Are Paranormal Believers More Advanced Thinkers? Science According To Nikola Tesla

By Dorraine Fisher
Nikola Tesla was one of the greatest minds of science. But what does the above quote mean? Most people who aspire to paranormal subjects will understand it right away. The rest may be waiting for the explanation that offers something more tangible; something physical that can be weighed and measured. Something they can put their hands on. But is that a constructive way to approach a real search for truth?

It depends on who you ask.

Read More

I often chuckle when people start talking about critical thinking. Many people think they’re critical thinkers,including me at times, until I correct myself, because it’s harder to think critically than one might imagine.

According to the Foundation For Critical Thinking, critical thinking “is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.”

This is a great and very thorough definition. And I was happy to see that it now acknowledges the flaw in it that I’ve been talking about for years. The flaw that comes from the humans themselves.

No human, no matter how much they claim to be a critical thinker is devoid of human flaws. We all believe lies sometimes. We all are subject to irrational or uncontrolled thinking at times. We are all slaves to our personal perceptions more often than we imagine. Real critical thinking relies a great deal on our ability to understand and control our own thoughts and recognize when our thinking is flawed. The problem is, the majority of people are unable to do this. And the most dangerous thing is that, all the while, they’ll think they’re doing it. This is why I’m a bit guarded when people claim to be critical thinkers. I’ve known very few.

It's one thing to be able to think. It's quite another to be able to think about what you think. To pick it apart and analyze it and decide if every part of it is useful or not. And it’s quite another thing entirely to be able to decide that maybe what you were thinking before is wrong. That’s where the supposed critical thinkers often hit a snag.

Even the most intelligent people get caught up in the idea of being right. Like being right is the most important thing there is. And being wrong is the equivalent of the sky falling. And the basic insecurities of humanity cloud the discussion before it even starts. Egos get in the way. They often need to feel they’re right and superior in their thinking. So, in order to achieve this, someone has to be wrong. And this is where critical thinking falls apart. Not because of critical thinking itself, but in the failure of the humans to implement it.

There are a lot of people who might roll their eyes at me when I say this, but exercising subjects like cryptozoology and the paranormal is a good practice on the subject of critical thinking. They teach us to think about what we once thought and whether we still want to believe it.

In the worlds of cryptozoology and the paranormal, there is a whole group of people whose paradigms have been forever changed by something they saw or experienced. Something that wasn’t supposed to exist, or something they didn’t believe existed.

Are these people incapable of critical thinking? Not at all. But they are, like every other member of humanity, subject to their own personal perceptions, shaped by an unusual experience. This can’t be avoided. But the important thing to remember is that the group of humans judging this person’s experience and claiming it was a figment of their imagination are also in possession of the same human flaws and personal perceptions created by their LACK of having had the same experience. So is anyone here really applying critical thinking? Not really.

If our personal perceptions get in the way of our analyzing a subject, then we’re not thinking critically. In order to be a real critical thinker, we have to recognize this problem and eliminate perception from our thought processes. We have to have the ability to clear our minds of any preconceived thoughts, beliefs, or ideas that will hinder the process of getting to the truth.
  
That is what critical thinking REALLY is. It’s being able to think about and analyze our own thinking and correct it when necessary. But the hardest part is recognizing when we need to do this. It’s  not an easy task, and I’ve rarely seen anyone able to do it completely. We have to  entertain the idea that we could be wrong, and that’s not easy for many people.  It takes a lifetime of self-reflection and self-analysis in order to even begin to really do this right.

So, are you a critical thinker or not? If you’ve read this article through this far, then I know you’re at least open to the idea. The real success is in implementing it. Which requires critical thinking. It’s hard being human.

Reference: The Foundation For Critical Thinking

*************DF






This post sponsored in part by

Read More

I ran across this story and thought I would share it and give some opinion about it.
The back story is is pretty simple and believable.

Some miners were looking for diamonds and found this mummified creature deep in the mine. Reportedly the unknown creature was found in a sandy layer that dates from the Mesozoic, which would date the creature between 252 and 66 million years.

The creature, as seen in the picture, is described as being small with big teeth. The thought is that the creature became naturally mummified or preserved due to being buried and the surrounding conditions.

According to the report scientist are now trying to find out exactly what this creature might be. Some have suggested that it could be some kind of dinosaur while others have speculated that it some kind of ferret. To me, it could possible be a mink or something from the weasel family. It appears to have a tail.

Of course, this could all very well be nothing more than a hoax but it looks pretty real to me. If I was guessing I would say that it is actually a known animal and that the scientist will be able to find out what it is....but we probably will never hear about it.


Thanks
~Tom~

This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.

(source: Dark Ride )


 
This post sponsored in part by

Read More

The Crypto Files - The Erickson Project (Ep6)

Read More

When I’m conducting research, or simply thinking about it, and I come up with a new idea about how to do it, I often find myself thinking that if the scientists were here watching me right now, they’d be rolling their eyes.

That’s because it’s necessary to really think outside the box sometimes in order to learn anything new. And sometimes you find yourself doing some pretty strange things simply because this thought process has led you there. 

But not all agree with this.

Science has their own set way of finding answers to questions. They let the evidence lead the way until they collect enough “facts” to prove the point to which the evidence has led them. It’s a very logical and concise system that sets the standard for everything scientists do. And it works…in that context.

But is that the only context? And what if we tried a different context?

I’ve taken a little heat before for challenging science a bit, and I get into a little trouble from time to time. But those of you who know me know I don’t really worry about that too much. Because some of the greatest knowledge and ideas we know about today started with someone imagining that the so-called evidence could be interpreted a different way. 

And what the h--- am I talking about? 

We’re taught that evidence is the vital element in finding the truth. And it certainly is. We’d be nowhere in bigfoot research without it.

But think about evidence for a minute. I often place quotations around the words evidence and facts. And that’s because, even though we’re taught to believe they are absolutely, unquestionably truthful entities, they are actually open to a bit of interpretation by the individual. How many people look at evidence and interpret it in a slightly different way than others that have looked at it? If you watch carefully, everyone who sees it will have a different take on it. And some will even reject it altogether. And that’s because evidence is, like everything else, open to the personal perception of the observer.

Bear with me while I attempt to explain what I mean. This is an example. I’ve talked to numerous bigfoot witnesses and people who think they may have them on their property who claim to mysteriously have fruit trees with the fruit removed from them to about 8 to 10 feet up. And the rest of the fruit on the higher branches is left unpicked. Now, if a scientist sees this and tries to solve the mystery of who did it, he or she weighs the visible evidence there (the missing fruit from the lower branches) and concludes that there are humans living in the area, and humans like fruit, and are capable of harvesting the fruit, and humans have been known to do such things before. So, therefore, it must have been humans that took the fruit.
Fair enough.

That’s a reasonable, logical conclusion…from someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in bigfoot. And if that scientist or any other person doesn’t believe in bigfoot, they are not even going to ask any pertinent questions in that context. Bigfoot has not been proved by science, therefore Bigfoot does not exist to science. So, as long as bigfoot doesn’t exist, then there’s no reason to believe that a bigfoot would have taken the fruit. So, the case is basically closed.

But if we’re a person that doesn’t believe in Bigfoot but, by some miracle, boldly decides to make a broad leap of faith and imagine that bigfoot MIGHT exist, how might that change the nature of the investigation of the missing fruit? Doesn’t the interpretation of the evidence change quite a bit?
I think it does.

If you start out as a bigfoot believer, homo sapiens might be the first culprit on your mind, but our hairy friends in the woods, even though they aren’t confirmed real by science, might be our second guess. And that’s because we’re going into the investigation with our minds more open to other possibilities. It doesn’t mean we have to drink the kool-aid. It just means we’re open to the idea of taking a little taste.

And of course, the critics might say that, with that way of thinking, it might also be a leprechaun on a ladder taking the fruit too. But let’s keep in mind, there is absolutely no physical evidence of leprechauns, no footprint casts, and no records of sightings of any kind, let alone sightings that go back hundreds or even thousands of years. Do you see where I’m going with this?
It’s kind of like being a little crazy…in the most sensible way possible. That’s how breakthroughs are made. Just because science hasn’t proved something to their own satisfaction, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means science doesn’t have its evidence yet.

Don’t let the negative side of the equation guide your research. Do it however you want, but try to keep your mind open. Follow the evidence where it takes you, but don’t stick to rigid rules. And don’t get so clouded by science that you shoot yourself and your research in the foot.

So many people involved in bigfoot research try so hard to stay on the side of science because they believe that science is the only thing that will make bigfoot credible, and that we absolutely must stick to the scientific method in order to be taken seriously. And there is some validity to that. But a lot of great knowledge over centuries has come to light through the work of regular people with limited education, but rather a keen, out-of-the–box- thinking mind, and good hard work. And they forced science and the masses to pay attention. And that could be you someday. And you’ll be up there with the forward thinkers like the young apprentice, Leonardo DaVinci and modern independent thinkers like famed anthropologist Jane Goodall who started her career as a secretary. Both managed to make their marks on the world in spite of the status quo of their times.

If you can simply imagine that bigfoot might be real, then it makes all the so-called evidence seem a little different, and it would cause us to investigate in a completely different way. It would take you in a different direction and make you rethink everything you’ve seen and heard in the back yard. Some very puzzling events of the past might finally make perfect sense. How can we possibly learn anything new if we’re not open to it?

Science’s method is to let the evidence lead them to the truth. But what if it really was a bigfoot that took the fruit? If we keep our minds closed and approach the situation without being able to imagine another scenario, we’ll be blaming the neighbors for stealing the fruit. And we’ll never evolve. The evidence in this case is open to interpretation. If our minds are open.

I think of all those years I hiked in the woods and saw things I couldn’t really explain but labeled them as human activity because Bigfoot was barely a thought in anyone’s mind.; barely the stuff of legend or even myth. So, how could I have possibly imagined another scenario? Everyone would have said I was crazy.

And they could still do that, but things are different now. Should we acknowledge science? Of course, we should. We need science. It’s our best friend in the quest for bigfoot. And our scientists are some of our greatest allies even though most remain very skeptical.

But there’s enough evidence for the existence of bigfoot for us all to be a little more confident in what we’re doing. So, in my humble opinion, it’s okay to defy science just a bit (within reason) and slip outside the proverbial box in order to take the research to a higher level. Thinking positive is key. Go ahead and do your research like you’re looking for something that we already know exists, and don’t worry so much about what science might think of it. Maybe someday they’ll catch up. ***************DAF



This Post By TCC Team Member Dorraine Alters-Fisher. Dorraine is a Professional Writer, a nature, wildlife and Bigfoot enthusiast who has written for many magazines. Dorraine conducts research, special interviews and more for The Crypto Crew. Get Dorraine's book The Book Of Blackthorne!



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

Chimpanzees pass down a ‘secret handshake’ through the generations, according to a new study.
Researchers found that troops of chimps pass on traditions, including the handshake, from one generation to the next - and they differ from group to group.
When chimps are cleaning, they adopt a ‘grooming handclasp’ - two chimps clasp onto each other’s arms, raise them in the air and groom each other with their free hand.
Previous research suggest this handclasp may be a cultural phenomenon - like how people greet each other - but only some chimpanzee colonies practice this grooming behavior.
Researchers looked at chimps on the Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage Trust in Zambia - finding some prefer to clasp hands, while others clutch onto another chimp’s wrist.
Edwin van Leeuwen, of the Max Planck Institute, said: 'We don’t know what mechanisms account for these differences.
'But our study at least reveals that these chimpanzee communities formed and maintained their own local grooming traditions over the last five years.
'Our observations may also indicate that chimpanzees can overcome their innate predispositions, potentially allowing them to manipulate their environment based on social constructs rather than on mere instincts.'
Observations also revealed grooming behaviors are transmitted to the next generation of potential handclaspers - showing the chimps learn from one another.Mark Bodamer, of Gonzaga University, said: 'By following the chimpanzees over time, we were able to show that 20 young chimpanzees gradually developed the handclasp behavior over the course of the five-year study.
'The first handclasps by young individuals were mostly in partnership with their mothers.
'These observations support the conclusion that these chimpanzees socially learn their local tradition, and that this might be evidence of social culture.
'Continued monitoring of these groups of chimpanzees will shed light on the question of how these group-traditions are maintained over time and potentially even why the chimpanzees like to raise their arms up in the air during social grooming in the first place.'
[Source: dailymail ]

TCC -  Hmmm "Secret Handshake" ..does this mean their hiding something? I have heard rumors for years that Chimps could speak but choose not to around human....if so Smart move on the chimps part. Wonder what else they are hiding.
Thanks
Tom

Read More