When Science Shouts to the Deaf II

[EE THr]

k , if you say so, sigh. Just going around in circles on unprovable things.

don Jose de La Mancha

That's right. Unprovable things will always go around in a circle.


But, the LRL makers are advertising provable things. And that's what they are trying to sell. And that's what they are charging money for. And that's the problem!

Have you ever seen an LRL ad that says, "It's supposed to work, but it's never been proven to"?

I don't think so!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Have you ever seen an LRL ad that says, "It's supposed to work, but it's never been proven to"?

No I have not…But I have saw reports from 100’s of users that say that they do work..

 

[EE THr]

artie---

That's nice, and I'm not claiming that you haven't seen all those.

But that's a #13 on the list.







ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

13. The CA may also claim that "testimonials" are proof, when obviously they are not.

No they are not proof,…Just the fact the consumers are happy with the devices..No Fraud..art

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Written testimonials are not even proof that people are happy. They are only words printed on a page.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Written testimonials are not even proof that people are happy. They are only words printed on a page.

Thank You for pointing out your flaws…

 

[EE THr]

artie---

Congratulations!

That's a new combo for you!

That's a #7 combined with a #18! Amazing!

Care to try for a triple?






ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Written testimonials are not even proof that people are happy. They are only words printed on a page.

Is this a triple ?
they are not proof,…Just the fact the consumers are happy with the devices..No Fraud..

 

[EE THr]

Anybody can print a bunch of names and stories on paper.

How do you know any of those people are real?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

EE, you posted --> But if it needs a person to hold it, it's a dowsing rod. Simple
*****************
Hmm, if it needs a person to operate it, it is an automobile instead of aircraft. Logic

don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

EE, you posted --> If the difference can be acknowledged, then it can be seen that a few good people do not represent the subject of Psychiatry.
************
Nor do a few bad ones represent the subject.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

Cars and planes have both been remotely controled, with success.

 

[EE THr]

EE, you posted --> If the difference can be acknowledged, then it can be seen that a few good people do not represent the subject of Psychiatry.
************
Nor do a few bad ones represent the subject.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Somebody didn't watch the video, did they?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

EE also posted --> And you folks have to insult anyone questioning the scientific validity of the makers' so-called scientific explanations of how they work, instead of showing any actual defined electronic theory that would explain it.
************* y
Yet you claim that they shouldn't question science's (?) data , opinion, or proofs as related to the subject in hand.? Hmm open mind?

Also when are you going to be educated enough to stop trying to use conventional electronics data and terms in an only distantly related field.

Should vaguely related data (?) such as you have posted, suggest that we use MOX's characteristics to question your version of electronics?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EE also posted -->because Psychology isn't a real Science.
*************
Interesting, just what IS real science? I always understood science was the study of nature, the Universe, or anything. Essentially a small boy pulling the wings off of a poor fly to study it's reactions is a scientist. Science does not need a prestigious title, which in itself often is an anchor of freedom of thought or experiments.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

EE also posted --> And you folks have to insult anyone questioning the scientific validity of the makers' so-called scientific explanations of how they work, instead of showing any actual defined electronic theory that would explain it.
************* y
Yet you claim that they shouldn't question science's (?) data , opinion, or proofs as related to the subject in hand.? Hmm open mind?

Also when are you going to be educated enough to stop trying to use conventional electronics data and terms in an only distantly related field.

Should vaguely related data (?) such as you have posted, suggest that we use MOX's characteristics to question your version of electronics?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EE also posted -->because Psychology isn't a real Science.
*************
Interesting, just what IS real science? I always understood science was the study of nature, the Universe, or anything. Essentially a small boy pulling the wings off of a poor fly to study it's reactions is science. Science does not need a prestigious title, which in itself often is an anchor of freedom of thought or experiments.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I'm saying that people should question pseudoscience. They can question science, too, but if their questions are realistic, they will get satisfactory answers.

The problem being, when the LRLers try to use Science as proof, because their conclusions are not based on premises of Scientific fact.

You can define science many ways, but to use Science means that you are following Scientific standards, which are well defined. And to drift off from the standards of Science, and still try to call it Science, is simply a lie, by definition.

I use conventional electronics to rebut the LRLers theories, because they claim to use conventional electronics to prove their claims. You can't have one without the other. If they are going to make up things, then they should not call them facts. As soon as they use their made up "science" to try to prove anything, they are then claiming their Science Fiction to be fact. I don't think anyone would argue that doing so just doesn't work. Not within the realm of sanity, anyway!

What's a MOX? Which data do you consider to be vaguely related?

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

ref: Science, Wikipedia

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI EE need more than one cuppa , been running all over the country, 450 miles yesterday----ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

K as was stated some posts back, the lrl'rs are into an effectually newer branch of nature, so they are feeling their way. They can only explain to themselves what is happening by conventional electronic theory. However it is already passing beyond conventional electronic theory, so normal E Theory an it's findings, rules, formula may not apply

As an example, explain to me how you identify a particular piece of gold Jewelry among many identical ones in a jewelry shop using electronic theory and it's laws.

But then many a scientific lead has branched off of it's original concept as it evolved. I believe that the inventor of the stickem posts / notes, started out with the idea of a universal solvent, then looking at his failure, some one came up with the idea of using it for a multi million industry, using it for something that wasn't even imagined originally.

so is it with advancements with conventional science.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

I'm saying that people should question pseudoscience.

Thank You EE THr…For giving us the definition of a skeptic..No scientific facts or proof to rely on. Nothing but a brief system that is out of wack and personal opinions..Thank you very much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, homeopathy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

We've covered all this before, several times.

But seeing as we're friends, and you seem exhausted from traveling, I'll do it one more time.

I realize that new innovations exist, and are the results of bright ideas and experiments. I also realize that there have been many accidental discoveries. But innovations and discoveries both have one thing in common---ultimately they work!

When some concept is said to be "pushing forward," it means that they are achieving certain proven stepping stones along the way.

If the LRL makers want to use Science as the only proof of their validity, then they must use standard Science, not hunches, and theories, which they try to claim as fact.

If the LRL makers want to venture outside of known Science, and they still can't prove-out their product, then they should state that in their advertisements. (Duh.)

Get yourself some rest!

 

[EE THr]

I'm saying that people should question pseudoscience.

Thank You EE THr…For giving us the definition of a skeptic..No scientific facts or proof to rely on. Nothing but a brief system that is out of wack and personal opinions..Thank you very much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, homeopathy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy

I'm sorry, old buddy, but your replys and rebuttals are getting to be so far from relating to the actual subject and data in my posts, that it's not really a discussion any more.

Your comments stand as their own evidence.

And yes, there is a number for that on the Predictable Pattern of Con Artists, but you don't seem to be fazed by the fact that I have totally predicted your conformin behavior, and just carry on as though nobody knows what your angle is. Yeah, that's on there too. But you've already done more to expose yourself than I could ever do, so now I can just leave you with your own creation.

Good Luck.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hi EE, you posted-->But seeing as we're friends, and you seem exhausted from traveling, I'll do it one more time.
********
On bended knee and tugging on the remaining forelock, thanks. blubbering in humble gratitude. snifff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> I also realize that there have been many accidental discoveries. But innovations and discoveries both have one thing in common---ultimately they work!
*****************
and an lrl never will? That would be very egotistical of you to say that.

Don Jose de La Mancha