Science
Out of context: Reply #298
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- Morning_star0
@ukit2
I'm guessing that you have no wish to understand or interrogate the evidence? Like most who have a problem supporting a weak argument your attempt to focus on the 'people' is an admission that either you haven't looked at the data or you have looked at the data and you don't like what it says. The data/evidence is all that counts, it doesn't matter if it was collected by Albert Einstein or Father Christmas. The authority of the source of the information, is again, irrelevant as long as the evidence has been collected using accepted scientific method and is available to interrogate. You're right about The National Enquirer vs The Guardian, but you'd be a fool to accept anything either source say without understanding the facts that support their claims.
I view Chopra in the same way as I view Dawkins and others, essentially they are media friendly rent-a-mouths who are wheeled in to spout polarising views. That however doesn't mean that they have nothing important to say or have no valuable experience. Dawkins and Chopra can be eloquent, interesting and insightful, but stick a camera or a microphone in front of them and they tend to default to fundamentalist arse, which I imagine, is exactly why we see so much of them.