Science

Out of context: Reply #130

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 1,010 Responses
  • Morning_star0

    Quite old but interesting, especially for those who were looking for proof of 'paranormal'.

    Morning_star 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • Yeah, "proof"hereswhatidid
    • Care to explain what that means?Morning_star
    • that whole thing has been widely panned as completely made uphereswhatidid
    • research that stuff before you post it and expect anyone to take you seriouslyhereswhatidid
    • Links please.Morning_star
    • christ, do a single good search for Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Labhereswhatidid
    • do you just take all of these nonsense videos for face value?hereswhatidid
    • No. How are you so certain these experiments aren't illustrating the phenomena they claim?Morning_star
    • No. How are you so certain they're even remotely legit?monospaced
    • What would be the point of 25yrs research? hundreds of scientists and experiments? Peer reviewed papers? if there was no anomalous results? Universities are not in the habit of pissing money up the wall on 'woo woo"Morning_star
    • if there was no anomalous results? Universities are not in the habit of pissing money up the wall on 'woo woo"Morning_star
    • Peer reviewed papers? Show me some please.hereswhatidid
    • And absolutely none of the data from their experiments have ever been replicated elsewhere.hereswhatidid
    • If people spend money on something, does that make it real? Get some goddamn critical thinking skills please.hereswhatidid
    • seriously, 5 minutes of searching shows that the entire thing was funded by one rich donorhereswhatidid
    • lol, dude, that's not a real universitymonospaced
    • /sarcasmmonospaced
    • OK, let me get this straight. You're saying that if science is funded privately it's meaningless and can be ignored?
      Morning_star
    • no, if it's completely un-replicable and uses dubious methods to achieve it's results, it's not sciencehereswhatidid
    • I was merely countering your nonsense argument that because a university paid for it, it must be realhereswhatidid
    • are you really this dense or just trolling?hereswhatidid
    • Look, if you want to start trading insults that's fine with me. I'd rather understand your rather dogmatic scientific position and how you are so certain there is no value in the PEAR labs evidence, for instance.Morning_star
    • scientific position and how you are so certain there is no value in the PEAR labs evidence, for instance.Morning_star
    • lab was running for decades, shut down in 2007, and only had a handful of shaky papers with mostly invalid claims and assumptionsmonospaced
    • 'mostly' - so there was some valid results then?Morning_star
    • Never replicated. What else do you need to know to be skeptical about an experiment?hereswhatidid
    • Do you know what the double split experiment is?Morning_star
    • double slit? yes, and it has no bearing at all on this particular case.hereswhatidid
    • I beg to differ. I think it is entirely possible that observation and intent are important factors in the experiments.Morning_star
    • That's not what this case is about at all. It's about shoddy pseudo science that gullible folks eat up to satiate their desire to believe in a higher power.hereswhatidid
    • their desire to believe in a higher power.hereswhatidid
    • You are obviously not open to the discussion of anything that questions a purely deterministic, materialist universe. You and Ken Ham have a similar attitude.Morning_star
    • and Ken Ham have a similar approach.
      Morning_star
    • I'm not open to discussing things which are impossible to verify as science. If you want to speculate, go ahead, just don't call it science.hereswhatidid
    • call it science.hereswhatidid
    • Actually, you and Ham are far more in common. You have no requirements for actual evidence to support your nonsense beliefs.hereswhatidid
    • Ham's mind is shut, like yours. There is existing provision in Quantum Theory for this kind of phenomena. As I have pointed out, observation and intent may well have an influence on results so replication is an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Morning_star
    • out, observation and intent may well have an influence on results so replication is an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Morning_star
    • Well, you continue down that path then, I have nothing else to add to this discussion.hereswhatidid
    • That's a shame, you seem to know your onions.
      Morning_star
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread