Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

I have noted & considered following dict. definition of paranormal:-

Paranormal: para; beyond, normal; occurring naturally (natural immunity) : Beyond normal experience.

I have also noted & taken these dict. definitions:-

Pseudoscientific: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.

Supernatural : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.

Science : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.



My questions are:-

1. To make anything normal/natural or scientific, whether it should have fixed/firm/persisted/absolute/time tested...qualities, observations & experiances or not?

2. If MS considered as "not-absolute"( not free from imperfection) or a process, likes & do changes etc., how its experiances can be considered as normal/natural/scientific?

3. Do we get normal/natural/scientific practical experiances from modern systems(MS)?

4. In consideration of anticipation of its changing behaviour, whether MS can be considered as "pseudoscientific" (a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific)?

5. In consideration of its adversities, dynamic properties, amazing experiances, hetrogenous & non traditional meterials-- Can it be considered as "paranormal" or "supernatural"( departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature)?

6. Finally, the topic question; Can modern systems be Paranormal, pseudoscientific or supernatural?



You may prefer TTTT & TTT in this topic, but.....

Rest as usual.

Best(?) Wishes.

Those, who live in glass(brittle, breakable, remouldable, non absolute..) houses, do not throw stones on eack other"

Eddited to add & enhance meaning.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The green elf cast a spell and the troll appeared. Quicky, the threads that keep the troll alive grew and the troll gained strength. The troll speaketh in a tongue that many don't understand, even though they know the words. He asketh dumb questions like "does the law of conservation of energy apply to systems of philosophy?" and the like. It appeareth that the green elf did not gift the troll with intelligence.

 

[Gr8wight]

Define "Modern Systems."

 

[Donks]

1. To make anything normal/natural or scientific, whether it should have fixed/firm/persisted/absolute/time tested...qualities, observations & experiances or not?

No. I think some people might have mentioned this to you before, but I'll repeat it here: There are no absolutes in science.

2. If MS considered as "not-absolute"( not free from imperfection) or a process, likes & do changes etc., how its experiances can be considered as normal/natural/scientific?

I think some people might have mentioned this to you before, but I'll repeat it here: There are no absolutes in science.

3. Do we get normal/natural/scientific practical experiances from modern systems(MS)?

Yes.

4. In consideration of anticipation of its changing behaviour, whether MS can be considered as "pseudoscientific" (a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific)?

No. It is scientific because it is supported by scientific theories, and scientific evidence.

5. In consideration of its adversities, dynamic properties, amazing experiances, hetrogenous & non traditional meterials-- Can it be considered as "paranormal" or "supernatural"( departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature)?

No. Just because something appears to a layman to "transcend the laws of nature" doesn't mean someone who actually understands the system will think that.

6. Finally, the topic question; Can modern systems be Paranormal, pseudoscientific or supernatural?

Nothing paranormal or supernatural has so far been shown to exist.
Pseudoscientific refers to the explanation you give something. So if you say that aspirin works by killing the headache demons, are you making "aspirin" pseudoscientific? No, you just gave a pseudoscientific explanation for it. There's a perfectly valid and scientific explanation of how aspirin works. Same as with most other stuff.

 

[Donks]

Define "Modern Systems."

Usually what Kumar means by "Modern Systems" is evidence based medicine. I assumed he meant the same in this thread, maybe he'll clarify.

 

[Kumar]

Usually what Kumar means by "Modern Systems" is evidence based medicine. I assumed he meant the same in this thread, maybe he'll clarify.

In short other than sCAM, pro-most people here systems. More clear:modern system or read this thought provoking link;
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/modern_man

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

No. I think some people might have mentioned this to you before, but I'll repeat it here: There are no absolutes in science.

Then, what is the problem to declare other systems as scientific, if those are also not "absolute"?


Yes.

No. It is scientific because it is supported by scientific theories, and scientific evidence.

No. Just because something appears to a layman to "transcend the laws of nature" doesn't mean someone who actually understands the system will think that.

Nothing paranormal or supernatural has so far been shown to exist.
Pseudoscientific refers to the explanation you give something. So if you say that aspirin works by killing the headache demons, are you making "aspirin" pseudoscientific? No, you just gave a pseudoscientific explanation for it. There's a perfectly valid and scientific explanation of how aspirin works. Same as with most other stuff.

How we will call anything of MS, if it behave differently than as interpreted/defined on introduction, on practical/time testing?

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

Then, what is the problem to declare other systems as scientific, if those are also not "absolute"?

Absoluteness has nothing to do with why CAM is not scientific. CAM is not scientific because it has no evidence to back it up, and the theories that attempt to explain it not only go against known science and available evidence, but also lack any sort of scientific support.

How we will call anything of MS, if it behave differently than as interpreted/defined on introduction, on practical/time testing?

Who says it will behave differently? The beauty of science is its predictive power.

 

[Ceinwyn]

How any of you can understand a word Kumar says, yet alone respond, is beyond me.

Or in Kumarese: the words above meaning are in doubt of the actual practical, please allow for what could be a useful knowledge.

 

[Donks]

How any of you can understand a word Kumar says, yet alone respond, is beyond me.

Or in Kumarese: the words above meaning are in doubt of the actual practical, please allow for what could be a useful knowledge.

Practice. It's not a skill I'm putting on my resume, but still.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

Absoluteness has nothing to do with why CAM is not scientific. CAM is not scientific because it has no evidence to back it up, and the theories that attempt to explain it not only go against known science and available evidence, but also lack any sort of scientific support.

Who says it will behave differently? The beauty of science is its predictive power.

The following aspects should be taken into account in introducing any healing substance:-

1. Side/Adverse/Toxic producing effects(adversities).

2. Efficacy for healing effects.

3. Cost

4. Application/Availabity/Comforts

5. Time testings

Any substance which is unnatural, crude/concentrated or not known traditionally is required to go under strict tests & control for its Side/Adverse/Toxic producing effects(adversities) in lab, DB & other shophsticated tests.

Any substance which is natural, diluted or known traditionally, may not be reqired to go under strict tests & control for its Side/Adverse/Toxic effects(adversities) in lab., DB & other shophsticated tests.

Any substance which is unnatural, crude/concentrated or not known traditionally is required to go for "Efficacy" of its healing producing effects in lab., in clinical test field & in practical public test field, under strict control.

Any substance which is natural, diluted or known traditionally, may be reqired to go to only practical public test field for efficacy of its healing producing effects alike OTC medicines/accupunture etc.

After getting the above Lab., test & vebal reports etc. other secondary aspects as Cost, Application/Availabity/Comforts can be compared and after which it will go for time testing in public far their adversities & efficacy. If any healing substance fails anytime in between this excercise, it can be considered as "failed" or rejected.

Is it ok.

Where is then the problem with homeopathic remedies?

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

The following aspects should be taken into account in introducing any healing substance:-

1. Side/Adverse/Toxic producing effects(adversities).

2. Efficacy for healing effects.

3. Cost

4. Application/Availabity/Comforts

5. Time testings

I agree with you so far. I don't know how I would prioritize them all, but safety and efficacy would be #1 and #2, far ahead of the rest.

Any substance which is unnatural, crude/concentrated or not known traditionally is required to go under strict tests & control for its Side/Adverse/Toxic producing effects(adversities) in lab, DB & other shophsticated tests.

I'll bypass the "unnatural" part, and agree for now.

Any substance which is natural, diluted or known traditionally, may not be reqired to go under strict tests & control for its Side/Adverse/Toxic effects(adversities) in lab., DB & other shophsticated tests.

I couldn't disagree more. All medicines should be required to pass the same safety and efficacy standards. Curare is completely natural (by any definition of the word) and completely deadly.

Any substance which is unnatural, crude/concentrated or not known traditionally is required to go for "Efficacy" of its healing producing effects in lab., in clinical test field & in practical public test field, under strict control.

I'll agree again, again bypassing any debate ovr "unnatural".

Any substance which is natural, diluted or known traditionally, may be reqired to go to only practical public test field for efficacy of its healing producing effects alike OTC medicines/accupunture etc.

I could not disagree more. OTC have to show safety and efficacy (at least in the US). So should any other medicine, regardless of its source.

After getting the above Lab., test & vebal reports etc. other secondary aspects as Cost, Application/Availabity/Comforts can be compared and after which it will go for time testing in public far their adversities & efficacy. If any healing substance fails anytime in between this excercise, it can be considered as "failed" or rejected.

Drugs that not meet safety and efficacy standards should be rejected, yes.

Where is then the problem with homeopathic remedies?

They haven't shown efficacy.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Kumar,

It makes diddly squat difference whether a medicinal substance is based on extracts of naturally occuring compounds or whether those compounds have been synthesized in a lab or factory - they all have to be tested for safety and efficacy before they can be used as medicine. Period.

"Mass long time existance" has nothing to do with it, perhaps except for prompting initial research

You are erroneously and with willfull ignorance advocating double standards for "natural" and "diluted" (i.e. sCAM) and "unnatural" (i.e. evidence-based medicine) - they have to be treateated exactly alike with respect to safety and efficacy. And when that is done, as it should be, sCAM (yes, Kumar, that includes homeopathy) fails every time, exactly as predicted when science is applied.

[/Why am I bothering?]

 

[Kumar]

Donks, Anders W. Bonde,

Let me mention some definition of "natural" & "unnatural":

Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong :being in accordance with or determined by nature:having a specified character by nature : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature:growing without human care

Unnatural: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior :lacking ease and naturalness :synonym see IRREGULAR

How modren healing substances/MS justify that these are "natural". Are we habitual/adapted to these in nature?(our next generations can, if we can make/continue persisting/absolute medicines)


I'll bypass the "unnatural" part, and agree for now.

Just read above definitions.

I couldn't disagree more. All medicines should be required to pass the same safety and efficacy standards. Curare is completely natural (by any definition of the word) and completely deadly.

But we may be knowing inherited sense of its right & wrong. Moreover, I have also mentioned diluted.

I could not disagree more. OTC have to show safety and efficacy (at least in the US). So should any other medicine, regardless of its source.

Yes, what about homeopathic OTC remedies?


Drugs that not meet safety and efficacy standards should be rejected, yes.

About safety & efficacy, In homeopathy about safety -it may be naturally known without tests--so not required, efficacy can be possible in practical public applications for long, which is evidant in its community.

They haven't shown efficacy.

May not be to you, in lab., but to real consumers i]of its community, yes.

 

[Donks]

Donks, Anders W. Bonde,

Let me mention some definition of "natural"

Natural: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong :being in accordance with or determined by nature:having a specified character by nature : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature:growing without human care:

How modren healing substances/MS justify that these are "natural". Are we habitual/adapted to these in nature?(our next generations can, if we can make/continue persisting/absolute medicines)

You want to debate the definition of "natural" again? Be my guest, but I'm not participating. You are free to derail your own thread but, at least for now, I'll only argue whether modern systems are paranormal or not.

 

[Mojo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

Where is then the problem with homeopathic remedies?

Even if we accept your crazy idea that "natural" remedies do not need to be tested for safety or efficacy (and I certainly don't think we should), why do you consider homeopathic remedies to be "natural," if other types of medicine, described by you as "modern systems" are not? Homeopathic remedies are produced by means of a lengthy preparation in laboratories and do not occur in nature.

 

[Stitch]

How any of you can understand a word Kumar says, yet alone respond, is beyond me.

Or in Kumarese: the words above meaning are in doubt of the actual practical, please allow for what could be a useful knowledge.

I understand every word...in isolation.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

Even if we accept your crazy idea that "natural" remedies do not need to be tested for safety or efficacy (and I certainly don't think we should), why do you consider homeopathic remedies to be "natural," if other types of medicine, described by you as "modern systems" are not? Homeopathic remedies are produced by means of a lengthy preparation in laboratories and do not occur in nature.

Can't you imagine that we are interacted/exposed with minimal(somewhat equal to homeopathic quantities) quantity of everything in nature by natural/EM mechanisms?

 

[Kumar]

I understand every word...in isolation.

Thanks for understanding my homeopathically potentised language....in isolation.

 

[Kumar]

You want to debate the definition of "natural" again? Be my guest, but I'm not participating. You are free to derail your own thread but, at least for now, I'll only argue whether modern systems are paranormal or not.

I bit added to my previous post..

Although "natural" & "narmal" are related to this topic, however I will take care to to discuss more on its definitions, TTTT etc.

Sorry for the inconvinience.

Do we get paranormal or supernatural or uncommon type of effects/reactions from modern medicines on & after its introduction to public?