Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi again wh: You posted -->A legitimate science ... would be basically any branch of engineering including physics, geophysics, and biology. You have provided none, we have provided examples from everyone. Again; you have chosen to ignore them.
**************
Post where we /I have chosen to ignore any science, legitimate or otherwise. I have not. What I have done, is to question 'your' version of a particular factor included among myriads of factors in any one phase of science.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Unfortunately for you, and the other kooks on here, there is no "Your version" of science, evidently you seem to think everyone has a version which is not correct. There's only science... and science.. Only one way of science, no 2nd guessing, no alternate sciences (for example: how another kook tried to legitimize pseudo-science in another thread). You seem to believe in "your science" because you keep trying to push pseudo-science as if it was legitimate. You going to try to legitimize it like Hung in the other thread? (Don't bother answering I don't wanna read it).

Science proved you wrong, so now you try to derail this again by making things up? Get started, and go back and read because you have chosen to ignore legitimate science on various occasions already, not only outright denying it but also by doing what you're doing here. You keep questioning, in some cases our little flaws in explaining things, to where you explain away the legitimate aspects of things and try form them in your favor. I'm through with you.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

Let us remember the basis on which our country was founded. God created man, then man created the Constitution, then the Constitution created government, and then the government created corporations.

Don Jose de La Mancha

One of your best, and most insightful, comments, in my opinion!


Actually, corporations were outlawed for the first hundred and something years. The founding Fathers knew very well that they were poison. Then there was a big project, I think it was a dam, that no single company was big enough to bid on. So they made that one legal, but put a time limit on it.

After that, they had a foot in the door, and managed to eventually pry it wide open.

Same with the Federal Reserve Bank, Incorporated. And this is it's second incarnation. They wedged-in a Central Bank, prior to this one, and it was shut down by Congress. Lesson not learned.




Have a couple for that one!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

hi wh: Interesting, but which science hasn't gotten it's start as a rogue? And which has the absolute truth today? What we do have is a seres of hypotheses and rules, which while probably not correct, do fulfill our needs for fairly repeatable needs

Astrology --> Astronomy-- and now going back to Astrology again to search for it's roots and forgotten data.

Chemistry --> Alchemists, and now back to studying their forgotten methods.

And so on.

Incidentally true Astrology is regaining ground, not your daily horoscope thingie, but basic planetary influences in our own little Galaxy and the Astrological influence on human psychological growth is fascinating, and becoming quite accurate.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

You would make my prof in pre med a bit unhappy with that definition.

Nothing new, I've made a few of them mad before.

I proved to one that something can go faster than the speed of light, and all he could do was turn beet red and yell, "Noooooo!"

Made my day.

I am at bit of a loss on your statement that it does not involve learning or understanding??

So knowing is different than understanding? How?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

One of your best, and most insightful, comments, in my opinion!
Actually, corporations were outlawed for the first hundred and something years. The founding Fathers knew very well that they were poison. Then there was a big project, I think it was a dam, that no single company was big enough to bid on. So they made that one legal, but put a time limit on it.
After that, they had a foot in the door, and managed to eventually pry it wide open.
Same with the Federal Reserve Bank, Incorporated.

Thank you for your post..I am also skeptical about out Government..It explains why you are anti everything..You do know that there are flights out of the country about every 15 minutes..but there are LRL’s manufactured in a whole lot of countries.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

One of your best, and most insightful, comments, in my opinion!
Actually, corporations were outlawed for the first hundred and something years. The founding Fathers knew very well that they were poison. Then there was a big project, I think it was a dam, that no single company was big enough to bid on. So they made that one legal, but put a time limit on it.
After that, they had a foot in the door, and managed to eventually pry it wide open.
Same with the Federal Reserve Bank, Incorporated.

Thank you for your post..I am also skeptical about out Government..It explains why you are anti everything..You do know that there are flights out of the country about every 15 minutes..but there are LRL’s manufactured in a whole lot of countries.

Artie---

Wrong again. Why do you assume that I am anti-everything? That's a gross generalization.

Besides, your post is noncoherent and nonsensical. Are you having a bad hair day or something?


Congratulations! You've just performed a #17-#23 Combo! Amazing! You are behaving exactly as the list predicts, providing the World with more scientific evidence of your actual status, as described in the list. Thank you, but it seems that you have more than adequately established your motives, and may return to rationality any time now.

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

hmm EE as 'wh' would say, he "knows " everything, but "Understands" little? Actually there is middle ground of blending of the two def intions.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. there are various things faster than light, but congrats on showing your prof that science does not stand still. One 'must' keep learning until they leave their physical body. Science is exploding exponentially on knowledge. Kinda wish that I had been born some hundreds of years in the future.

p.p.s I am a nut on the Holistic theory of the Universe. Einstein hmm, The others less.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

OK, learning is just the process of gaining more understanding.

I did mention that there were different degrees of understanding, in fact I went into that a good bit.


I'm not so sure that Science is exploding on knowledge, though. Progress, yes. But, as the question was put previously, I would say that even in the higher arenas of Science, there are some who recklessly step outside of Scientific Method, and want to use ideas, hunches, guesstimates, estimates, theories and hypotheses as a substitute for known fact; and use merely their name, title, or background, as an offer of "proof." That spoils the name of Science, and throws some people off the path of reality, and onto what most likely is a dead end street.

That's not nice.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

p.s. there are various things faster than light, but congrats on showing your prof that science does not stand still. One 'must' keep learning until they leave their physical body. Science is exploding exponentially on knowledge. Kinda wish that I had been born some hundreds of years in the future.

p.p.s I am a nut on the Holistic theory of the Universe. Einstein hmm, The others less.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Ahh DJ, sounds like you've been looking for tachyons and their ilk. Too bad they can't carry the information back to you.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

swr, shhhh you posted -->Sig seems to be a pretty righteous dude....not to pleased with his anti-America antics, though
**************

Prepare for a visit by EE. To bolster your soon to be shattered ego, join me / I and Judy

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

Actually, Freud was probably the first Psychoanalyst to have helped anyone at all. He was on the right track, but seemed to get kind of bogged down with his success, and stopped his major research effort at the sexual thing. He was probably so surprised that some of his methods actually worked, to some degree, that he thought he didn't need to search any more. Too bad. But it was a start.

What's really too bad is that other Psychoanalysts didn't take right up where he left off. Worse, they eventually quit using his techniques, altogether, even though they were the only procedures that actually produced real results, and helped some people.

Instead, nowdays the wannabe shrinks only try to use some insignificant terminology of his in their feeble attempts to insult people.

...Childish is as childish does.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Why Skeptics Don't Show Proof?



Because the burden of proof in on the claimant.

If you claim that LRLs work, then you must prove it.


Asking for proof that LRLs work as advertised, is not a claim.

When the LRL claimant fails to show proof of him claim, opponents declaring it a failure is not a claim. It's a lack of proof for the original LRL claim.


Asking for proof of a negative is not in accordance with standard Science.

Which shows that LRL promoters hide behind non-science.


So, it's time to man-up and prove your claims.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

EE you posted -->Asking for proof of a negative is not in accordance with standard Science.

*******************
what does standard science have to do with it? We are supposedly discussing theoretical science. Standard science claims no telepathy is possible, yet I had a case with a gal that ran for a couple of weeks, this should give you an idea why I am a bit sceptical of science being the last or latest word on the edge of known factors.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Saturna]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Let me guess, you cured her cancer via telepathy.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

1. As I have said before, if they want to use Science to try and back up their fantastic claims, then they must conform to Science to prove them.

2. But if they want to claim that their units are based on psychic phenomenon, then they should state that in their advertisements.

Both 1 and 2 are so simple and basic in their logic, that I really don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise!

But if you would like to see it some other way, that's OK with me; so how would you set up a fair test?




I'm all ears....

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Carl-NC

Posts: 1717

Re: Finally an Answer
Reply To This Topic #44 Posted Jan 27, 2010, 05:39:37 PM Quote

If you choose to ignore the results of the tests, or choose not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

artie---

If you choose...not to do the tests at all, then yes, there is no proof.

It is illogical that you would ask for proof, then choose not to provide for it.

You are nullifying your own request.

So, the real question is: What's up with that?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Truly great logic

"Folks just do not understand that something has be be proven to work...first...before you can prove that it doesn't"
~SWR

“

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
~ Albert Einstein

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

It is illogical that you would ask for proof, then choose not to provide for it.

Keep up the good thinking---Not!

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Keep up the good thinking---Not!

No..it is called logic…For over a year the skeptics have been trying to scam treasure hunters..Logic dictates that if a scammer wants to test someone them that is part of the scam. This why we always say ..buyer beware…Art