What makes a good vampire theory
Julian Richards
1. A theory should obey the laws of science. That is not to say that the
theory should not contain mechanisms that have not been proved. Vampires may
be able to live forever due to some form of biological mechanism that
prevents aging, but they cannot burst into flame or have severe tissue
damage due to very brief exposure to sunlight.
2. A less rigorous rule is that any processes involved should have some form
of precedent. The working of most of the retrovirus theories ask for DNA to
do things that all other forms of DNA do not even get close to. That would
cast doubt on any theory.
3. Do not make theories based on episodes of "Star Trek". They never work
and the only people who believe them are anorak wearers with glasses like
bottle bottoms who think it's clever to say "Engage" everytime the bus
leaves the stop.
TuathaBran
Another thing to keep in mind...
If you are postulating something you cannot, as of yet, prove... it is not a
theory, but a hypothesis. A theory is only a hypothesis which can be proven
true, and its results can be duplicated in another experiment,and/or by another
researcher..
Scáthách
Cultural Advisor ~ Ceili Convention Committee
The Once and Future Con ~ 12-14 June 1998
http://www.mindwell.com/~anubis/oafc
"From this life to the next...."
The Madman who is Sane
Julian Richards wrote in message
<34DB6809.MD-0.19...@ndirect.co.uk>...
|1. A theory should obey the laws of science. That is not to say that the
|theory should not contain mechanisms that have not been proved. Vampires
may
|be able to live forever due to some form of biological mechanism that
|prevents aging, but they cannot burst into flame or have severe tissue
|damage due to very brief exposure to sunlight.
What's wrong with severe tissue damage due to sunlight? Some humans
(including some on this ng) end up with sunburns after about a half-hour in
contact with direct sunlight. Why can't the same thing happen more quickly
with a different species? Also, there are many life forms that are capable
of living in environments that would scald and poison humans within seconds
(just to add a little bit of fact to my otherwise total drivel).
|2. A less rigorous rule is that any processes involved should have some
form
|of precedent. The working of most of the retrovirus theories ask for DNA to
|do things that all other forms of DNA do not even get close to. That would
|cast doubt on any theory.
That's correct. In fact, you may have noticed that in every one of my posts
involving my "theory" I have put an addendum or other such statement that my
theory is completely unwarranted. I have never found a hormone that causes
vampirism (even though I haven't really looked for one either) and so, I am
completely unsupported in my theory.
|3. Do not make theories based on episodes of "Star Trek". They never work
|and the only people who believe them are anorak wearers with glasses like
|bottle bottoms who think it's clever to say "Engage" everytime the bus
|leaves the stop.
Do kha! Er... I mean, "this is unfortunate". Please don't ostracize me
for saying it. It's the only phrase in Klingon that I know. And besides,
does the hormone theory sound anything like Star Trek? If anything, I would
have gotten the idea from Larry Niven.
I suppose that I should go now. Live long and prosper.
The name says it all.
Madman who is Sane
The Madman who is Sane
Chooch
TuathaBran wrote:
>
> Another thing to keep in mind...
>
> If you are postulating something you cannot, as of yet, prove... it is not a
> theory, but a hypothesis. A theory is only a hypothesis which can be proven
> true, and its results can be duplicated in another experiment,and/or by another
> researcher..
>
"presumed true" and you've got it.
In scientific work in general, a Hypothesis is defined as a statement
which proposes a natural mechanism for a phenomenon, where the mechanism
is amenable to test, provides explanatory and predictive power, and is
conditionally held on review of further observation and experiment. A
Theory is a hypothesis that has accumulated supporting observations and
experimental results. For a theory to be scientific, it must be
falsifiable, i.e. there must be some test which can be performed that
will indicate that the theory is wrong. While you cannot totally,
conclusively prove a theory is true, some theories can be proven wrong
(like the "flat-earth" theory.) When that happens, we tend to forget
about them in relatively short order, so they're easy to overlook.
Further, for experimental results to be accepted, they must be
reproducible by other researchers, which is why valid reporting of
experiments includes a complete, accurate description of testing
methods.
These two requirements (falsifiability & reproducibility) are where most
of the theories advanced here fall short. To claim (for example) that
something is not detectable by any means known to science removes the
falsifiable requirement and moves the theory from science and into the
realm of faith.
You can make any sort of claim you want, but don't try to say it's
"scientific" unless you can meet the criteria of falsifiablity and
reproducibility.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <34DB6809.MD-0.19...@ndirect.co.uk> "Julian Richards"
<julian....@ndirect.co.uk> writes:
>1. A theory should obey the laws of science.
I'd add that a good theory should let you make some sort of prediction,
or at least draw some sort of inference about possible vampiric
behavior.
--Bill Thompson
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <886828138.926561@michelob> "The Madman who is Sane"
>|3. Do not make theories based on episodes of "Star Trek". They never
>|work and the only people who believe them are anorak wearers with
>|glasses like bottle bottoms who think it's clever to say "Engage"
>|everytime the bus leaves the stop.
>Do kha! Er... I mean, "this is unfortunate". Please don't ostracize
>me for saying it. It's the only phrase in Klingon that I know.
bImoh 'ej SoSlij DutuQmoh tlhaQ!
>And besides, does the hormone theory sound anything like Star Trek?
>If anything, I would have gotten the idea from Larry Niven.
Well, if it sounds like you're making up the words as you go along ...
if it sounds like you think a "light-year" has fewer calories ...
if you'd mention Lilith because you still don't know how Horvath would
respond ...
Larry Niven had a vampire species in "The Ringworld Engineers." They
were humans who had evolved to feed exclusively on blood; they'd lost
most of their intelligence, but captured their human prey by emitting
clouds of pheromones (if I remember correctly). This made the
vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
minor details as survival.
--Bill Thompson
soal
Julian Richards wrote:
> 1. A theory should obey the laws of science. That is not to say that the
> theory should not contain mechanisms that have not been proved. Vampires may
> be able to live forever due to some form of biological mechanism that
> prevents aging, but they cannot burst into flame or have severe tissue
> damage due to very brief exposure to sunlight.
>
> of precedent. The working of most of the retrovirus theories ask for DNA to
> do things that all other forms of DNA do not even get close to. That would
> cast doubt on any theory.
>
> and the only people who believe them are anorak wearers with glasses like
> bottle bottoms who think it's clever to say "Engage" everytime the bus
> leaves the stop.
1. i totaly agree with
2.when dna mutates most are shocked and amazed at its miraculess change
especialy when stable just think of it this way look at a single cell
a-sexual reperducing organism then look at us nuff said. even so i
disagree with the retrovirus idea
3. many things have given physist ideas from watching star trek it seems
every physist has got at least one if if it didn't work my prof is an
avid fan and can piont out several logical things that it brought up and
advanced us later or now
but good format liked it also made it easy to respond
soal
B J Kuehl
Julian Richards writes:
> 1. A theory should obey the laws of science. That is not to say that the
> theory should not contain mechanisms that have not been proved. Vampires may
> be able to live forever due to some form of biological mechanism that
> prevents aging, but they cannot burst into flame or have severe tissue
> damage due to very brief exposure to sunlight.
Last night I was roasting green and red peppers under the broiler.
I reached my right hand into the oven to turn a pepper. Within
two seconds, the back of my hand began to feel the heat. Within
four seconds, it became very painful and I had to withdraw my hand.
The skin on the back of my hand looked red and felt hot to the
touch. I immediately rinsed my hand in cold water. Today it
looks fine, but the back of my right hand feels different from the
back of my left hand. I'll bet that, under microscopic examination,
you could find tissue damage. I do not believe, however, that my
hand would have burst into flames had I left it under the broiler.
It probably would have turned black and begun to peel -- just like
the peppers I was trying to roast.
^V^ Baby JInx ^V^
B J Kuehl
Bill T adds to Julian Richards' comment that:
>>1. A theory should obey the laws of science.
>
> or at least draw some sort of inference about possible vampiric
> behavior.
Before devising any theories or making any sorts of predictions,
it is first necessary to define your terminology.
Define 'vampire'.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
B J Kuehl
Bill T writes:
> Larry Niven had a vampire species in "The Ringworld Engineers." They
> were humans who had evolved to feed exclusively on blood; they'd lost
> most of their intelligence, but captured their human prey by emitting
> clouds of pheromones (if I remember correctly). This made the
> vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
> minor details as survival.
Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
of dating.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: > most of their intelligence, but captured their human prey by emitting
: > clouds of pheromones (if I remember correctly). This made the
: > vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
: > minor details as survival.
: Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
: of dating.
Could you ask them where can I learn to emit these clouds
of pheromones? The whole idea sounds EXTREMELY interesting ;-)
-Jake, grinning to himself
B J Kuehl
I'll ask them for you, but
*sniff sniff*
I don't think you'll need it.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
The Madman who is Sane
Jarno Uurainen wrote in message <6bi9sg$9k4$1...@luola.kontunet.fi>...
|B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
|
|: > most of their intelligence, but captured their human prey by emitting
|: > clouds of pheromones (if I remember correctly). This made the
|: > vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
|: > minor details as survival.
|
|: Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
|: of dating.
|
|Could you ask them where can I learn to emit these clouds
|of pheromones? The whole idea sounds EXTREMELY interesting ;-)
First, you have to atrophy your brain. Then you have to forget any scruples
about inter-species relationships (not much of a problem since your brain
isn't exactly what it used to be). Then you have to move to Ringworld and
join a vampire family group. And make sure that you don't live under one of
those zero-g buildings. They can cause a lot of damage if they get excess
water.
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: > : Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
: > : of dating.
: >
: > Could you ask them where can I learn to emit these clouds
: > of pheromones? The whole idea sounds EXTREMELY interesting ;-)
: >
:
: I'll ask them for you, but
: *sniff sniff*
: I don't think you'll need it.
Don't worry. I'll give you my lapdog's word of honor that
I will be using those pheromones for purely sexual purposes :)
-Jake
ScatterbuG
Baby J wrote:
>Bill T writes:
>> vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
>> minor details as survival.
>
>Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
>of dating.
>
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
>
certain women do that to us... don't worry, it's a compliment, of
sorts...
ScatterbuG
"there ya go joe, hope ya get aroused someday..."
-howard stern
http://www.mhonline.net/~scatter
B J Kuehl
Is that a promise?
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
WngdWolf13
>These two requirements (falsifiability & reproducibility) are where most
>of the theories advanced here fall short. To claim (for example) that
>something is not detectable by any means known to science removes the
>falsifiable requirement and moves the theory from science and into the
>realm of faith.
This causes many problems when dealing with (for example) theoretical
particles.
Perhaps it would be better to say that these things have not yet been
detected--not that they cannot be detected.
Psychic energies, for example, have not yet been detected (or, at least, have
not been detected in such a manner as would enable their existence to be
scientifically accepted)--but that does not mean they cannot be detected. It
could happen tomorrow. The supporting evidence is in place--just as you can
see gravity at work when you drop something, but detecting the energy involved
in gravity is another matter altogether.
The problem of falsifiability still exists. But it exists not only for things
which deal with the psychic, but also for such things as theoretical particles.
Perhaps the term theory is used too loosely in many cases, and the term
"hypothesis" should be substituted. However, if we still classify a theory as
a hypothesis with supporting evidence, what do we do with those hypothesis
which have supporting evidence, but have no falsifiability?
What does seem clear to me is that people have outlined a set of
characteristics, and then speculated on their cause--the hypotheses in
question. Since the characteristics do indeed exist, they tend to call it a
theory, using those characteristics as the supporting evidence. Most of these
hypotheses have no evidence which supports the individual explanation for the
characteristics over any other explanation--in this, they fail.
I've never claimed my research was conducted in a scientific manner. I haven't
the funding to take on a project of that magnetude, and I haven't a prayer of
getting any funding for such a thing for the very reason you have
outlined--lack of falsifiability. I cannot provide a way to DISPROVE my
theory. But it is interesting, isn't it? And it seems to work. Maybe
something will be discovered in my lifetime that will allow for a way to
provide falsifiability for this theory/hypothesis.
--Winged Wolf
the were/psion
WngdW...@aol.com
Psion Guild
http://members.aol.com/psion425/Guild.html
Chiller
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> opined thus: -
>Last night I was roasting green and red peppers under the broiler.
>I reached my right hand into the oven to turn a pepper. Within
>two seconds, the back of my hand began to feel the heat. Within
>four seconds, it became very painful and I had to withdraw my hand.
>The skin on the back of my hand looked red and felt hot to the
>touch. I immediately rinsed my hand in cold water. Today it
>looks fine, but the back of my right hand feels different from the
>back of my left hand. I'll bet that, under microscopic examination,
>you could find tissue damage. I do not believe, however, that my
>hand would have burst into flames had I left it under the broiler.
>It probably would have turned black and begun to peel -- just like
>the peppers I was trying to roast.
*Passes BJ some tongs for future use and an aloe vera plant*
Chiller
Ice and a slice?
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk/index.html
KIKIDECKER
>>Last night I was roasting green and red peppers under the broiler.
>>I reached my right hand into the oven to turn a pepper. Within
>>two seconds, the back of my hand began to feel the heat. Within
>>four seconds, it became very painful and I had to withdraw my hand.
>>The skin on the back of my hand looked red and felt hot to the
>>touch. I immediately rinsed my hand in cold water. Today it
>>looks fine, but the back of my right hand feels different from the
>>back of my left hand. I'll bet that, under microscopic examination,
>>you could find tissue damage. I do not believe, however, that my
>>hand would have burst into flames had I left it under the broiler.
>>It probably would have turned black and begun to peel -- just like
>>the peppers I was trying to roast.
>*Passes BJ some tongs for future use and an aloe vera plant*
So if we build a big oven... and put all the Real Vampires (tm) in it, we could
make a fortune off of selling Aloe!
Kiki~
Julian Richards
>
> I'll ask them for you, but
>
> *sniff sniff*
>
> I don't think you'll need it.
>
That's just the smell that border collies have when their fur gets wet.
B J Kuehl
Julian Richards writes:
> That's just the smell that border collies have when their fur gets wet.
I beg your pardon, sir. *I* am the border collie, by your
own admonition.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: > : I'll ask them for you, but
: > : *sniff sniff*
: > : I don't think you'll need it.
: >
: > Don't worry. I'll give you my lapdog's word of honor that
: > I will be using those pheromones for purely sexual purposes :)
:
: Is that a promise?
No, it's a lapdog's word of honor, which binds me more than
a mere promise.
-Jake, wondering whether pheromones can be used
it other than sexual purposes... ;-)
Jarno Uurainen
Julian Richards <julian....@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
: > I'll ask them for you, but
: > *sniff sniff*
: > I don't think you'll need it.
:
: That's just the smell that border collies have when their fur gets wet.
No, I'm not a border collie. BJ is the border collie, I'm the
lapdog. The smell is rather coming from my L'oreal shampoo
than fur.
-Jake
B J Kuehl
> Julian Richards <julian....@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
> : That's just the smell that border collies have when their fur gets wet.
And Jake replied:
> No, I'm not a border collie. BJ is the border collie, I'm the
> lapdog. The smell is rather coming from my L'oreal shampoo
> than fur.
Do you think Julian is trying to imply that you and I are dogs?
*woof woof*
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Julian Richards
Your views of particle physics are very much mistaken. Particles fall into
two groups; those that are not yet found but are part of a theory and those
which have been detected.
Detected particles include:
protons
electrons
neutrons
most mesons
most hyperons
photons
muons
most intermediate bosons
Hypothetical particles
tachyons
Higglets (small Higgs bosons)
glueballs
The detected particles have been unambiguously proved. We cannot see them
but they are defined by what they do. A proton is a proton as defined by its
properties and interactions with other particles.
You cannot compare metaphysical theories with particle physics. The latter
has an extremely rigorous mathematical formulation. This is not the first
time that this mistaken comparison has been made within the group, I hope
that I have been able to set the record straight.
Julian Richards
>I reached my right hand into the oven to turn a pepper. Within
>two seconds, the back of my hand began to feel the heat. Within
>four seconds, it became very painful and I had to withdraw my hand.
>The skin on the back of my hand looked red and felt hot to the
>touch. I immediately rinsed my hand in cold water. Today it
>looks fine, but the back of my right hand feels different from the
>back of my left hand. I'll bet that, under microscopic examination,
>you could find tissue damage. I do not believe, however, that my
>hand would have burst into flames had I left it under the broiler.
>It probably would have turned black and begun to peel -- just like
>the peppers I was trying to roast.
The rate of absorption of energy was very much higher than that of sunlight
so it was not suprising that tissue damage was sustained. Skin cannot be
sensitive enough to have damage from short exposure to sunlight. That sort
of sensitivity is in the realm of photographic emulsions.
The Madman who is Sane
Julian Richards wrote in message
<34DE23AD.MD-0.19...@ndirect.co.uk>...
|Detected particles include:
|protons
|electrons
|neutrons
|most mesons
|most hyperons
|photons
|muons
|most intermediate bosons
|
|Hypothetical particles
|tachyons
|Higglets (small Higgs bosons)
|glueballs
|
|The detected particles have been unambiguously proved. We cannot see them
|but they are defined by what they do. A proton is a proton as defined by
its
|properties and interactions with other particles.
You may have set the record straight, but I have not been set even close to
straight. Besides, you forgot to mention the positrons that are created
when a proton turns into a neutron. And the neutrinos that are detected all
over the world in huge underground neutrino detectors.
And there are other little things in your argument that I'm too tired to
talk about right now.
The Madman who is Sane
Julian Richards wrote in message
<34DE25EE.MD-0.19...@ndirect.co.uk>...
|The rate of absorption of energy was very much higher than that of sunlight
|so it was not suprising that tissue damage was sustained. Skin cannot be
|sensitive enough to have damage from short exposure to sunlight. That sort
|of sensitivity is in the realm of photographic emulsions.
So, maybe vampires have a chemical structure similar to that of a
photographic emulsion. Just my two cents among my thousands more that I
have "contributed" to these discussions.
Chooch
WngdWolf13 wrote:
I think that before you worry about falsifiability, your primary concern
should be reproducibility. Which doesn't mean having the same person
repeat the experiment (or procedure), it means having an _independent_
lab or researcher be able to duplicate your results when they run your
experiment/procedure. If a process can't be reproduced in that way,
it's pretty much dead in the water. (Not being reproducible is
probably the most basic falsification of a theory. Remember the "cold
fusion" flap of a few years ago? That's what happened there.) One
other point: falsifiablility refers to the theory itself. It doesn't
necessarily refer to the underlying phenomena. Although falsifying the
phenomena pretty much takes the theory with it, the reverse isn't
necessarily true.
Reproducibility is where most experiments involving psychic phenomena
fall apart. The experiments just don't travel well, apparently, as
independent verification is _sorely_ lacking. Obviously, none of that
_proves_ that psychic phenomena doesn't exist, but there is virtually
_no_ independent verification of it.
You mentioned gravity above, which is actually a pretty good example.
The force involved is detectable only by its effect. But, experiments
with gravity are most certainly repeatable, and it's a fairly simple
matter (in hindsight) to come up with a "theory of gravity" that makes
predictions about its effects in various circumstances and to
experimentally test those predictions. It's also a good example of
falsifying a theory without falsifying the underlying phenomena, which
is what Galileo did.
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: > Julian Richards <julian....@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
: > : That's just the smell that border collies have when their fur gets wet.
: And Jake replied:
: > No, I'm not a border collie. BJ is the border collie, I'm the
: > lapdog. The smell is rather coming from my L'oreal shampoo
: > than fur.
: BJ asked:
: Do you think Julian is trying to imply that you and I are dogs?
I wouldn't mind, as long as I can howl to the full moon with you...
*smile*
-Jake
B J Kuehl
Julian Richards:
> Skin cannot be sensitive enough to have damage from short
> exposure to sunlight.
Have you ever met an albino?
^V^ Baby JInx ^V^
Julian Richards
I get the feeling that I'm digging my own grave with you two. I'm waiting
for a real(TM) vampire to post to the group again so I can annoy them, until
that time, a bit of gentle teasing to my highly respected correspondents
will have to do.
Highwayman
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
: Julian Richards:
: > Skin cannot be sensitive enough to have damage from short
: > exposure to sunlight.
: Have you ever met an albino?
Not to mention... Have you ever been to Phoenix in July?
You can incinerate an egg on the sidewalk ;)
Highwayman
B J Kuehl
When I asked Jake:
> : Do you think Julian is trying to imply that you and I are dogs?
He replied:
> I wouldn't mind, as long as I can howl to the full moon with you...
The full moon is this Wednesday. What song shall we howl?
Galileo! Galileo! Galileo....galileo....figaro! Magnifico!
^V^ Baby JInx ^V^
WngdWolf13
>I think that before you worry about falsifiability, your primary concern
>should be reproducibility. Which doesn't mean having the same person
>repeat the experiment (or procedure), it means having an _independent_
>lab or researcher be able to duplicate your results when they run your
>experiment/procedure.
I've already acheived that, which is why I'm no longer concerned with it. The
main problem people seem to have with this, is that it requires "equipment" (in
the form of a specifically sensitive individual) which most people don't have
access to. No machinery is necessary, but someone has to be able to "see" what
they are doing, and to manipulate the energies in question. Nonetheless, with
that provided--yes, different individuals, and substantial distances apart--it
has been reproduced.
>One
>other point: falsifiablility refers to the theory itself. It doesn't
>necessarily refer to the underlying phenomena.
This was obvious, and understood.
>Reproducibility is where most experiments involving psychic phenomena
>fall apart.
This is often due to unreasonable criteria--for example, if person X is able to
achieve 90% accuracy in telepathy experiments, consistantly, the data from
these experiments would be dismissed simply because person Y cannot do the
same.
This type of reproducibility has been used to prevent the acceptance of many
experiments dealing with psychic phenomena. Quite simply, the scientific
community doesn't WANT to accept it, and the requirements will always exceed
the results for this reason. Logic may dictate that simply because one
individual can acheive an effect does not mean that all individuals can do
so--and that just because all individuals cannot acheive an effect does not
mean that the effect does not exist; but logic has very little to do with it,
it seems.
One of the main barriers to research on psychic phenomena is simple lack of
adequate funding.
Chiller
KIKIDECKER wrote:
>
> >*Passes BJ some tongs for future use and an aloe vera plant*
>
> So if we build a big oven... and put all the Real Vampires (tm) in it, we could
> make a fortune off of selling Aloe!
>
> Kiki~
Good plan, but you'll find it vastly impaired by my tendency to give
things away.
Chiller
Ice and a Slice?
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk
B J Kuehl
When I asked Jake:
>> : Do you think Julian is trying to imply that you and I are dogs?
He said:
>> I wouldn't mind, as long as I can howl to the full moon with you...
And Julian replied:
> I get the feeling that I'm digging my own grave with you two. I'm waiting
> for a real(TM) vampire to post to the group again so I can annoy them, until
> that time, a bit of gentle teasing to my highly respected correspondents
> will have to do.
I have a new motto. Snogging is better than snarling. And when
you have a snogging partner like Jake and a full moon to howl at,
this border collie doesn't think life can get much better.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
White Spirit
WngdWolf13 wrote:
> I've already acheived that, which is why I'm no longer concerned with it. The
> main problem people seem to have with this, is that it requires "equipment" (in
> the form of a specifically sensitive individual) which most people don't have
> access to. No machinery is necessary, but someone has to be able to "see" what
> they are doing, and to manipulate the energies in question. Nonetheless, with
> that provided--yes, different individuals, and substantial distances apart--it
> has been reproduced.
This cannot be considered proof in the scientific sense. If you are
proving something to yourself it is subjective. If others cannot
experience the "proof" objectively by demonstratable means the theories
and ideas in question are still in the realms of personal belief.
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: When I asked Jake:
: > : Do you think Julian is trying to imply that you and I are dogs?
: He replied:
: > I wouldn't mind, as long as I can howl to the full moon with you.
: The full moon is this Wednesday. What song shall we howl?
: Galileo! Galileo! Galileo....galileo....figaro! Magnifico!
Oh. How about passionate kissing instead of howling?
*grin*
-Jake
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: *Woof! Woof!*
: You can press your muzzle against mine anytime, dear.
*woof*
Just a moment, all this long fur in my head is falling
over my face...
I'd probably be happy to press my muzzle against yours,
but someone has to explain what a 'muzzle' means first.
*innocent smile*
-Jake
Chooch
WngdWolf13 wrote:
>
> >I think that before you worry about falsifiability, your primary concern
> >should be reproducibility. Which doesn't mean having the same person
> >repeat the experiment (or procedure), it means having an _independent_
> >lab or researcher be able to duplicate your results when they run your
> >experiment/procedure.
>
> main problem people seem to have with this, is that it requires "equipment" (in
> the form of a specifically sensitive individual) which most people don't have
> access to. No machinery is necessary, but someone has to be able to "see" what
> they are doing, and to manipulate the energies in question. Nonetheless, with
> that provided--yes, different individuals, and substantial distances apart--it
> has been reproduced.
>
considered to be reproducible.
>
> >Reproducibility is where most experiments involving psychic phenomena
> >fall apart.
>
> This is often due to unreasonable criteria--for example, if person X is able to
> achieve 90% accuracy in telepathy experiments, consistantly, the data from
> these experiments would be dismissed simply because person Y cannot do the
> same.
> This type of reproducibility has been used to prevent the acceptance of many
> experiments dealing with psychic phenomena.
No. Most often, these experiments fail because "person X" cannot
duplicate the results under conditions where the possibility of fraud is
eliminated. And that is not an "unreasonable criteria". Quite the
opposite, it's the only reasonable criteria there is.
> Quite simply, the scientific
> community doesn't WANT to accept it, and the requirements will always exceed
> the results for this reason.
The scientific community doesn't WANT to accept _anything_, and the
requirements expected for psychic phenomenon are exactly the same as the
requirements for anything else. To be accepted, your data has to be
able to withstand cold, hard, skeptical examination, and to win over its
critics (in spite of their disbelief) on its own merits. It doesn't
matter if the theory deals with telepathy, plate tectonics, sub-atomic
particles, crop circles, or relativity; if it can't stand that kind of
rigorous investigation it's not going to be accepted. And, as Bill T
pointed out, the difficulty of gaining the acceptance of the scientific
community is precisely why it's so highly prized.
B J Kuehl
When I asked Jake:
>: The full moon is this Wednesday. What song shall we howl?
>: Galileo! Galileo! Galileo....galileo....figaro! Magnifico!
He replied:
> Oh. How about passionate kissing instead of howling?
*Woof! Woof!*
You can press your muzzle against mine anytime, dear.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
jim
ScatterbuG wrote:
> Baby J wrote:
> >Bill T writes:
> >> vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
> >> minor details as survival.
> >
> >Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
> >of dating.
> certain women do that to us... don't worry, it's a compliment, of
> sorts...
Some guys meet all the nice girls...
jim
--
j.ca...@physiology.ucl.ac.uk | http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/~jim/
-This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence.
TuathaBran
Julian Richards wrote:
> Skin cannot be sensitive enough to have damage from short
> exposure to sunlight.
Ever try moving in the middle of August in New Orleans? ;) Just moving boxes
out of a truck and into the apt gave me one hell of a nasty blistering sunburn.
Scáthách
Cultural Advisor ~ Ceili Convention Committee
The Once and Future Con ~ 12-14 June 1998
http://www.mindwell.com/~anubis/oafc
"From this life to the next...."
Alxxanndra
>To claim (for example) that
>>something is not detectable by any means known to science removes the
>>falsifiable requirement and moves the theory from science and into the
>>realm of faith.
That which we truly believe and somehow know must be true often cannot be
proven by scientific methods. Yet if one of us met a vampyre late one night
alone on a deserted street, I doubt we would take the time to explain to
him/her that he/she cannot exist within the realm of science. I am not saying
that I truly believe in vampyres...love the myth...but then again, I would not
be surprised if they were real. I just have no experience to validate my
thoughts...and until I can validate my "feelings" they remain just
that...feelings vs. fact.
Alexandra
Torrin
Highwayman wrote:
> B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
> : Julian Richards:
> : > Skin cannot be sensitive enough to have damage from short
> : > exposure to sunlight.
>
> : Have you ever met an albino?
>
> Not to mention... Have you ever been to Phoenix in July?
>
> You can incinerate an egg on the sidewalk ;)
>
> Highwayman
Now, I know I'm butting in on this conversation... BUT... In my limited
years here on the mortal coil, I've found that at times the best
"fiction" is at the heart a very plausible explanation for "impossible"
happenings. If any of you have read the Necroscope novels.. you already
know the opinion there.. a Parasite that makes the body over for
itself.... now, granted while it IS fiction, it does seem, IMHO, to be
rather plausible.. but where one would go and find said vampire, or said
parasite, to test said hypothesis, I have no clue... and if I did.. I
would most likely, be talking of myself, or a close relative, seeing as
how they DO drink blood after all.. *S* But now i am rambling and it is
early... I'm afraid I must be off.. the dark confines of the basement do
await me.. *G*
Peace, Love, and Scoobie Snacks!
Torrin
Wuff
Argh... I thought I'd escaped these threads... they're following meeee....
Precisely this discussion is at present going on over in alt.atheism, about
whether you can subjectively 'know' something which isn't objectively
provable.
'That which we truly believe' means nothing to anyone other than ourselves,
there is no way of objectively proving it. Also, for almost any belief, you
can find a polar opposite subjective belief which is just as certain.
Sadly, it seems to be one of those cases where there is no solution.
Regards,
Vin
Chiller
Jarno Uurainen wrote:
>
> B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>
> : *Woof! Woof!*
> : You can press your muzzle against mine anytime, dear.
>
>
> Just a moment, all this long fur in my head is falling
> over my face...
>
> I'd probably be happy to press my muzzle against yours,
> but someone has to explain what a 'muzzle' means first.
>
> *innocent smile*
>
> -Jake
It's a device used to prevent you from biting BJ.
or
It's the nose and jaws of a dog.
or
It's the bit of a gun where the bullet comes out.
Pick your favourite definition and rub it against BJ if you will, but
if you're going for number three, can I suggest you ask the squeamish
to turn away first?
In fact - ye gods - if you're going for number two the same thing
applies.
Sidh Dubh
Wuff wrote:
> 'That which we truly believe' means nothing to anyone other than ourselves,
> there is no way of objectively proving it. Also, for almost any belief, you
> can find a polar opposite subjective belief which is just as certain.
>
> Sadly, it seems to be one of those cases where there is no solution.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vin
If there were a solution, do you honestly think it would still be
being discussed!
Another thing I'd like to add is that if you're going to do meaningful
science on anything then you need a decent statistical sample. Also a
classification system needs to have more than one member per group if
it's going to be of any use whatsoever.
Plus the only thing you could ever prove regarding a belief is that
someone believes it, and we all know how screwed up the human mind is.
Sidh Dubh
Though in retrospect Lilith is still kicking around...
Thissell
> : > clouds of pheromones (if I remember correctly). This made the
> : > vampires' victims so interested in sex that they'd forget about such
> : > minor details as survival.
>
> : Sounds just like some of the men whom I've had the dubious pleasure
> : of dating.
>
> of pheromones? The whole idea sounds EXTREMELY interesting ;-)
>
> -Jake, grinning to himself
If your realy interested threr is a french perfume\cologne that puts
human sexual pheramones into it so... well you know why.
soal
costs a shitload i hear though.
WngdWolf13
>This cannot be considered proof in the scientific sense. If you are
>proving something to yourself it is subjective. If others cannot
>experience the "proof" objectively by demonstratable means the theories
>and ideas in question are still in the realms of personal belief.
>
How do you prove to a blind person that colors exist?
WngdWolf13
>Until that can be verified by independant researchers, it isn't
>considered to be reproducible.
>
>
It can be, provided that the procedure is followed.
>No. Most often, these experiments fail because "person X" cannot
>duplicate the results under conditions where the possibility of fraud is
>eliminated. And that is not an "unreasonable criteria"
No, that is not what happens most often. Most often, person X cannot operate
under psychological conditions which inhibit his abilities--usually conditions
which make him/her feel pressured and nervous. This has little to do with
eliminating the possibility of fraud. There are plenty of experiments in which
the possibility of fraud was reduced to ludicrously low levels. They are
considered to be lacking in proof because Person Y couldn't do what person X
could do. That's the truth.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980211094...@ladder03.news.aol.com> the weren't/psion
goes for the laughs by responding to Chooch with:
<snip of Chooch's futile display of intelligence to WooWoo>
>>Until that can be verified by independent researchers, it isn't
>>considered to be reproducible.
>It can be, provided that the procedure is followed.
You don't seem to understand that this is what Chooch just said. Of
course, he was talking about scientific procedures as used by
scientists. In this context, "reproducible results" means that other
researchers can run the experiment and, well, reproduce the results. I
hope that isn't too complicated for you.
>>No. Most often, these experiments fail because "person X" cannot
>>duplicate the results under conditions where the possibility of fraud
>>is eliminated. And that is not an "unreasonable criteria"
>No, that is not what happens most often. Most often, person X cannot
>operate under psychological conditions which inhibit his
>abilities--usually conditions which make him/her feel pressured and
>nervous.
Tough. If you want to claim to be "scientific," you have to play the
science game to the science rules. That means getting things to work
in the lab, and getting them to work when sceptics are watching you.
Scientists have been doing that for a real long time; they've found
that gravity, subatomic particles, electromagnetic fields and all sorts
of biological processes don't give a damn about the level of scepticism
in the audience.
This "psychological inhibition" schtick has been used by countless
frauds, lunatics and just-plain-misled believers to explain why they
crapped out when people were looking. If things won't work when the
heat is on, then they're useless at best, and more likely non-existent.
--Bill Thompson
jim
B J Kuehl wrote:
> The full moon is this Wednesday. What song shall we howl?
>
> Galileo! Galileo! Galileo....galileo....figaro! Magnifico!
Those that the beast is looking for
Listen in awe and you'll hear him...
Bark at the moon.
White Spirit
WngdWolf13 wrote:
> How do you prove to a blind person that colors exist?
You don't. They'll never know for sure if they've never had sight. And
so, for me, the point is not to expect them to believe if they're
unwilling.
Chooch
WngdWolf13 wrote:
> (quoting White Spirit)
> >This cannot be considered proof in the scientific sense. If you are
> >proving something to yourself it is subjective. If others cannot
> >experience the "proof" objectively by demonstratable means the theories
> >and ideas in question are still in the realms of personal belief.
> >
>
>
For that matter, how do you "prove" to a sighted person that they're
seeing the same colors that you are?
There are, however, a number of ways that you can demonstrate the
existence of color to a blind person and in some cases even teach them
to differentiate between colors.
Chooch
WngdWolf13 wrote:
>
> (quoting my earlier response)
> >No. Most often, these experiments fail because "person X" cannot
> >duplicate the results under conditions where the possibility of fraud is
> >eliminated. And that is not an "unreasonable criteria"
>
> No, that is not what happens most often. Most often, person X cannot operate
> under psychological conditions which inhibit his abilities--usually conditions
> eliminating the possibility of fraud. There are plenty of experiments in which
> the possibility of fraud was reduced to ludicrously low levels. They are
> considered to be lacking in proof because Person Y couldn't do what person X
> could do. That's the truth.
>
can duplicate the claimed results under conditions where _any_
possibility of fraud has been eliminated, it doesn't count. Even a
"ludicrously low level" still admits that there is some possibility of
fraud. It has to be zero, zip, zilch, nada, absolutely _none_
whatsoever, or else you're still stuck with a possibilty that the
results are due to fraud. There just isn't any way around it, nor are
there any shortcuts. If you want to make the claim that no fraud was
involved, then the results have to be obtained under conditions where
_any_ possibility of fraud has been eliminated.
The Madman who is Sane
WngdWolf13 wrote in message
<19980211093...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
|>This cannot be considered proof in the scientific sense. If you are
|>proving something to yourself it is subjective. If others cannot
|>experience the "proof" objectively by demonstratable means the theories
|>and ideas in question are still in the realms of personal belief.
|>
|
|
|How do you prove to a blind person that colors exist?
Colours _don't_ exist. There is merely a small band of wavelengths of light
that can be seen by the human eye. These wavelengths are picked up by the
rods and cones. The rods and cones send electric impulses to the brain
which translates the impulses into what we believe to be colours.
The name says it all.
Madman who is Sane
B J Kuehl
When Winged Whatever-she-is wrote:
>> There are plenty of experiments in which the possiblilty of
>> to be lacking in proof because Person Y couldn't do what person X
>> could do. That's the truth.
Chooch replied:
>It has nothing to do with "person Y". Until "person X" can
>duplicate the claimed results under conditions where _any_
>possibility of fraud has been eliminated, it doesn't count.
>Even a "ludicrously low level" still admits that there is some
>possibility of fraud. It has to be zero, zip, zilch, nada,
>absolutely _none_ whatsoever, or else you're still stuck with
>a possibility that the results are due to fraud.
How it works in reality is this. Person X is not tested once
but many, many times. Person X's responses are calculated for
the mean, realizing that anyone can be above or below the mean
at anytime. The mean response of Person X is placed on the
normal approximation to the binomial. If the mean response of
Person X lies outside of an agreed upon probability (the probability
that his/her responses would be 'hits' compared against all the
theoretical 'hits' so far compiled, which is usually placed at
5 out of 100), Person X might be considered to possess something
out of the ordinary.
So far, very few 'psychics' have been able to measure up.
I'm sorry to evoke the technical here, but it's in my blood. :)
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
J. FOWLER
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
[snip.]
: So far, very few 'psychics' have been able to measure up.
So, some _have_ measured up? Do you know who they are?
kallisti
B J Kuehl
kallisti asks:
> : So far, very few 'psychics' have been able to measure up.
>
> So, some _have_ measured up? Do you know who they are?
No. Much of the work with psychics was performed at such
places as the Rhine Institute or by the select few parapsychologists
who are able to obtain funding and a position in the Psychology
or Parapsychology departments of certain universities.
As with most university research, the names of the subjects are
kept confidential.
^V^ Baby JInx ^V^
WngdWolf13
In article <6bs2cc$2...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
><HTML><PRE><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" SIZE=3>You don't seem to
>understand that this is what Chooch just said. Of
course, he was talking
>about scientific procedures as used by
scientists. In this context,
>"reproducible results" means that other
researchers can run the experiment
>and, well, reproduce the results. I
hope that isn't too complicated for
>you.
Since this has been a civil discussion, your incorporation of an insulting
statement is something I choose to take to mean you feel threatened in some
way. That's my perogative. *shrug* In any case, as I said, the results
achieved will be the same if the procedures outlined are followed--in other
words, if you remove the symbiont, the vampyric symptoms will disappear.
>This "psychological inhibition" schtick has been used by countless
frauds, lunatics and just-plain-misled believers to explain why they
crapped out when people were looking. If things won't work when the
heat is on, then they're useless at best, and more likely non-existent.
>--Bill Thompson
Spoken like someone who's never suffered from stage fright. The realm of the
psyche isn't easily stuffed into a physics lab. If you treat an experiment
which involves psychological factors as though it were a simple physics
experiment, of course your results are going to be variable. This only takes a
bit of logic to deduce. If psychological factors were taken into
consideration, these experiments may work out better. But no one has really
tried to do that, yet. And if they did, no doubt the experiments would in some
way be labeled "non-scientific" or they would be accused of not using proper
procedure.
WngdWolf13
In article <34E1D3...@casagrande.com>, Chooch <cho...@casagrande.com>
writes:
><HTML><PRE><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" SIZE=3>There are, however, a
>number of ways that you can demonstrate the
existence of color to a blind
>person and in some cases even teach them
to differentiate between
>colors
And unless you rely on the perceptions of others to use as proof for this
person, then you will need sophisticated equipment to do so, won't you?
In fact, such equipment didn't exist 100 years ago.
WngdWolf13
In article <34E1DA...@casagrande.com>, Chooch <cho...@casagrande.com>
writes:
><HTML><PRE><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" SIZE=3>Who's "truth"? It
>has nothing to do with "person Y". Until "person X"
can duplicate the
>claimed results under conditions where _any_
possibility of fraud has been
>eliminated, it doesn't count. Even a
"ludicrously low level" still admits
>that there is some possibility of
fraud. It has to be zero, zip, zilch,
>nada, absolutely _none_
whatsoever, or else you're still stuck with a
>possibilty that the
results are due to fraud. There just isn't any way
>around it, nor are
there any shortcuts. If you want to make the claim that
>no fraud was
involved, then the results have to be obtained under conditions
>where
_any_ possibility of fraud has been eliminated.
</PRE></HTML>
Then ALL experiments are invalid, because NO experiments have EVER been
conducted in which ALL the possibilities of fraud have been eliminated!
WngdWolf13
In article <6bvhi5$pgd$1...@uwm.edu>, b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl) writes:
><HTML><PRE><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" SIZE=3>So far, very few
>'psychics' have been able to measure up.
I'm sorry to evoke the technical
>here, but it's in my blood. :)
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
</PRE></HTML>
No, it's quite all right. You've made an excellent point. Very few psychics
have been able to operate consistantly under those conditions. BUT SOME HAVE.
So why were those findings discounted? Because the psychic who could do these
things--Person X--was not considered enough proof himself. Person Y was unable
to perform the feat of Person X, so there is no incontrovertable evidence of
the existence of psychic abilities. It's illogical, and it's "unfair", but
that's the way it's been going for parapsychological researchers.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980214074...@ladder03.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) shows up for yet another dose of abuse and persecution by
writing:
>In article <6bs2cc$2...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
>wrth...@ix.netcom.com() writes:
>>You don't seem to understand that this is what Chooch just said. Of
>>course, he was talking about scientific procedures as used by
>>scientists. In this context, "reproducible results" means that other
>>researchers can run the experiment and, well, reproduce the results.
>>I hope that isn't too complicated for you.
>Since this has been a civil discussion,
Really? You haven't been paying attention, have you, Fluke
Skywanker/WingedWhackidoodleness/weren't-psion?
>your incorporation of an insulting statement is something I choose to
>take to mean you feel threatened in some way.
Yes, I live in abject terror that I might die laughing at your words.
Kindly accept my congratulations on your ability to at last notice that
I have treated you in a derisive, contemptuous, yes, even insulting
manner. It shows that you've not totally lost the ability to notice
reality. And here I was, thinking that your symbiont-zapper had fried
your brain as well as your chest.
>>This "psychological inhibition" schtick has been used by countless
>frauds, lunatics and just-plain-misled believers to explain why they
>crapped out when people were looking. If things won't work when the
>heat is on, then they're useless at best, and more likely
>non-existent.
>Spoken like someone who's never suffered from stage fright.
Fields and particles, DNA and all sorts of reality-based phenomena do
not suffer from stage fright. And, yes, I've suffered from stage
fright. I overcame it quite nicely; people who were in the audience
told me they didn't notice any difference between my words and other
speakers.
>The realm of the psyche isn't easily stuffed into a physics lab.
If it can't fit into a physics lab, if you can't fit it into *any* kind
of lab, if they can't be reproduced by scientists, then quit claiming
they're "science."
--Bill Thompson
WngdWolf13
In article <6c3l20$e...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
><HTML><PRE><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" SIZE=3>If it can't fit into
>a physics lab, if you can't fit it into *any* kind
of lab, if they can't be
>reproduced by scientists, then quit claiming
they're "science."
--Bill
>Thompson</PRE></HTML>
This is such an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement, I almost cannot
believe it. But then, I suppose I must consider the source. So, what you are
saying here, is that the only science is physics? Psychology is an invalid
science? I guess the term "behavioral science" must be a misnomer? And human
behavior is only the result of fields and particles, which we can, of course,
neatly label and catagorize, and reproduce scientifically? Hmm....so where is
the human they created, Dr. Frankenstein?
Just because you do not have the resources to reproduce an experiment does not
mean the experiment cannot be reproduced. Until someone who DOES have the
resources is unable to reproduce the experiment, you cannot claim it is not
reproduceable.
Highwayman
WngdWolf13 <wngdw...@aol.com> writes:
: In article <6c3l20$e...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
: writes:
: >If it can't fit into
: >a physics lab, if you can't fit it into *any* kind
: of lab, if they can't be
: >reproduced by scientists, then quit claiming
: they're "science."
: --Bill
: >Thompson
: This is such an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement, I almost cannot
: believe it. But then, I suppose I must consider the source. So, what you are
: saying here, is that the only science is physics? Psychology is an invalid
Well... he didn't say that... he appended "*any* lab" to the comment.
: science? I guess the term "behavioral science" must be a misnomer? And human
Its based on observation alone, there is no understanding involved.
Personaly I would call it a child science, kinda analagous to alchemy, but
thats just my opinion.
: behavior is only the result of fields and particles, which we can, of course,
: neatly label and catagorize, and reproduce scientifically? Hmm....so where is
: the human they created, Dr. Frankenstein?
: Just because you do not have the resources to reproduce an experiment does not
: mean the experiment cannot be reproduced. Until someone who DOES have the
: resources is unable to reproduce the experiment, you cannot claim it is not
: reproduceable.
The scientific comunity would laugh at you if you tried to give this
argument as proof.
Ohhh btw... if nobody has "the resources to reproduce an experiment"
it DOES mean that it "cannot" be reproduced. Once this has changed, you
open up the posibility of it being reproduceable.
Highwayman
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <6c4378$i...@nntp02.primenet.com> Highwayman <hiwa...@primenet.com>
writes:
>WngdWolf13 <wngdw...@aol.com> writes:
>:Just because you do not have the resources to reproduce an experiment
>:does not mean the experiment cannot be reproduced. Until someone who
>:DOES have the resources is unable to reproduce the experiment, you
>:cannot claim it is not reproduceable.
>The scientific community would laugh at you if you tried to give this
>argument as proof.
She tries and they laugh. I don't know where the weren't-psion gets
her notions of science, but she didn't learn it from anyone who was
entitled to an opinion about science. Maybe she attended the
Humpty-Dumpty school of logic, where the words mean exactly what she
wants them to mean, neither more nor less. Maybe she hopes that if she
carries on long enough, and posts often enough, people will get tired
and tell her she's right just to shut her up.
If there was anything scientific to her claims, she could run
experiments and get them published somewhere. She could get patents on
her symbiont-zapper. She could collect samples of her chest-dwelling
snot-balls, analyze them, and come up with some marvelous biochemical
discoveries that would revolutionize medicine (an icky thing that
thrives in the human body, without mucking up the immune system? That
trick could have applications in organ transplant work). She could
even prove that her icky things exist. In other words she could do
something useful, rather than rant on a newsgroup and annoy people who
hold her in contempt.
--Bill Thompson
B J Kuehl
The esteemed scientist, Dr. Winged Whatchamacallit, wrote:
> In any case, as I said, the results achieved will be the same
> if the procedures outlined are followed--in other words, if
> you remove the symbiont, the vampyric symptoms will disappear.
Well, of course. Scientists have already documented volumes
of information about this phenomenon. It is called 'the
placebo effect'.
> The realm of the psyche isn't easily stuffed into a physics lab.
Fortunately, there are some scientists with enough integrity to
keep trying.
> If you treat an experiment which involves psychological factors
> as though it were a simple physics experiment, of course your
> results are going to be variable.
Actually, no. Proper experimentation reveals the stable effects
rather than the variables. The goal of proper experimentation
is to catalog these stable effects so that future experimentation
can be build upon them and, so, eliminate the effects of
confounding variables.
> If psychological factors were taken into consideration, these
> experiments may work out better. But no one has really
> tried to do that, yet.
Bullshit. I can't keep up with reading all the experiments in
which psychological factors have been taken into consideration.
You just aren't reading the right material.
> And if they did, no doubt the experiments would in some
> way be labeled "non-scientific" or they would be accused
> of not using proper procedure.
I doubt that you would recognize proper procedure if it bit
you in the neck. Even less do you seem to comprehend the
value of it.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980214110...@ladder03.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) breaks the tedium of the pre-dawn hours by writing:
>In article <6c3l20$e...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,
>wrth...@ix.netcom.com() writes:
>>If it can't fit into a physics lab, if you can't fit it into *any*
>>kind of lab, if they can't be reproduced by scientists, then quit
>>claiming they're "science."
>--Bill Thompson
>This is such an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement, I almost
>cannot believe it.
It is neither arrogant nor ignorant; it is merely true. But after
wading through the dribble you post, I'm heartened to find that there
are some things you have trouble believing . . . oh, but you said you
"almost cannot believe it." "Almost" implies that you fall short of
disbelief, so I guess you believe that your boasts aren't science after
all. Congratulations on noticing reality! Keep at it!
>But then, I suppose I must consider the source. So, what you are
>saying here, is that the only science is physics?
No, I did not say that. Try reading what I've written. My words cover
more than physics. "*any* kind of lab," did you notice that bit?
If you want to call your nonsense science, and expect to be taken
seriously, then do the work. Produce an experiment which can be
reproduced by real scientists. Show results. Meet the standards of
science. In other words, put up or shut up.
--Bill Thompson
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
>The esteemed scientist, Dr. Winged Whatchamacallit, wrote:
>> In any case, as I said, the results achieved will be the same
>> if the procedures outlined are followed--in other words, if
>> you remove the symbiont, the vampyric symptoms will disappear.
>Well, of course. Scientists have already documented volumes
>of information about this phenomenon. It is called 'the
>placebo effect'.
BJ, what we're discussing here is the "man-eating-tiger repellant
effect." I first heard this discussed by the philosophical team of
Rowan and Martin; they used to hold an hour-long symposium on NBC, back
in the late Sixties/early Seventies:
Dick Martin: "See this? It's the most effective man-eating-tiger
repellent in the world!"
Dan Rowan: "Who needs it? There aren't any man-eating tigers within a
thousand miles of here!"
Dick Martin: "A thousand miles? It works better than I thought!"
See? *Of course* WhiteWolfclone's snot-ball boiler works! We'll never
find a trace of her icky things inside someone she zapped, now will we?
(sardonic snicker, nasty chuckle; gleeful giggle at once again mocking
WoWee with some early-morning sarcasm that she probably won't recognize
as such)
Incidentally, if Skywanker ever tries to publish her "results" in a
scientific journal, she'll find that the editors, referees and
typesetters all expect her to provide accurate, detailed descriptions
of her equipment. Nobody will buy and talk about how she doesn't have
the schematics handy. And, whether she likes it or not, they'll expect
her results to conform to all the known laws of physics.
--Bill Thompson
B J Kuehl
Winged Were-Psion writes:
> You've made an excellent point. Very few psychics
> have been able to operate consistantly under those
> conditions. BUT SOME HAVE.
> So why were those findings discounted?
Who said that they were discounted?
There most certainly are some individuals who, after multiple
trials, have been able to demonstrate a higher than expected
probability of hits (or misses). In these cases, where the
probability of such an outcome lies outside of the range of
expected probabilities, it is possible to reject the null
hypothesis that there is nothing different between this
individual's performance and chance.
> Because the psychic who could do these things -- Person X --
> was not considered enough proof himself.
Nor should s/he be... not until the experiment has been
replicated by other researchers and, as Chooch and Bill T
have pointed out, all possibilities of fraud and/or the
presence of confounding variables have been eliminated.
Would you really wish to accept someone else's claim to
psychic ability without such controls?
> Person Y was unable to perform the feat of Person X, so
> there is no incontrovertable evidence of the existence of
> psychic abilities.
No. If Person X is able to consistently maintain scores
beyond the range of expected probabilities, the conclusion
is that Person X is performing beyond the range of
expected probabilities. If Person Y cannot maintain such
performance, this is only evidence that Person Y is not doing
whatever Person X is doing. It is NOT proof that Person X is
not doing something.
The problem comes when one starts investigating cause and
effect. What is causing Person X to consistently perform
beyond the range of expected probabilities? It COULD be
psychic ability, it could also be fraud or Type I Error.
> It's illogical, and it's "unfair", but
> that's the way it's been going for parapsychological researchers.
Any reputable parapsychological researcher with the proper
amount of integrity would not expect it to be otherwise. It's
only with the charlatans or with those with a vested interest
and a desire to 'see' an effect so very desparately that you
will find shouts of "unfair".
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
B J Kuehl
When Bill T wrote:
>>If it can't fit into a physics lab, if yu can't fit it into
>>*any* kind f lab, if they can't be reproduced by scientitists,
>>then quit claiming they're "science."
The Winged Wampyr Has-Been replied:
> This is such an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,
> I almost cannot believe it. But then, I suppose I must consider
> the source. So, what you are saying here, is that the only
> science is physics? Psychology is an invalid science? I guess
> the term "behavioral science" must be a misnomer? And human
> behavior is only the result of fields and particles, which we
> can, of course, neatly label and catagorize, and reproduce
> scientifically?
No, physics is not "the only science", but physics provides
one of the best models of investigation that we have -- the
experimental method.
No, psychology is NOT an invalid science, nor is the term
"behavioral science" a misnomer. I work every day in the
field of behavioral sciences. My Ph.D. is in the area of
psychological and educational testing and measurement. As
difficult and unpredictable as human behaviors might be,
those who work in this area are ever striving to utilize the
cleanness of the scientific method in our research.
We use the same rules of internal validity, external validity,
reliability and probability that the physical sciences use.
We are hindered by the problem that human behavior goes on
inside a black box which, contrary to the early behavioral
theories, does not contain empty space. Still, we search for
similarities and variations in the same way that the physical
scientists do when they collide particles in controlled
manipulative fashion in order to measure the effect on the
dependent variable.
And we really take exception to people like yourself who
would give the idea that your wandydoodle way of measurement
and experimentation has anything to do with science, whether
it be the hard science of physics or the softer behavioral
sciences.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Julian Richards
>>There are, however, a
> >number of ways that you can demonstrate the
> existence of color to a blind
> >person and in some cases even teach them
> to differentiate between
> >colors
>
> And unless you rely on the perceptions of others to use as proof for this
> person, then you will need sophisticated equipment to do so, won't you?
> In fact, such equipment didn't exist 100 years ago.
> --Winged Wolf
How do you know that what I see as red is what you see as red? Does
something have a colour even when no-one is looking at it?
Julian Richards
Reproducibility is a vital concept. I remember the research papers
floating about when "cold fusion" was all the rage. It was like the
Emperor's new clothes. There was a conference published where almost all the
researchers said that they had seen something to claim they had cold fusion.
The only team that didn't were some Italians who were very apologetic that
they had found nothing. Within a month or two, Harwell produced their
results (they're the dogs' b's in this sort of thing) and they showed no
evidence of cold fusion.
WngdWolf13
In article <6c4378$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Highwayman <hiwa...@primenet.com>
writes:
>Ohhh btw... if nobody has "the resources to reproduce an experiment"
>it DOES mean that it "cannot" be reproduced. Once this has changed, you
>open up the posibility of it being reproduceable.
>
>Highwayma
I didn't say no one had the resources to reproduce the experiment. That is
obviously not true, since it has been reproduced. I said that just because HE
did not have the resources to reproduce it, did not mean it could not be
reproduced.
WngdWolf13
In article <6c45tu$3...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
>If there was anything scientific to her claims, she could run
>experiments and get them published somewhere. She could get patents on
>her symbiont-zapper. She could collect samples of her chest-dwelling
>snot-balls, analyze them, and come up with some marvelous biochemical
>discoveries that would revolutionize medicine (an icky thing that
>thrives in the human body, without mucking up the immune system? That
>trick could have applications in organ transplant work). She could
>even prove that her icky things exist. In other words she could do
>something useful, rather than rant on a newsgroup and annoy people who
>hold her in contempt.
>
>--Bill Thompson
You still fail to understand that they are not physical. They are made
enitrely of energy. The immune system isn't triggered by things made of pure
energy. Nor can you easily remove and analyze them. It's not simple at all.
We don't have the technology to analyze "psychic" energy types at this time.
It can only be done by the observations of the sensitive. The physical and
psychological changes which occur when the symbiont is removed are what provide
the evidence of its existence. Yes, it could be purely psychological, but if
that were so, then it should not work in all cases, but I am claiming that it
does, and that it can be tested.
WngdWolf13
>Actually, no. Proper experimentation reveals the stable effects
>rather than the variables. The goal of proper experimentation
>is to catalog these stable effects so that future experimentation
>can be build upon them and, so, eliminate the effects of
>confounding variables
Stable effects are impossible when dealing with the psyche. The person's diet,
the temperature of the room, the subtle attitudes of the researchers,
EVERYTHING can alter the psychological condition of the person on which the
experiments are being performed. And since this is not taken into account,
what they are doing is bad science.
WngdWolf13
In article <6c4buj$6...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
>Incidentally, if Skywanker ever tries to publish her "results" in a
>scientific journal, she'll find that the editors, referees and
>typesetters all expect her to provide accurate, detailed descriptions
>of her equipment. Nobody will buy and talk about how she doesn't have
>the schematics handy. And, whether she likes it or not, they'll expect
>her results to conform to all the known laws of physics.
>
>--Bill Thompson
Who ever said anything about publishing this in a scientific journal? It's not
worth the effort, even if I had the resources to conduct the type of
experimentation that would be necessary to gather scientifically valid and
complete data on this. Which I do not. (Let alone finding enough vampyrs
willing to let me "cure" them--most would gladly dump my body in an alley
before allowing that).
WngdWolf13
>And we really take exception to people like yourself who
>would give the idea that your wandydoodle way of measurement
>and experimentation has anything to do with science, whether
>it be the hard science of physics or the softer behavioral
>sciences.
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
>
>
No, BJ--YOU take exception to everything I say. You can't claim to speak for
everyone in the scientific arena now. As if you were some sort of authority
<snigger>.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980215080...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) Fluke Skywanker takes lightsaber in hand and writes:
>You still fail to understand that they [the icky things she claims
>dwell in people's chests] are not physical.
I understand that; something which does not exist is not physical.
Something which does not exist is not amenable to scientific
investigation--unless we're talking about the scientific application of
abnormal psychology to your thought processes.
>They are made enitrely of energy.
How can something that doesn't exist be made entirely of anything?
That's a rhetorical question, meant to amuse anyone bored enough to pay
any attention to you. I don't care to see your reply, although I
expect you'll waste bandwidth with some incoherent misuse of scientific
terminology.
And if these alleged snot-balls really did exist, and really were made
of energy, they could be studied by physicists in a physics lab.
Physicists devote a lot of, er, energy to investigating energy.
>The immune system isn't triggered by things made of pure energy.
You are too ignorant to be entitled to an opinion. The immune system
can be set off/screwed up by ultraviolet light. Lupus and porphyria
are two obvious examples.
>Nor can you easily remove and analyze them. It's not simple at all.
You mean you can't even remove them with your home electrocution kit?
Or by evenly spreading athlete's foot between your soles?
>We don't have the technology to analyze "psychic" energy types at this
>time.
Oh, you're talking about "psychic" energy, not real energy, of the sort
known to scientists, engineers, and other people. If you can't analyze
it, you can't apply science to it--unless you're talking about
psychoanalysis, which you really should try. Soon.
>It can only be done by the observations of the sensitive.
Who, quite conveniently for your blather, can't produce results in the
labs. Pity about their fragile egos, or whatever their problem is this
morning.
>The physical and psychological changes which occur when the symbiont
>is removed are what provide the evidence of its existence. Yes, it
>could be purely psychological, but if that were so, then it should not
>work in all cases, but I am claiming that it does, and that it can be
>tested.
Except that nothing exists to test this "psychic energy," which you
can't define, or to produce a detectable (by sane people) trace of your
icky things. If any sort of "change" takes place in a person's health,
I'd go for a simpler explanation than your undetectable snotballs.
--Bill Thompson
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980215080...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) writes:
>Who ever said anything about publishing this in a scientific journal?
Hey, that's part of real science--making your theories, procedures and
results available to other scientists. If you don't like that, tough.
>It's not worth the effort,
You got that right.
--Bill Thompson
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
>You still fail to understand that they are not physical. They are
>made enitrely of energy.
You claim that your chest-dwelling snotballs *are* physical. You claim
this every time you say that they can be removed by your
symbiont-zapper. Your muddled claims for this gizmo say that it uses
electric energy to broil the snotballs. That means that your snotballs
can interact with mundane, common, non-psychic, real forms of energy.
This interaction means that instruments could be made to detect,
measure and otherwise sense these globs of puppy puke.
And if your oogie-boogie phlegm-blobs *can't* interact with matter and
energy as we mere mortals know them, then they can't do anything to us,
and your claims that they cause a form of vampirism are rubbish.
But everyone here already takes *that* for granted.
--Bill Thompson
WngdWolf13
In article <6c6ag1$o...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
>You are too ignorant to be entitled to an opinion. The immune system
>can be set off/screwed up by ultraviolet light. Lupus and porphyria
>are two obvious examples.
>
>
Well, no--a disfunctional immune system can be triggered by some types of
light. A normal immune system isn't. These things may have some effect on the
immune system, but they do not trigger an adverse immune response.
(Yes, you are right, I'm totally ignoring your insults and simply answering
your valid questions as if they were serious. Annoying, isn't it?).
WngdWolf13
>Except that nothing exists to test this "psychic energy," which you
>can't define, or to produce a detectable (by sane people) trace of your
>icky things. If any sort of "change" takes place in a person's health,
>I'd go for a simpler explanation than your undetectable snotballs.
>
>--Bill Thompson
>
>
You're welcome to do just that--if you can think of one which is TRULY simpler,
and not one that's simply more convenient for your paradigm, no matter how
absurdly intricate.
But, that's what most people are going to do anyhow. Twist all the
possibilities into a big Gordian knot so complex it can never be unraveled,
only sliced through and discarded. If it makes you feel better to think we're
all insane, then by all means, be my guest.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980215104...@ladder03.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) writes:
>In article <6c6ag1$o...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>wrth...@ix.netcom.com() writes:
>>You are too ignorant to be entitled to an opinion. The immune system
>>can be set off/screwed up by ultraviolet light. Lupus and porphyria
>>are two obvious examples.
>Well, no--a disfunctional immune system can be triggered by some types
>of light. A normal immune system isn't. These things may have some
>effect on the immune system, but they do not trigger an adverse immune
>response.
They do trigger an adverse immune response; that's what you call it
when the immune system is depressed, making infection more likely.
There are other pathways that start with UV light and end up with other
immune system problems--rheumatoid arthritis is one such product of
this.
>(Yes, you are right, I'm totally ignoring your insults and simply
>answering your valid questions as if they were serious. Annoying,
>isn't it?).
No; the only annoying thing about you is the thought that someone with
a serious health problem could be misled by your rubbish, and get
electrocuted instead of getting real help. At least when you're
responding to my posts I know you aren't endangering someone.
--Bill Thompson
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980215104...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) writes:
>In article <6c6ag1$o...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>wrth...@ix.netcom.com() writes:
>>Except that nothing exists to test this "psychic energy," which you
>>can't define, or to produce a detectable (by sane people) trace of
>>your icky things. If any sort of "change" takes place in a person's
>>health, I'd go for a simpler explanation than your undetectable
>>snotballs.
>You're welcome to do just that--if you can think of one which is TRULY
>simpler, and not one that's simply more convenient for your paradigm,
>no matter how absurdly intricate.
I am not the one who needs to come up with a credible theory and
evidence to support it. *You* are the one who has cooked up a complex
theory with no credible evidence.
>But, that's what most people are going to do anyhow. Twist all the
>possibilities into a big Gordian knot so complex it can never be
>unraveled,
Like your icky-thing theories
>only sliced through and discarded.
See above. Try selling it on alt.petri-dish.vampires.
--Bill Thompson
B J Kuehl
When I wrote:
>>And we really take exception to people like yourself who
>>would give the idea that your wandydoodle way of measurement
>>and experimentation has anything to do with science, whether
>>it be the hard science of physics or the softer behavioral
>>sciences.
Winged Wackydiddle replied:
> No, BJ--YOU take exception to everything I say. You can't claim to speak for
> everyone in the scientific arena now. As if you were some sort of authority
> <snigger>.
Au contraire. I DO have that authority. *snigger*
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <6c6tec$8rl$1...@uwm.edu> b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (B J Kuehl) writes:
>Winged Wackydiddle sent this long-distance message to reality when she
>wrote:
>>No, BJ--YOU take exception to everything I say. You can't claim to
>>speak for everyone in the scientific arena now. As if you were some
>>sort of authority <snigger>.
>Au contraire. I DO have that authority. *snigger*
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
You'd think that the weren't/psion would know better than to annoy a
woman who refers to blood types as "the four basic food groups."
Of course, Skywanker should know better about a whole thundering *lot*
of things. But I'm feeling proud of myself today, BJ--*I* got the
Winged Wackydiddle to notice that I've often been less than kind to
her. None of your invective has penetrated WhiteWolfclone's armored
skull.
--Bill Thompson
| ^V^
| ^V^
| ^V^ ^V^
/^\ ^V^
^V^ /___\ ^V^ ^V^
/_____\ ^V^
/_______\ ^V^ ^V^
^V^ /_________\ ^V^
/|_________|\ ^V^ ^V^
^V^ ||^V^ || ^V^
^V^ || ^V^ || ^V^
||_______|| ^V^ ^V^
^V^ ||_______|| ^V^
||_______|| ^V^
^V^ ||_______|| ^V^
||_______|| ^V^
||_______||
/___________\
/_____________\
/_______________\
/_________________\
/___________________\
/_____________________\
/_______________________\
/|_______________________|\
|_______________________|
There's always room for more bats in my belfry.
B J Kuehl
Bill T writes:
> Of course, Skywanker should know better about a whole thundering *lot*
> of things. But I'm feeling proud of myself today, BJ--*I* got the
> Winged Wackydiddle to notice that I've often been less than kind to
> her. None of your invective has penetrated WhiteWolfclone's armored
> skull.
I'm of too miniscule proportions to be listened to by such an
important and innovative researcher as the Winged Were-Psion
Wampyr Has-been.
You, however, have bordered on a treatment breakthrough. You
been able to plant the glimmer (albeit a millisecond worth) of
one rational thought in the brain of a woman whose connection
with reality was severed one day when she succeeded at AEST
(auto-electroschock therapy) with her tincan and duct-taped
symbioextractor wired to her chest while seated on the floor
with her heels pressed together.
If you were a practicing clinical psychologist, I would say that
this merits publication in one of their professional journals.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Jarno Uurainen
wrth...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: I understand that; something which does not exist is not physical.
: >They are made enitrely of energy.
: How can something that doesn't exist be made entirely of anything?
As far as I know, also matter is made entirely of energy.
If Shadowanker's symbionts can be removed with an elecrical
device, analyzing this device would logically give us means
to measure these symbionts. If they interact with energy,
they can be measured. If they don't, they don't exist.
I believe there are things unknown to modern science.
If Shadowanker wouldn't use terms like 'made entirely
of energy' and be so self-confident about a phenomenon
which she cannot scientifically measure - yet uses
scientific terms to describe it - I might consider
the existance of symbionts to be possible. Maybe not
likely, but possible. At the moment, she is just so
transparent.
-Jake
Jarno Uurainen
WngdWolf13 <wngdw...@aol.com> wrote:
: Who ever said anything about publishing this in a scientific journal?
: It's not worth the effort, even if I had the resources to conduct the
: type of experimentation that would be necessary to gather scientifically
: valid and complete data on this.
If I believed that I had a symbiont in me, my first and foremost
priority would be to gather scientifically valid data about it.
I would have to do that to prove my sanity to myself. I would
have to do that out of interest and concern about myself.
If anyone would believe you, you would already be tied up
in a lab somewhere, where a group of scientists would basically
cut you in half trying to figure out things about your symbionts.
You seem to be happy with blind belief and a bad attitude.
-Jake
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: > of things. But I'm feeling proud of myself today, BJ--*I* got the
: > Winged Wackydiddle to notice that I've often been less than kind to
: > her. None of your invective has penetrated WhiteWolfclone's armored
: > skull.
: I'm of too miniscule proportions to be listened to by such an
: important and innovative researcher as the Winged Were-Psion
: Wampyr Has-been.
Why are we wasting time on these fanatical cultists such as
Seeker and Shadowanker anyway?
Sometimes I see us as the fools, for wasting our time and
energy on them.
-Jake
Torrin
wrth...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >You still fail to understand that they [the icky things she claims
> >dwell in people's chests] are not physical.
>
> >They are made enitrely of energy.
>
> And if these alleged snot-balls really did exist, and really were made
> of energy, they could be studied by physicists in a physics lab.
> Physicists devote a lot of, er, energy to investigating energy.
>
> >Nor can you easily remove and analyze them. It's not simple at all.
>
> You mean you can't even remove them with your home electrocution kit?
> Or by evenly spreading athlete's foot between your soles?
>
> >We don't have the technology to analyze "psychic" energy types at this
> >time.
>
> --Bill Thompson
Now, I know I've butchered the conversation here... BUT, if it is actually
energy that these little snot balls are made of, then they can be
detected.... anything that has energy gives off energy.. it's called
decay. That's why the snot balls (if they actually exist) feed. anything
alive must feed off something else. ((gee.. that would make us all
vampires.. wouldn't it??? *s*))
At any rate, These energy "snot balls" that the weren'tpsion says exists
would have to give off some sort of energy field.... similar to a MRI.....
If you believe this stuff... then you could always take your psychotically
engender person.. I mean Lab specimen and then give them a cat scan, or an
MRI... Or maybe a good healthy dose of Prozac.
I'm no advise columnist, so don't blame me if it doesn't work.
Torrin.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <6c739g$tsf$1...@luola.kontunet.fi> Jarno Uurainen <ja...@kontunet.fi>
writes:
>Why are we wasting time on these fanatical cultists such as
>Seeker and Shadowanker anyway?
I think of it as a public service. Some people with real problems
(either physical or psychological) might get suckered in by their
claims. Denouncing these Truthsprayers (c) might steer someone away
from them, which would give their potential victims a better chance at
getting some real help.
Besides, there is something esthetically displeasing about quacks.
--Bill Thompson
WngdWolf13
In article <6c6dfb$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
>You claim that your chest-dwelling snotballs *are* physical. You claim
>this every time you say that they can be removed by your
>symbiont-zapper. Your muddled claims for this gizmo say that it uses
>electric energy to broil the snotballs. That means that your snotballs
>can interact with mundane, common, non-psychic, real forms of energy.
Psychic energy types are as real as any other energy type. It does not use
"electric energy to broil" the symbionts. It uses magnetic fields to encourage
them to assume a shape more conducive to removing them. It does not, itself,
remove them. I have said this SO many times it's becoming tiresome.
wrth...@ix.netcom.com
In <19980216045...@ladder03.news.aol.com> wngdw...@aol.com
(WngdWolf13) writes:
>
>In article <6c6dfb$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
>writes:
>
>>You claim that your chest-dwelling snotballs *are* physical. You
claim
>>this every time you say that they can be removed by your
>>symbiont-zapper. Your muddled claims for this gizmo say that it uses
>>electric energy to broil the snotballs. That means that your
>>snotballs can interact with mundane, common, non-psychic, real forms
>>of energy.
>Psychic energy types are as real as any other energy type. It does
>not use "electric energy to broil" the symbionts. It uses magnetic
>fields to encourage them to assume a shape more conducive to removing
>them. It does not, itself, remove them. I have said this SO many
>times it's becoming tiresome.
You mean preposterous. Electricity and magnetism are two facets of the
same force. That's how electromagnets work. That's how electric
fields can generate a magnetic force. That's how magnets can respond
to DC currents in wires. You don't seem to understand something that's
taught in high-school physics classes; hell, this turns up in the old
"How And Why Wonder Book of Electricity" which I read when I was in the
first grade.
As usual, you've missed the point of my post. By stating that your
home electrocution kit can goose your balls of puppy puke, you have de
facto stated that these icky things could react with real-world forces,
whether you like it or not.
--Bill Thompson
WngdWolf13
In article <6c6jan$h...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, wrth...@ix.netcom.com()
writes:
> These things may have some
>>effect on the immune system, but they do not trigger an adverse immune
>>response.
>
>They do trigger an adverse immune response; that's what you call it
>when the immune system is depressed, making infection more likely.
>There are other pathways that start with UV light and end up with other
>immune system problems--rheumatoid arthritis is one such product of
>this.
>
>
That was badly worded. By 'these things" I meant the symbionts, not lupus.