"The_Sage" <a.b@c.com> wrote in message
news:osvtn01goa9dos2moj6v553d1oa4n8qvi3@4ax.com...

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

the source I initially used was my memories from school but if you will type
scientific method into yahoo's search engine all the first five sites(that's
as far as i went) will state what I did above in more or less the same words
and same way , some add a fifth step
5 repeat until all the data fits

I know your so desparate to talk to anyone but don't you get tired of always
being wrong?>

=============================================================
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
=============================================================