Trees with “Crown Shyness” Mysteriously Avoid Touching Each Other

Since they are all over physics and relatively well defined, I'd rather hear what about them makes you say that there is an "immaterial" element there.

Maaneli. What a freaking slouch. Show 'em your pubs, Steve001. Dazzle 'em!!!!!

Just pointing out he was all gung-ho about finding psi proof. I never explicitly  or implied he was a slouch. Now he's turned his mind to more  fruitful endeavors. Perhaps he'll return to it in the future.

Just pointing out he was all gung-ho about finding psi proof. I never explicitly  or implied he was a slouch. Now he's turned his mind to more  fruitful endeavors. Perhaps he'll return to it in the future.

Furthermore I had no problems with him investigating psi. My irritation lay in his believing his superior intellect would make him immune from his own biases.

Furthermore I had no problems with him investigating psi. My irritation lay in his believing his superior intellect would make him immune from his own biases.

“The things we dislike most in others are the characteristics we like least in ourselves.”

― Marian Keyes, Rachel's Holiday

An appropriate subject for this thread.

A sophisticated mechanism that allows plant roots to quickly respond to changes in soil conditions has been identified by an international research team.
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-08-hormonal...-soil.html

Wasn't Steve001 going to explain why his shading of immaterialists in his initial post was warranted?

All I see are posts that are continuing his stream of trolling insults where everyone but him is biased and some irrelevant link.

Of course I'm not surprised, he admitted on Skeptiko he has no ability in philosophy or science but continues to insist he has some special skeptic powers...dogmatic faith in materialism hardly makes one a "skeptic" in any relevant sense but it's a nice refuge for those who have no intellectual capacity yet want to pretend they are better than those who don't share their dogma.

All I see are posts that are continuing his stream of trolling insults where everyone but him is biased and some irrelevant link.

I'm pretty sure he's including himself in the statements about bias and the normality of fooling oneself (that's the point). 

Linda

Wasn't Steve001 going to explain why his shading of immaterialists in his initial post was warranted?

All I see are posts that are continuing his stream of trolling insults where everyone but him is biased and some irrelevant link.

Of course I'm not surprised, he admitted on Skeptiko he has no ability in philosophy or science but continues to insist he has some special skeptic powers...dogmatic faith in materialism hardly makes one a "skeptic" in any relevant sense but it's a nice refuge for those who have no intellectual capacity yet want to pretend they are better than those who don't share their dogma.

You're like President Trump; once someone gets under your skin you just keep attacking. 
As fls rightly pointed out, I did. 
The link is relevant because it shows a precise chemical mechanism, which may be how some trees maintain this crown gap. There's no need to postulate "fields" (whatever that means) or any other mechanism until the more likely one(s) are eliminated. 
Don't need philosophy to explain nature.

You're like President Trump; once someone gets under your skin you just keep attacking. 

More insults, still no actual explanation.

You don't really know what my first reply to Laird even means, your posting is as trollish and ignorant as ever.

As fls rightly pointed out, I did. 

You said while you were biased you were working from a position of knowledge....since you've admitted you have no scientific accomplishment and no philosophical ability (it was in a show thread on Skeptiko so if you want I can find it) that seems questionable.

The link is relevant because it shows a precise chemical mechanism, which may be how some trees maintain this crown gap. There's no need to postulate "fields" (whatever that means) or any other mechanism until the more likely one(s) are eliminated. 

So...you don't even know what fields are referring to, let alone anything else I was talking about. Well, not a surprise really.

Don't need philosophy to explain nature.

That in itself is a philosophical statement.

Please cut the political crap.