Random forum fighting thread

Well, that's after watching a ten minute video. Watch the whole documentary. 

No, it's your turn to watch a video on something I'm interested in now. 

Well, that's after watching a ten minute video. Watch the whole documentary. 

It wasn't simply inexplicable objects in the sky. It was the interference with the missiles too, it was the cover ups, the disappearance of paperwork etc. 

Why do most people remember where they were when big events happen, such as 9/11 or Diane's death. In my own case when the Scotland football team qualified for something.(My own attempt at humour) It's because they are important events. These events were huge in these men's lives. That's why I think they won't easily forget. They were highly trained, educated thoughtful men. This comes across in the interviews.

 Relevant to topic

No, it's your turn to watch a video on something I'm interested in now. 

I can smell the fear! 

I can smell the fear! 

I'm afraid it's beginning to be boredom you can smell. 

I'm afraid it's beginning to be boredom you can smell. 

Is it me your finding boring? If it is, that's fair enough. Or do you mean something else?

Just lately this site seems to be turning into "Science is Wrong" Mark 2. I wonder why people who think that are attracted to a site called "Psience Quest" in the first place.

Just lately this site seems to be turning into "Science is Wrong" Mark 2. I wonder why people who think that are attracted to a site called "Psience Quest" in the first place.

Much of science is non controversial so doesn't get mentioned here. Clearly some people come from a scientific background so want to see science expanded to account for the experiences and anomalies we discuss here. You are in effect, like so many ideological atheists and sceptics (and I'm not suggesting that you are one of them), accusing proponents of being anti-science because they challenge the orthodoxy. 

As far as I'm concerned, it is the assumption of materialism that I challenge. So long as scientists insist on science itself being confined to what they term naturalistic causes, then here will be dissent here, at Skeptiko and elsewhere. It isn't that science is wrong, it is that the base assumption of materialism needs to be challenged.

Just lately this site seems to be turning into "Science is Wrong" Mark 2. I wonder why people who think that are attracted to a site called "Psience Quest" in the first place.

I would just try to concentrate on the good stuff. And there's usually good stuff somewhere. 

Just lately this site seems to be turning into "Science is Wrong" Mark 2. I wonder why people who think that are attracted to a site called "Psience Quest" in the first place.

Perhaps people mean different things when they refer to science. I still have a rather quaint view of science starting from evidence. I also consider the other subjects of interest such as psi, consciousness, survival, reincarnation ... all of those start with evidence as the foundation.

Maybe other people hold that science is done by people, people are flawed and fallible, therefore science is flawed and fallible.

You pays yer money and takes yer choice.

Much of science is non controversial so doesn't get mentioned here. Clearly some people come from a scientific background so want to see science expanded to account for the experiences and anomalies we discuss here. You are in effect, like so many ideological atheists and sceptics (and I'm not suggesting that you are one of them), accusing proponents of being anti-science because they challenge the orthodoxy. 

No, I'm accusing them of being anti-science because their language is explicitly anti-science. One of Alex's recent podcasts was entitled "Why We Shouldn't Trust Science". Stan said on another thread that a phenomenon was for religious/spiritual types to ponder, because "scientists" had exempted themselves - he suggested it couldn't be investigated scientifically because "scientists" didn't believe in it. David Bailey continually criticises "science" when what he means is the scientific establishment.

Do they think parapsychologists aren't scientists, or do they think they are but we shouldn't trust them?