johnyudodis
New
This guy is really annoying me anyone got a good response for him?
SKEPTIC: Anything can be influenced by beliefs though. A person being an atheist or theist could influence scientists, but for the most part it just determines what areas attract them more. The internet is dodgy when it comes to validity, it would have to come from an appropriate source. I still don't see ESP or PSI as valid areas for research. Things that have been researched for almost 100 years, yet are treated as if they are something new. And I can guarantee you that there has been no proven evidence produced by in a controlled laboratory. State it otherwise. Why would we research an area that has almost had a century to be researched and yielded no positive results? The general public are really out of touch with experts. You never see reputable psychologists on tv, it's always bullshit Dr Phil or Oprah Winfrey shit. But the people discovering these things have also been experts, not everyone is going to immediately agree, but when evidence appears and be replicated then the people stop scoffing. Also the biggest contributors on those subjects are actual scientists who have proven them to be false after trying to see if the could be true like the amazing randi who offered 1 million dollars to anyone who could come to him and prove claims of things they lay outside science. He's still waiting.That money is also being held by JREF in a New York investment account lol. You said as well 'from personal experience' but science does not use personal experience as evidence only as indication of an area which may be interesting to investigate further, that's it. Case studies and testimonials are useless as evidence. And more more thing Randi has contributed a lot to critical thinking and how science should be approached. To just call him a glorified atheist is a bit unfair. He is a prime example of someone who shows the skewed public perception when it comes to science. I did not say he was a scientist. What I've read of him is actually very good. And he comes at things from a different perspective. I have read the rules. All the things you are stating are hypothetical and just speculation. He is not a fraud though, give evidence for that. Science does not say that about gay men. I still hold my point, I'd like to see evidence which supports PSI because I have not heard of any in all the decades of research. I think you give in to easily to public perception. PSI is a field which has produced no positive results in a controlled experiment agreed by two opposing parties. It should be considered as something not worth wasting more time on like alchemy, astrology, theurgy etc. I think by stating otherwise, you are being won over by something which is detrimental to scientific progress. And its a shame that many members of the public believe this ESP and PSI nonesense. The rules are not questionable. All that its asking for is a controlled experiment, which PSI advocates hate. And doesn't state they have all rights to the results, its just that they can freely use the material. Science is meant to be free knowledge, and for god sake he's giving away a million dollars.I haven't read up on 'one side of the argument', I've read up on parapsychology and there is absolutely no basis for belief in it. At least do me the courtesy of linking me some accurate information or give me some books to read on it, which prove otherwise. To think that all scientists have some sort of vendetta is a preposterous idea. I'm not being arrogant by saying pseudoscience, it's a common belief. If something does not fall within the realm of science what should you call it if not non science or pseudoscience. I'm just saying that things like parapsychology are attractive to the public, whereas real science can seem stale. Yes, but science deals with what evidence we have, a lack of evidence can't be used. If something is studied for 90 years without producing any real evidence, it isn't a good sign. That's all I'm saying. When do we decide that something is not worth studying? We don't believe in pseudoscience or non science like alchemy now, as I said previous. And I've studied a lot about it as well, and as much as I like the idea of the philosophers stone, it's a romanticized notion.
SKEPTIC: Anything can be influenced by beliefs though. A person being an atheist or theist could influence scientists, but for the most part it just determines what areas attract them more. The internet is dodgy when it comes to validity, it would have to come from an appropriate source. I still don't see ESP or PSI as valid areas for research. Things that have been researched for almost 100 years, yet are treated as if they are something new. And I can guarantee you that there has been no proven evidence produced by in a controlled laboratory. State it otherwise. Why would we research an area that has almost had a century to be researched and yielded no positive results? The general public are really out of touch with experts. You never see reputable psychologists on tv, it's always bullshit Dr Phil or Oprah Winfrey shit. But the people discovering these things have also been experts, not everyone is going to immediately agree, but when evidence appears and be replicated then the people stop scoffing. Also the biggest contributors on those subjects are actual scientists who have proven them to be false after trying to see if the could be true like the amazing randi who offered 1 million dollars to anyone who could come to him and prove claims of things they lay outside science. He's still waiting.That money is also being held by JREF in a New York investment account lol. You said as well 'from personal experience' but science does not use personal experience as evidence only as indication of an area which may be interesting to investigate further, that's it. Case studies and testimonials are useless as evidence. And more more thing Randi has contributed a lot to critical thinking and how science should be approached. To just call him a glorified atheist is a bit unfair. He is a prime example of someone who shows the skewed public perception when it comes to science. I did not say he was a scientist. What I've read of him is actually very good. And he comes at things from a different perspective. I have read the rules. All the things you are stating are hypothetical and just speculation. He is not a fraud though, give evidence for that. Science does not say that about gay men. I still hold my point, I'd like to see evidence which supports PSI because I have not heard of any in all the decades of research. I think you give in to easily to public perception. PSI is a field which has produced no positive results in a controlled experiment agreed by two opposing parties. It should be considered as something not worth wasting more time on like alchemy, astrology, theurgy etc. I think by stating otherwise, you are being won over by something which is detrimental to scientific progress. And its a shame that many members of the public believe this ESP and PSI nonesense. The rules are not questionable. All that its asking for is a controlled experiment, which PSI advocates hate. And doesn't state they have all rights to the results, its just that they can freely use the material. Science is meant to be free knowledge, and for god sake he's giving away a million dollars.I haven't read up on 'one side of the argument', I've read up on parapsychology and there is absolutely no basis for belief in it. At least do me the courtesy of linking me some accurate information or give me some books to read on it, which prove otherwise. To think that all scientists have some sort of vendetta is a preposterous idea. I'm not being arrogant by saying pseudoscience, it's a common belief. If something does not fall within the realm of science what should you call it if not non science or pseudoscience. I'm just saying that things like parapsychology are attractive to the public, whereas real science can seem stale. Yes, but science deals with what evidence we have, a lack of evidence can't be used. If something is studied for 90 years without producing any real evidence, it isn't a good sign. That's all I'm saying. When do we decide that something is not worth studying? We don't believe in pseudoscience or non science like alchemy now, as I said previous. And I've studied a lot about it as well, and as much as I like the idea of the philosophers stone, it's a romanticized notion.