Eastern philosophies are so, well, silly... and I say that with the most open mind and in the most direct way possible. I find those who follow such philosophies to be more often than not the epitome of hypocritical and arrogant, and quite often self-delusional. The level of ignorance disguised as insight and enlightment displayed in this thread is so alarming that I ponder if humankind will ever reach a global level of peace and understanding.
I find it amusing that chastisements about how certain people believe the universe works are based on nothing but another set of assumptions, another set of beliefs, about how the universe works.
The subjects of physics, philosophy, statistics, religion, epistemology and others have been so butchered, so misrepresented to the point of absurdity by those whose desire to be 'enlightened' so greatly that they abandon the useful constructs of rationality and consistency, that it frightens me.
I dare say more, but for fear of being accused that I would be unreceptive to the suggestion that the Earth isn't flat or that planes can't fly, or that by accepting a logical epistemological system I have shut my mind to possibility and discovery. What is the point?
I find it amusing that chastisements about how certain people believe the universe works are based on nothing but another set of assumptions, another set of beliefs, about how the universe works.
The subjects of physics, philosophy, statistics, religion, epistemology and others have been so butchered, so misrepresented to the point of absurdity by those whose desire to be 'enlightened' so greatly that they abandon the useful constructs of rationality and consistency, that it frightens me.
I dare say more, but for fear of being accused that I would be unreceptive to the suggestion that the Earth isn't flat or that planes can't fly, or that by accepting a logical epistemological system I have shut my mind to possibility and discovery. What is the point?
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Mr. Loesch,
So you'd give him the money? That sounds like a rather gullible attitude to me.
If someone was able to travel to wherever in the galaxy in a theoretically impossible time, wouldn't it be prudent to plan to bring back some rather more useful evidence. How about sending a pre-agreed, encrypted radio signal back from the destination, to be received back on Earth at a pre-determined and precise time in the future... I'm sure the SETI guys would love that!
All it takes is a bit of planning and effort to ensure that the standard of proof is acceptable.
Being open to other paradigms is one thing, but there's usually a good reason, in 99.9% of cases why alternative "knowledge" is forgotten - it's bunk.
It is people who spout this alternative rubbish that are closed-minded as they cannot accept that there are many unknowns in the universe. For them, there is always a mystical explanation as to why things are the way they appear, and any observation can be justified. Contrast with science's acceptance that there are many facets of the universe that cannot be explained... and then the conception of theories which get tested by experimentation. It's so much easier to sit down listening to whale-song and come up with a fanciful explanation before sleeping soundly in the knowledge that another mystery has been answered.
Bah!
Konnichiwa,
Probably not without further investigation. However, my point is that I WOULD investigate further.
Perhaps. Yet you may be surprised how narrowoly focused and forgetful people working on something important to them can get. They rarely concern themselves first with proof and secondly with function, usually the reverse holds true.
Sure, which assumes that you start wanting to proove something, rather than just make something work.
Hmmm. I find it very funny that one by one a lot of this "bunk" is actually illustrated by so-called respectable science to have been pretty darn accurate.
Funny. I accept unknowns as unknown. I indeed insist that they are not just "explained away" in the fashion it is usally done (Flight of pelicans, Venus, sensory hallucination...). To me a UFO is just that, namely an Unidentifyable Flying Object and not an Alien Spaceship and not a Halucination. I actually consider an investigation required, as in many other "fringe" areas. The UFO's may very well be "secret" spyplanes or natural occurences, I don't know and don't pretend to, but I have a low tolerance for people who INSIST that there are no UFO's (suggesting each and every one has been fully identified and is hence an IFO).
Says the sheep that marches with all the others?
Sayonara
arniel said:
Probably not without further investigation. However, my point is that I WOULD investigate further.
arniel said:
Perhaps. Yet you may be surprised how narrowoly focused and forgetful people working on something important to them can get. They rarely concern themselves first with proof and secondly with function, usually the reverse holds true.
arniel said:
Sure, which assumes that you start wanting to proove something, rather than just make something work.
arniel said:
Hmmm. I find it very funny that one by one a lot of this "bunk" is actually illustrated by so-called respectable science to have been pretty darn accurate.
arniel said:
Funny. I accept unknowns as unknown. I indeed insist that they are not just "explained away" in the fashion it is usally done (Flight of pelicans, Venus, sensory hallucination...). To me a UFO is just that, namely an Unidentifyable Flying Object and not an Alien Spaceship and not a Halucination. I actually consider an investigation required, as in many other "fringe" areas. The UFO's may very well be "secret" spyplanes or natural occurences, I don't know and don't pretend to, but I have a low tolerance for people who INSIST that there are no UFO's (suggesting each and every one has been fully identified and is hence an IFO).
arniel said:
Says the sheep that marches with all the others?
Sayonara
john curl said:
In fact, John, he didn't say diddly. I gave an example of my opinion on how science works, and Thorsten cunningly and expertly pulled the whole discussion off thread by picking on an aspect that had nothing to do with it. Several others fell for it and followed him. Surely you saw through that, didn't you?
Jan Didden
Since you asked, I found significant 'truth' the Kuei's input. For example, I don't judge what I don't know about or have not actually tried. I just don't have an opinion in these cases. Many here are uncomfortable with this.
For example, flying saucers, I've never seen one, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did exist in some form. I have people tell me that they have seen them, and I have no reason to doubt them. Now, that doesn't say that I BELIEVE in every flying saucer report. Some are probably made up, after all some here have made up hoaxes on wire quality over the years. I know people who like to play practical jokes like this, even if it just confuses things still further. Others are probably errors in judgement and jumping to a conclusion. However, one person said to me that the flying saucer she saw was just over the trees where she was walking one night, and it moved in so fast that she thought that it was going to land on her. I have no reason to doubt her, and I also doubt that it was the planet Venus or swamp gas.
For example, flying saucers, I've never seen one, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did exist in some form. I have people tell me that they have seen them, and I have no reason to doubt them. Now, that doesn't say that I BELIEVE in every flying saucer report. Some are probably made up, after all some here have made up hoaxes on wire quality over the years. I know people who like to play practical jokes like this, even if it just confuses things still further. Others are probably errors in judgement and jumping to a conclusion. However, one person said to me that the flying saucer she saw was just over the trees where she was walking one night, and it moved in so fast that she thought that it was going to land on her. I have no reason to doubt her, and I also doubt that it was the planet Venus or swamp gas.
John:
The government has owned up that the swamp gas explanation was hokum. They were testing oddly shaped planes during the Cold War, they did not want the local population to share even the most cursory details about them, so when somebody saw an odd shape up in the air, the government gave people the "swamp gas" story. They have admitted this for years.
That does not mean there are UFO's, in the sense we have come to envision them.
Remember the "crop circles"? Mysterious circles which were cut in the English wheatfields. Local scientists swore they could not have been cut by people, they had to be made by spaceship.
Spomebody set up a night vision camera one night in a wheat field, and caught several people making the crop cirlces by hand, using conventional tools. Unmentioned in the documentary which covered this was whether the circle makers were coming home after several hours in the bar, which seems likely.
The government has owned up that the swamp gas explanation was hokum. They were testing oddly shaped planes during the Cold War, they did not want the local population to share even the most cursory details about them, so when somebody saw an odd shape up in the air, the government gave people the "swamp gas" story. They have admitted this for years.
That does not mean there are UFO's, in the sense we have come to envision them.
Remember the "crop circles"? Mysterious circles which were cut in the English wheatfields. Local scientists swore they could not have been cut by people, they had to be made by spaceship.
Spomebody set up a night vision camera one night in a wheat field, and caught several people making the crop cirlces by hand, using conventional tools. Unmentioned in the documentary which covered this was whether the circle makers were coming home after several hours in the bar, which seems likely.
john curl said:
John, this interests me.
You mention several times, also in other posts, that people tell you something and you 'have no reason to doubt them' or words to that effect. What would be a reason to doubt their statements??
I mean, if somebody tells you that they have seen an UFO, which at the very least is an extremely controversial subject with precious few if any confirmed sightings, wouldn't you have all the reasons in the world to doubt it??
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
I HAVE seen UFO's and there have been LOADS of confirmed UFO sightings.
The defition of an UFO Sighting is the sighting of a flying object that cannot be reliably identified. Hence UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.
I suspect now my own UFO may very well have been SR-71's or their russian analog, but I cannot be certain, without getting at military records of both US and Russia. At the time, with the knowledge of the existence of such high/fast flying planes being not available to me the thing was Unidentifiable as anything known to me and hence fits perfectly the defintion of an UFO.
Now saying "I saw an UFO" does not mean "I saw a flying Saucer" or "I saw an alien spaceship". I am aware (from Janes) of a fairly recent sighting of an UFO in the company of a number of US Planes over the North Sea. The "UFO" was analysed by Janes to be most likely the "Aurora" Black Plane, namely the sucessor to the SR-71 the existence of which is vigerously denied by the US intelligence community and the US military.
So, unless and untill someone can confirm that it is a US Spy Plane of the Type designation so and so and confirms it has been flying in MUST remain a triangular shaped Unidentified Flying object observed in such a setting and doing such and such.
To claim it's a US Spy Plane or an Alien spaceship is to identify it, which would demand actual proof to allow me to accept the identification. Until then it's ahmmm.... Yup, a UFO!
Sayonara
janneman said:
I HAVE seen UFO's and there have been LOADS of confirmed UFO sightings.
The defition of an UFO Sighting is the sighting of a flying object that cannot be reliably identified. Hence UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.
I suspect now my own UFO may very well have been SR-71's or their russian analog, but I cannot be certain, without getting at military records of both US and Russia. At the time, with the knowledge of the existence of such high/fast flying planes being not available to me the thing was Unidentifiable as anything known to me and hence fits perfectly the defintion of an UFO.
Now saying "I saw an UFO" does not mean "I saw a flying Saucer" or "I saw an alien spaceship". I am aware (from Janes) of a fairly recent sighting of an UFO in the company of a number of US Planes over the North Sea. The "UFO" was analysed by Janes to be most likely the "Aurora" Black Plane, namely the sucessor to the SR-71 the existence of which is vigerously denied by the US intelligence community and the US military.
So, unless and untill someone can confirm that it is a US Spy Plane of the Type designation so and so and confirms it has been flying in MUST remain a triangular shaped Unidentified Flying object observed in such a setting and doing such and such.
To claim it's a US Spy Plane or an Alien spaceship is to identify it, which would demand actual proof to allow me to accept the identification. Until then it's ahmmm.... Yup, a UFO!
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
You are in some serious linguistic quagmire here. Do you use a word in the actual sense it conveys or do you apply the coplloquial use?
Is an anarchist a bomb/molotov cocktail thrower or someone who wishes to abolish a strutured and hierarchical society?
Is a UFO an alien flying saucer spaceship or merely something flying about which we cannot corretcly identify?
Crop circles are documented for > 300 Years and not just in England and not just in Wheat fields.
Hardly. Crop Circles are actually a widely researched phenomenae and while the "Hoax" explanation covers most of them in recent times (since they became fashionable) a small but distinctly non-zero fraction of Crop Circles show charateristics that are not explainable with "simple hoax" but require quite substantial technology (high powered microwave radiators and a pretty big explosion where used by some MIT Students to create deliberatly a crop circle design matching these charateristics).
So, we are left, just as with UFO's and a number of other Fortean (after Charles Fort, a reseaercher into "Fringe" phenomenae) phenomenae with a small but distinctly non-zero fraction of unexplainable phenomenae. To dismiss these due to the others as "hoaxes, swamp gas or flights of pelicans" is as unscientific as is to claim that all crop circles are made by alien spacecrafts and all UFO's sighted are actually Alien Flying Saucers.
You forgot to mention that in more than one case of these "observations" the Observer actually paid the people to make them so he could publish a suitable article in the tabloids and/or make a sensationalist TV Documentary.
The problem is a muddeld one and just as in audio the highly emotionally charged battle between the two religous groups (the "Believers" and the "Scientists") involved has done much to obscure the facts and muddle the water. It has become near impossible to discuss the subject from a value neutral and anti religious viewpoint.
You need to ask yourself seriously if you want to believe or if you want to know. Do you wish to believe what you are told by the guardians of the orthodoxy and their lackeys (on either side of these arguments) or do you actually wish to know? If you wish to know you will have to accept that you cannot know many things and that for many the only way to know is to apply yourself to the empirical method.
Sayonara
kelticwizard said:
You are in some serious linguistic quagmire here. Do you use a word in the actual sense it conveys or do you apply the coplloquial use?
Is an anarchist a bomb/molotov cocktail thrower or someone who wishes to abolish a strutured and hierarchical society?
Is a UFO an alien flying saucer spaceship or merely something flying about which we cannot corretcly identify?
kelticwizard said:
Crop circles are documented for > 300 Years and not just in England and not just in Wheat fields.
kelticwizard said:
Hardly. Crop Circles are actually a widely researched phenomenae and while the "Hoax" explanation covers most of them in recent times (since they became fashionable) a small but distinctly non-zero fraction of Crop Circles show charateristics that are not explainable with "simple hoax" but require quite substantial technology (high powered microwave radiators and a pretty big explosion where used by some MIT Students to create deliberatly a crop circle design matching these charateristics).
So, we are left, just as with UFO's and a number of other Fortean (after Charles Fort, a reseaercher into "Fringe" phenomenae) phenomenae with a small but distinctly non-zero fraction of unexplainable phenomenae. To dismiss these due to the others as "hoaxes, swamp gas or flights of pelicans" is as unscientific as is to claim that all crop circles are made by alien spacecrafts and all UFO's sighted are actually Alien Flying Saucers.
kelticwizard said:Spomebody set up a night vision camera one night in a wheat field, and caught several people making the crop cirlces by hand, using conventional tools. Unmentioned in the documentary which covered this was whether the circle makers were coming home after several hours in the bar, which seems likely.
You forgot to mention that in more than one case of these "observations" the Observer actually paid the people to make them so he could publish a suitable article in the tabloids and/or make a sensationalist TV Documentary.
The problem is a muddeld one and just as in audio the highly emotionally charged battle between the two religous groups (the "Believers" and the "Scientists") involved has done much to obscure the facts and muddle the water. It has become near impossible to discuss the subject from a value neutral and anti religious viewpoint.
You need to ask yourself seriously if you want to believe or if you want to know. Do you wish to believe what you are told by the guardians of the orthodoxy and their lackeys (on either side of these arguments) or do you actually wish to know? If you wish to know you will have to accept that you cannot know many things and that for many the only way to know is to apply yourself to the empirical method.
Sayonara
Speaking of the "Scientific Method"
Konnichiwa,
In the articles that Pinkmouse linked to in the Fortean Times a certain organisation was mentioned repeatedly, namely the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). For those interested in the "scientific approach" taken by CSICOP how about this piece?
THE TRUE DISBELIEVERS: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality
Here's one to believers in any particular fixed system of reality, "up y......".
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
In the articles that Pinkmouse linked to in the Fortean Times a certain organisation was mentioned repeatedly, namely the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). For those interested in the "scientific approach" taken by CSICOP how about this piece?
THE TRUE DISBELIEVERS: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality
Here's one to believers in any particular fixed system of reality, "up y......".
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I have to hand it to you; there are a select few on this forum that can take a thread to the places you do Thorsten...
Everyone knows what U.F.O. stands for, but I think most will agree on who made the term synonymous with alien spacecraft...
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Ahh, but see Thorsten - you must be a "believer", because you deem explanations as dismissals. To say these explanations are to dismiss something means you have a conflicting explanation of your own, not simply "unidentified"...
If I claimed something hurtling through the sky looked like a discarded Shakti Stone, or bottle of C37, would I be "dismissing", or simply offering an explanation...
Kuei Yang Wang said:
And which group do you put yourself in? With rhetoric that would shame the likes of Shirley MacLaine. I have my vote...
Taken from your review of C37:
"While C37 lacquering does change the tonality to one that is generally more dynamic, warmer and more pleasant. The biggest change is on an almost subliminal level. The C37 lacquered gear sounds more open and detailed as before, but most important – it sounds more listenable and more capable of communicating the emotion in the music. Perhaps one receives less signals of "it’s artificial" from a C37 treated system? The key difference between a system with C37 and one without is not a bit of tonality, or more detail or less exaggerated sibilance, or a wider soundstage, or other such easily described and quantified audiophile issues. It is a difference much deeper. It is one between more musical realism and a simple canned music.
On an emotional level it works a similar magic as single ended valve amplifiers, non-oversampling DAC’s, vinyl records, high sensitivity speakers, a ‘lil tot of Glenlivet or a glass of good Claret. It makes listening to music more involving. It makes me want to listen more. It makes listening easier. I concentrate more on the music, on the phrasing, on the emotions and I simply forget to listen to the “Bass’s” and the “Trebles” and the “Soundstage”. I listen instead to the notes, the musicians, the silences between the notes, and the sharp rasp of the bow on a string all these things. Applying C37 to your system humanizes the perceived sound. When I have too much non C37 treated gear in my system I badly miss the effect."
THC has similar effects on me as you describe with C37...
. Perhaps I should do a review...
Konnichiwa,
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you for the flowers....
I think that MOST who actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding (e.g. not that derived from the Tabloids and other sensationalist and mercenary reporting) and are hence entitled to have their views considered would go with the strick linguistic interpretation, e.g. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.
Nope, what I deem as dismissal is the attitude that "we explained 70% of all UFO sightings as this or that (often questionably so) and hence the other 30% must be explainable the same way"
Neither. You would observe that whatever was hurteling through the Air looked like a Shakti Stone. Now you may also have observed that the trajectory of the Shakti Stone appeared ballistic in nature and seemd to aim at you. You may very well surmise that someone threw a Shakti Stone at you and that if the aim of that someone is any good you'd better duck.
However, if you would submit based on that observation that all flying objects observable where Shakti Stones thrown at you I would feel the need to question your conclusions. Note, I do not question your observations in any way, only the conclusions you have drawn from the empirical data and I think rightly so.
Now someone may have heard your lunatic theory and may actually decide to claim that "eminent sceptic Lusso5 has identified all UFO's to be Shakti Stones thrown at him" and would suceed in publishing the thesis and as it offered at least SOME explanation of a natural sort instead of "we don't what some UFO's are" would have it universally aknowledged, it would still make each and every UFO reliably a Shakti Stone thrown into your direction.
I consider myself a sceptic in the line of Hume.
WHAT RETHORIC?
Sure, go for it. You might even do a double blind comparison test of C37 laquering vs. Mari-Juana if you like.
The one thing I do encourage strongly (apart from suggesting to confine oneself to legal Drugs while the campaign to be sensible and leagalise ALL drugs, instead of only a few should be supported) is to be empirical. I prefer to someone who disagrees with me on the strength of his own empirical investigation over someone who syncopates my vies simply because I said so.
Sadly in this day and age most of the pee-pull prefer to aquire their views and opinions third, fourth and fifth hand from the "educational" system, akademia and the popular media over the more direct, usefull and significant empirical method.
Sayonara
Lusso5 said:
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you for the flowers....
Lusso5 said:
I think that MOST who actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding (e.g. not that derived from the Tabloids and other sensationalist and mercenary reporting) and are hence entitled to have their views considered would go with the strick linguistic interpretation, e.g. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.
Lusso5 said:
Nope, what I deem as dismissal is the attitude that "we explained 70% of all UFO sightings as this or that (often questionably so) and hence the other 30% must be explainable the same way"
Lusso5 said:
Neither. You would observe that whatever was hurteling through the Air looked like a Shakti Stone. Now you may also have observed that the trajectory of the Shakti Stone appeared ballistic in nature and seemd to aim at you. You may very well surmise that someone threw a Shakti Stone at you and that if the aim of that someone is any good you'd better duck.
However, if you would submit based on that observation that all flying objects observable where Shakti Stones thrown at you I would feel the need to question your conclusions. Note, I do not question your observations in any way, only the conclusions you have drawn from the empirical data and I think rightly so.
Now someone may have heard your lunatic theory and may actually decide to claim that "eminent sceptic Lusso5 has identified all UFO's to be Shakti Stones thrown at him" and would suceed in publishing the thesis and as it offered at least SOME explanation of a natural sort instead of "we don't what some UFO's are" would have it universally aknowledged, it would still make each and every UFO reliably a Shakti Stone thrown into your direction.
Lusso5 said:
I consider myself a sceptic in the line of Hume.
Lusso5 said:
WHAT RETHORIC?
Lusso5 said:THC has similar effects on me as you describe with C37...
Sure, go for it. You might even do a double blind comparison test of C37 laquering vs. Mari-Juana if you like.
The one thing I do encourage strongly (apart from suggesting to confine oneself to legal Drugs while the campaign to be sensible and leagalise ALL drugs, instead of only a few should be supported) is to be empirical. I prefer to someone who disagrees with me on the strength of his own empirical investigation over someone who syncopates my vies simply because I said so.
Sadly in this day and age most of the pee-pull prefer to aquire their views and opinions third, fourth and fifth hand from the "educational" system, akademia and the popular media over the more direct, usefull and significant empirical method.
Sayonara
serengetiplains said:
Other than reviewers (who get their samples free I presume). I've only come across one person who purchased C37; used it for coating drivers, and reported changes not any better than that of coatings costing hundreds less (and dont make claims like Ennemosser).
Give me $150, I'll try it...
serengetiplains said:
Lighten up Tom, its in no way ridicule. I'm trying to point out in which of these so called "religions" that he describes, he fits best in.
I have the upmost respect for Thorsten's technical knowledge, and have said before - I've learned much from him, and can learn much more. We just have differing views on metaphysics as it relates to audio. I can easily make myself think I'm hearing something "better", but I dont need stones on my speakers, or lacquer on my DAC to justify it.
serengetiplains said:
Beg to differ. I can have an opinion on something without observing it. That opinion can for instance be formed by previous observations, or by analogy. If you say you are going to drop an apple from 4 feet altitude, my opinion is that it will move downward. I haven't seen it, maybe I will never see it, but it'll be a pretty strong opinion anyway. Or is that what you also say? Not sure.
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
Hmmm. I am aware of a number of actual manufacturers (apart from me, that is) who use C37, primarily in Speakers. I use C37 both for HiFi Modifications and for Speakers (production). BTW, no more reviews from me because I am now commercially involved.
Your aim is very poor Graucho.
I am a "believer" only insofar that I "believe" my experimental methodes where reasonably fair and that I place the reasoning of my KNOWLEDGE (as opposed to believe) on First Hand experience of the phenomenae under discussion. Which is more than can be said for the majority of those who discuss it.
Past that I am not a believer. I do not for example "believe" in C37 as such or the C37 Theory, though I note parallels with various investigations of my own in the "C37 Theory".
I do however KNOW that it makesaudible differences in many applications and that I myself and a numbers of others found the changes with a fair bit of reliability to be such that changed item is preferred. That I know and do not have to believe.
Now you may not believe that my experimental methode was fair and reasonable. That is your perogative. You may criticise my methode or demand more details, which i may bother to give or not and you may make your empirical investigation as you please. However, if you wish for me to consider you a reasonable and scientific person than the onbe thing you cannot do is to simply dismiss the subject, as that is unscientific in the highest degree and perfectly fits the defintion of "rejected knowledge".
Sayonara
Lusso5 said:
Hmmm. I am aware of a number of actual manufacturers (apart from me, that is) who use C37, primarily in Speakers. I use C37 both for HiFi Modifications and for Speakers (production). BTW, no more reviews from me because I am now commercially involved.
Lusso5 said:
Your aim is very poor Graucho.
janneman said:
I am a "believer" only insofar that I "believe" my experimental methodes where reasonably fair and that I place the reasoning of my KNOWLEDGE (as opposed to believe) on First Hand experience of the phenomenae under discussion. Which is more than can be said for the majority of those who discuss it.
Past that I am not a believer. I do not for example "believe" in C37 as such or the C37 Theory, though I note parallels with various investigations of my own in the "C37 Theory".
I do however KNOW that it makesaudible differences in many applications and that I myself and a numbers of others found the changes with a fair bit of reliability to be such that changed item is preferred. That I know and do not have to believe.
Now you may not believe that my experimental methode was fair and reasonable. That is your perogative. You may criticise my methode or demand more details, which i may bother to give or not and you may make your empirical investigation as you please. However, if you wish for me to consider you a reasonable and scientific person than the onbe thing you cannot do is to simply dismiss the subject, as that is unscientific in the highest degree and perfectly fits the defintion of "rejected knowledge".
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.