|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 13:56:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 13:57:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 14:00:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 14:06:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 14:07:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 14:10:37 GMT -5
<yawn> Sources? It's even stupider not providing this evidence you talk about. Especially even after having been repeatedly asked for it. I don't think it would any difference whether it's dogmatic doubters or true believers. Both stick to their faith regardless of any evidence. However, Talisman, I will go and provide you with the evidence. When I do so what will you say in reply? In the meantime you might try reading a book (I forget the author) called 'Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science.' You don't seem to get it, Linda. There's plenty of very well-known evidence of fraud and some scientists. What I'm asking for is evidence supporting YOUR claims, not theirs. I treat them the same way I treat parapsychology, superstition, astrology, religion, and mumbo-jumbo in general. I must say it's taking you and Mike a helluva long time to present any. And no wonder: you didn't even give me Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science is a book by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, published in 1982 by Simon & Schuster in New York, ISBN 0671447696. Very first hit on Google. But I know Mike doesn't trust Web sources. He said so. You as well?
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 14:12:39 GMT -5
I read books all the time, Linda. Anyone here not read books? I'll look at your link shortly.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 14:14:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 14:17:24 GMT -5
To assume that something is mumbo-jumbo WITHOUT examining the evidence is behaving just like the people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
It's being superstitious and allowing your prejudices and beliefs to count for more than your reason and willingness to accept unpleasant facts.
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 15:02:25 GMT -5
To assume that something is mumbo-jumbo WITHOUT examining the evidence is behaving just like the people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. I called it mumbo-jumbo long ago, Linda, even before you'd provided anything at all. What unpleasant facts? I'd love to believe in all that stuff, just as I'd love to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the benefits of privatising the railways, and the rest of the Tory fantasies we're going to be saddled with. (Tory = New Labour in this context. And most others.)
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Mar 6, 2011 15:06:35 GMT -5
I called it mumbo-jumbo long ago, Linda, even before you'd provided anything at all.
Which just proves that you don't have an open mind on the subject and you can't tell the difference between looking at the evidence or arguing rationally and just throwing bucketloads of meaningless abuse.
What unpleasant facts? I'd love to believe in all that stuff, just as I'd love to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the benefits of privatising the railways, and the rest of the Tory fantasies we're going to be saddled with. (Tory = New Labour in this context. And most others.)[/quote][/b]
The unpleasant facts that telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance and precognition have been demonstrated more than enough times to the extent that if (for instance) the evidence concerned something like the breeding habits of mice it would have been universally accepted long ago.
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 15:14:03 GMT -5
Feeble, to be generous. Unless I'm missing something. Would you like to summarise the cogent facts, Linda? This is the item's own conclusion: " The only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative."
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 15:23:48 GMT -5
I called it mumbo-jumbo long ago, Linda, even before you'd provided anything at all.Which just proves that you don't have an open mind on the subject and you can't tell the difference between looking at the evidence or arguing rationally and just throwing bucketloads of meaningless abuse. I'm not the one throwing any abuse, Linda. That's you and Mike. My mind is, since you mention it, a lot more open than you've demonstrated so far, and, since you mention it, I haven't seen any rationality in your argument yet. Who's being abusive here? What unpleasant facts? I'd love to believe in all that stuff, just as I'd love to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the benefits of privatising the railways, and the rest of the Tory fantasies we're going to be saddled with. (Tory = New Labour in this context. And most others.)I'm ploughing through your sources, but I've seen nothing even remotely substantial yet. I promise I'll keep delving. Is this abuse?
|
|
|
Post by talisman on Mar 6, 2011 15:41:19 GMT -5
" Later researchers have tried to get their hands on the original data to carry out a re-analysis , but it has become 'unavailable' and so the mystery remains." " Studies using varying methodologies have continued through the last three decades. While many remain unconvinced, saying the results are inconclusive, there is still enough encouragement to keep parapsychologists interested." Looks like a religion to me. " Like it or not, though, we're a society of sceptics now." Wouldn't you just know it — it's that pesky education and literacy again! Onward, through the fog!
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 6, 2011 15:44:40 GMT -5
I think dreams are imagery spill-over of what we experience, think and feel, but may not take time to work into conscious thought, during wake hours. It's the only thing that makes sense.
jmo
|
|