Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Mooney
Specifically:
But Boerseun locked it down, in keeping with his brutal attacks on me as a spokesman for TP in general and intention experiments, consciousness as an active force, and mystic experiences in particular. (Read no "self pity" into the above.)
|
Michael, you're at a Science Forum. You made claims regarding about having been involved in "mind-reading" experiments with your father, when you were at a very young age. This in itself is pretty remarkable, but it needs scientific validation in a repeat experiment to validate it. You refused to acknowledge the possibility that your memory of that particular incident could have been in error. You refused to acknowledge the possibility of any other theory presented to explain this phenomenon. You discounted a proposed test by the Randi Foundation by saying the "negative energy" will make the test impossible. You refused to own up to designing an experiment for testing for this proposed "negative energy", an element that you introduced into the equation. If it can have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the experiment, then it must be possible to test for
that. You basically discounted each and every scientifically valid proposed method for validating your claims. You expected the discussion to go ahead without any critical tests to validate anything you say - we should merely take your word for it and go on, regardless.
That, unfortunately, is NOT how science works. We cannot take your word for anything that follows from a premise, if we're not allowed to challenge the premise. If we do challenge the premise (which is perfectly scientific) and you refuse to defend your premise by subjecting it to rigorously designed testing, then it is not science, and we will have very little to discuss of any worth.
You make the claim that the world is going to undergo a massive, global "enlightenment" episode in the year 2014 - based solely on a "vision" that you had. You do, of course, understand that "visions" might be symptomatic of a neurological malfunction of sorts, like hallucinations. Hallucinations are completely subjective - two hallucinating people will never experience the same hallucination. Thus, following from that, there is no way that any sort of "vision", together with the valid proposition that this "vision" might be nothing more than an hallucination, can be taken as "evidence" in any shape, way or form. In order to remove the "hallucination" possibility from your "vision" is entirely up to you. If you cannot discount that possibility, then it is not allowable evidence with which to support any premise of any kind from which to build a further hypothesis.
I'm not "brutally attacking" you in any way, Mike. I'm just trying to maintain the scientific integrity of the discussion by pointing out failures of logic on your part, and filtering claims out of the equation so that any conclusion reached could very well be termed "science". You call it a "brutal attack", fine - I call it "peer review". It sucks and it hurts. But it is necessary in order to divide the fluff from the science. And what you present here is based on failed assumptions, failed logic etc. But we do propose a mechanism for you to validate your claims, and that is rigorous testing under controlled circumstances with a proper methodology in place so that we can proceed. If you cannot come up with the goods, it certainly isn't my fault.
Let's say you've designed an awesome looking steam turbine that runs on the heat generated by fermenting blue cheese. Everything is in place - the pistons, the steam valves, the piping, heck - even the little governor on the exhaust valve is turning very beautifully. This entire machine is brilliantly designed, the steam pipe leading into the turbine is polished stainless steel of a grade high enough to withstand the terrible pressures it's expected to operate upon. Everything's awesome.
But there's one problem.
Fermenting blue cheese doesn't generate the required amount of heat to boil water to make your turbine run.
In other words, your entire enterprise above is rendered useless, null and void, because you didn't validate your premise. Much like religion where nobody bothers to validate their premise - they keep themselves busy with installing bigger and better steam pipes, ever fancier governor valves, removing, honing and polishing the turbine blades, but never checking to see whether the blue cheese will ever actually generate the amount of heat required. They all sit and wait in anticipation of the boiler suddenly starting to deliver steam to the turbine without ever checking the cheese.
The above is not science, however brightly the steam pipes are polished.
Call it a brutal attack, if you will. But them's the breaks, Mike.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mooney
Does this mean that all the above are no longer allowed as topics/subjects of discussion in this forum?
|
Certainly not. Create new threads and post away. But don't expect the treatment thereof as any less harsh if you can't come up with the goods and don't stick to the rules of evidence as to what is allowable as scientific proof, and what is not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mooney
I am very concerned about this kind of censorship here driven by such intolerance as Boerseun displays.
Michael
|
Call it "brutal attacks" or even "intolerance". I really don't care - nor should I. But in order to attach any value whatsoever to your theories or visions or TP in general, you should understand the process which it must go through. You should also understand why TP is not taken very seriously by Science. They simply cannot come up with the goods.
But this shouldn't stop
you from coming up with the goods, and it certainly shouldn't stop you from understanding why the "brutal attacks" and "intolerance" is merely "science in action".
But remember - fermenting blue cheese doesn't boil water. This has been tested, and proved beyond any doubt. And it can be repeated in any laboratory anywhere on earth.
