"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:

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?

Well, there's the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
program for instance or the Consciousness Research facility
in the University of Nevada and right here in Britain we have
the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh. If I had the time
and patience, I could go on to name many dozens more in almost
every civilised country in the world. All these require and receive
funding that would hardly be available if their authorities were
not convinced of the existence of an anomaly - a phenomenon
that required explanation.

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

Haha whatever...

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?

"How many times"? That depends on how much more pedantic
you want to be. I will continue to use "theory" in the common usage
sense whether you like it or not.

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.

Fortunately that is because there are not too many people about who
share your dogmatism.

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.

You poor dumb cluck, you fell right into the trap didn't you. I didn't
have to tell you what I meant by "unicorn", you knew right away that
it is a fictitious creature and that it is just a name for a "fairytale thing"
yet you use the name all the time without a second thought.


[...]

...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.

It doesn't matter whether or not they can be proved. The point is
there is a possibility that ET UFOs exist and this is the place to
discuss them. Live with it.

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.

Yes I'm defending it. I'm defending it because I believe in free
speech. I can see faults in his theory but that doesn't make the
whole concept wrong. I am certainly not qualifed to debunk it.

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

--
altheim