|
Olsonic (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
great Job!
einrib4truth (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This is brilliant! Being just an insignificant individual, I subconsciously used this method when I started to Question "Who Owns What" with regards to ALL the Parasitic Corporations I constantly saw stealthily taking-over and Morally destroying virtually every Country I travelled to. This research, was to "Unknowingly" lead me down a path I couldn't in my "Wildest-Dreams" imagine where it was to take me. Now; I truly understand How the World's been severely DECEIVED for Centuries and by Whom!
allthingsarelikethis (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Science does not detect baloney, that is baloney science detects things that originate as imagination and turns them into reality, this in others times and places is known as magic, which people like Michael would call magic "baloney" when in fact this is just more magic in that it is a casted spell or the changing of what words mean, you say technology I say magic.
So again science does not detect baloney, people who believe science is THE only "real" paradigm are truly missing the boat.
luvsfitness (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MrSarcasticFringe obviously yours dosen't work....sorry...something you will need to research and develop on your own....not everything in life has an explanation!
photopicker (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
What about rare and unrepeatable phenomenon? There is absolutely no way to reproduce some events and yet they cannot be discounted in entirety just because they do not meet the criteria of this list of questions. I have experienced extraordinary events on numerous occasions and they can only be recounted at this time by anecdote. Does this mean that these claims shall be dismissed entirely or is there something here which is quite possibly beyond the current comprehension of humanity?
TheAtheologian (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MarksmenTM It is a series of questions that are used, for a layman (I cannot stress this enough, since my first mention seems to have slipped past you) to determine the larger question of what is truth.
Yes one could simplify to say "What is true knowledge?" or "Why is this false?" but these questions seek to, and do give guidelines for how one can easily determine the answers to these questions in f.ex. an internet debate or when checking a claim a friend made etc.
TheAtheologian (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MarksmenTM 9. Not your best argument thus far, account for as in explain how rather than state that. Religion being a poor mechanic in knowledge can be further explained but is not necessary here.
10. Motive is useful for the layman to determine whether or not one would cherrypick data to fit a conclusion, as often happens.
TheAtheologian (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MarksmenTM 4. Does it fit in with the current laws of physics etc without having to make grandiose exceptions.
6. this, not being science guidelines, does not refer to the evidence being true, it refers to what data you have, and where most of it is directed.
7. I agree somewhat, but this is in no way a given, especially considering double blinds etc. that are often skipped in poor results.
8. Evidence for one thing rather than evidence against a competitor.
TheAtheologian (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MarksmenTM Source as in the sources the paper or document or knowledge is base don, not the speaker himself/herself.
If I say "I should detox more often" and when pressed say because "My acupuncturist tells me I should detox more often" That is an example of the source making similar bogus claims. |
