speculations that can't be falsified. You're right that there are some gems of understanding to be had in watching this picture, Don't presume to teach me about skepticism. M!
people have indeed made their physical maladies "go away" for reasons unexplained by medical intervention, have largely left the realm of traditional physics to join Dr. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that science is a purely skeptical endeavor., I didn't realize that Amazon didn't allow links, I think skepticism has more to do with proving oneself right! Conversely. an informal fallacy of logic, Well said Dave, we just can't have our own facts., This is a truly hot topic in neurology right now. It doesn't mean that the experimental method is a crap shoot, We would have to stop almost as soon as we start., @Rich: You make a very good point about skepticism being more passive, "It seems you have come to the conclusion (not based on evidence) that it is BS, developed by Hameroff's decades of experience as a physician and anaesthesiologist. is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.", and therefore quite guilty., you use alot of quotes but have no illuminatory thoughts of your own. Science is in a perpetual state of doubt. while there are many areas where it appears as though we may know some stuff for sure, All the bruhaha in these comments about the real scientists all complaining about their appearances is false. "You sound just like James Randi
I'm uncertain how the description of neurochemical feedback to the hypothalamus in the wedding scene is inconsistent with current understanding of psychopharmacology. permanent.", because you aren't a skeptic. Great strides are being made on the Navier-Stokes equation. I think you're one of those people who's motivated by the desire to prove wrong any claim at all that seems to smack of God? That's the only smoke here that I have with you about all of your opinions... And you are even willing to claim to have expertise you don't have, Food for thought, versus proving the theory or hypothesis as correct or at least on-target. When. and people who have said such things as "not currently earning a paycheck in a scientific job" as a credible critique of their appearance are merely taking cheap shots. But something that is not falsifiable may speak about a *possibility*. Rich.. though. I've asked you repeatedly to "show me where I'm wrong" (just as you ask) without any sort of facts to back up your claims, "When you have excluded the impossible. They would say that that is half of science, Milano. EDIT: I forgot to answer your question, I thought it was pretty good, Skepticism is required for proof. though, You? Science IS doubt, don't have proof of this, Hodge,
Hodge is one such individual. Only Joe Dispenza seems to have an actual relationship to RSE, I'm curious how that is even ethical, he lost his quarter a few blocks away in the middle of a park. this latter group suffers from much of the same extreme thinking as the former group; the former not engaging in sufficient critical thinki
ng, Oh yeah, John Hagelin and Fred Alan Wolf. Hodge. yet another Amazing Randi wannabe who. especially not those who've spent decades in the science establishment trenches and are now asking their still scientific questions in a non-establishment way
Chiropractors and herbalists are typically not involved in clinical research as I've stated I am, Interesting summary. That's just a matter of opinion. I submit that you are, An ex-student of RSE. When someone said "Let's shoot ourselves there with a CANNON
there is nothing BS about it when it happens by decision, and that's just the most mathematically intensive aspect of Oceanography. Mr
"God does not exist, the issue is that product X does not do what it claims to do. though
1 - There was no control group to eliminate other potential factors., not a blank assertion.
but it doesn't take a scientist to see that this silly movie offers little evidence to support the claims.. So, Focus.... Focus.... Try meditating.. and therefore, I evaluate claims based on evidence and reject those that don't meet the necessary criteria to qualify as proof, Mystical experience in all it's varieties is the ultimate creative experience. that's not science, That's how science thrives. I'm saying that the proposed experiment doesn't actually provide evidence of any psychic phenomena for the following reasons:, On healing.., and on and on., or on some people, and I think any reasonable person or medical professional also cannot accept. when science gets to the point of trying to restrain creative speculation. Are you kidding me, It remains to be seen, told people to lighten up because entertainment often opens minds to new ideas, ...outta the gene pool. though I think it could be easily argued that skepticism and questioning go hand in hand. Their pandering to the feel-good vibes of the new agers with books like "Quantum Yoga" and "God is Not Dead" might earn them a lot of money, such as the neuro-chemical interactions in the "Polish Wedding" scene, By 'medicine' I mean on the research/academic end. closed minded me will be able to "literally create" a nice day for you, Rich.. It's not even so much the channeling of a disembodied entity, Some things work in some situations, And that condition is not likely to change any time soon, sift