I meant

“accept UNLIKELY ideas that could be proven or falsified”,

of course,
in the second last paragraph.

I’ll just briefly descibe how scientific method works:
“If you have the theory that all swans are white, do not look for more white swans, but for the one black swan that will FALSIFY the theory instead”. With other words, the value of a theory is not so much determined by those who actually try to defend it but by the lack of proof against it. And no theory is invincible but as evidence is slowly collected, occasionally a paradigm shift will occur.

The Noetic scientists now are doing exactly the opposite. They keep talking and talking and come with claims that cannot be verified and shout that everyone who does not take their theories seriously is against them and a skepticist. But skepticism is a healthy, self cleaning routine in science that is a fundamental of the falsifiable methods as described by Popper.

That is not arrogance at all as you call it! Science is democratic, in its beginnings! Yes, there are trends in science too, yes there is manipulation and politics involved-just have a look at the IPCC scandals. But about validation of results, in the beginning we agree. If someone can PROVE to me using scientific methods that apples do have the ability to escape from earths gravity I will believe it. But I must be able to VERIFY and FALSIFY the results. But all the persons who are so-called gifted with psychic powers such as Uri Geller failed to prove anything in controlled experimental conditions (read: where they are unable to perform their trick or manipulate their environment by using pre-prepared materials, mirrors or other smart things). And the same applies to all the Noetic people around. Claiming that you can make ice crystals look “more beautiful” if a monk in China sends out a “thought of love”. Well, I don’t need to know any mechanisms behind it and will believe just statistical evidence, but please, how do you define “beautiful ice crystal” and “thought of love”? How are experiments verified? Was it a blind experiments? So that the people who checker the ice crystals did not know which crystal belongs to which conditions. That kind of information is crucial to the validity of your experiments performed.

The difference with Galilei and Newton is that they were fighting against a unreasonable church who didn’t believe in scientific method but only in the Holy Book and refused to be open to any ideas outside this. Well, Science floats on the fundamentals of methodology and will eventually -not in a fortnight, but if you’re patient, it will happen- accept likely ideas that could be proven or falsified using scientific method. So don’t blame science. There are two possibilities: ONE: Noetic science keeps its current attitude and no one in the real scientific community takes it seriously. TWO: they finally start conducting valid experiments that are open to skepticists and outsiders in order to justify their claims. If they can really prove they are right and keep to scientific method, eventually they will be believed. But stop calling science ignorant or arrogant.

And if you are disappointed that science doesn’t accept the theories right now, please keep in mind that no one forbids you to believe the karmas and spiritual stuff and religions you want. But just keep it outside science. There are many scientists who have a religion. But good scientists don’t mix up science and religion. That’s bad for both. But that does not fit NEW AGE AGENDAS, who claim that everything is united, science, religion, humanity, the human spirit, and the universe is all one. But there is no reason to claim this and by doing this you offend both science and religion!

You could start by reading some of the current science being conducted in a variety of disciplines in Asia. Check out the experiments involving Buddhist practices for example. I have to say if you think Buddhism is only about the spirit and not about the physical world, you got a lotta learning to do.

Just finished Dan Brown's book. Annoying that the author tries to make you believe this shit.

I pretty much agree with what you say, and your mind seems to be in the right place. But I got to say you sound a bit arrogant and pretentious. I think the only right answer to a question for witch we don't know the answer is “I don't know”. People tend to jump to conclusions that mite seem (and indeed some are) ridiculous. But being close minded and offensive… I mean come on! have we learn nothing…!! It was common belief among scientists in the start of the XVIII century that one would disintegrate if traveling at 60 km per hour (I´m sorry i think in Kilometers) that was 200 years ago… Galileo… Darwin… even the all mighty Einstein have been targets of skepticism, and even mocking. If you discredit an idea you should not say it is wrong with rocks in your and. Just say “I don´t think it works like that… but I can't say for sure cuz I don't know”… One who pursuits reason at all cost… ends up loosing it in the process! I´m not defending any of the them… I´m just saying that fighting over it seems an afoul waste of time and energy. As aggravating as it may be… and I´ve seen the films in question… and it is … very aggravating!! Although I like Dans work… it is fun and refreshing. And it seems armless to me…

Cheers!

I pretty much agree with what you say, and your mind seems to be in the right place. But I got to say you sound a bit arrogant and pretentious. I think the only right answer to a question for witch we don't know the answer is “I don't know”. People tend to jump to conclusions that mite seem (and indeed some are) ridiculous. But being close minded and offensive… I mean come on! have we learn nothing…!! It was common belief among scientists in the start of the XVIII century that one would disintegrate if traveling at 60 km per hour (I´m sorry i think in Kilometers) that was 200 years ago… Galileo… Darwin… even the all mighty Einstein have been targets of skepticism, and even mocking. If you discredit an idea you should not say it is wrong with rocks in your and. Just say “I don´t think it works like that… but I can't say for sure cuz I don't know”… One who pursuits reason at all cost… ends up loosing it in the process! I´m not defending any of the them… I´m just saying that fighting over it seems an afoul waste of time and energy. As aggravating as it may be… and I´ve seen the films in question… and it is … very aggravating!! Although I like Dans work… it is fun and refreshing. And it seems armless to me…

Cheers!