(2018-10-11, 05:39 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid this has finally convinced me that it's not appropriate to try to discuss the science of parapsychology in an online forum like this one. It's a waste of effort. I'm not going to try to do it any more.
Don't despair. For one thing, we all know that discussing any of this with Steve is a waste of time. As for Malf - yes, pretty cynical and sarcastic at times but he often zeroes in on a point worth considering. But we do need someone who understands the science as applied to parapsychology. In most science forums, parapsychology is summarily dismissed as a pseudo-science and in too many spiritual forums, blind faith and/or uninformed New Age beliefs ignore scientific research.
In all these cases, as with everyone here, there are assumptions that we hold dear. Scientists are not immune to assumptions either so we need some context when assessing the research. You have been good at providing that context. I don't always agree with the direction of your posts but I appreciate your efforts to clarify.
(2018-10-11, 07:39 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Don't despair. For one thing, we all know that discussing any of this with Steve is a waste of time. As for Malf - yes, pretty cynical and sarcastic at times but he often zeroes in on a point worth considering. But we do need someone who understands the science as applied to parapsychology. In most science forums, parapsychology is summarily dismissed as a pseudo-science and in too many spiritual forums, blind faith and/or uninformed New Age beliefs ignore scientific research.
In all these cases, as with everyone here, there are assumptions that we hold dear. Scientists are not immune to assumptions either so we need some context when assessing the research. You have been good at providing that context. I don't always agree with the direction of your posts but I appreciate your efforts to clarify.
Sorry, but I really do think it's a waste of time that could be better spent.
(2018-10-11, 07:07 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Could the reason be you see there's more wrong with its methodologies leading to claimed discoveries?
I feel silly for responding to this, but this is just a shameful response through and through. It’s as close to trolling as it could possibly get, if it isn’t trolling altogether.
And if your intent is not to troll, well... this is just a particularly good example of why it’s a huge waste of time trying to discuss things with you.
(2018-10-11, 08:17 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I feel silly for responding to this, but this is just a shameful response through and through. It’s as close to trolling as it could possibly get, if it isn’t trolling altogether.
And if your intent is not to troll, well... this is just a particularly good example of why it’s a huge waste of time trying to discuss things with you.
Tell us Dante why is their root assumption correct?
(2018-10-11, 07:42 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but I really do think it's a waste of time that could be better spent.
Maybe, maybe not. It's content for the forum. I always enjoy logging in with a cup of tea and reading everything no matter what it is, unless both sides of the argument are talking absolute bollocks...then of course it is a waste of time.
(2018-10-11, 09:00 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us Dante why is their root assumption correct?
Another totally irrelevant post. I didn’t say their root assumption was or was not correct, and this has absolutely nothing to do with your inane response to Chris. Keep on ignoring the actual discussion, as you always do.
(2018-10-11, 10:04 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]Another totally irrelevant post. I didn’t say their root assumption was or was not correct, and this has absolutely nothing to do with your inane response to Chris. Keep on ignoring the actual discussion, as you always do.
You might want to refresh your memory on some of the other critiques posted. I added one more. Btw, if you don't know that admission I quoted is said by Roger D. Nelson, whom isn't some random fellow on the web, he was the former director of the GCP.
Here's the quote again.
Quote:"the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to."
So Dante, either explain how the assumption is a valid starting point or stop being so damn righteous and admit you don't know squat.
(2018-10-11, 07:42 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but I really do think it's a waste of time that could be better spent.
Wait... What? This is meant to be a useful way to spend time?
C’mon Chris, don’t make me beg. If I’m just consigned to baiting Kamarling now and again, I’m out too.
(2018-10-11, 07:39 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]As for Malf - yes, pretty cynical and sarcastic at times but he often zeroes in on a point worth considering
The phrase ‘damning with faint praise’ comes to mind
Edit: I’ve just shown Mrs malf Kamarling’s comment and she thinks I should get it printed on a t-shirt.
Damn you. Damn you all!