New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

[quantumparanormal]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

If there's one thing I'm beginning to realize about discussing parapsychology, Newton's Third Law of Motion is most definitely correct...

[quantumparanormal]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

[quantumparanormal]

ProfWag, Like I said, you're set in your ways. If you don't want to analyze and discuss the data, the evidence, that's fine. There's no point in debating with you about this any further, though, as a consequence, especially since all you can do is argue based on a publisher's and author's social and organizational status (i.e., I don't go around saying psi is real because Radin says so and belongs to this or that organization; that would be ridiculous of me to do so), not the actual data, the evidence being discussed and the arguments laid forth. So be it.

[ciscop]

quantum
do you have some links about studies that proof psi
that doesnt involve radin ?

i still dont understand
why you think we dont want to believe
its not a matter of belief
is a matter of proving it does exist
and so far nobody has proven that

NAS said that in 150 of studying psi, esp and all that it didnt found anything relevant
and harvard just did a study last year with the same results

if you only have studies from a guy that is sour to skepticism for doubting his results
then you dont have much and obviously you need less data than we do to believe in xmen stuff
personally i would love esp to exist
is damn cool
so please do share your best link proving that

[quantumparanormal]

[quantumparanormal]

Once you're ready to discuss actual data, evidence, send me a message; otherwise, it's futile debating non-data, non-evidence.

[quantumparanormal]

[ciscop]

that was so low of you
to edit my comments and taking them out of context
but is ok, thats one of the tacticts of the believers like you

so to put it in context:
scescop is naive and gullible and i put like an example homeopathy and uri geller (which is a freaking magician)

i love rednecks is about a woman in alabama with a haunted broom
she has the accent and is damn ignorant
she is a redneck and i dont care about americans being scared of language
words like redneck exist for a reason just like midgets and orientals, they arent derogatory is just a friking word

and the other insults are to highflyer
a believer like you
but he was in a mental institution and thinks he has telekinetic powers
which is awesome
he is on your side, claim it at yours
seems to me your side is full of those wackos no matter how much you want to distance yourself
science, institutions and data is on my side
wackos, bad data, cheaters and scam artists are on yours

and stop saying i dont care, i do care, but i guess
i can say the same thing about you
you dont care about what NAS said or harvard or mit.. you only care about questionable data provided by quacks that hasnt been replicated and when it has, it failed the test
yes, thats so skeptic of you
well done

i guess there is a big conspiracy out there
of evil scientists that wants to hide psi and esp evidence from the world
right?? is gotta be that! those damn scientists are hiding the real evidence everywhere in the world!!
why you think CIA closed his stargate program?? it didnt work!
but nah.. lets dismiss the evidence
lets just focus on what quacks have said to sell book

[quantumparanormal]

See? You don't bother to discuss the actual data/evidence. Rather, you resort to arguing your case against psi by using name-calling (e.g., "you quacks," "those wackos," etc) and making irrelevant references to non-evidential data, such as closed CIA programs, conspiracy theories, "what quacks have said to sell book," etc. You continue to prove my point. You don't want to critically analyze and discuss the actual data, the experiments, the research involved. And it's no wonder why. It's convincing. Consequently, it seems a fruitful, analytical discussion with you would be elementary at best, not incorporating critical, objective, detailed analyses of the data involved. If you think "we are wackos," tell us why, but don't base your opinions on speculation. Base them on facts. Show us where the evidence and arguments are "bad." Otherwise, you are the faith/dogma-based "wacko," not me. Send me a message once you do decide to discuss the actual data, if at all. Until then, continue your name-calling. Perhaps it will convince others. Who knows? Regardless, there will be no more replies from me unless you decide to discuss/debate the actual evidence.

And regarding the obviously biased NAS section on psi, here are my comments (so far): Not that you will use objective judgment in assessing it, but I've posted it here for completeness regardless.