Question by Robert Goerman: Decoding angel DNA…?
When I asked — “Is science impotent when it comes to human and animal encounters with mysterious lights, objects, and OtherWorld beings?” — several emotional replies defended the integrity and purity of “Science.”

Heaven help those innocent eyewitnesses who stumble across UFOs and “aliens” or “monsters” or “ghosts.” There will always be learned “experts” and “men of science” who just know that all these phenomena are delusions or alcohol-related and act accordingly. Like most of us, they demand a logical and rational accounting for every claim and occurrence. Unlike most of us, where no accounting is available, they invent one, with neither investigation nor specific cause. I have named this perpetual reaction by some individuals to the unexplained and unknown the CUTE (Compulsive Urge To Explain) factor. Despite the acronym, ridicule in the name of science is not pretty.

Skeptics and debunkers deplore testimonial evidence, belittle the observers, and dismiss all observations. They cannot conceive of mysterious beings and things that consistently violate our known laws of our universe. For example, Transient Anomalies have been seen to materialize and dematerialize at will. Rather than confess the limits of physical science, experts stubbornly resort to abuse of eyewitnesses and ignore the “impossible.” They convert the argument into one of belief versus disbelief.

Most encounters with the unexplained and unknown happen to people with zero interest or working knowledge of the “mysteries” that they stumble upon. Transient Anomalies become believed in because they are seen. Spontaneous meetings between man and mystery are the fastest and best way to convert skeptics and debunkers.

So I will rephrase my original question:

If scientists can set aside their emotional prejudices and preconceived notions about UFOs and “aliens” or “monsters” or “ghosts,” can they, in any way, significantly contribute to investigative research into these Transient Anomalies?
Please notice that I placed “aliens,” “monsters” and “ghosts” in quotation marks. I did this to emphasize that these popular descriptive terms for these Transient Anomalies might NOT be correct.

Best answer:

Answer by Matt
If science included non-natural phenomena they could…

This quote is for creationists but if you replace creations with people who believe in ghosts it works well for you.

“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”
–Ashley Montague Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Litt.

I suggest you read everything, as you could use some real knowledge…

“There are no such thing as paranormal encounters and supernatural beings as they cannot interact with the normal or natural by definition. As for nonphysical things, they cannot interact with the physical also by definition, for if it were to interact with the physical then it would not actually be nonphysical.

Any encounters with these is probably a sign of drug use or schizophrenia. Some examples include Gods, ghosts, spirits, demons. Testimonials from people are not evidence for anything unless there is actuall evidence or a way to repeat the encounter in lab conditions. If that cannot be done they the person is lying or was on drugs.

So no, science is not impotent when it comes to these things as science is a study of natural phenomena. Paranormal and supernatural are not in the jurisdiction of science because science does not study FANTASY. If you want to study why people are conned into believing anything paranormal or supernatural, then study Psychology.

“Paranormal encounters are part of the human experience. The intelligences behind these phenomena often manipulate the realities involved.”

Maybe if you’re under the influence or schizophrenic.
Just like the lack of evidence for god is god trying to make everything appear to function without him…”

If that was emotionally charged, then you are bleeding emotion.

I provided you with a perfectly good explanation and you rejected it.
But assuming science did include non-natural Phenomena, science would be halted in this area because ghosts and demons and monsters only appear when the “boy who cried wolf” needs them to make his/herself look credible and not like a mentally handicapped person.

You don’t understand that without evidence, anybody could make you believe anything. I saw the flying pink unicorn the other day, science can’t test it because it only appears when your not looking for it.

And about that preconceived notion stuff, it is preconceived because I have had to deal with this kind of question before.

“Most encounters with the unexplained and unknown happen to people with zero interest or working knowledge of the “mysteries” that they stumble upon.”
They say this to make themselves seem more credible. For example, most people who say they have had an encounter with ghosts say they didn’t believe in ghosts prior to the event to make themselves seem more credible. However, every instant of this, when people have gone in to investigate where it happened (Haunted Houses), it is perfectly normal. A famous example of this is the Amityville horror, the murders happened, but the families after the family depicted in the movie that lived in that house NEVER experienced any ghosts.

“CUTE (Compulsive Urge To Explain)”
I would hope that everyone has this… if you do not, then you are a blind follower. Doomed to live his/her life blindly searching or hoping for something that cannot be.
But honestly, you shouldn’t exempt yourself from something that is logically sound when you are perfectly capable of comprehending it. Without CUTE, then there would be NO SCIENCE. Science is an attempt to explain the NATURAL world around us.

And again, saying “I saw it”, does not count as evidence.
Accepting something without evidence is ridiculous, don’t fall prey to it.

Reject this answer and it will prove that you do not understand what science is…

For Mitchell,

You seem to have ignored what I was saying, however you dissected me, I shall now dissect you.

“”There are no such thing as paranormal encounters and supernatural beings as they cannot interact with the normal or natural by definition.”
-by whose definition? Or should I say, on the presumptive basis of which axioms, and according to which philosophical model?”

Look at the words? Para- alongside, near. Super- above. Put the words together. Only natural can interact with natural, only normal (In the broadest sense) can interact with normal. Matter can only interact with matter (and energy, but matter is made of energy.). Ghosts, gods, demons and ghouls are not made of matter and cannot interact with matter. (energy? They cannot be made of energy because energy cannot come from nothing without action.)

“I interacted with a ghost at age 2.”
I already said that saying “I saw it” does not count as evidence, nor does “we saw it.” Look into the ad populum fallacy.

“Only according to your limited empiricism- which itself is based on the assumption “I trust what my senses say.” Which of your senses ever told you to trust your senses? And what is the basis for the assumption that the senses are totally accurate, as is the necessity invoked by such an axiomatic approach?”
This applies to you too, so I fail to see how this advanced your point…

“The assumption is that supernatural phenomena can be packaged and placed in a test tube”
If you mean it cannot be tested in lab conditions, then it is not scientific and science shall have nothing to do with it.

“If so- then according to your own outlook it would disprove the phenomena as supernatural. And it is quite a leap to assume or flog the drugs or lying conundrum- there are tests for both, which are far more accurate than simply claiming one is either- after all, I thought we were to discard such testimony as not true science?”
Uhh, no (Straw Man?)… I have said repeatedly that science does not study the supernatural. If it appeared that my outlook would come to that conclusion then it would have nothing to do with science and cannot make a conclusion on it. My outlook would lead me to the conclusion that there is not reason to believe in it, but if that appears as disproving it, then so be it.

“Paranormal and supernatural are not, by definition, fantasy- and just labeling them so doesn’t make them so.”
Don’t recall saying this, however I did attribute them to fantasy. So saying this was fruitless.

“Science has created fantasy”
Therefore the fantasy is no longer scientific. [You] Didn’t really accomplish anything by saying that.

“Things such as staged photos of peppered moths, Haeckel’s forged pictures alleging embryonic recapitulation and similarities, the alleged Ostraea–to–Gryphaea evolution which was merely ecophenotypic change; the Ramapithecus “link;” and the Zinjanthropus boisei ‘human ancestor link’- things like that?”

They were all shown to be fake by science, and is therefore no longer scientific as it does not follow the scientific method. Again, [You] didn’t really accomplish anything by saying that.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!