Christopher Bane December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 Common sense, firstly, ain't that common... It would appear so.
MrNinetails79 December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 Ah, the joyful pleasure it provides me, to argue so politely and non polemically with you, LucidAcid, amongst others. Your arguments really are the height of sophistication and erudition - I salute you, sir! Now do us a favour, and leave the intelligent argument to the adults, there's a good little scientism-ist Funny how few here really seem to possess genuine scientific mindsets, considering the wonderful motto of the site - or is it simply that it's only the bile-filled scientism-ists who ever bother to post extensively here? "For Science!" ....really? For shame, more like.
hakase December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 At this point i would recommend that all posters who do not usually frequent the metaphysics board simply leave this thread alone. Non-metaphysics members debating with metaphysics members is a waste of time because they are two completely different sides of the tulpa community "coin" and have next to nothing in common. There is as nothing to be gained from attempting any sort of discussion between them. [snip] You clearly have no concept of how scientific review or burden of proof work. If a man says that something ridiculous is possible, then his peers will mock him. If this man explains the reasoning and fact behind why he holds his ridiculous beliefs, then his peers will listen. If this man goes on to give undeniable evidence as to why his beliefs are true, then his peers will believe and this man's beliefs will no longer be considered ridiculous. You have done the first of these three things. You have implied that you believe it to be possible to see tulpae, without giving any reason for why or any evidence for it. You bring up past stories and occurrences and hide behind a shield of ignorance and yet offer nothing new, giving no new evidence for your claims. Insulting other members while your account is less than 1 week old is egotistical and immature. Stop being such an abrasive hypocrite. Just because scientists learn new things and prove themselves wrong every once in a while does not mean that every baseless theory in the world is suddenly true. That's a preposterous thought. "Give a man a Truth, and he will think for a day. Teach a man to Reason, and he will think for a lifetime." -Phil Plait
MrNinetails79 December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 Hmm I'm glad you brought up the whole burden of proof thing, hackase - shall we take a look at what happened with Homeopathy? Hanneman, the guy who came up with the Homeopathic principle, was a scientist too. He agreed with you about the burden of proof and was perhaps equally naive as to believe his scientific compadres would be open minded. In fact what happened, despite the large amount of double blind proof Hanneman had accumulated, was that the scientific establishment effectively blacklisted him, called him a quack and did its best to persuade the public to ignore him - which it did until fairly recently. If you really want me to give you the evidence, give me your address and I will send you a letter a day for the next decade just getting thru the overwhelming evidence in favour of Homeopathy. Or you could spend seven years in training and find out for yourself. Far from looking at the evidence of something and just saying "oh yeah, sorry, looks like we were wrong about X" what actually tends to happen in scientific circles is that people tend to hang on to cherished "certainties" for as long as they possibly can, then when they can no longer do that, they act as if the new "truth" had been obvious all along. This takes even longer when established government has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. As for my evidence for what I've been saying in earlier posts, yes so far it is limited and anecdotal - apart from the direct personal experience I posted about in my progress thread. However, unlike the majority of the scientific camp who have replied to my posts, I at least am maintaining the genuine scientific requirement for keeping an open mind - and as for insults.... As trite as it sounds, LOL, I think you will find they started it. :-D Believe whatsoever you will, peeps - the wonderful thing is the Universe is exactly what you believe it is. No more..... And no less. The trick is to believe in the impossible - then the Universe becomes truly awesome! ;-) Namaste Sam
waffles December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 post Burden of proof? Burden of a shred of reliable evidence, here. Let's examine some claims made here. "Homeopathy is anything but bullshit" Ernst, E. (2002), "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy" Kleijnen, J; Knipschild, P; Ter Riet, G (1991), "Clinical trials of homoeopathy" Linde, K; Clausius, N; Ramirez, G; Melchart, D; Eitel, F; Hedges, L; Jonas, W (1997), "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials", Why don't you read these articles and tell me what's wrong with their conclusions that homeopathy doesn't work? "I have evidence of this" You don't. "I don't need solid evidence/screw the theory" [implicit] Science works by making theories based on evidence, then revising them based on evidence. There's no reason to revise the theory that tulpas can't be seen by others when there's no evidence that contradicts it.
Guest Anonymous December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 Burden of proof? Burden of a shred of reliable evidence, here. Let's examine some claims made here. "Homeopathy is anything but bullshit" Ernst, E. (2002), "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy" Kleijnen, J; Knipschild, P; Ter Riet, G (1991), "Clinical trials of homoeopathy" Linde, K; Clausius, N; Ramirez, G; Melchart, D; Eitel, F; Hedges, L; Jonas, W (1997), "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials", Why don't you read these articles and tell me what's wrong with their conclusions that homeopathy doesn't work? "I have evidence of this" You don't. "I don't need solid evidence/screw the theory" [implicit] Science works by making theories based on evidence, then revising them based on evidence. There's no reason to revise the theory that tulpas can't be seen by others when there's no evidence that contradicts it. Well said. But at this point they are either trolling or are on some previously unheard of echelon of stupidity and willful ignorance. Anyone who believes homeopathy not only works but that there is "overwhelming evidence in favour of Homeopathy", and claims science is "wrong" is surely not going to listen to any form of reason. Although to Ninetails, it's quite funny how you pride yourself with the fact that you're "open minded" to that which has no evidence, yet when met with any form of counter-claim or proof on the contrary, you immediately shut it out and pretend it doesn't exist. The irony is almost palpable. And the fact that you result to petty insults when faced with a decent counter-argument makes it all the funnier.
Amadeus December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 This thread has devolved into people arguing science vs. meta, which never turns out pretty (as everyone predicted.) Both sides: This kind of argument is a game that everyone loses. The only way to win this game is not to play it. I don't enjoy having to remind people to respect the beliefs of others, especially in a community based on believing in something outstanding. The irony kills me. Get along, and if you can't, don't voice your disrespect. Just browse away. Thread closed. We don't get much in life. But we do have this.
Recommended Posts