|Message||Can someone help me? I've drunk ten pints of homeopathic remedies and overdosed on them. Will I die?|
|Message||Enjoying the site. However, there are a few broken links on the arguments against christianity.Under #4 The Bible is Inconsistent with History and Smithonian Statement on Bible Historicity links are down. |
Thanks for all your work!.
|Message||Right on SCEPCOP!!!|
"The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal (CSICOP) has become the most publicly visible
institution engaged in the debate on the paranormal. Initially CSICOP
was primarily a scholarly body but soon after its beginning it adopted
a popular approach that fostered a more broadly based social movement.
It actively promoted the formation of local societies with similar
aims. Both CSICOP and the local groups have some distinguishing
features. Prestigious scholars are affiliated with these or-
ganizations, a disproportionate number of magicians are involved, the
groups are dominated by men, and many members hold religious views
that are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the
organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee.
In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself.
CSICOP's highest priority has been to influence the media. Its
rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience
rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial
phenomena." - George P. Hansen
Thank you George. I couldn't have said it better myself.
|Message||Keep up the great work!|
The way science advances, paradigm by paradigm, seems to me to like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I.e., the way science is done at the beginning of a new paradigm is very different than the way it is done at the end. So ideas worthy of exploration at the beginning may well be considered woo at the end.
Thus fellow explorers, invictus! Boltzmann's idea of entropy was held in contempt by Mach. Earlier, George Ohm was fired from his post as a high school physics teacher for publishing Ohm's Law. Soon after that, Herman Grassmann, another German high school teacher (of mathematics) was luckier. Publication of his discovery (or invention) of directed magnitudes (we call them "vectors" was just dismissed by the leading mathematicians of his time.
As what we come to scientifically believe is so dependent on what is explored -- and how it is explored, scientific knowledge at any specific time is often more a matter of how much the scientific method was actually being scrupulously implemented than how superior it is as compared to other means of knowing.
Therefore, hopefully, those inclined be open to new possibilities will help me explore health implications of my GreenTyme project and my patented freely available on the Web Synclecron. Especial as my CUBS/"Chronically Under-informed Bio-clock Syndrome" may be the beginning of a new "chronic health instead of chronic health problems" paradigm. Suggestions much appreciated!
|Message||Yellowlawn, ad hominems won't change the fact that most woo merchants have extremely low standards when it comes to presenting evidence.|
|Message||skep⋅tic [skep-tik] |
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
2. (initial capital letter) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.
3. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.
Most skeptics like Randi et al are actually cynics. Which one are you?
|Message||Love your site. Especially in the forums when you shut up those Rationalwiki idiots. Those guys are pathetic losers! Long live SCEPCOP!!!|
|Message||"The proponents of this principle actually believe that thoughts create, control and manifest ALL EXTERNAL OBJECTIVE REALITY!"|
Only if you PERSONALLY decide to take it there.
|Message||"Science reliable? Have you seen the recent news report where 1 in 7 scientists said they saw their colleagues FAKE data to please their funders?"|
Sheldrake and Radin have come clean then, eh?
|Message||Appeal to ignorance.|
Appeal to authority.
That is all there is to WW's arguments.
WW you're all hot air.
|Free guestbook provided by UltraGuest.com|