Ted Serios

38 Replies, 6409 Views

(2017-09-07, 08:18 PM)Brian Wrote: I'm willing to stop but are there any sources that will be accepted by the proponents here that are not biased in their favour?

How about referring directly to the original sources?
This post has been deleted.
(2017-09-07, 08:45 PM)Typoz Wrote: How about referring directly to the original sources?

I should add that I'm not really a 'proponent' as such. In very many topics I am neutral and find the discussions interesting, especially when evidence is evaluated. For example I recently discussed some photographic evidence. But that doesn't mean I am a proponent of either that topic in general, or of that specific case. I'm usually a bystander in most discussions, with no axe to grind on the subject itself. I am however concerned that evidence is assessed on its own merits, and not on the basis on either my own or anyone else's prior opinions.
[-] The following 2 users Like Typoz's post:
  • Laird, Brian
This post has been deleted.
(2017-09-07, 08:18 PM)Brian Wrote: I'm willing to stop but are there any sources that will be accepted by the proponents here that are not biased in their favour?

This is a very important paper that should be taken seriously by both proponents and skeptics:

W. A. H. Rushton. (1968). Serios Photos: If Contrary to Natural Law, Which Law? Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 44: 289-293.

I will try and upload it online so we can all discuss it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Fake Leuders's post:
  • Brian
This post has been deleted.
This post has been deleted.
I consider myself a proponent. But I'm not interested in seeing any person, place or thing banned.
If rational wiki can come up with a lucid and compelling refutation, I'm all ears . Otherwise it seems(in my experience) fairly effortless to dismiss their nonsense.
(2017-09-07, 09:58 AM)jkmac Wrote: I haven't. Would it be worth my time? or am I better off looking elsewhere for useful info?

You would be reading a pastiche of New Age -No, more "out there" than just New Age...- arguments peppered with references that are *way* more conservative when discussing anything resembling the point that Deepak wants to make. But, just as our bard says of RW, I suppose that he isn't "lying" per se... Just extrapolating to a wild extent and omitting the other side.

However, I must make an exception for some of the papers where he appears as a "co-author"... Those that are mostly written by the other party (his "Quantum (Orch-OR) soul" paper with Hammeroff, for example, was quite tame).
"Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before..."
(This post was last modified: 2017-09-08, 12:10 AM by E. Flowers.)

  • View a Printable Version


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)