Відео

@tweeniebee3032 the moon anomalies are one of my favorite topics. So many dismiss and ignore this incredible enigma.

@tweeniebee3032 the book is incredible. One of my favorites.

@@Deebee950 i bet those synth riffs come from the deepest parts of the abyssal cosmos.

@AlethicAvenger @AlethicAvenger What cannot be disproven isn't necessarily fact or pseudoscience. If your unwavering trust in science dismisses paranormal evidence outright, how can we truly progress toward more beneficial ways of thinking?

@@mysterialuna your response misrepresents the scientific method, creates a false dichotomy between "unwavering trust in science" and open-mindedness, and implies that accepting untestable claims is necessary for progress. it fails to address the core arguments of the original critique, which focused on the lack of evidence, misinterpretation of science, and conflation of subjective and objective reality in the original video. the inability to disprove something does not make it true or scientifically valid, especially when the claim itself is unfalsifiable. science requires positive evidence, not just the absence of disproof.

Thank you for your comment. While I respect the scientific method, your critique seems to dismiss the vast body of historical, anecdotal, and experiential evidence surrounding paranormal phenomena, much of which spans thousands of years and countless cultures. These accounts cannot be ignored simply because they don’t fit neatly into the current framework of scientific inquiry. The scientific method, while invaluable, is not the sole means of exploring reality. There are areas of human experience, such as consciousness, spirituality, and the paranormal, that defy traditional scientific categorization yet remain deeply significant. Many great scientific discoveries began with phenomena that were initially deemed untestable or unprovable. Furthermore, insisting on "positive evidence" while ignoring centuries of documented experiences, physical anomalies, and corroborated eyewitness testimonies is itself a bias. History is filled with examples where evidence was dismissed until advancements in technology or perspective allowed for its reevaluation-think of germ theory or quantum physics. Unfalsifiability is a valid concern, but it shouldn't preclude open-minded exploration. Many phenomena classified as paranormal might simply reflect aspects of reality we don’t yet fully understand, just as electricity and magnetism were once mysterious and untestable. Finally, I would argue that a dismissive attitude toward paranormal evidence, rather than fostering progress, risks perpetuating a closed-minded approach to the unknown. True scientific inquiry requires curiosity and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Instead of demanding irrefutable proof within a rigid framework, we should be exploring these phenomena with the humility that there is still much we do not know.

@ 1) "Your critique seems to dismiss the vast body of historical, anecdotal, and experiential evidence surrounding paranormal phenomena..." is a mischaracterization of the scientific approach. science does not dismiss all historical accounts or experiences. however, it recognizes that anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony are inherently unreliable due to factors like memory distortion, biases, misinterpretations, and the lack of controlled observation. "Thousands of years and countless cultures" repeating similar stories does not make them scientifically valid. myths and legends are also passed down through cultures for millennia, but that doesn't make them factual. 2) "These accounts cannot be ignored simply because they don’t fit neatly into the current framework of scientific inquiry" is a crucial misunderstanding. the reason these accounts are not accepted as scientific evidence is not simply because they don't "fit neatly" but because they lack the necessary rigor, repeatability, and control required by the scientific method. if a paranormal phenomenon were genuinely observable and repeatable under controlled conditions, science would embrace it. 3) "The scientific method...is not the sole means of exploring reality. There are areas of human experience...that defy traditional scientific categorization yet remain deeply significant" is a common but misleading argument. while it's true that science doesn't explain everything, claiming that something "defies traditional scientific categorization" is often used as a way to shield unfalsifiable claims from scrutiny. if something exists and interacts with the physical world, it is, in principle, amenable to scientific investigation, even if our current tools are insufficient. claiming something is "beyond science" is often a way of saying it's beyond evidence. 4) "Many great scientific discoveries began with phenomena that were initially deemed untestable or unprovable" is a historical distortion. while some discoveries initially faced skepticism, they were eventually accepted because they were supported by new evidence and improved methodologies. germ theory and quantum physics were not accepted based on anecdotes or untestable claims; they were supported by rigorous experimentation and observation. 5) "Insisting on 'positive evidence' while ignoring centuries of documented experiences...is itself a bias" is a misrepresentation of the concept of evidence. "positive evidence" means evidence that directly supports a claim. anecdotes and eyewitness accounts are not considered strong positive evidence in science due to their inherent unreliability. this is not a "bias" but a necessary standard for establishing factual claims about the world. 6) "Unfalsifiability is a valid concern, but it shouldn't preclude open-minded exploration." while open-mindedness is important, it should not extend to accepting claims without any basis. unfalsifiable claims, by definition, cannot be tested or verified, making them outside the realm of scientific inquiry. exploring unfalsifiable ideas can be a philosophical exercise, but it shouldn't be confused with scientific investigation. 7) "Many phenomena classified as paranormal might simply reflect aspects of reality we don’t yet fully understand..." is a possibility, but it's not a justification for accepting paranormal claims without evidence. if these phenomena are real, then evidence of their existence should be observable and measurable, even if we don't currently have the tools to fully explain them.

Thank you!

It really is, isn’t it? And the guy who does this is such a sweetie pie💖💓💕💕🥰🥸😎🤩✌️✌️👍💙💜💜👍😅🙏👏👏💚🩷

You sir, are a true artist. I cannot believe how exquisite all his art is. Better, cheaper, and easier than going to the expensive art gallery🙏💜💘💓💚🩵🩵🤩🤓💝🩷❣️💞😇😇✌️🥹👏😎