Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

[Morwen]

Morwen:

Sometimes he even manages to make partial sense.

Ashles:

When did that happen?
Was it on another forum?
As a sceptic I beg you to provide evidence to back up that assertation.

Certainly! Here you go:

Kumar:

Hello all,

I'm afraid that's the best I could find, sorry... Reading the rest of the thread didn't really give me much more in the way of legibility from our confused/confusing friend.

PixyMisa: I owe you a good dinner for your contributions in these threads. You, Rolfe, and all those who managed to extract some meaning from a discussion with Kumar are worthier of praise than Moses. Making water spring from a rock is nothing in comparison.

Oh, and...

Homeopathy is pseudoscience. It is not science.

(I thought I should indulge in some futility as well)

 

[Kumar]

Since homeopathy has not been discarded as false, it is clear that homeopathy is not scientific; it is pseudoscience, or as I put it earlier, woo-woo nonsense. [/B]

Sorry, I thought it is discarded as false so scientific false...as you occasionally claims...as tested as no effect...false...so on.

Mr.Hans said;

The scientific conclusion on homeopathy is that it does not work. It is a belief system.

As per this, it is scientific.

 

[Ashles]

Mr.Hans said;

The scientific conclusion on homeopathy is that it does not work. It is a belief system.

As per this, it is scientific.

So because the scientific community says something does not work, it must then be 'scientific'?

If anyone wanted proof that Kumar is trolling at least some of the time I present you with that post.

Case closed.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, I thought it is discarded as false so scientific false...as you occasionally claims...as tested as no effect...false...so on.

We have long since discarded homeopathy as false.

You haven't.

That's what makes it pseudoscience. Woo-woo nonsense, as I said. And it makes you a woo-woo.

 

[Kumar]

So because the scientific community says something does not work, it must then be 'scientific'?

Is it not a scientific false as per sicence? Do you still expect it will be scientific true?

 

[ilk]

How is it that people think they are having a conversation with Kumar? Is it actually possible with dilligent study to make sense of him?

 

[Kumar]

How is it that people think they are having a conversation with Kumar? Is it actually possible with dilligent study to make sense of him?

...yes, by understanding science/logic of paranormals. Is it not the only/mainly work for skeptics?

 

[PixyMisa]

How is it that people think they are having a conversation with Kumar? Is it actually possible with dilligent study to make sense of him?

Well, sometimes he manages to be wrong.

Much of the time, though, he doesn't make any sense at all.

...yes, by understanding science/logic of paranormals. Is it not the only/mainly work for skeptics?

No. There is no science or logic of the paranormal, since nothing paranormal has ever been shown to happen.

 

[Zep]

...yes, by understanding science/logic of paranormals.

To do that, Kumar, first you need to be...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, I thought it is discarded as false so scientific false...as you occasionally claims...as tested as no effect...false...so on.

Mr.Hans said;

The scientific conclusion on homeopathy is that it does not work. It is a belief system.

As per this, it is scientific.

No.

The scientific conclusion on Santa Claus is that he does not exist. Does that make him scientific?

Kumar, try not to be an idiot.

Hans

 

[ilk]

...yes, by understanding science/logic of paranormals. Is it not the only/mainly work for skeptics?

Wow, I sort of understood that sentence. You must be making an effort.

However, understanding what you are trying to say has no bearing on the validity of the statements. "...understanding [the] science/logic of paranormals." contains an inherent contradiction.

Paranormal means outside of scientific explanation. If you could explain the science of the gibberish you are spouting then it would no longer be paranormal.

So, apparently I can make sense of you, Kumar, if I understand the "science/logic of paranormals."
Therefore, you are quite clearly stating that you are not understandable.

Just a note about explaining the science of something, by the way. Repeated assertion does not constitute fact.

 

[Kumar]

Scientific may mean in accordance with the science, is it not so that in accordance to science it don't work--so scientific. Para-normal can also be that which couldn't be yet understood in science, but as you say, homeopathy is already understood.

 

[ilk]

Scientific may mean in accordance with the science, is it not so that in accordance to science it don't work--so scientific. Para-normal can also be that which couldn't be yet understood in science, but as you say, homeopathy is already understood.

The first sentence is once again nonsensical by any decent standard of english.

I never said anything about homeopathy being understood. You are either mistaken, deliberately putting words in my mouth, or as is quite possible from reading your ramblings, insane.

Homeopathy is understood. That does not mean that it works or has a scientific basis. Homeopathy is understood to be a failure as a medical technique. The positive upsides of homeopathy can be easily explained and have been repeatedly: The benefit of counselling and the palcebo effect.

I'm not really interested in debating the merits of homeopathy with you Kumar. I merely wanted to see if you were capable of entering into a conversation that makes any kind of sense. The answer is quite apparent:

No (â„¢Pixymisa)

 

[Kumar]

The first sentence is once again nonsensical by any decent standard of english.

I never said anything about homeopathy being understood. You are either mistaken, deliberately putting words in my mouth, or as is quite possible from reading your ramblings, insane.

Homeopathy is understood. That does not mean that it works or has a scientific basis. Homeopathy is understood to be a failure as a medical technique. The positive upsides of homeopathy can be easily explained and have been repeatedly: The benefit of counselling and the palcebo effect.

I'm not really interested in debating the merits of homeopathy with you Kumar. I merely wanted to see if you were capable of entering into a conversation that makes any kind of sense. The answer is quite apparent:

No (â„¢Pixymisa)

Sorry, but it is bit alike removing the skin from hair. Anything tested & studied in accordance with science, whether found false & true, can be taken as 'scientifically seen' so scientific. Let us end this discussion here. Thanks.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, but it is bit alike removing the skin from hair.

Hair doesn't have skin, you strange person.

Anything tested & studied in accordance with science, whether found false & true, can be taken as 'scientifically seen' so scientific.

No.

It's true, or it's false.

Homeopathy is false.
Astrology is false.

Let us end this discussion here.

No.

Thanks.

No.

 

[flume]

This seems like a pointless issue about language.

Saying that something "is scientific" is a casual way of talking. It is not a precise label. (Is bread scientific?) For some words, you would need a more precise question to get a useful answer.

I wonder if Kumar asked this question because of his ghost topic being moved from the science forum to this forum. Maybe someone said ghosts were 'not scientific'. So he wanted to know whether homeopathy (which is discussed in the science forum) is or is not scientific in the same sense.

Maybe his question is how the JREF administrator decides if something fits into the science board or not. The administrator would decide based on knowledge of the forums and a guess about where the discussion would fit best. It would be an opinion about discussion boards, not some absolute judgment about science.

You can only test for something if it is thought to have a physical component or to affect something physically. The general idea of ghosts has no physical component that can be tested. And there is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist. If you made a particular physical claim for a physical appearance of a ghost in a specific place, then that could be tested scientifically. But in general there is nothing to discuss related to science.

The claims of homeopathy are not accepted to be true when evaluated using scientific methods. But the claims are physical and can be tested in different ways. So it can easily be discussed in terms of scientific methods.

 

[Kumar]

This seems like a pointless issue about language.

Yes, but we should be clear for th prize.

You can only test for something if it is thought to have a physical component or to affect something physically. The general idea of ghosts has no physical component that can be tested. And there is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist. If you made a particular physical claim for a physical appearance of a ghost in a specific place, then that could be tested scientifically. But in general there is nothing to discuss related to science.

Whether energy based aspects are physical component or not? I was indicating sunlight as sun's soul or entity--may it be alike physical component. But I think now, moon-light is better example than sunlight becuse I have asked about reflected light/wavelengths.

The claims of homeopathy are not accepted to be true when evaluated using scientific methods. But the claims are physical and can be tested in different ways. So it can easily be discussed in terms of scientific methods.

You are right. Probably, on one day, we will either get its secret or will loose this system.

 

[Donks]

Yes, but we should be clear for th prize.

Wich prize? The JREF $1M? Go for it. And, "we" are clear. You, are not.

Whether energy based aspects are physical component or not? I was indicating sunlight as sun's soul or entity--may it be alike physical component. But I think now, moon-light is better example than sunlight becuse I have asked about reflected light/wavelengths.

The Sun's soul? Oh this is going to be good.

You are right. Probably, on one day, we will either get its secret or will loose this system.

Not as long as certain people insist on believing in it despite the evidence.

 

[flume]

[Whether energy based aspects are physical component or not? I was indicating sunlight as sun's soul or entity--may it be alike physical component. But I think now, moon-light is better example than sunlight becuse I have asked about reflected light/wavelengths.

See, this is the problem. Of course sunlight and moonlight are physical. But what can you mean by the sun's soul? Either it is a language problem, or you're talking about some nonphysical thing. It is pointless to try to talk about it in scientific terms.

 

[PixyMisa]

Whether energy based aspects are physical component or not?

Energy is physical.

"Energy based aspects", as you term them, don't exist.

I was indicating sunlight as sun's soul or entity--may it be alike physical component.

There is no reason to think that the sun (or anything else) possesses a "soul", even if you were to provide us with a coherent definition of a soul

But I think now, moon-light is better example than sunlight becuse I have asked about reflected light/wavelengths.

Makes no difference. It's complete nonsense whether you're talking about the sun, the moon, or Beta Perseii VIII.