You didn't though - I've commented on it more than once.
Do you understand yet (in part) where the accusations of dishonesty come from? This, in part, the fact that I do not feel you have, at any point, engaged me in good faith.
All of your arguments have dealt with augmenting belief, so I consider it tripe.
On the one hand, how would you know? You just admitted you weren't taking them in.
On the other hand, in this conversation, the only person to discuss belief is you.
I also tend to think poorly of those who do not believe in telepathy/psi as I feel they do not have the best common sense. That is just an opinion however.
There you go again, talking about beliefs.
I on the other hand, have stated nothing of mine (in the broader sense anyway).
I think it is funny that you speak about credibility. Does anyone on Sciforums have credibility?
Yes. But in this conversation yours is lacking, you've even admitted you haven't engaged me in good faith.
I can think of a few posters I would give credibility to. Fraggle Rocker in areas of language. Billy T, in Physics, etc., however I would not even give you enough credibility to judge credibility. No offense, but where do you get off thinking your opinion even matters here. That is pretty arrogant. You should stick with facts (err sorry; I mean your BELIEFS).
Such rage. Such butt-hurt. U mad bro?
This is not only funny, but pure hypocrisy from someone who just got through saying "If you disagree with my opinion you're an idiot".
I'm not even sure where to start off with this splurg other than by pointing out two things.
When you post on an open forum, you invite the opinion of others.
When you reply to the posts of others you invite their further opinion.
And yes, I think someone who devotes entire posts to berating others (for example) for failing to comprehend an analogy, lacks credibility when they themselves then proceed to fail in epic proportions to understand an analogy.
You have, in my personal opinion burned much of your own credibility in this thread.
I still can't get over the fact that so far you are the only one to raise my personal opinions on the matter of telepathy and ESP.
In the sample above you quoted, I was joking when I said Random chance could be calculated by asking random people, it dealt with something someone had said earlier in the thread. Statistics are used to prove trends, market changes, etc. Using statistics to conclusively prove if Telepathy is real is not possible. Any claiming otherwise does not understand statistics.
Saying this provides evidence supporting my hypothesis that you yourself do not understand statistics, when much of the evidence purported to "prove telepathy", including evidence presented by you yourself in this thread is itself statistcal in nature.
You can make up analogies, or label the arguments, or even reverse the meaning of things, but you can never prove telepathy or god does not exist. I think anybody who thinks they can is foolish/ridiculous/dumb. It is NOT possible.
THE END
This is rich coming from you, especially in light of some of the comments you have made in this post. You call others arrogant and then call those that disagree with you stupid? Do you not see your own arrogance? I'm surprised you can see anything with the size of that plank in your one eye...
Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. Where a hypothesis makes a prediction and experimentation does not support that prediction, then the lacl of evidence supporting the hypothesis can be considered evidence against the hypothesis.
Addendum:
KWHilborn has complained about my commenting on his credibility (or the lack thereof).
It occurs to me that this would appear to be yet another example (in my opinion at least) of his dishonesty in presenting things out of context.
Consider: To the best of my recollection the only time I have questioned his credibility is when he has indulged in personal or ad hominem attacks regarding behaviours in others that he himself has exhibited, and so I question his credibility in making those particular remarks.
