Are scientists always trustworthy? Should we believe everything they say?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Happeh, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    humans do have an energy field. its created by the concscious mind. electrons flowing through neurological pathways create this electromagnetic field of low frequency. the frequencies are so low, though, that it doesn't really affect much.

    and every organism has energy, usually stored chemically. we need energy to operate at all times. we constantly take in energy and let energy out.

    its an idiomatic phrase, a metaphor. you can't expect language to exactly mirror reality. if you aren't naive, you can see exactly how it would be this way, and why it happens. you can see that this man has lived with the woman he loved for a very long time and has come to associate so much with her. the very act of living causes him to remember his lost wife and so he is overwhelmed by a feeling of grief and sadness because of this. the association of a real thing to something that can never be experienced again causes remorse in the human mind. don't you notice that when you are sad you don't really want to do anything? that is what the feeling is like. whether or not there is some kind of energy transfer doesn't matter because of how the process actually occurs and how we observe it.

    what your explanations don't do is that they don't explain how they affect people. they show what might be affected, or why it is affected, but you don't show the method of its effect. please describe how energy is taken and recieved by people. what is the carrier of this energy and how is it transferred? you cannot just say that energy is taken or drained from a person just because someone close to them is sick. you have to describe the process of energy transfer, and the force behind that process. otherwise you are just writing fiction.

    i can see how you are so enamoured by a more mystical explanation of everything, but the truth is that everyone is observing the same things, and any difference in their interpretations is because of how they define the words they are using, not because one person is wrong. so you are right in everything you are saying, but your definitions for a lot of the terms you use are not very similar to the ones that a lot of the other people here are using.

    i advise you to stop being so pompous and arrogant before you head too far down the road to insanity. too much confidence in oneself tends to cloud one's perception of reality.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    a decision. a decision differs from person to person, it is based on opinion and not fact.

    what the article is saying, is that when you learn the information, and then forget it, you have less of a conscious bias in making a decision about that information. it does not mean you are automatically right, it means that you are not clouding your judgement as much by your personal tendancies (which are due to the overall affect of your environment on your character).

    what must be taken into consideration is the amount of information known (there are still pivotal pieces of evidence that could sway decision making even without thinking about the decision). and the ability to clear one's mind of person opinions and experience.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    How does heat energy travel from the stove to you? Convection? Radiation? I would guess that human energy being electromagnetic in nature would simple travel in the same way an X ray travels. What carries and transfers an X ray? The answer would be similar to the one you want.

    I got no problem with that generalized kind of statement. Yes we all speak using different defintions and terms.

    Ya. I knew the minute I read your first sentence you were going to be like this.

    Off to the dog pound with another rude and abusive person. Bye bye!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Your gut needs more training.
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    because it will disprove him thats why

    either that or
    he hasn't a clue who he is
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: This thread has been merged with two other threads
    on essentially the same topic, started by the same poster. Some posts have been deleted.
  10. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    I make claims. It takes time to build a body of evidence to support it.

    Every time i get close to proving my assertions, someone comes along and closes the thread or jumbles it up.

    How coincidental.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2006
  11. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Oh Look. Another well accepted "story", that calcium helps people, turns out just to be more "scientific" hokum. Just something to make the calcium pill industry rich.

    Just like "Masturbation is Great! Do it 10 times a day!" is just another story that is "scientific" hokum.

    You WILL understand that I AM right and those guys telling you that other stuff are liars, or they are "mistaken" just like these guys were for decades. Or they had stock in calcium pill companies.

    A large, seven-year study of healthy women over the age of 50 found no broad benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplements in preventing broken bones, despite widespread endorsement by doctors for the supplements.

    The study, whose results were being reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, also found no evidence that the supplements prevented colorectal cancer, and it found an increased risk of kidney stones.

    The study's leaders said there were hints of benefits for some subgroups in the study. But the supplements' only positive effect in the overall study population - 36,282 normal, healthy women ages 50 to 79 - was a 1 percent increase in bone density at the hip.
  12. Azael Registered Senior Member

    There are some issues here:
    Firstly that is not a scientific publication, and the article doesn't even reference a study. Secondly, the experiment was conducted in relation to extra calcium, so clearly there's a threshold at which the effects of ingested calcium are minimal, however that doesn't say anything for 'normal' intake levels of the mineral.
    Seriously, if you are going to make a claim like that provide us with a proper study, otherwise it could be an idiot peddler inventing and misunderstanding. Also we have no way of knowing the experimental conditions. Basically we need the actual study.

    By the way, each claim is assessed individually. Throwing in this brief calcium arguement does nothing to validify your other claims. There might be something on the effects of masturbation in psychoneuroimmunology.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2006
  13. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    You are right. Everyone says "Happeh. You are wrong because scientists say so".

    I said "Scientists are liars and they make mistakes". People didn't like that, and they kept saying I was wrong.

    The purpose of this thread, like all my other threads, is to provide an irrefutable body of evidence that scientists DO lie and they DO make mistakes.

    My hope is that if I can force these people to admit I am right about just one thing, maybe their brains will open and listen to the rest.
  14. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Who is this man, Happeh? I'll bet there are other photographs of this person on the web, and I'll also bet that they do not resemble your theory in any way. C'mon Happeh, your theory is 100% correct according to you. It’s rock solid. Why are you so afraid to name this person so that I can search for additional photographs?<P>
  15. Far far better Registered Member

    It looks more like people are saying, "You're wrong because your theories are ill-thought-out and have only the most tenuous connection with reality."

    Most people seemed to be actually willing to discuss the issues with you in the beginning, but your failure to back up your outrageous claims and the tactics (conspiracy theories... everyone hates me...) that you resorted to instead brought about their contempt.

    Nobody likes actually attempting to discuss a subject seriously and have his/her comments ignored in favor of ad hominems and peremptory dictates.

    Well. It's all a muddled mess now, with the threads merged. And, I must admit that I stopped reading your shlock long before you switched from masturbation theories to 'bringing down the man'. So, perhaps your intent with this thread and some others were as you've stated rather than your previous forays into promoting your own 'theories'.

    But, the problem, Happeh, is that this is a fight that no one is fighting you in. Nobody here holds science in some type of mystical awe. Scientists can and do make errors. Scientists can and do lie overtly.

    You'd do better to give examples of scientific fraud. Here. I'll help you out:
    SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Investigations Document Still More Problems for Stem Cell Researchers.

    The stem cell scandal is only the latest scandal in scientific circles.
    Scientists are people too.

    So. You started out with your masturbation theories and such. Then, when everyone called you an illogical idiot because of your failure to back up your assertions, you switch to 'bringing down the man' in order to gain some credibility for yourself?

    Instead of trying to raise yourself to some sort of acceptable level of credibility, you attempt to bring down the 'establishment' to your level of credibility (zero) so that now, at last, people will listen to you?

    Is that about right?

    As I've said, no one will contest that science is capable of errors. This goes without saying and only the mystical-minded would claim otherwise. But, that has nothing to do with your failures to establish credibility with your theories.

    One doesn't bolster the other.

    Again. It looks as if you've correlated data that is only superficially similar.
    Much as a witch doctor would do.
  16. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    False dichotomy. Scientists are generally trustworthy, but of course you should think for yourself.
  17. Azael Registered Senior Member

    While I agree with this statement, given that scientists are indeed human, I must stress my fellow boardusers that I, Azael, do not lie. Nor do I make mistakes.
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    You are following the exact same process as every other pseudoscientist. Congratulations!
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i think i said this about 3 times already but i'll say it again
    this thread and others like it belong in the pseudoscience forum
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    and yet another gem from happeh
  22. johny_israel Registered Senior Member

    you shouldnt beleive everything anyone sa ys
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Are you sure? How trustworthy are you?

Share This Page