proof for the skeptics

[Ophiolite]

are you accusing me of theft???????

I am stating very clearly that you have posted an entire post of mine from this thread without any acknowledgement that it was written by someone else. If you did that deliberately it was plagiarism. If you did it through sloppy work practices, which seems much more likely, then it was incompetence. You decide.

 

what "chunk" are you referring to??? ..........and, show me your evidence of "chunk" and be specific...

I am referring to everything in your previous post (#69) from the words "Do you have a video of that please" until the end of the post. That is lifted directly from my post #60.

 

 

... I think I already know your tactics here...

My intention was to help you communicate more effectively with other members. My tactics were to take a more empathetic approach than that followed by other members. Your crudity and rudeness make this difficult. If you will pause for a moment and reflect on the lack of success you are having in getting your ideas across you may recognise that a change in your own tactics would be beneficial for you.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Not Steven Hawkins, there is only so much I can type on a phone. Needless to say that you have been warned about thread hijacking and since you can't seem to listen to a simple request, you are getting sent on a week long vacation. Enjoy!

[pmb]

I find any kind of fake ID to be obnoxious. What is worse with this one is that he spent several follow up posts arguing with you as if that'd change yor mind rather than irritate you more. So we have someoene who is obnoxious and caused an irritating hijack of this thread. Thank for saying it. This is an interested thread.

 

And Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics or plate tectonics. Yeah, he was smart. Smart people can also be wrong.

It's not quite acurate to claim that Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics. He was one of the founders of it. What Einstein didn't believe was the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. the probabilistic interpretation.

 

why was this moved? u know i proved astrology in my videos. it has scientific foundations, as i mentioned in my first video.

You claim that your so-called "proof" of astrology is in the first video. I was being open-minded when I saw it. For a scientist, that means that they paid attention from the beginning to the end. I did so. And it was hard to do because of your ignorance of science. When anybody states/writes that they have incontrovertible proof of something then I know that they're ignorant of/in the scientific method.

 

E.g. there is not a theory in existence today which can be said to have been proved correct. All scientists knows that for a theory to be scientific that i must be falsifiable, which you haven't hinted on it being. In fact you claimed the opposite. And all physicists know that astrology has for a very long time been proven to be wrong. Notice that I said "proved"? Did I just contradict myself because of what I had just said about proof and scientific theories? No. I haven't. A theory cannot be proven right. It can, however, be proven wrong! The video with Tyson in it explains it all.

have you read the book cosmos and psyche by richard tarnas? he hasnt been refuted

You pointed to this book as (1) being your "bible" and (2) being written by a Harvard scholar (3) if they back up your assertions. On what basis do you believe that he's a Harvard scholar? You claim astrology was proven by him. How? I have no plains on reading a book which was written by somene who in all likelyhood never claimed his work proved astrology. Do you actually believe that you coming here and posting a reference to a book whom you claim proves astrology and expect the scientists here to be in awe and so proven wrong by your extremely poor arguement in your video (no true arguement was there to be honest, only gibberish and assertions like It's weird" and "If my theory is correct..") I can promise you that it won't work, as you have already seen.

 

 

The author who wrote that book does not work at Harvard. He only went to school there and graduated way back in 1972. He didn't get his PhD there. So on what basis do you claim that he's a Harvard scholar? To be precise, on what basis is he a Scholar? An MIT physicist/relativity author for famous MIT text on relativity, refered to my work on relativity as being scholarly. So on what basis should we take his word over mine? At least I'm a physicist. That guy isn't even a scientist, he's an historian. So what he aims to prove most likely has nothing with what you thought he proved.

 

When you point to someone who believes a theory and choose that persons credentials as part of your arguement as part of your proof then what your using is an attempt at using appeal to authority as your source of knowledge. Appeal to authority requires a few things in order for your use not to have a fallacy. If that was actually what you were doing when you spoke of him and his connection to Harvard then you're using authority wrong since he is not an authority on astrology.

 

And you are vague about him not being refuted. By that do you mean that no scientist on the entire earth as offered a valid proof that his arguments wrong? That is something you can't possibly know. And in any case, theories cannot be proven as you believe that they can.

 

As the others suggest, it'd be wise for you to learn about the philosophy of science. Otherwise there is zero chance you'd be able to convince a scientist of what you wish to convince them of.

 

guitaoist - One last question for you in this post - Did you ever track down and read for yourself all the sources that author quoted? If not then how do you know if they were what you accepted them to be? I know from experience that what I thought was a source to my arguement was often not a source at all because when I actually went and verified it I found there to be a lot of misquoating. Frosting in an arguement is what I now call it.

 

 

Most of the first one and bits of the second. Would you like to summarise your evidence? And then try some causal explanation?

I really have to congratulate you Klaynos. I could only take the first video bit by bit and only then by running it several times. I find that I was getting nauseas because it was so irrational. E.g. guitaoist refered to NYC as the city that never sleeps. However since there are eight cities which carry that title he should say NYC is one of the cities that never sleeps and then see if he is able to apply his same reasoning about psychic energy. NYC is called the city that never sleeps is because there are always people awake around the clock. Guitaoist claims the reason for this has to do with insomina and some bizzare assertion about psychic energy being transmitted around the city causing insomina. In my opinion its because there is a lot do do around the clock and people in NYC, just like any other city, work different shifts. Those who work second shift might be sleeping in the day time when the day shift is working. There are two choices for these people as far as when to sleep. There is sleeping during the day shift or sleeping during the afternoon shift aka second shift. If I worked in NYC I might just choose to spend some months during the year sleeping during the afternoon and living it up at night. That'd be for the young and I would have only done it when I was young.

 

 

 

So there are much more plausible reasons to be away at night than psychic energy keeping me awake.

Edited May 19, 2012 by pmb
Fixed quote tags