|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Silversoul]
#7776093 - 12/19/07 12:06 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You can post lots of studies but in the end, the biggest psi experiment in the world, Las Vegas, demonstrates every day of the year that things happen EXACTLY as predicted by the rules of probability no matter how many psychics claim otherwise.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Diploid]
#7776104 - 12/19/07 12:10 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So we're back to the gambling argument, despite the fact that psi phenomena, if real, is not understood well enough to know its parameters.
--------------------
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Silversoul]
#7776121 - 12/19/07 12:20 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What's wrong with the gambling argument? Why is it a bad argument to ask why someone who says they can do things that will win in Vegas never do?
The overall statistical slew that would happen to the casino's profits WOULD be detected, you know, even though the individual psychics themselves get away with it.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Diploid]
#7776132 - 12/19/07 12:22 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not talking about any psychic's specific claims so much as the fact that certain psi phenomena have been observed experimentally, however subtle it may be.
--------------------
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Silversoul]
#7776222 - 12/19/07 01:01 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the fact that certain psi phenomena have been observed experimentally
I don't have the energy to address your five links right now, so I'll just do the one published in Nature because of your five links, I think that's the only real science journal. And to be fair to Nature, the cheating was not discovered until after it published these bogus results:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v245/n5419/abs/245052a0.html
This is bad science and fraud by the experimenter who was seen altering the scorecards after the fact. And of course, these results have never been reproduced.
Here's an excerpt of what The Skeptic's Dictionary has to say about it including the testimony of several people involved in the experiment saying that Soal outright changed the data when it didn't fit his pre-conclusions:
In one sitting, Shackleton's success at guessing one card ahead was so great that Soal calculated the odds against chance to be greater than 10^35 to 1. In another, the odds against chance were calculated to be 10^11 to 1. There were several other sessions in which Shackleton performed at phenomenal levels when measured against chance expectation.
Skeptics were immediately distrustful of the results. Some, like C.E.M. Hansel and George Price (1955), accused Soal of fraud even though they had no direct evidence to support the accusation.
For some time the Soal-Goldney experiment was hailed by many as an example "of the strength of evidence for the reality of ESP" (Thouless). Today, it is generally recognized that Soal altered and faked the data, probably unbeknownst to Mrs. Goldney (Alcock 1981: 141). His fraud did significant damage to parapsychology (Alcock 1981: 140-141)
Then the article goes on to document exactly how the experiment was cheated:
The numbers for each of the 50 trials in a session were not chosen randomly for each trial, however. They were given to the experimenter by Soal on prepared scoring sheets that Soal "kept under lock and key until brought to the sitting in a suitcase that was never out of his sight" (Hansel 1989: 102). Soal claimed the sheets contained series of numbers chosen randomly, but no protocol was established to observe how Soal actually produced the series of numbered score sheets. This allowed Soal to introduce an excessive number of ones that could later be changed to fours or fives. In fact, one of Soal's agents, Mrs. Albert, testified that she had seen Soal changing a 1 to a 4 or a 5 several times (Medhurst 1971; Hansel 1989: 111; Alcock 1981: 140; Scott and Haskell 1973).
In 1960 Soal and Goldney reported that one "agent" in some of the sittings, "Mrs. G. A.", had told Goldney that she had seen Soal "altering the figures" during the sittings, changing "1's" into "4's" and "5's".
Another nail was driven in by Scott and Haskell in 1974. Even though they could not examine the original score sheets-Soal claimed they'd been lost in 1945—handmade copies of the originals were available. Scott and Haskell examined the score sheets for the sessions when Mrs. Albert served as agent and Soal as the experimenter. They predicted that if the lists were prepared with an excess of 1s that could later be changed to 4s or 5s, they should find, among other things,
(a) an excess of 4s and 5s among the targets
(b) a deficiency in the number of cases with a guess of 4 or 5 against a target of 1
(c) an excess of hits on 4s and 5s together with an above chance score on 1s (since a 1 would only be changed to a 4 or 5 if it was a miss).
All the predicted effects of cheating were found
The fraud didn't involve a whole lot of work on Soal's part. For example, in session 16 with Mrs. Albert, "it was only necessary to change a 1 into a 4 or 5 about three times in each column [of seven score sheets] to bring about the observed scores" (Hansel 1989: 113).
The final nail was driven in by Betty Marwick in 1978. She confirmed that Soal had not used the method of random selection of numbers as he had claimed.
First, she found two sequences of nineteen supposedly-random digits from two different sittings that matched exactly. A further case was then found, involving the same two sittings where a run of twenty-four supposedly-random digits was involved. In other cases, two series matched when one of them was taken in reverse order. Eventually, following a computer search, it was found that there were frequent cases of matchings of this nature, many of which were not exact, but in which one of the series had extra interpolated digits. These interpolated digits almost invariably secured hits. (Hansel 1989: 114)
Marwick showed that there had been manipulation of the score sheets and that therefore "all the experiments reported by Soal had thereby been discredited." His meticulous experimental design was an illusion (Hansel 1989: 115).
You can find more details of this bad science and fraud here: http://www.skepdic.com/soalgoldney.html
Dishonesty is a consistent theme in psi research.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Diploid]
#7776322 - 12/19/07 01:52 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yeah, but I can move a pinwheel with my mind.
--------------------
|
mushbaby
woodswalker




Registered: 09/30/06
Posts: 2,645
Loc: in my own lil world
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Visualization has been used numerous times with cancer patients with recorded results. They were taught to visualize the tumor and visualize their body attacking it, destroying it and eliminating it.
Do you have a valid source with medical documentation or merely stories?
http://www.cancerimagery.com/cancer_imagery_research.html
Most cancer centers carry these type of programs. It is the most well-studied complementary therapy.
THe director and founder of the Academy for Guided Imagery is David Bressler a Ph.d neuroscientist.
|
mushbaby
woodswalker




Registered: 09/30/06
Posts: 2,645
Loc: in my own lil world
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Diploid]
#7776807 - 12/19/07 08:59 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Visualization has been used numerous times with cancer patients with recorded results.
I'm curious. Are there any visualizations for amputees that will restore the missing limb?
I mean, if visualization can cure cancer and such, it should also cure amputations, no?
THere's a slight difference between visualizing one cell destroying another (foreign ) cell in your body and the body actually rebuilding missing parts don't you think?
I didn't claim it cured cancer but in conjunction with science (imagine that! science and the "unknown" working hand in hand) they have shown better results than science alone.
But they are also researching visualization with pain management so that could apply to amputees. I had a friend that was missing a leg and I know that phantom pain can be extremely painful.
|
mushbaby
woodswalker




Registered: 09/30/06
Posts: 2,645
Loc: in my own lil world
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: mushbaby]
#7776846 - 12/19/07 09:13 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I concur with SIlversoul about one thing and would like to reiterate it using my own words: How can science conduct a study on something when they refuse to accept the nature of what they are studying?
The nature being that these are unusual phenomenon. If these things happened every day whenever someone tried doing it we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Edited by mushbaby (12/19/07 09:38 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: mushbaby]
#7776974 - 12/19/07 09:56 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How can science conduct a study on something when they refuse to accept the nature of what they are studying?
Sorry hon, but this statement is so flawed and well-worn as to be laughable. Essentially what you are saying is that skeptics cannot conduct such a study because of bias and believers are too fucking incompetent to master the scientific method.
I get the same piss-poor argument from UFO nuts. Why can't science as if a UFO aficiando cannot get an education in the field he wishes to study.
Can't have it both ways, but the fluffernauts always try.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: mushbaby]
#7777011 - 12/19/07 10:09 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Visualization and imagery may reduce anxiety and stress, but has not shown any affect on survival rate.
Likewise prayer studes are equally ineffectual. The laws of physics remain intact, no matter how potent the wishing.
article
I've always wondered, as I'm sure many of my readers have, whether human beings have it in them to delay their own death, even briefly. Very early in the history of this blog, a mere 11 days after I started it, I discussed a study that strongly suggested that we cannot. In brief, it looked at the common belief that people dying from cancer can somehow, through sheer force of will, hold death at bay for brief periods of time, usually until some milestone that they wanted to see one more time is reached, be it a birthday, anniversary, holiday, or whatever. After they reach that milestone, the belief goes, they then die. Alas for this popular myth, investigators who examined 300,000 cancer deaths over 12 years and were completely unable to find any evidence of spikes in death rates around the times of birthdays, Christmas, or Thanksgiving. Sadly, it appears that, as always, death wins, and there's nothing we can do about it.
A corollary of this popular belief is that people with a positive attitude do better when they have cancer, even to the point of living longer than people who lack a positive attitude. Among residents, there's actually what's probably a myth that says the opposite: Namely, that the nastiest, most cantankerous people tend to do the best, presumably because they're fighters and just too ornery to die, and that "nice" people tend to do worst and die like dogs. No doubt this latter belief is a case of confirmation bias. Be that as it may, for quite a while the prevailing dogma has been that support groups and/or psychotherapy can prolong survival in cancer patients, although this dogma has little bsis in firm evidence to support it. More than likely, it, too, is a case of confirmation bias.
Earlier this week, this question came to the fore again, because a study was published that strongly questions the dogma that a positive mental attitude can prolong survival. The abstract follows:
Emotional well-being does not predict survival in head and neck cancer patients A radiation therapy oncology group study
James C. Coyne, PhD 1 *, Thomas F. Pajak, PhD 2, Jonathan Harris, MS 2, Andre Konski, MD 3, Benjamin Movsas, MD 3, Kian Ang, MD 4, Deborah Watkins Bruner, PhD 5 1Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2Radiation Oncology Group, Statistics Department, American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 4Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 5School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania email: James C. Coyne (jcoyne@mail.med.upenn.edu) *Correspondence to James C. Coyne, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 3535 Market Street, Room 676, Philadelphia, PA 19104
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND. The objective of the current study was to examine whether emotional well-being predicted survival in a large sample of patients with head and neck cancer who were participating in multicenter clinical trials.
METHODS. Participants were enrolled in 2 Radiation Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials (RTOG 9003 and RTOG 9111) and completed a baseline measure of quality of life (the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]), which included an Emotional Well-Being subscale. The outcome measure was overall survival. Main statistical analyses included overall survival rates, which were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method with univariate comparisons analyzed using the log-rank test. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine whether emotional well-being had prognostic impact on survival after accounting for tumor-related and sociodemographic variables. Additional exploratory analyses examined possible subgroup effects.
RESULTS. No statistically significant univariate or multivariate effects were observed for emotional well-being, and there were no effects limited to subgroups. These results stand in sharp contrast to the prognostic value of a variety of demographic and clinical variables.
CONCLUSIONS. The current results add to the weight of the evidence that emotional functioning is not an independent predictor of survival in cancer patients. The study had the advantage of a large number of deaths to be explained in a sample with the uniformity of treatment and quality of care that is required in clinical trials.
(News report summarizing the trial here.)
This study, the largest yet to study this question, combined two randomized, phase III radiation therapy studies, with a total of 1,093 patients with head and neck cancer from two different radiation therapy studies, of which 646 patients died during the course of the studies. One of the studies was a comparison of different radiation dose fractionation schedules, and the other was designed to study concurrent radiation and chemotherapy. As a part of these studies, quality-of-life estimates were examined, and patients were assessed upon entry to the protocol with five questions on the FACT-G quality of life questionnaire evaluating whether patients felt sad, were losing hope, feeling nervous, worrying about dying, worrying that their condition would worsen, and whether they were proud of how they were dealing with their condition. In neither univariate (the more sensitive but less specific way of looking for correlations) or multivariate (the more statistically appropriate method), did the investigators find any correlation between feelings of well-being and survival. This held true in the face of multiple calculations to take into account stage of disease, demographics, smoking, and performance status. Even doing subgroup analyses, often the last resort when looking for some result or correlation in a trial that is yielding none, failed to find subgroups for whom well being correlated with survival. Because the number of deaths observed was larger than the combined sample sizes of most previous studies, this represents the most resoundingly negative study to date looking at this question.
Head and neck cancers are particularly vicious cancers. This is not so much because they kill as rapidly as some of the more deadly cancers out there, such as pancreatic or esophageal cancer, but more because of the treatment needed to eliminate them. Often the surgery necessary is disfiguring, depending upon the location. In the case of laryngeal cancer, for example, it is sometimes necessary to take the vocal cords, leading to the loss of the ability to speak normally, necessitating learning esophageal speech or the use of an electromechanical device that produces a robotic-sounding voice. Sometimes it's necessary literally to remove a big chunk of the face, even the mandible, to cure some cancers, leaving a deformity not easily reconstructed even by the best plastic surgeon. Moreover, there's the chemotherapy, and the radiation therapy has a distressing tendency to fry the salivary glands, leading to a condition of xerostomia, or inadequate saliva production. It may not sound like much, but it can have a horrible impact on a patient's quality of life. As The Cheerful Oncologist puts it, it would be the rare head and neck cancer patient indeed who would not be depressed.
The population chosen naturally has led critics of the study to argue that, while perhaps a positive attititude doesn't prolong survival in head and neck cancer, perhaps it does in other cancers for which the treatment is not so harsh. In the case of breast cancer, however, there are multiple retrospective studies that also failed to find a correlation between health-related quality of life scores and survival (1, 2, 3) and one randomized trial testing whether supportive group therapy had any impact on survival that failed to find any benefit in terms of survival.
Although there are still mixed results among studies looking at this question, I think that the pendulum is starting to swing towards where the main driver of survival in cancer is biology:
University of Pennsylvania researchers say that among head and neck cancer patients, emotional health -- good or bad -- is not an independent factor affecting prognosis. "We anticipated finding that emotional well-being would predict the outcome of cancer. We exhaustively looked for it, and we concluded there is no effect for emotional well-being on cancer outcome," said study author and University of Pennsylvania psychologist James Coyne. "I think [cancer survival] is basically biological. Cancer patients shouldn't blame themselves -- too often we think if cancer were beatable, you should beat it. You can't control your cancer. For some, this news may lead to some level of acceptance."
[...]
Another expert said he wasn't surprised by the Pennsylvania findings.
"People are more likely to find this news a relief than a disappointment," said Dr. Michael Fisch, an associate professor of gastrointestinal medical oncology at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston.
Survival depends on the location of the cancer, the risk factors for the cancer, and how advanced the cancer is when it's diagnosed, said Fisch.
In fact, Dr. Fisch has a term for trying to persuade a patient who doesn't speak optimistically about his cancer to be more more positive as the "tyranny of guilt systems," where others seem to imply that the patient has some sort of "mind over matter" control over their cancer. I tend to agree. One pernicious consequence of this emphasis on "bucking up" and being cheerful in the face of adversity is that patients can tend to blame themselves if they are not doing well or if their tumor is growing in spite of therapy. It could indeed bring more piece of mind if patients could simply accept that their state of mind will not determine how fast their cancer grows.
For course, none of these new results should be construed to say that depression in cancer patients doesn't have a potentially devastating effect on the quality of their remaining life, nor should any of these results be taken as meaning that it's pointless to try to treat depression and foster a more optimistic, positive attitude. There is little doubt that such positive attitudes can do wonders for improving quality of life, and it's very important to make cancer patients' lives, particularly when there is not much life left, as filled with joy as their disease will permit. What these results do say is that we should not oversell what a positive attitude can do. It may make cancer patients happier, something that is in and of itself of great value, but it won't prolong their lives.
--------------------
|
Ego Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea


Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
|
|
Quote:
How can science conduct a study on something when they refuse to accept the nature of what they are studying?
Science only speculates theories on things that are deemed scientifically respectable.
If you made up a good unifying theory then it would be published for review. Where as if you made up a theory on ghosts or aliens then it would probably not be touched on because most scientists already know this is academic suicide. Scientists that are interested usually start work in the paranormal field after their academic life is over.
Many people don't realize that all of science is just speculation. There is no eternal truth, just theory aka in philosophical terms Quote:
I think therefore I am.
|
Ego Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea


Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: UFO nuts
What you'd rather people lied so that everything fits into your idealistic viewpoint?
I say idealistic because it quite clear that you hate not being able to understand something. As a result you force an understanding I.E They are all crazy, the are all hoaxers
|
symbiotic
insighted


Registered: 12/18/07
Posts: 105
Loc: ok,nm,co,ca,or
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Ego Death]
#7781360 - 12/20/07 12:10 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
My biology professor who is very spiritual laughs at the scientist that don't believe in spirit. He lived with native americans for seven years and did many fasting/hallucinogenic rituals. An interesting fasting story from him; He was up in the mountains alone of course and it was the second or third day so the pain had subsided and he started to wander around the mountain top, he came upon a petroglyph of a tall ladder and after a space there was the sun at the top of the ladder but not touching it and an arm was reaching out of the sun down to the ladder. I had an immediate realization of what this meant to me at least, but would like to know what you guys think it does?
challenge Science and ask ‘at what point in the evolution of the ‘material’ world’ is CONSCIOUSNESS first discernible? I repeat and mean what I say: Ask the scientist at what point in the evolution of the world is ‘consciousness’ first discernible. In the living cell? If in the living cell, ask whether if it was discernible in the living molecules which combined to make a cell and encase itself in such an intelligently designed membrane, permitting the intake of selected food and excretion of toxic waste? How does it recognise toxic waste? And if it should be conceded that consciousness might be present in living molecules, should you not ask whether the chemical properties which became a living molecule might not themselves have possessed ‘consciousness’ which eventually impelled and propelled them into the life-giving combination to make a molecule? And having gone back thus far into the origins of existence, - the chemical properties - you must still question why ‘consciousness’ should only become a viable presence within the chemicals - why not within the elements in which individuality first took shape, and if in the elements why should it be denied that ‘consciousness’ propels the electrical particles to form the elements? Is it rational to deny such a possibility? And having reached such a possibility, should you not go further and ask from whence comes electromagnetism? What is the ‘reality’ of electricity more than streaks of fierce light now described by science as photons and electrons? And what is the ‘reality’ of magnetism more than two-fold energies of ‘bonding and rejection’ - energy impulses which have brought stability and order into chaos? Ask science: “From whence comes electromagnetism which is responsible for the most basic steps in the creation of an ordered and orderly universe of an umimaginable complexity and diversity?”
-------------------- The greatest journey we can make is about 12 inches, from our heads to our hearts.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Ego Death]
#7781520 - 12/20/07 12:47 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Science only speculates theories on things that are deemed scientifically respectable.
Science is a method and thus has no opinion.
--------------------
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Ego Death]
#7781567 - 12/20/07 12:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Science only speculates theories on things that are deemed scientifically respectable.
Science deals with consistent and repeatable direct observations. Respectable has nothing to do with it.
I think you're missing OC's point.
If you have beef with the way science handles UFOs, then go to university and study science for yourself, learn the Scientific Method, become a scientist, then apply that to UFO research and make your own science.
Seems to me that's a better way to express support for the ET version of UFOs than to complain about how scientists won't study them seriously.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: symbiotic]
#7781588 - 12/20/07 01:01 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Is it rational to deny such a possibility?
Yes it's rational to deny that possibility because there is ZERO evidence for it.
Is it irrational to deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy because there is an infinitesimal possibility that somehow, somewhere, she actually does exist?
Of course not. That there is a micro-possibility that she exists is not reason enough to architect your life around her existence.
When/if some sliver of evidence of her existence is found, THEN it becomes reasonable to consider her existence more than fairy tale.
Same for all things mystical because they can only be seen in your head. Nobody outside your head can see it. That doesn't mean necessarily that it doesn't exist, but it does mean that anyone outside your head who can't see it is being perfectly reasonable denying its existence.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Diploid]
#7781607 - 12/20/07 01:08 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you have beef with the way science handles UFOs, then go to university and study science for yourself, learn the Scientific Method, become a scientist, then apply that to UFO research and make your own science.
But that would make sense and would preclude whining about the lack of research...
--------------------
|
Ego Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea


Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
|
|
Theres no lack of research.
There is a lack of scientists will to risk their job credentials to say that there is evidence for aliens and ghosts.
Just because you can't capture it in a jar and measure it, does not say that their is no evidence. It doesn't make anything less real it just means scientists have been unable to measure it.
Really, Diploid, OC have you got the credentials to make these assertions that these things are not real? You base your opinions on mass speculation, your opinions are not backed by science because science cannot prove that these things do not exist.
Yet you constantly use science as a reason for your believe.
Can you not understand that some things are beyond sciences grasp?
How can you ignore the vast wealth of human experience? How do you explain physical evidence involved in many of the incidents?
Your unfounded certainty is what disturbs me.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Whats wrong with the P+S heads? [Re: Ego Death]
#7781826 - 12/20/07 02:13 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A. There is a lack of scientists will to risk their job credentials to say that there is evidence for aliens and ghosts.
B. Can you not understand that some things are beyond sciences grasp?
Which is true: A or B?
Third time for those hard of reading, why can't believers become scientists and research what they choose?
--------------------
|
|