OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

Bubblefish said:
No, she was killed in Vietnam when ugly American soldiers come and <strike>take</strike> took my home.
Click to expand...
Really? Where did they take it? Out for a picnic?
 
Gosh, things are getting pretty heated out here on the playground. Careful one of the kindergarten teachers doesn't start handing around time-outs.

ETA: Sorry, that was kind of mean-spirited. Okay, what were we talking about again?
 
Bubblefish said:
Yes, and as i said previously, in a few months, a published peer reviewed paper will be posted, thus granting your request.

Hope that finally resolves this issue.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Because what you originally said, in response to the question "Has Dr. Lo published any evidence for the actuality of Qi in any peer-reviewed journals," was this:
Bubblefish said:
Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals. I am not sure if they are available on the web or not. Would you care to read them?
Click to expand...
No mention of their being published "in a few months" there, was there? Just a statement that Dr. Lo has already published his evidence for qi in more than one peer reviewed journal. And, implicit in the last sentence ("Would you care to read them?"), a statement that you have access to them.

Was the statement that Dr. Lo has published this evidence in peer-reviewed journals true? If so, please provide the references.
 
Mojo said:
Because what you originally said, in response to the question "Has Dr. Lo published any evidence for the actuality of Qi in any peer-reviewed journals," was this:
Click to expand...

Yes, I did say that because that is what Dr. Lo informed me.

No mention of their being published "in a few months" there, was there?
Click to expand...

not in that sentence or response, no.

Just a statement that Dr. Lo has already published his evidence for qi in more than one peer reviewed journal.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed.

And, implicit in the last sentence ("Would you care to read them?"), a statement that you have access to them.
Click to expand...

Well, here is where we have uncovered the communication error. That statement can imply that, but does not neccesarly include that as a reasoning.

Was the statement that Dr. Lo has published this evidence in peer-reviewed journals true?
Click to expand...

Yes.

If so, please provide the references. [/B]
Click to expand...

When I asked Dr. Lo about his papers, he said he would refer to the new publication coming up. I assume because that one will be online. Apparently the other(s) are not.

Again, I hope that finally resolves this issue.
 
Bubblefish said:
Yes, I did say that because that is what Dr. Lo informed me.

not in that sentence or response, no.

Yes, agreed.

Well, here is where we have uncovered the communication error. That statement can imply that, but does not neccesarly include that as a reasoning.

Yes.

When I asked Dr. Lo about his papers, he said he would refer to the new publication coming up. I assume because that one will be online. Apparently the other(s) are not.

Again, I hope that finally resolves this issue.
Click to expand...
It certainly does: You were talking through your hat. No papers were available that you know of. Most likely none exist.

Hans
 
Bubblefish said:
Again, I hope that finally resolves this issue.
Click to expand...
Again, no it doesn't.

But I suppose this is the best we'll get from you.

We'll just have to accept that Dr. Lo would prefer to draw a discreet veil over his earlier research.

His reasons for doing this are, of course, a matter of conjecture. ;)
 
MRC_Hans said:
You were talking through your hat. No papers were available that you know of. Most likely none exist.
Click to expand...


I never said the papers were to be readily availble. I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.

Perhaps I did assume that they would be readily avialable, but apparently they are not. You have to wait for them to be ready.

If you wish to conclude that none exist because of this, so be it. It is your loss, not mine nor Dr. Lo's.

lack of proof is not proof of absence. I find determinists often make that logical error in their reasoning.
 
Bubblefish said:
I never said the papers were to be readily availble. I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.

Perhaps I did assume that they would be readily avialable, but apparently they are not. You have to wait for them to be ready.
Click to expand...
You stated that Dr. Lo has published evidence that qi exists in peer-reviewed journals.

Can you provide any evidence that this is the case?

If this is the case, why are you (and Dr.Lo) so reluctant to provide the references?
 
Also interesting... Oregon, 1997:



Financial Fraud/Consumer Protection

CIRCUIT COURT OF OREGON

MARION COUNTY

...

# I have reviewed Structure Probe Report #34674, Exhibit "1" to the Affidavit of Andrew W. Blackwood, Ph.D., and the materials authored or co-authored by Dr. Lo, mentioned in that report. I have also consulted standard reference materials in my field. The existence of "IE Crystals" around ions, as described by Dr. Lo, is not supported by theory. One of Dr. LoÃ_s calculations violates one of the three fundamental laws of thermodynamics and one of the four fundamental equations of electromagnetic theory.

# Dr. Lo did not use appropriate controls in his experiments. Structure Probe used strict controls in the procedures described in its Report #34674.
Click to expand...
And more.

http://www.doj.state.or.us/FinFraud/engelking.htm
 
So it goes on...
Lo claims in his articles to present a theoretical basis for believing "le" exists, and also presents experimental and "direct," i.e., photographic, evidence for the existence of "le" as he describes it. It turns out that the purported theoretical basis is at odds with several well established physical laws; at least some of the experimental "evidence" Lo presents contradicts-his own theory; and even the bona fides of the publication in which Lo�_s articles appeared and its publisher may be somewhat dubious.

As University of Oregon chemistry professor Dr. Paul Engelking put it, if "le" were real, its discovery, and Lo�_ s description of it, would be Nobel Prize material, disproving several fundamental principles of physics and warranting publication in Nature or Science, not in an obscure letters journal like Modern Physics Letters B. It is nevertheless in Modern Physics Letters B that Lo chose to publish his work [and, significantly, there has been no follow-up publication in any more thoroughly peer-reviewed journal.

...

However, Structure Probe also found no evidence of "le" in the vial supplied by ATG, and perhaps most tellingly, did find, and photograph, in West Chester, Pennsylvania, tap water, evidence of structures similar to those offered by ATG as proof of the existence of "le."
Click to expand...
And more! :)

http://www.doj.state.or.us/FinFraud/theforce.htm

[ETA: last para of quote]
 
Even the homeopathic literature has a problem with Dr Lo:
The thematic focus in this area is on so-called clusters, which are ordered collections of water molecules. Work done by Shui Yin-Lo is currently very much in vogue, and is heralded in homeopathic circles as a breakthrough in the scientific explanation of homeopathy. From this perspective I can understand why Gray included it in the book. Unfortunately, there are several issues with Lo's work which diminish its credibility and scientific value.

Through several references, Shui Yin-Lo, in his papers from 1996, is portrayed as the main perpetrator and discoverer of clusters in water, which he calls "IE crystals." Unfortunately, the notion of clusters is anything but a novel idea; it ranges back to the second half of the previous century. What Gray refers to as 11 quantum electrodynamic calculations" performed by Lo is in fact 19th century knowledge of electromagnetism. To be absolutely clear about it: Lo offers nothing in terms of novel theory, and the experiments he describes are basic measurements, which, to me and others, yield very unconvincing results. Yes, there is cluster fornmation in water. But not just in water, in many other gases, liquids and solids as well-science has known about it for decades. Research in this area is, in fact, very active. The mere fact that neither Lo nor Gray acknowledge this work is telltale.
Click to expand...
http://www.minimum.com/reviews/science-myth.htm
 
Mojo said:
You stated that Dr. Lo has published evidence that qi exists in peer-reviewed journals.

Can you provide any evidence that this is the case?
Click to expand...

in three months I can, until then no

If this is the case, why are you (and Dr.Lo) so reluctant to provide the references? [/B]
Click to expand...

Well, we feel it will interfer with our overall plans for world domination and the aquirment of young women, ages 18-23.

In addition to that, it is against our cult's rules to share links with those whom we refer to as 'weebies'. Weebies are those whom are not in our cult, and by default, can not share in our plans for world domination and young women. (however, all women over the ages of 23 can be made available to you, but for a price!)

Also, we have this great scam going where we actually charge 20 dollars for a seminar. Yes, can you believe it? We charge money for our work and time! hahahaha! No one ever shall stop us. We also will charge money for books!

Of course, if you join our cult, then you will no longer be a weebie. Our rules of the cult state that you cannot eat hot dog buns on fridays, and if you can agree to follow such rules, perhaps you will be tapped at the appropiate time.

PM me for more information. we have a few openings.
 
as to these links regarding fraud and all sorts of things, well, there are two sides to every story. I would imagine that you will believe what already supports your current convictions.

The astute observer will simply state 'let's wait and see'.

If dr. lo was a quack, I dont think he would have had sitting tenure at University of melbourne in physics. I dont see why all of you need to trash a man because his suggestions rub against your belief system.

And if he made an error as a scientist, that does not condem him as a human being.

Einstein made rediculous claims towards the end of his career too. That doesnt discount his real claims and theories as a scientist.

Me personally, I cant wait to read Zep's next brilliant book about his research and life's work.

What's it on again, Zep? Assosciative fellowships that effect logical outcomes? One sided internet links from the late 90's that disprove current research in another field? That sounds like some fascinating stuff man, you go!
 
Bubblefish said:
as to these links regarding fraud and all sorts of things, well, there are two sides to every story.
Click to expand...
That's why we have courts, and judges who decide these things. They hear both sides, including experts in the fields pertaining to both claims, and make a ruling, in this case, the ruling was "Fraud"
I would imagine that you will believe what already supports your current convictions.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that you would imagine that, but I come and read these forums hoping the skeptics will be wrong about something, especially when it comes to the spiritual world. But more often than not, they make a clear case and site references, while the people making paranormal claims make assurances, site testimonials, and fail to back them up with experts outside of the group making the claim, ie. unbiased, peer review. That's all it takes.

The astute observer will simply state 'let's wait and see'.
Click to expand...
I see evidence and rulings against a claim, and a group of credible professionals standing up against fraud. I'm seeing, not prejudging.

If dr. lo was a quack, I dont think he would have had sitting tenure at University of melbourne in physics. I dont see why all of you need to trash a man because his suggestions rub against your belief system.
Click to expand...
Quakery is fairly good at hiding itself in reputable societies. (I'm not calling him a quack, I'm just refuting that particular line of reasoning. As you said earlier Association is not necissarily damning or uplifting.) And they're not "trashing" him. You came here with a claim, it seemed suspect to people who study these sorts of things, so they did some research and posted it. They're trashing the claim. The evidence is "trashing" him. They did not call him a fraud, a court did, and the scientific community that was asked to investigate his claims did.

And if he made an error as a scientist, that does not condem him as a human being.
Click to expand...
If the case in those links are to be trusted, those are not mistakes, those are cut and dry cases of false reporting, and fraudulant claims. If a court decides that a phenomenom you're describing does not exist, and cannot be used to sell a product, you cannot turn around and attempt to sell another product on the same claims as before. That's not a mistake. That's lying to the consumer. If he truly believed in this effect, he should have seen it proven and accepted in the science community and had the court reverse it's ruling before trying to sell another product that opperates under the same theory.

Einstein made rediculous claims towards the end of his career too. That doesnt discount his real claims and theories as a scientist.
Click to expand...

Dr. Lo isn't Einstein, and if the situations were similar, he would have solid evidence to back up his claims, rather than a paper that contradicts itself. From the article:
"If water molecules group together to form larger structures such as the [IE] structure that is proposed, then the resulting structured water should have a larger dielectric constant." Lo, "Physical Properties of Water with Ie Structures," p. 923 (emphasis added). Yet Lo's own experimental finding is that "the [IE] structured water has a twenty percent smaller dielectric constant." (Id.; emphasis added.)
Click to expand...
He said it himself.

Me personally, I cant wait to read Zep's next brilliant book about his research and life's work.

What's it on again, Zep? Assosciative fellowships that effect logical outcomes? One sided internet links from the late 90's that disprove current research in another field? That sounds like some fascinating stuff man, you go!
Click to expand...

Just because Zep himself has not published a book, doesn't mean he can't spot bad science when it's presented to him. As well as recognising that ONE person is trying to make money on a claim which the rest of the science community is refuting as impossible, and is backed up by bad scientific practices, and what can only be seen as "doctored" results. In a balanced judgement, their reports vs. unbacked assertions, the reports win. Your position is looking very bleak indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom