Science

Out of context: Reply #304

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 1,011 Responses
  • Morning_star0

    @monospace

    I'd say a film was good evidence, wouldn't you? Your argument as I understand it is circular, ridiculous and relies on belief, here's how it seems to go:

    1. I claim that there is evidence to show that Psi Anomalies exist.
    2. You claim that Psi Anomalies don't exist because there is no evidence.
    3. I show you peer reviewed scientific experiments with imperial results and point you in the direction of first person accounts of people's experiences.
    4. You ignore the evidence, attack the people and claim, without investigation, that Psi Anomalies don't exist because you 'believe' Psi Anomalies can't exist.

    Tell me how that is different to a religious belief.

    Morning_star 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • there's evidence for bigfoot and santa claus too, but please don't tell me you'd believe in them toomonospaced
    • I believe in evidence, scientific method and an open mind.Morning_star
    • He is a fanaticyurimon
    • but you don't believe santa is real just because presents show up, right?monospaced
    • I also believe in those things, and have an open mind. But there are certain ridiculous limits to what I'd acceptmonospaced
    • What do you use to assess whether something is credible or not?Morning_star
    • credibility, lol

      I don't want to argue anymore      monospaced
    • Is it because of that Bigfoot video? ;)Morning_star
    • lol, no, because I don't think it's worth arguing anymoremonospaced
    • please don't dis bigfoot -- he's realGnash
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread