Reply to article by: "rick nielsen" <rnielsen@centurytel.net>
Date written: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:06:37 -0400
MsgID:<wZWdnX0vALhFUODcRVn-pA@centurytel.net>

The whole scientific comminity defines ghosts and UFOs are paranormal. You are
the only retard who thinks otherwise.

Liar, ask James Oberg if he thinks UFO's are paranormal.

And so James Oberg is "the whole scientific community" now? Wrong again! Not
even close! An exception to the rule is not the rule.

In the scientific method an exception to a rule negates the rule.

You didn't cite the scientific method in anything you've said yet.

why I just did above there

No you didn't. I see no references to any legitimate textbooks or authorities.

scientific method has nothing to do with appealling to authrorities

Then that negates your reference to James Oberg then. Nicely done.

noone called on him as a authority just an exception which negated you
''rule''

Likewise, no one called it a scientific law, it was an observation, so an
exception isn't a breaking a rule, it is noise. You cannot argue against the
fact that the scientific community, as a whole, has never considered UFOs and
ghosts as paranormal, so you go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the
topic. I'm leaving it at that unless you can prove that my observation is
flawed, which one person won't do it, you will have to cite whole ogranizations.

And I asked you what the scientific method is, not to perform it...and that
requires that you demonstrate some legitimate research that has been peer
reviewed by the appropriate people.

the scientific method is

1 observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomenon

2 formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomenon

3 use of the hypothesis to predict the existance of other phenomenon or
predict new the results of new observations of the phenomenon

4 performance of experimental tests of the predictions by independant
experimenters

hardly takes a text book to understand

If you believe that the scientific method can be summarized in four simple
steps, you are way more ignorant than I thought you could ever be. You aren't
even close.

actually that is the standard defination of the scientfic method so I quess
we know who is showing there ignorance all the rest the peer review and the
Journals are communication facilitators >

Please cite your source of your "standard". I predict you will fail. Again.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================