Comments on: Hacking Works Cited

http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/ reality bizarres the standard Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:45:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: ARandomKid http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1207 ARandomKid Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:52:37 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1207 "I read the NDE article about the surgery, and that makes me wonder, if the brain doesn’t function, that means the consciousness is not dependent on the brain. So what is it?" I'm wondering this as well...I'd always thought that our consciousness was connected to our brain activity in a way, but this is obviously false...so what exactly IS our consciousness dependent upon? Hmmm...to be honest, I've no clue at all. -ARK By: ClearVision http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1205 ClearVision Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:17:52 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1205 It's impossible to fight the sceptics if we are without a piece of evidence that is "scientific". Their idea of evidence is apparently different than that which we think of. "Evidence" in scientific terms means long term studies that come to a conclusive, undisputed 100% accepted result that psionics exists. Such studies just simply don't exist. Again, as countlessly stated: This is called parascience for a reason. If evidence were clearly available in a scientifically acceptable form, it would be classified as "science" and the sceptics would have nothing to argue against. Quite honestly, I believe this is unjust and without any reason. Just the fact that it is classified as parascience proves that the system is broken. The end result being: Don't argue with sceptics, UNLESS they have a good understanding of psionics (which scientists don't). Otherwise, it's like a fourth grader trying to argue against a university professor and still believing he is right (for all the wrong reasons). Come to think about it, you can view this from either perspective (sceptic/psionist) - it still applies. By: Antisankari http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1204 Antisankari Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:46:27 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1204 Umm.. The speed of light is indeed not consisten. It varies by the material it goes through =P. I suppose they told the wolrd that the 299 792 458 meters / second in a vacuum is not always the upper limit? By: AndPious http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1203 AndPious Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:19:17 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1203 I agree with Hatter on all his points. Another thing to add is that not only doctors, but Scientists (who should be exploring everything and open to new ideas, right?) tend to do the same thing. It seems every time in past history (and now) that a new idea "against the grain" as he put it, is introduced, it gets pounded, chopped, and blasted into a million tiny pieces by the establishment, regardless of how valid it may be. The only modern example I can think of is a recent study by some German scientists (I think they were German) that seems to conclude that the speed of light is indeed not consistent. This goes against what we learned in elementary school, and these guys get crushed by the other mainstream scientists, but I suppose only time will tell what happens with the "discovery". By: redefine http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1202 redefine Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:52:38 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1202 i think we've all had similar discussions. i've learned to just make my point, and then shut up, unless they say something interesting. but i mean, its not like its uncommon. By: Hey_you http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1201 Hey_you Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:26:41 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1201 I've had a similar discussion and I argued the exact same way peebrain did ie how does that invalidate OBEs? I would also like to point out that science hasn't explained how consciousness arises from the brain and I personally doubt they ever will but "skeptics" are keen to take that as given. The most annoying tactic when the discussion turns to psi is the publicity stunt known as James Randi's million dollar contest. To win the challenge you have to score so high above chance its unreasonable and unscientific. Anyway, lesson learned: don't argue with self-proclaimed "skeptics". By: Mad Hatter http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1200 Mad Hatter Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:21:18 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1200 I really dislike that "Scientist Induce OBE's in lab" article. Ever since that study came out, I've seen it appearing everywhere. The "scientists" who perform these experiments more often then not don't do their background research, as is rather blatant in this case. They have no idea what an OBE is if they're calling those results out of body experiences. Science also suffers from something I'll call conceptual momentum. People are so entrenched in their current ideology that they actively resist attempts to explore what has been deemed "impossible." There's also a lot of ego being thrown about. If you read the china study, there are great examples of how stubbornly the leading doctors are towards anybody (even well established doctors and nutritionists!) who try and go against the grain. They are made fun of, cut off, and have a hard time finding any funding in pursuing their ideas simply because they aren't popular. I bet that it isn't too much of a stretch to say that this sort of thing occurs in other branches of scientific research and testing too. As Sean has pointed out, there are far too many well documented and well performed studies and tests out there to simply dismiss ESP, PSI, OBE's, or anything else. There's not enough to prove them beyond a doubt, but there is more then enough to cast a good doubt that what we currently believe is wrong, and they most certainly deserve further research and testing, instead of the jeering and laughing at they currently receive. -Hatter By: fruo http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1199 fruo Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:40:57 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1199 I read the NDE article about the surgery, and that makes me wonder, if the brain doesn't function, that means the consciousness is not dependent on the brain. So what is it ? By: Antisankari http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1198 Antisankari Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:23:07 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/03/09/hacking-works-cited/#comment-1198 Then again... The ONLY reason we are still arguing for our cause is that not a single one of us has enough skills to make a waterproof demonstration. In your case the proof would include being able to do OBE at will. Why do waste time and energy in pointless debates when we could be using that time for proactive stuff. Meditation, physical exercise, QiGong, anything that might further our knowledge in the field of our interest. If we lose a debate, we look dumb. If the debate cannot be resolved, we have wasted our time. If we happen to win, Nothing is changed. Its all about the ego... // I really fear this post comes off the wrong way, but with no edit button it is what it is. =D