altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

researcher wrote:

Michael Davis wrote:

altheim wrote:

[snips  where nothing further to say]

... there's more to science than just making up a snappy but
meaningless phrase like "psychotronic energy."

I agree - absolutely.

Then what has been the point of your involvement in this thread?

To say the following - if you would have a little patience:

In fact I said as much to researcher himself.
It is one thing to observe an anomalous effect, but the moment
you give it a name - like psi or psychotronic - you imply you
know its mechanism.

You imply a lot more than that. You might want to actually
determine that something really even exists before you go making
up names for it that imply an underlying mechanism, let alone a
mechanism as thoroughly debunked as psi.

I'm sorry to tell you but you poor stick-in-the-muds are the
remnants of nineteenth century science and the only people
left who think psi is debunked.

Do tell. So, where exactly has mainstream science ever embraced it, or even found the slightest trice of evidence that any of the alleged psychic powers even exist at all?

Got news for you, sparky. Only kooks believe in psi.

The trouble is, when you are at the
theorizing stage

You aren't at the theorizing stage. As I pointed out, you haven't
even reached the hypothesizing stage yet. You really need to read
up on the scientific method. A review of Carl Sagan's baloney
detection techniques would also be in order.

However technically correct that may be I won't get into a
pedantic argument over semantics.  In common usage
"theory" is perfectly acceptable, especially as the english
language doesn't offer an alternative.

Sure it does. You just don't know what you are talking about. Like I said, read up on it. The word "theory" has a very specific meaning, especially when used in the context of science.

General relativity is the most thoroughly tested and validated principal in the history of physics. Nobody in their right mind would claim it is wrong. And yet it still only rates the title of "theory." But here you are trying to elevate this silly, made-up, totally unconfirmed, psychotronic energy BS straight up to the same level as General Relativity. For shame! How many times do I have to tell you that "researcher's" BS doesn't even rate as a workable hypothesis before you begin to get it?

you *need* a name or label in order to convey
what you are theorizing about. Therefore, thoeorizers need a
little bit of lattitude in order to communicate.

Utter bullshit. Point out even one instance of scientists in peer
reviewed journals jumping to the wild conclusion that whole new
undiscovered forms of energy are needed to explain some anomaly
mentioned in some story they got third or fourth hand and was not
accompanied by any supporting evidence, let alone giving a cutesy
name to this alleged new energy. I'll wait while you head down to
the library.

It is attitudes like this that bring all progress to a halt.

You have got to be kidding me! What planet do you live on? I don't see progress grinding to a halt. Attitudes can't stand in the way of reality. You are just whining again. New ideas and discoveries that can be backed up with hard evidence and reproducible results get enthusiastically embraced and put to work every day. Look at how much things have changed during the course of your own lifetime (assuming of course that your physical age is something higher than your demonstrated mental age). The only fields that never progress are the ones with no basis in reality.

When
an anomaly is discovered it needs a name purely for reference.
It doesn't have to be first proven to exist in order to name it.

Failure to produce any examples from reality noted. You never did go down to the library, did you? Face it, you are just making up shit based on your dysfunctional ideas about how you think science *ought* to work.

You had better drop this or I might ask you to explain what a
unicorn is.

It is a creature with exactly as much hard evidence for its existence as there is for the existence of psychotronic energy and psi powers. In other words, it is a fictional fairytale thing.

It can be amusing to make believe such things exist, but never forget you are only making believe.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to

investigation."

Non sequitur. You have not actually investigated anything.

But it *is* relevant:

To whom?

The same people for whom you think it is non sequitor.

You mean kooks? Well lots of nonsensical things are somehow relevant to
them, but so what? How is it relevant here in the real world?

You are getting lost again -

No, I know exactly where I am, and I'm not in fantasy land like
you are.

or deliberately trying to obfuscate:
You said, to reiterate, that the above statement which, in short,
says that "contempt prior to investigation... keeps man in
everlasting ignorance" is non-sequitor, i.e. irrelevant.

It was irrelevant to the discussion. Now you are trying to make it
relevant by making it the topic of discussion. I reject your
attempt at topic drift.

Well, the fact is, it is a universal truth and it *is* relevant
here because you (though not only you) are showing
contempt for an idea *before* investigation.

Incorrect. I am showing contempt for "researcher's" *lack* of
investigation. He just barreled straight on ahead from a silly
notion he derived from unsubstantiated stories, onward to a whole
new form of energy complete with a snazzy name, without doing the
first iota of actual investigation himself. The men who authored
the quotes he posted, if alive today, would be on my side of the
argument, not yours and his.

Hm! well, be that as it may, researcher originally posted this
in alt.paranet.ufo and the paranet series is intended for postings
about the paranormal, so it is on-topic.

Strawman noted. I never said it was off topic. That doesn't make it any less moronic though.

Also, as I have said
elsewhere, an explanation is needed to explain ufo travel

Why? Nobody has yet proven UFOs are anything out of the ordinary. You do know what the U in UFO stands for, right? It stands for Unidentified. Unidentified does not equal alien spacecraft or whatever "researcher's" kooky "theory" du jour may be. It just means Unidentified. BFD. You are engaging in the equivalent of speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin without first even bothering to prove there even are any angels at all. That's called fantasizing. It's not science, it's not speculation, it's not debate, it's just fantasizing. HTH.

and
this is as good an attempt as any. It is certainly better than
theories about FTL machines or time travel.

No, it is just exactly as bad. There is no evidence that supports any one of these silly ideas over any of the others.

It is only
speculation, I know that and I think researcher knows that;
only you seem to think it is offered as a serious theory.

Yes, I think that's how he was offering it. That's also how you are defending it. In reality it is the worst sort of bunkum not worthy of serious consideration by any rational person.

And all are totally irrelevant to this discussion. "researcher" just
can't think of anything intelligent and relevant to say, so he panicked
and cut&pasted a bunch of irrelevant quotes from famous people in hopes
that his cowardly shotgun approach might hit something and impress
someone. Looks like he only managed to impress you. Everyone else seems
to see what a fool he is.

Oh! come on. Don't be so damn patronizing.

Request denied.

As you wish

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)