Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

[Quantum Quack]

Didn't read past the ad hom.

If you have a valid point, you should be able to express it without flinging poo.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but in this thread I have made every attempt to be respectful of the people, even if I disagree with their claims. And I plan to be to you too.

Dave, one of the points that kwilborn and I have been attempting to make is that the requirements of "repeatabilty" and "predictability" for irregular or unpredictable events is inadequate.

The scientific process obviously has to be fairly rigid but it must also accommodate that which can not fall with in that rigidity.

Dialetic example:

me: "a fly landed on my shoulder yesterday"
scientists: "can you prove this to be true."
me: no
scientist: then the fly didn't land on your shoulder yesterday.

Obviously according to the above example, to state that just because an event can not conform to the scientific method is false is in itself a false statement.
How many events of an unpredicatable nature are unable to conform with the scientific process....?

The key here is predictability... and to state that if it is unpredictable it is false is ludicrous....
It is akin to stating that if you can not predict the moment a fly is to land on your shoulder the fly will not land on your shoulder....

Do you have a contra arguement to offer?

[DaveC426913]

Do you have a contra arguement to offer?

I do:
1] The Scientific Method does provide for predictability and repeatability (otherwise we wouldn't be doing a lot of cosmology or neutrino physics, would we?).

2]

me: "a fly landed on my shoulder yesterday"
scientists: "can you prove this to be true."
me: no
scientist: then the fly didn't land on your shoulder yesterday.

This is simply not how the Scientific Method works.

I can't teach this to you from first principles, and certainly not in a forum thread. If you were interested in it, you would have to read up on it.

Here's just one teaser: Science does not deal in proof. It is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Scientific Method to think that it does.

[Quantum Quack]

Compare these two statements:

Dave, one of the points that kwilborn and I have been attempting to make is that the requirements of "repeatabilty" and "predictability" for irregular or unpredictable events is inadequate.

1] The Scientific Method does provide for predictability and repeatability (otherwise we wouldn't be doing a lot of cosmology or neutrino physics, would we?).

and what do you see? [with all due respect and with out prejudice]

Here's just one teaser: Science does not deal in proof. It is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Scientific Method to think that it does.

of course it does.. to say otherwise is just semanics...
the whole of science is dependent on proofs and evidences and thats the whole point of science and for that matter rational and reason.

[kx000]

I conclude I get reactions from strangers in regards to my telepathic message. Or, its all one big coincidence...

[DaveC426913]

Compare these two statements:

and what do you see? [with all due respect and with out prejudice]

What I see (note: I cannot read your mind*) is that you believe that science can only properly deal with things that are predictable and repeatable. Since what you're studying falls outside that, you feel that it is above the inadequate scientific method - not answerable to it.

I'm trying to tell you that SM deals with unpredictability and unrepeatability all the time. Much science is done on things that are highly unpredictable and on things that are unrepeatable.

*see what I did there?

[Quantum Quack]

I conclude I get reactions from strangers in regards to my telepathic message. Or, its all one big coincidence...

all you may be experiencing is a deeper insight into what happens with every body and every one all the time. It is the nature of psychic influence and interconnectivity that you are witnessing and experiencing.
This does not mean you have any particular ability other than the ability to experience your own influence over others that would normally be innate and not noticed as such.
This preoccupation is mostly due to the facination/fantasy of being able to influence at will deliberately and the power ambition that goes with it.. acka: God complex - Nacassistic personality - the will to power

[Quantum Quack]

What I see (note: I cannot read your mind*) is that you believe that science can only properly deal with things that are predictable and repeatable. Since what you're studying falls outside that, you feel that it is above the inadequate scientific method - not answerable to it.

I'm trying to tell you that SM deals with unpredictability and unrepeatability all the time. Much science is done on things that are highly unpredictable and on things that are unrepeatable.

*see what I did there?

then why did you post this:

Originally Posted by DaveC426913
1] The Scientific Method does provide for predictability and repeatability (otherwise we wouldn't be doing a lot of cosmology or neutrino physics, would we?).

when you meant this:

I'm trying to tell you that SM deals with unpredictability and unrepeatability all the time. Much science is done on things that are highly unpredictable and on things that are unrepeatable.

"As a famous Australian female politician once asked repeatedly of journalist "please explain""

[Quantum Quack]

@ Dave

What I see (note: I cannot read your mind*)

ahh but you are, it is just that you are not very good at it hence the obvious mistake...

[DaveC426913]

then why did you post this:

when you meant this:

Ah. I see your confusion now. Hang on...

[Quantum Quack]

@DAve,
I was stating that the scientific method does not allow for Unrepeatable and unpredictable events adequately.
your repsonse was
that it provides for predictability and repeatability.
which makes is at cross purposes with my statement.
have a look again:
my statement:

Dave, one of the points that kwilborn and I have been attempting to make is that the requirements of "repeatabilty" and "predictability" for irregular or unpredictable events is inadequate.

your response:

1] The Scientific Method does provide for predictability and repeatability (otherwise we wouldn't be doing a lot of cosmology or neutrino physics, would we?).

glaringly obvious is it not....

[DaveC426913]

Predictability and unpredictability refer to the same thing; they are synonymous.
Repeatability and unrepeatability refer to the same thing; they are synonymous.

The repeatability of the Big Bang is zero. The unrepeatability of the Big Bang is one.
The predictability of neutrino collision is near zero. The unpredictability of neutrino collision is near one.

It's like talking about the fullness of a gas tank or the emptiness of a gas tank. Do you think those are two different things?


The Scientific Method does deal with the issue of repeatability/unrepeatability and predictability/unpredictability all the time.

Better?

[DaveC426913]

When all is said and done:

We do a lot of good science on the Big Bang, which is a supremely unrepeatable event.
We do a lot of good science on neutrino collisions, which are an extremely rare and unpredictable event.

Now that that is cleared up, will you address my concern that you have expressed a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works?

"Science does not deal in proof. It is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Scientific Method to think that it does."

Does this not cast some doubt that perhaps you're a little underqualified to heft it?

[Quantum Quack]

Better ? Yep... but I already know what you have said... my concern is why you made the obvious mistake .... which I know you would not normally make...


I could go on and ask then why do you feel Randi requires the scientific method to be minimised to only accepting that which is repeatable and predictable if the scientific method is able to accommodate unrepeatable and unpredictable events... but I wont because I already know what your answer will be.

[Quantum Quack]

When all is said and done:

We do a lot of good science on the Big Bang, which is a supremely unrepeatable event.
We do a lot of good science on neutrino collisions, which are an extremely rare and unpredictable event.

Now that that is cleared up, will you address my concern that you have expressed a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works?

"Science does not deal in proof. It is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Scientific Method to think that it does."

Does this not cast some doubt that perhaps you're a little underqualified to heft it?

proof is defined by you as what?

[DaveC426913]

Better ? Yep... but I already know what you have said... my concern is why you made the obvious mistake .... which I know you would not normally make...

But I didn't make a mistake. Read the comment about the gas tank again.

If I mentioned the 50% fullness of a gas tank in one sentence, then the 50% emptiness of it in the next, would you think I had contradicted myself?

I could go on and ask then why do you feel Randi requires the scientific method to be minimised to only accepting that which is repeatable and predictable if the scientific method is able to accommodate unrepeatable and unpredictable events... but I wont because I already know what your answer will be.

Who is Randi?

Whoever he is, I'll take your word that he requires SM to be minimized. This would make sense, since it is disproving his ideas.

If you were on trial and there were one irrefutable witness that puts the gun in your hand, and you could not find any flaw in their testimony - would you not then seek to minimize the importance of the witness?

If you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer. It sounds like this is this Randi person's tactic. But I do not know since I don't know who it is or what the story is.

[Quantum Quack]

Context: I have proof of a glaring mistake in your previous post... is that an appropriate use of the word proof?
I assume you would not normally make such an obvious mistake.. this is not proof but an assumption.

[DaveC426913]

proof is defined by you as what?

It is not defined by me. Reading up on SM is your homework.

[DaveC426913]

Context: I have proof of a glaring mistake in your previous post... is that an appropriate use of the word proof?
I assume you would not normally make such an obvious mistake.. this is not proof but an assumption.

I made no mistake. See post 155.

[Quantum Quack]

read post 141 and 142 again.... and tell me if there is no mistake.
how does post 142 relate to post 141?

[kx000]

all you may be experiencing is a deeper insight into what happens with every body and every one all the time.

Well, I am.

It is the nature of psychic influence and interconnectivity that you are witnessing and experiencing.

This preoccupation is mostly due to the facination/fantasy of being able to influence at will deliberately and the power ambition that goes with it

I want to influence, and im ambitious, so telepathy is false. That makes sense.

.. acka: God complex - Nacassistic personality - the will to power

None of those three things describe me.