example that caused you to ask this?

 

[Jaycee]

words

My apologies; I guess I misinterpreted what Specs said (Or maybe mean something completely different). I agree with Zinc. The term "debatable fact" is a paradox (an oxymoron?) in my eyes, so I don't think debatable facts exist.

 

[Hodari]

I hope that's sarcasm because my head doesn't quite see how "infinite < infinite" makes sense

Like this?

The term "debatable fact" is a paradox (an oxymoron?) in my eyes, so I don't think debatable facts exist.

Just because something IS a fact, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone accepts it as such. Thus there could still be debate over it. Consider evolution for example. Either it is true or it is not, therefore one or the other is a fact. Yet there is still considerable debate over it.

 

[JasonK]

Consider evolution for example. Either it is true or it is not, therefore one or the other is a fact. Yet there is still considerable debate over it.

Ignorant people denying a demonstrable fact for no good reason =/= Debate

 

[insane569]

Just because something IS a fact, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone accepts it as such. Thus there could still be debate over it. Consider evolution for example. Either it is true or it is not, therefore one or the other is a fact. Yet there is still considerable debate over it.

Evolution is only a theory.

 

[Jaycee]

Just because something IS a fact, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone accepts it as such.

Just because some people don't accept it as such, doesn't necessarily mean that something is a fact. If something is a known fact, it shouldn't be debated about, at least on terms on whether or not it is a fact. Your example doesn't make sense because neither side is proven to be factual. (I keep having to correct myself :3)

EDIT : Yes, the first part of this post (me reversing his statement) was just me being an ass.
The good part is, it still made sense.

 

[aronpm]

Evolution is only a theory.

You're right. But please, learn the difference between a scientific theory and a 'theory' in everyday language before you make a fool out of yourself.

 

[JasonK]

Evolution is only a theory.

Please learn what the word "theory" means before you stary describing something as 'just a theory'. A theory is a model of the way the world works which has evidence supporting it and has stood the test of time without being falsified. It's the strongest explanation you can get in most areas of science. So "just a theory" doesn't make much sense if you're trying to discredit evolution, which is one of the best-supported theories in modern science...

 

[Hodari]

Evolution is only a theory.

Yes and no. Aside from the point everyone else has made about the meaning of "theory", there is also another point I was trying to make. There is a difference between what we know or believe to be true and what actually IS true. In the case of evolution, regardless of how much debate there is on the subject, one of the following statements IS absolutely true and therefore a fact:
Evolution did occur. OR
Evolution did not occur.

Yet, there is still a considerable amount of debate over which of the two statements is true, thus a fact can be debatable.

 

[Specs112]

Um... saying a particular thing isn't a debatable fact suggests that there are other things that are debatable facts. Otherwise the term "debatable fact" doesn't make sense. And now even you yourself said "It's a fact; therefore is not debatable". Make up your mind about whether debatable facts exist, please, then answer Zinc's perfectly legitimate question appropriately. Or don't, cause it would just be speculation anyway and only Specs can really answer how he meant that.

"Not even a debatable fact" is something that has become one of my stock phrases that I use out of habit. I realize that it doesn't actually make too much sense because of how it's worded, but when I say it what I mean is that the thing in question is true beyond all doubt (and the one here is proven to be true because math and stuff blah blah someone else can explain it better).

I should probably stop saying it because it confuses people sometimes.

 

[Hershey]

Evolution is only a theory.

So is gravity.

 

[Robocopter87]

Yeah I think my internet is haunted. A ghost mod keeps following everything I say and deleting my posts.

Seriously, Mod. Stop doing that.I made an on topic joke. Is it illegal? Simply because you may not understand the joke doesn't mean its not supposed to be there. You gave no warning. No notice. No mention of a reason to why you did what you did.

There was nothing wrong with my joke. it was about ghosts. It was about a specific type of ghost. It was relevant. It was funny.

Evolution talk reminds me of that one Futurama episode.

As for the actual paranormal stuff, the people who believe in it are merely going off of heart rather than mind. Pictures and stories are just that. Pictures and stories. The fact that there is a orb of light and a wierd refleciton doesn't mean the earth is crawling with spiritual beings. its preposterous. If it was the case, then why are they only found in abandoned houses? Would they not be everywhere? Why aren't there ghosts on the street They are ghosts. Why are they only limited to "haunted houses". Wouldn't the be elsewhere in the world?

The amount of people that die and the amount of haunted houses does not have a reasonable ratio. Do you know how many human beings are on this earth? If there were ghosts, I assure you I could walk down the street and be able to see at least three.

 

[qqwref]

@Hodari: String theory is an entirely different case. I don't know how much research you've done on the debates in the physics community, but there are actually a number of theories that do an equally good job of explaining particle physics, and at the moment there are no known experiments that could actually disprove any of them with respect to the others. For some reason the attitude in most of the physics community is that if you're not working on string theory you're wasting your time and deserve no respect at all. On the other hand, evolution is well-documented, fits the available evidence, and has no reasonable competing theories.

@insane569: Speaking of "just a theory", the word "theory" is pretty much the best you can get in science, because scientists know that it is always potentially possible for new evidence to come up that requires us to change the theory (perhaps only in the details, perhaps on a larger scale). There is no dogma in science, just a lot of smart people and a lot of evidence/experiments.


But let's not derail the topic too much. Back to paranormal events, specifically psychic phenomena. What do you guys think of Randi? I personally think he's pretty awesome, but I'm sure there are some who will disagree with this.

 

[aronpm]

What do you guys think of Randi? I personally think he's pretty awesome, but I'm sure there are some who will disagree with this.

Awesome guy