 Originally Posted by OutlawPig
my strong emotions were not scientific...I will keep my original words there as a testament to my being an asshole
Greetings fellow asshole. Emotion is natural when you care about something. The humility to look at that emotion is rare though.
 Originally Posted by OutlawPig
you must find and explain a mechanism
Although this is highly desirable when it can be done, science doesn't require this. Newton didn't have a mechanism for gravity. Mendelev didn't have mechanisms for most of his chemistry. Even now, if you dig down to a low enough level, there's a point in nearly every scientific theory where it rests on some kind of axiom or observation which doesn't have a known explanation. The only time a scientist can explain a mechanism is when making minor extensions within an area of mostly settled science. Granted it is common for scientists to demand a mechanism before accepting observational evidence. But this is a kind of ignorance, a proud, dogmatic regard for what already established, and is not the mentality that allows big steps in science.
You offered a possible explanation for people's belief in shared dreaming that seems plausible to you based on the information that you have. I guess you can see that it would be unscientific to close the door to any evidence that doesn't fit that explanation. There's no friggin' way that your hypothesis fits my own experience, its not even close. That isn't to say that I can define instrumentation and an experimental process that is guaranteed to produce my results. Just because its really hard to study something scientifically doesn't make it unreal though. And it doesn't mean that scientific study of it is impossible either, it just means that its a harder problem in some ways than what has been studied previously. Imagine trying to do 20th century physics with the mathematical ideas of 500 years ago. Our current scientific methods are to a large extent limited by the tools we use, not by the nature of scientific inquiry itself. For example, to the extent possible we try to define our models in terms of functions, and have a lot more trouble where those descriptions are inadequate. And closely related to that, we try to decompose everything into causal relationships and well defined probability distributions. But that's not science that makes us do that, its just a type of model that we know how to work with.
From what I know about physics, there's no way that anybody is going to propose a real mechanism for shared dreaming any time soon. A person might as well try to explain how to build a jet out of bricks. That doesn't make shared dreaming superstitious nonsense though. I'm also not optimistic about anyone's ability to prove it statistically in a scientifically accepted study. That's both due to the difficulty of doing that, and to the narrowness of scientists who deride anything that they don't already know. But that kind of proof is a lot closer, and I think it will happen eventually.
Carl Sagan tried to deal with this issue in his contact story. His protagonist had an experience which she could not prove, and yet it would have been unreasonable for her to just blow it off as if it didn't happen. Similarly, there is quite a bit of variety to human dream experience. Most people hardly remember dreams. I dream at least lucidly every night, with rare exceptions. I've never had a shared dream of the type where two people seem to inhabit the same imaginary movie-like environment. But most of my dreams don't have strong sound and picture components to them. A large portion of my dreams do have shared thought aspects to them. Its not easy to 'prove' this to someone else, because the experiences are all metaphorical. But I've nevertheless accumulated a large volume of a kind of objective evidence - metaphors are partially subjective, but not entirely. It would be both unscientific and idiotic for me to disbelieve my own experience because it doesn't fit the theories of another group of people that hardly dreams.
I'm not at all asking you to believe in shared dreaming, it would be unreasonable for you to do that. My suggestion is to disbelieve to the extent that your disbelief is based on something solid. But where its based on conjecture, leave it open, just don't decide. That leaves the door open to experiencing and realizing things that weren't in your experience before. Continue to question your experiences, hypothesizing 'rational explanations' (translate: fits entirely within existing mental models), and seeing if you can make them fit. Eventually, after many years of evolving experiences, you may find something that stands your skeptical tests, that repeatedly does not fit, is not in fact even close. If that doesn't happen, that's fine too. But this really isn't that uncommon. All of my immediate coworkers (myself excluded) have PhD's in hard subjects, but most of them believe in supernatural phenomena. The arrogantly dismissive, dogmatic, strawman-attacking attitude of professional skeptics is not in my experience as pervasive as the impression one gets from popular-science press.
|
|
Bookmarks