🚀 go-pugleaf

< [Phil Stephens, in response to Greg]
< Ridicule is appropriate on Saturday Night Live and Not Neccessarily The News.
< It has no place in establishing truth.  
-------
No, but it's a very effective tool when the other guy is being ridiculous!
-------
< You have good points to make, why spoil the effect with bad sportsmanship?
< You won't like this example either.  In my own family, a more dramatic
< series of dreams by my sister ended when they came true:  she repeatedly
< ... etc. etc. ..........   
< Proof?  Nope.  The sun rising in the morning proves nothing,  could be a
< simulation.  There is no proof, if you go to extremes.  So don't go to
< extremes, learn to live.  Part of that is to learn what is, not what theory
< says.  If you limit yourself, your power of observation is reduced.  Either
< limitation of too much belief or too much skepticism puts blinders on you.
----------------
I'm underwhelmed.   When it comes to physics, or bullshit, there is no such
thing as too much skepticism.
----------------
< Anecdotal examples prove nothing, but they can be worthwhile to inspire
< deeper thought.  Or they can be a distraction from real thinking.  (From my
< point of view, that would be the TV evangelists... but to be fair, some
< New-Age and psi stuff qualifies as distraction, too).
< 
< If I told you I had seen rocks fall from the sky (or that my Dad and my
< sister had), would you scoff that there are no rocks in the sky, therefore
< the report HAS to be false?
---------------
No, I would say that it probably was meteorites.  You HAVE heard of them,
haven't you.
---------------
< There is a third alternative, besides belief
< and disbelief: open mindedness.  Try it.  You'll be a better scientist for
< it.  Or at least a better person.
------------------
Unfortunately, Phil, you cannot tell the difference.  Anyone who disbelieves
you is close-minded.  Anyone who believes you is open-minded.
------------------
< <[Greg, in response to Mitsu] 
< <What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you
< <describe.  In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the
< <biggest enigma in all of physics.  
------------------
< It is, actually.  And he didn't "discover" it, wise-ass.
------------------
Phil, first you berate Greg undeservedly for bad sportsmanship.  Then, you
procede to call Greg a wise-ass.  For once, I must admit you are right.
Greg has more wisdom in his ass than you do in your whole body.
And much more civility and manners, and less hypocrisy.
------------------
< <It should be presented as the great
< <counterexample in all physics courses.  Other paradoxes in physics are
< <presented in this fashion, so why not yours?  
------------------
< Only the ones already tamed, or safely divorsed from uncomfortable folklore.
------------------
Or the ones for which there is the slightest shred of reproducible evidence.
------------------
< What experiments?  He was presenting experience.  Not conclusive proof of
< anything, of course.  His theories are quite preliminary, but fit well with
< my experience, so far.
--------------------
What theories?  Mitsu's stuff may be a theory in the common English usage
of the word, like "I have a theory that I'm gaining weight", but they
are nowhere near the very beginnings of a theory as the term is used in
physics.  This is sci.physics, remember.  My gaining weight also fits
into my experience, so far, but it's hardly an appropriate item for
this newsgroup.
--------------------
< The subconscious mixes input from many sources,
< including psi (and the conventional sources like memory, body language,
< unconsciously noted details, sometimes even scent, etc), and draws conclusions
< of variable utility called hunches, dreams, premonitions, common sense,
< wisdom, horse sense, chemistry, rapport, instant (dis)-like... not a well-
< ordered obedient servant of logic and order.  A difficult subject to deal
< with rationally, so why bother (pardon the sarcasm)?  Just put on the
< blinders.  Easier to dismiss it all than to try to sort it out.
--------------------
Why should we bother.  You have just said above thas psi exists.  What
more evidence could we possibly need.-)
	So, Phil, having come out and said that psi exists, in the absence
of proof, you show yourself to be the close-minded one. Neither Greg nor
I ever said that psi does not exist, only that Mitsu's evidence and yours
was woefully inadequate at best, and worthless at worst.
	Physicists do not dismiss it all.  They just have more productive
ways to spend their time.
	If you wish to talk about the subconscious mind, horse sense, etc,
try net.psychology, or net.behavior, or something.
--------------------
< <<Excuse the psychobabble.
< (Mitsu, I knew you'd get burned on that phrase.  What a straight line!)
----------------
< < [More Greg]
< <I'm sorry, but I can't.  Psychobabble, just like any other sort of babble, is
< <ultimately inexcusable.  It doesn't belong in net.physics, and it doesn't
< <belong in the mouth (or at the fingers) of a "pretty good physics student".
----------------
< And ridicule does belong?  I think Mitsu wrote rather clearly, and presented
< useful ideas for further consideration.  Go ahead and criticize, but don't
< dishonor yourself so with childish taunts.
----------------
If you are going to be ridiculous, you must expect ridicule.
Mitsu's "ideas", such as they are, are not physics.  Neither are yours.
They do not belong in sci.physics.  If you and Mitsu had posted to
an appropriate newsgroup, nobody would have hassled you.
	Phil, you have shown yourself to be everything that you accused
Greg of.  What is so sad is that you probably really believe what you say.
PLEASE, put your psi discussions in another newsgroup.  PLEASE.
----------------
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan