Phlogiston? Well if it is not a valid theory why is there a Wiki entry? Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia !! 🙂 !! (Sorry I missed that one, but it isn't as funny as the DB water test.)
And I learned it as Air, Earth, Fire and Water! Of course I was six at the time. Interestingly enough one of the few National Enquirer front page articles that I read at that time turned out to be accurate! (It was about Progeria, kind of scary to kids, which is why the paper made the rounds of our neighborhood kids.)
The local conference was hosted by members of the University, officially not a University event. Although it is a religious based University, they tolerate such folks but do not encourage them.
Thank you. A little more of water on a wheel of my mill. 😀
Instead of even considering attempts to review results of experiments you found an article that argues against Radin's musings, but says nothing about his research and results of experiments. 😀
So, it had been proven that scientists are biased and are hard, stubborn believers. 😀
Well, I posted two of his papers, but that got you mad, too. I guess nothing short of uncritical acceptance will do?
The accont that Zap linked to had some very specific criticisms of the "experiments," and that's apparently waved away.
The accont that Zap linked to had some very specific criticisms of the "experiments," and that's apparently waved away.
Just the opposite- we're skeptics (see the Cargo Cult article). Come to us with wild theories and good evidence and we're all ears, so to speak. Come to us with wild theories and the sort of post-hoc cherry-picked weak tea that Radin and other parapsychologists have been peddling for a hundred years and yes, scientists won't listen, unless it's particularly funny.
See how you are biased? 😀
I repeated many times that I don't mean any theories, I ignore Radin's musings, but draw attention to experiments and results of plain andd dumb statistical analysis, but you are like always wearing earplugs continue arguing against some kind of post-hoc cherry-picked weak tea. 😀
You even refuse to understand conditions of the problem! 😀
Indeed we are- we are biased against lousy data analysis and refusal to propose and execute experiments designed to falsify hypotheses. I fully admit it- it's science's strength.
Not only. You also pretend as if some data that questions your belief system does not exist. If it can't be explained from point of view of your belief system. If some data can't be explained it does not exist for you. If somebody insists that it does exist (because it does, it is self-evident!) he/she has to be either fool, or charlatan. 😀
Before I started real attempts to underdstand what audiophiles say, mean, feel, hear, I thought they were either fools, or fooled. But then I realized that I was fool, because the difference between me and them was in language only.
Last edited:
Quite the opposite, that's when things get interesting. For example, the superluminal neutrinos (that ended up being not so superluminal- there's that damn falsification stuff again!). But you equate lousy data with unexplained data, and that's where we part company.
Yes, I was aware of this. Backster is one of the people who have been hyping the use of polygraphy for decades. Too bad it doesn't actually work... See David Lykken, for example.
For your amusement:
The Straight Dope: Do plants have ESP?
And some guys local to you:
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html
You see? You always have an explanation that is very convenient, for inconvenient evidences. 😉
Well, you keep pulling out stuff that's well-known and well-discredited. Try something with solid evidence.
This is starting to feel like that anti-Einstein nutbag on this forum who keeps finding link after link to ridiculously shoddy, discredited stuff and expects a rational answer.
This is starting to feel like that anti-Einstein nutbag on this forum who keeps finding link after link to ridiculously shoddy, discredited stuff and expects a rational answer.
You refused to consider solid evidences from the beginning, and did not answer direct question why you think they are lousy. It is enough to prove that scientists are firm believers, and some of them even don't consider that they will be able to understand what audiphiles mean.
I am lucky, I learn "Audiophile Language". It helps, like all foreign languages. 😉
I am lucky, I learn "Audiophile Language". It helps, like all foreign languages. 😉
If that's what you consider "solid evidence," I think I know why you never became a scientist. 😀 Did you know that I have solid evidence that people with longer arms score better on math tests? I am 100% serious here, I am not making that up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.