Can never be? About an ubiystvennost of argument
People like to argue and prove each other what cannot be and why. The last and most terrible argument is known: because it can never be.
Speak, in dispute the truth is born. And what is truth? The philosophy defines it as adequate display in consciousness perceiving what objectively exists. The problem is that different people have an idea of the real, really existing things, various.
As a rule, for the person what he saw is real or experienced on the experience. For British ghosts are real, and the resident of Russia is skeptical about ghosts. But the people living in a zone of the Russian woods believe in wood goblins and mermaids. Someone can tell of the case of communication with them.
In the Carpathians there are legends of forest creations in a female appearance - mavka which entice travelers into abysses. For the shaken participants of similar unforgettable meetings these mythical beings are real how their sceptics derided.
There are documented records of eyewitnesses about how once on walk the ghost of his great-grandfather Peter I who with a sigh said was the companion of the emperor Pavel for a short time: “Poor Pavel!“.
Witnesses described also a meeting of his mother, Catherine II, with the double three days before own death. The exact copy of the queen in imperial vestments sat on a throne while Ekaterina in sleeping clothes already prepared for a dream. She called that, sitting on a throne, the impostor.
Tell much about UFO. Besides, there are people proving that they visited at aliens. Very few people trust them. Surprisingly, but sceptics always want to hang on those who tell about the unusual phenomena, a label of mystifiers or swindlers. Such option very much is pleasant and accepted by many. Really, apparently, decent people consider fraud as the natural mass phenomenon?
Scientists, as a rule, do not recognize existence of soul as it does not give in to measurements. Moreover, at Academy of Sciences the commission on fight against a pseudo science which fights against dissent is organized.
It is possible with foam at a mouth to deny a possibility of existence in the Universe of this or that phenomenon. However ridiculing, denial and bans of that point of view which is not pleasant - destiny of narrow people. It is enough to understand simple truth: and we perceive that we see - it is only one of sides of infinitely various, immense Universe in which there is all and in a set of options .
We observe one its tiny part entering unimaginably huge whole. Each of us interprets what was seen through a prism of the education, life experience, ability to analyze, emotionality, etc. And to everyone the Universe throws arguments in favor of his point of view!
When the person presented Earth in the disk form, but not a flat sphere, it found confirmation of the theory. At the certain level of knowledge the facts confirmed rotation of the Sun around Earth. Copernicus found proofs of rotation of Earth around the Sun. There are arguments supporting idea of an origin chelovekaot monkeys, but there is a mass of the facts which contradict it.
Not to be lost in such sea of proofs, scientists arrive simply: build the theory on the basis of the majority of them, rejecting other as nonexistent. It is reasonable. Only the bans and prosecution of dissent which in the Middle Ages took extremely cruel forms are not reasonable. Over time the new theory will coordinate and the facts taken into account, and rejected. So, with small steps, the science in the knowledge of the Universe moves ahead.
It is quite possible that once there will be an explanation in what measurements our planet can be represented by the disk flattened by a sphere and even a polyhedron. Or under what conditions the geocentrist theory can be right (the absurdity, apparently, but in the huge Universe is all possible options of all ). There will be explanations for similarity of the person to a monkey and to lack of finds of a fossil obezyanochelovek. There will be clear a phenomenon of the imperceptible yeti.
So on what we argue and what we forbid to trust intuitively, when there is no evidence-based proofs in? We argue on that part of the Universe which is available to us. It which is not seen for some reasons for other observer, certainly, exists.
If they are met, so in some places and under some circumstances really there are ghosts, aliens, prehistoric monsters, etc. Actually there are a telepathy and telekinesis, a levitation and clairvoyance. There is God and his immortal particles - human souls. By the way, association of scientific and religious ideas of the Universe will give more exact knowledge of it over time.
Whether it is possible to be such self-confident to think that the truth opens only under your point of view? In disputes nothing is born but only it is shown the ego arguing even if famous scientist who wants that his representations got the best. And miracles still occur. Sometimes. As opposed to the point of view conventional for today.
Because any point from a set is not capable to triumph over unity whole which will not be slow to be shown sooner or later. Only impartial time will judge any dispute.