0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Who said that non-biological or non-physical processes cannot be studied scientifically ?QuoteThat's what we have been asking you to explain, how your theories can be studied scientifically! Explain that process instead of ranting about how science proper has been hijacked by materialists. I cannot watch all of the videos you posted links for because of bandwidth limits, but like you, Sheldrake's arguments that I have seen so far rest on the absence of other kinds of evidence. Sometimes lack of evidence prompts scientists to look for alternative explanations, which is entirely reasonable. If a new disease appears to be infectious in nature, and you can't culture it on any bacterial agar or find it under the microscope, it may be time to start looking for viruses or other types of pathogens, or even something in the environment linked to all of the patients . That still doesn't mean you have completely ruled out, 100% that it's a bacteria. When Legionnaires disease cropped up, they couldn't culture it on standard media, and couldn't see it under the microscope until one enterprising microbiologist used an old, uncommonly used stain called a silver stain, and there it was in all the patients' specimens and not there in the control samples. Even if lack of evidence prompts a scientist to look elsewhere for answers, in the end, the validity of his theory rests on evidence that directly supports it. If one proposes that fibromyalgia is caused by evil garden gnomes, the credibility of the claim rests on evidence regarding garden gnomes, not the fact that so far no virus or autoimmune process explains it. See the difference?
That's what we have been asking you to explain, how your theories can be studied scientifically! Explain that process instead of ranting about how science proper has been hijacked by materialists. I cannot watch all of the videos you posted links for because of bandwidth limits, but like you, Sheldrake's arguments that I have seen so far rest on the absence of other kinds of evidence. Sometimes lack of evidence prompts scientists to look for alternative explanations, which is entirely reasonable. If a new disease appears to be infectious in nature, and you can't culture it on any bacterial agar or find it under the microscope, it may be time to start looking for viruses or other types of pathogens, or even something in the environment linked to all of the patients . That still doesn't mean you have completely ruled out, 100% that it's a bacteria. When Legionnaires disease cropped up, they couldn't culture it on standard media, and couldn't see it under the microscope until one enterprising microbiologist used an old, uncommonly used stain called a silver stain, and there it was in all the patients' specimens and not there in the control samples. Even if lack of evidence prompts a scientist to look elsewhere for answers, in the end, the validity of his theory rests on evidence that directly supports it. If one proposes that fibromyalgia is caused by evil garden gnomes, the credibility of the claim rests on evidence regarding garden gnomes, not the fact that so far no virus or autoimmune process explains it. See the difference?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/09/2013 12:39:41Who said that non-biological or non-physical processes cannot be studied scientifically ?QuoteThat's what we have been asking you to explain, how your theories can be studied scientifically! Explain that process instead of ranting about how science proper has been hijacked by materialists. I cannot watch all of the videos you posted links for because of bandwidth limits, but like you, Sheldrake's arguments that I have seen so far rest on the absence of other kinds of evidence. Sometimes lack of evidence prompts scientists to look for alternative explanations, which is entirely reasonable. If a new disease appears to be infectious in nature, and you can't culture it on any bacterial agar or find it under the microscope, it may be time to start looking for viruses or other types of pathogens, or even something in the environment linked to all of the patients . That still doesn't mean you have completely ruled out, 100% that it's a bacteria. When Legionnaires disease cropped up, they couldn't culture it on standard media, and couldn't see it under the microscope until one enterprising microbiologist used an old, uncommonly used stain called a silver stain, and there it was in all the patients' specimens and not there in the control samples. Even if lack of evidence prompts a scientist to look elsewhere for answers, in the end, the validity of his theory rests on evidence that directly supports it. If one proposes that fibromyalgia is caused by evil garden gnomes, the credibility of the claim rests on evidence regarding garden gnomes, not the fact that so far no virus or autoimmune process explains it. See the difference?Try to fix your post first : What you still are not able to get so far , amazingly enough, even if it is in fact an extremely easy thing to understand , is that: science proper and materialism as a secular religion in science are 2 totally different things , materialism that gets sold to the people as science proper ,ironically incredibly enough , materialism that gets confused with science proper , with science results and facts , by many people , including yourself : how can't you see the difference , folks ? When reasonable people are confronted with these facts , they first oppose them , deny them as such , ridicule them (That's a normal process ) ,simply because the materialist brainwash and indoctrination in that regard are so powerful and widespread ....and then they accept them as obvious evidence afterwards, in total contrast with you , people, of all people : Unbelievable lack of understanding of yours that should be reason enough to ban you from any science forum for that matter ,sorry .See what Sheldrake and Nagel, among others , had/have to say on the subject as well, while you are it .I am not gonna do the job for you , (try to read what Sheldrake has to say here above in that book of his on the subject , i did quote ), since you cannot even understand simple facts and statements, people with below -average- intellect can .Why should i bother then ?I am not gonna waste my time on people who cannot even acknowledge or recognize obvious simple facts ...Got better things to do than that ...I'm fed up with you , guys .Try to figure all that out for yourselves ,or not , who cares ...Science proper will be liberated from materialism as a secular religion , no doubt about that = inevitable = only a question of time ... then, and only then, whole unimaginable new vistas would open up for science proper , the latter that has been seriously handicaped and held back within that materialistic backward dogmatic belief system prison it gotta be liberated from, sooner or later , your silly denials and unbelievable lack of understanding on the subject won't prevent science proper from breaking free from that despicable untrue materialism as a false world view or ideology , as a misconception of nature ................Don't bother responding to this post , you will get no eventual reply in return,for obvious reasons .Ciao
Regardless of what you think I "get," or don't get, I stand by my challenge, because I know you can't explain how your theories can be studied scientifically. It's not that I don't understand the words that you are saying, it's that I don't agree with them, incredible as that must seem to some one as arrogant as you.
Life is short. Don't spend all of it here.
Quote from: cheryl j on 29/09/2013 23:36:00Regardless of what you think I "get," or don't get, I stand by my challenge, because I know you can't explain how your theories can be studied scientifically. It's not that I don't understand the words that you are saying, it's that I don't agree with them, incredible as that must seem to some one as arrogant as you. He puts me in mind of Macbeth's description of life (soliloquy; Act 5, Scene 5, lines 24-28)
"Dude, instead of writing these kindda absurd whole lengthy posts that make no sense whatsoever , just try to understand what the core issue here is ,we have been talking about :"Absurd? This "dude" finished complaining about my "lengthy" post before putting up 19 pages (yes folks, that's Nineteen!) of cut'n'paste. One rule for us, one for you? Now what sort of person does that?Young fellow, from where you stand the truth of these ridiculous conspiracy theories is as plain as the nose on your face or the air that you breath - so obvious that they cannot be rejected any more than sunlight can, so they can only be misunderstood. Just look at your answers: "You don't understand", "These people don't get it", "I can't believe that intelligent etc....". You don't challenge peoples arguments when they disagree with you, you challenge their intelligence. Now what sort of person does that?You do not have enough reason or humility to accept that people REJECT your proposition - they see no conspiracy, they see nothing wrong with the way science is going - and you see that rejection as meaning that we can't understand. You sound like the little boy saying, "Of course my dads the strongest, and if you don't know that then you're stupid.".There is tons of this rubbish in the "new" religious press; books slamming "the science of materialism", "materialist dogma/paradigm in science", all backed up with silly yeah-but-no-but arguments and ridiculous, pompous nonsense about how "science sees itself". Unreasoned, knee-jerk reaction from people who, like you, are not able to question "The Truth" that they learned as children; fools who are afraid that science is "against God", out to disprove God or some such nonsense.Your idea is rejected, not misunderstood. What sort of a person has such a problem with rejection?I don't really care whether you're a scientist or not, I would be more interested in your age, because you "debate" like a typically invincible, know-it-all teenager.Ah. That sort of person.
No further comment , that would be just an utter waste of time .Do you read what you write ? Unbelievable non-sense .How can any sane average person for that matter utter such an amount of non-sense in 1 single post : amazing .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 19:55:28No further comment , that would be just an utter waste of time .Do you read what you write ? Unbelievable non-sense .How can any sane average person for that matter utter such an amount of non-sense in 1 single post : amazing .Ipsi dixit, nemine contradicente.
Facts are , per definition, indeniable .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/10/2013 20:45:16Facts are , per definition, indeniable .Well, not if they're inaccurate or unproven.