"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:

altheim wrote:

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

researcher wrote:

Michael Davis wrote:

altheim wrote:

[snips  where nothing further to say]

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

Which has come up empty.

or the Consciousness Research facility
in the University of Nevada

Which has come up empty.

and right here in Britain we have
the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh.

Which has come up empty.

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 of which have come up empty.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you if all
you can do make bald contradictions. Any fool can do
that and it is obviously your style.

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.

You aren't really that stupid, are you? Convincing gullible people with
money to part with some of it is the specialty of the paranormal
fraudsters. Success at bilking people out of money does not equal
success at proving any sort of anomaly really exists. Sheesh!

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

[...]

"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.

Translation: You intend to continue making a fool of yourself.

I don't mind trading the occasional insult but unlike you I don't
resort to insult when I've lost the argument. You just make yourself
look a prat.

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.

You are wrong twice in one sentence. First off, there are a lot more
skeptics than you think. All scientists are skeptics for a start.
Secondly, I have no dogmas. It's simply that skeptics accept as true
only that which can be proven. If you see such a rational approach as
dogmatic, then you could stand a big dose of dogmatism yourself.

True sceptics are sceptical for very good, well considered reasons -
dogmatists are NOT true sceptics as they are, for some deeply
psychological reason, unable to adapt to new data or data which
happens to conflict with their own deeply ingrained beliefs. This
appears to be the case with you.

If you were not, by your own admission, here merely for kicks I
should describe you as a mental cripple, but deep down,
you know I am right else you would do a better job of countering
my arguments.

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.

So I'm the one in the trap, eh?

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.

Um, was there some point hidden in there? I thought that comparing
"researcher's" BS to a unicorn was very appropriate.

<sigh> The point is that you were disputing the need for a name,
e.g. Psi, for observed natural anomalies - on the grounds that psi
doesn't exist yet you readily use the name "unicorn" even though
you know it does not exist.

[...]

...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.

Of course it matters.

The point is
there is a possibility that ET UFOs exist and this is the place to
discuss them. Live with it.

No. until you prove UFOs are anything out of the ordinary, there is no
possibility they are anything extraordinary. Unidentified still only
means unidentified.

Of course it does but most rational people accept that the
possibility of them being of extraterrestrial origin is only
speculation.

But still it is exciting speculation and until the many questions
relating to ufos have been answered the speculation will go on.

I understand that later this year the British MoD is to release
hitherto secret files on ufos.

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.

But only for kooks, eh? Skeptics and debunkers aren't allowed
to respond to their nuttyness?

Hey! when did I ever say or imply that? Surely it follows that
if I am on one side I am going to get into more arguments with
the other.

I can see faults in his theory but that doesn't make the
whole concept wrong.

I disagree. I think the big, glaring, fault that there is no sane reason
to believe UFOs are ET spacecraft totally invalidates his theory.

From a BBC program about ufos shown just yesterday on TV
several filmed examples were hugely suggestive of ET presence.

Two air force ex-pilots described their sightings, including film
from on-board cameras, and described how they were later
interviewed by MoD officials and warned the information was
MoD property and not to discuss them with anyone. In another
example involving US military personnel at a UK base, filmed
recordings were shown and described by the soldiers. It is only
now, that the information is to be released that they could talk
about it.

I think these, among many other unrelated examples from other
sources, and in default of a more mudane reason, are are
perfectly sane reasons for accepting an extraterrestrial origin.

Even if that weren't the case, even minor flaws can totally sink a theory.
Newtonian mechanics worked very well, but couldn't explain an amazingly
tiny anomaly in the orbit of Mercury. This and other very minor flaws
ultimately sank the whole thing and prompted Einstein to reinvent physics.

Einstein didn't re-invent physics, he just showed a better way of
understanding it.  Psi is not about changing physics - it is just a
matter of understanding it in terms of physics.

I am certainly not qualifed to debunk it.

Well that much at least is true. Your almost pathological level of
credulity certainly disqualifies you from being able to debunk much of
anything.

You don't understand irony do you. I was trying to tell you that if
I, with my better knowledge of parapsychology and psychical
research, am not qualified to debunk researcher's theory, then
you most certainly aren't.

--
altheim