OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

[Zep]

For the record, a correction on my end. In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly. He was a professor of physics there, and what his exact title was, sitting or tenure or visiting, I dont know for certain. I think I saw where it was tenure, but I look back and may have been mistaken.

I have made that CLARIFICATION after going back and reading this rather humorous discussion with all of you.

Was this post in in response to this one of mine?

Incidentally, I shall be checking into the business of "sitting tenure" for Dr. Lo at Melbourne University. He was last seen there in 1976, according to a number of sources. So a tenure now, especially when he is so involved in the Institute of Noetics in California, seems somewhat dubious. However it may yet be valid, so I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me.

 

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist,

Well it sure would be nice if you could debate that with Dr. Lo himself, as to me, it just reads like he said she said.

There are always arguements amongst academics, thinkers and scientists regarding work and interpretations of data. Godel and Wittenstein were bitterly opposed to each others propositions, yet both contributed greatly to human understanding.

Who is right? Unfortunatly, for the layman, we simply cannot verify for ourselves what is true or untrue because we now have what appears to be two opposing points of view claiming to have proper knowledge in a field we know nothing about.

It would be unwise for me to assume that either you or Dr. Lo is correct on the matter. To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me, nor is it certainly the topic of any discussion that I have introduced to this community.

According to you, Dr Lo is reading these threads - he can see it for himself can't he? Nothing is stopping him from logging on and addressing the issue or passing any relevant comments to you for you to pass on - is there?

Yes, there are always arguments between people (even scientists) regarding interpretation of data. But there are few arguments between genuine scientists as to basic physical properties - which are a matter of observation not "interpretation". For example, it is generally agreed that things fall down under gravity - someone can always argue that things really fall up by redefining the words "up" and "down" and claiming that it's all a matter of "interpretation". But we don't take bare assertions like that very seriously for good reason. And this is not a matter of philosophy where all kinds of vague, fuzzy concepts can be argued indefinitely without resolution - this a simple matter of cold, hard, logical physics, there is only one correct set of data which actually matches physical observation, and while there are multiple models, it is not legitimate to simply pick and choose bits of opposed models and randomly combine them while rejecting the basis of the models themselves and simply ignoring the blatant contradictions that result.

Now, the layman may not be able to immediately see who is right or wrong. But an intelligent lay person, especially one who claims to be a critical thinker, will make an effort to attempt to understand the issues - he will read up on it, look at textbooks, check the web, speak to other scientists as necessary until he does understand the issue - because he is interested in finding the truth. Not just for his own benefit, but to ensure that he doesn't pass on false and dishonest information to others. It is called taking responsibility.

Yes, it would be unwise for you to assume that either I or Lo are correct. Please don't. How about making an effort to find out for yourself instead? And regardless of whether you introduced the specific topic or not, you did represent Lo as an expert physicist in various areas (such as quantum mechanics for one) and you did post his comments to Engelking which is what I am addressing. Are you saying that we shoudl just believe what you say without challenging it - especially when it is so utterly self-contradictory?

In law there is a whole field concerned with "torts" - which literally means "civil wrongs" in context. Included in that are the concepts of fraud, deception, etc. But areas like fraud are just simplistic sub sets of more wide ranging concepts such as misrepresentation. And in law there are several subsets of "misrepresentation" with various degrees of seriousness as regards the degree of wrong. Outright misrepresentation, or negligent misrepresentation is one of the very serious "wrongs" - and it is defined as, "asserting something to be true, either knowing it to be false, or not knowing or not caring whether it is true or false". And you have certainly committed the latter several times already on here. Spreading lies, not caring whether they are true or false is not a very honorable position.

So in effect, you are saying you are not interested in finding the truth, nor do you care whether you pass on false or fraudulent information to others and mislead them. Sorry, but I don't have much respect for that kind of attitude.

In short, it is irrelevant. You have made your point, you wish the reader to accept that Dr. Lo is not as smart as you in matters related to physics, and because you have found one paper of his that you can find contention with, then that must mean that all work or ideas proposed to him must also be defaulted to or accept as false or quakery so you can be right and maintain your determistic materialist paradigm, which is a belief system, just like I have a belief system and Dr. Lo that includes probability as a constant.

It is not irrelevant. You introduced the matter of Lo's credibility as a physicist, now you are just back paddling to avoid taking responsibility. You've been called out on the facts and you're not answering - you think that makes us believe you to be an honest person?

And I never said anything about how "smart" I am in relation to Lo, nor did I comment at all on his general intelligence. I do challenge his knowledge of the areas he claims expertise in. This is just a straw man. And I have not found "one paper of his that I can find contention with" - I have already addressed two papers of his and one "rebuttal" - scientifically, in detail - where I see basic and fundamental errors of science in all of them, and I see various claims and statements made by him that simply don't make sense. And as I said before, the issue of whether he is absolutely correct in one or two derived items is not the point. The point is that I see errors and misconceptions of science that are so basic and fundamental that it leads me to actually question his bona-fides as a scientist. So I certainly don't make the error that I simply dismiss everything he says simply because I disagree with one theory of his - to claim I do is blatant misrepresentation in itself.

Let's make it clear. If someone is presented to me as a true catholic and an expert in catholicism, and then makes the claim that God and Jesus don't exist, that the pope is gay, that Satan is the true God, that the true practice of the catholic church is to sacrifice virgins and kill chickens - then I think I am quite justified in saying, "I don't believe this person is really a true catholic, because everything he says is at odds with what I know about the subject of catholicism". I don't say that this person is automatically wrong in anything he says - I do say that I don't trust his opinions about what constitutes catholicism.

You have represented Lo as an expert in physics and specifically in quantum mechanics. You have told us that he has scientific proofs based on his expertise of the existence of "qi". However we can see that firstly his expertise in very basic physics and scientific procedure is highly questionable, as also is his apparent knowledge of quantum mechanics. So I should just take your and his word for it that his work on "qi" is totally sound, when his other work in similar and related areas is so badly flawed?

And please don't come out with the tired old "deterministic materialist paradigm" crap - that is the fall back position of just about every liar when they're cornered on facts. It's a ridiculous and overused straw man that simply indicates that the person in question has lost the argument.

You claimed that Lo was a legitimate physicist. Physics is a mainstream discipline with well established rules and procedures. It is not a question of "belief systems" to see his pronouncements are at odds with physics any more than I have to have a catholic belief system to see that my Satanist above doesn't qualify as a "true catholic".

My underlying point in all of this is that your (this community) trying to 'fill in a blank' where you should keep it open as simply mystery.

Notice how all of you here need to define me or Dr. Lo in your minds as something 'ill' to make false something that has not yet been presented to you (the peer review or Randi Challenge). Your over spending your mental energy trying to define something which is simply currently beyond your ability to understand as either true or false.

And this is an example of your honesty? After criticising me above by falsely claiming that I wanted to simply reject anything against my "paradigm", you now compound the error further by trying to lump me in with every other critic so we can be conveniently dismissed as a group. Our individual and rational arguments can be safely lumped together and rejected in entirety without consideration because we're all just evil skeptics. Which is pretty much what racists tend to do incidentally. You have no idea what my ability to understand anything is, but that doesn't stop you making claims about it does it?

This is where bivalency in logic fails human being. We are simply presented with to much information to try to force all of it into true or false before we can determine for any relevant certainty. The uber standard of certainty is experience, and it is the role of science to make sure the facts fit the experience. Anything beyond the facts or the experience is simply mystery, and to try to determine it's true or false nature is simply irrational and a waste of time.

See, you spent your sunday evening addressing a topic that is not even relevant to this discussion, which is Dr. Lo's research in the 90's on something that is not relevant to him taking the Randi challenge. I would imagine that took you time to write.

Pity, now I imagine your going to try to see if you can force me into an image in your head of being dishonest or something to inforce the idea that what you speak is 'true' and what I speak is 'false'

There are so many more interesting things that we could be doing with our time, eh?

Dr Lo's understanding of basic physics is extremely relevant to the claim that he has a scientific "proof" of anything that involves physics. I cannot and do not say he is wrong about "qi" - I haven't seen any evidence yet. I can and do say that I don't trust that he is an authority on certain areas of physics as claimed. It's quite simple and I cannot see why you cannot understand such a simple concept.

And you can fantasize all you like about what we do in our heads. The simple fact is that you are dishonest. You have been caught out several times already and your little tirade above only confirms the fact.

I took a look at your web site to see what "OS 0 1 2" was all about. And I saw your comments about the Iraq war and the behaviour of dishonest politicians who make false claims about weapons of mass destruction etc. I took a look because although I doubted that there was anything to it, I was nonetheless interested and I wanted to find out about it and also to give it fair chance to see whether it stood up logically and on its own merits. I also note that you have claimed that what you do is an example of it. Well, congratulations, you have proved it to be unmitigated crap! You don't actually do what you claim on that site, instead you lie, evade and distort like the best of the dishonest politicians.

You complain that politicians mislead people by presenting false information about WMD and presenting it as though it were true by misrepresenting claims of alleged experts etc. Then you come on here and do exactly the same thing by bringing in a highly dubious alleged "expert" on physics and representing his claims as fact. When challenged on the actual facts, your response is "I don't know, nor do I care whether what he says is true or not". Oh what a fine example of honesty you are!

And you know something? The politicians are better than you are. Because you know it's wrong to misrepresent information, you are well aware of the dangers of false and misleading information, and the danger of not checking the facts before speaking. You have the benefit of hindsight, knowing how much harm misrepresentation can do. I have no way of knowing if the politicians were aware of these things, but you certainly are. And in spite of all of that, you come on here and do exactly the same thing, and all you have to say when someone challenges the "facts" you present is - to use your own words - "To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me". You claim that Lo has published peer reviewed papers on "qi" - but in reality we later find out that you don't know if that's true (nor do you care if it's true). You claim that Lo has a tenure at Melbourne, then we find out later that you also don't know if that's true - nor do you care, because if you did you would have made an effort to check your facts before speaking wouldn't you?

So please cut all the self-righteous crap - you have shown yourself for what you are, and it's not pretty from this angle.

 

[Zep]

I was in the process of composing a short essay on Bubblebrain's "OS 0 1 2" waffle, but I do believe that it would not come close to matching Pragmatist's effort above.

 

[WWHP]

Leaving aside your claims about the peer-reviewed papers, as I'm aware that you dont want to discuss those, I suppose I imagined this as well:

He may have had. I just am not sure what I saw now. Either way, he was at University of Melbourne as a professor of physics.

I'll stop responding to the Bubblefish in my head when you give an undertaking to stop posting on that rascal's behalf.You'll also, of course, need to review all your posts here first, and indicate which ones were his.

According to you, they are all his. You sift through them. I have made my clarifications where posts of mine may have led to confusion.


Since only I can know for certain my intentions here, only I therefore can know what my claims are.

 

[WWHP]

We usually expect a newcomer to be credible till they prove otherwise. You have certainly not been gaining any ground. A few of your posts seem reasonably sincere, but you make too many claims you cannot back up or even have to back out of, and you trolling tactics are duly noted.

I have gone on record stating what I am qualified to speak of and not speak of, and have been consistant. I have clarified where there was confusion.

My 'trolling tactics' are what I assume are my responses to ad hominem and irrelevant attacks from the hostile community whom wishes to 'pre disprove' the existence of Qi on a report that they have not yet been presented.

If you wish to define that as trolling because we disagree on something philosophically and I am funny about it, so be it.

 

[WWHP]

Was this post in in response to this one of mine?

YES ZEP! You are loved and now your famous. Ol Bubblefish has responded to one of your posts.

Let it be written that Zep is the student Bubblefish loves most!

I am looking forward to reading what you come up with. I may have been correct.

 

[Mojo]

Since only I can know for certain my intentions here, only I therefore can know what my claims are.

Anyone can tell what the claims you have made on this forum are by reading your posts. If you have posted a claim on a forum, then you have made that claim. It is reasonable to assume that you mean what you say.

If you're going to take the Humpty Dumpty approach to language, and insist that what you post means whatever you want it to mean regardless of its actual content, then it's a complete waste of time trying to communicate with you.

 

[WWHP]

Ahh, I see Pragmatist would rather introduce another strawman and avoid the previous rebuttal to him.

So be it.

According to you, Dr Lo is reading these threads - he can see it for himself can't he? Nothing is stopping him from logging on and addressing the issue or passing any relevant comments to you for you to pass on - is there?

Not for me to say.

Irrelevant

Yes, there are always arguments between people (even scientists) regarding interpretation of data. But there are few arguments between genuine scientists as to basic physical properties - which are a matter of observation not "interpretation". For example, it is generally agreed that things fall down under gravity - someone can always argue that things really fall up by redefining the words "up" and "down" and claiming that it's all a matter of "interpretation". But we don't take bare assertions like that very seriously for good reason. And this is not a matter of philosophy where all kinds of vague, fuzzy concepts can be argued indefinitely without resolution - this a simple matter of cold, hard, logical physics, there is only one correct set of data which actually matches physical observation, and while there are multiple models, it is not legitimate to simply pick and choose bits of opposed models and randomly combine them while rejecting the basis of the models themselves and simply ignoring the blatant contradictions that result.

he said she said. irrelevant

Now, the layman may not be able to immediately see who is right or wrong. But an intelligent lay person, especially one who claims to be a critical thinker, will make an effort to attempt to understand the issues - he will read up on it, look at textbooks, check the web, speak to other scientists as necessary until he does understand the issue - because he is interested in finding the truth. Not just for his own benefit, but to ensure that he doesn't pass on false and dishonest information to others. It is called taking responsibility.

I dont see how I have to take responsibility to a claim Dr. Lo made in the 90's.

I dont have the interest to do the 'math', I already mentioned that. I am not going to get sucked into your strawman.

Yes, it would be unwise for you to assume that either I or Lo are correct.

Thank you

Please don't. How about making an effort to find out for yourself instead?

Lack of interest in doing so. Irrelevant to why I came here.

And regardless of whether you introduced the specific topic or not, you did represent Lo as an expert physicist in various areas (such as quantum mechanics for one) and you did post his comments to Engelking which is what I am addressing. Are you saying that we shoudl just believe what you say without challenging it - especially when it is so utterly self-contradictory?

I never said 'expert' I said respected. I would imagine a Physics professor whom has held some sort of position, whatever they are classified as, be it lecturing, sitting, tenure, or visiting, at cal tech, oxford, university of chicago and melbourne to be a respected physicist.

In law there is a whole field concerned with "torts" - which literally means "civil wrongs" in context. Included in that are the concepts of fraud, deception, etc. But areas like fraud are just simplistic sub sets of more wide ranging concepts such as misrepresentation. And in law there are several subsets of "misrepresentation" with various degrees of seriousness as regards the degree of wrong. Outright misrepresentation, or negligent misrepresentation is one of the very serious "wrongs" - and it is defined as, "asserting something to be true, either knowing it to be false, or not knowing or not caring whether it is true or false". And you have certainly committed the latter several times already on here. Spreading lies, not caring whether they are true or false is not a very honorable position.

lol, well pragmatist, if I am guilty of doing that in these threads, then most certainly are all of you.

And I still dont see what I have claimed, via clarification, that has warranted that response.

I have clarified where I have come from, and now your trying to spin and reintroduce the entire arguement all over from another angle, trying to attach me to a paper Dr. Lo wrote in the 90's.

So in effect, you are saying you are not interested in finding the truth, nor do you care whether you pass on false or fraudulent information to others and mislead them. Sorry, but I don't have much respect for that kind of attitude.

get real. I posted dr. lo's response to a critique because I found it on the internet in the links you all posted to me. I did the same thing you all did.

Many of you accused him of fraud, and where does it say that? All you have done if is found contention on an irrelevant topic.

It is not irrelevant. [?QUOTE]


IT IS IRRELEVANT TO MY DISCUSSION

You introduced the matter of Lo's credibility as a physicist, now you are just back paddling to avoid taking responsibility.

I am not back peddling at all. I still say he is. Your trying to force this argument in an area where you have expertise and I dont. Nice trick. wont work

You've been called out on the facts and you're not answering - you think that makes us believe you to be an honest person?

I am not answering? huh? I have responded to all of your questions! it is you whom did not respond to my second to last rebuttal to YOU!

I think what you mean is that I am not giving you the answers you would like.

I dont care what you think about me.

And I never said anything about how "smart" I am in relation to Lo, nor did I comment at all on his general intelligence.

You dont need to. It is inferred in your entire arguement. It's called shadow logic. It's a political method of debate.

I do challenge his knowledge of the areas he claims expertise in.

Yes you do, and even when it is unrelated to MY DISCUSSION HERE. You want to start a new thread about his work? go for it. just dont expect me to join in, and dont accuse me of not backing anything up when I have clarified.

. And I have not found "one paper of his that I can find contention with" - I have already addressed two papers of his and one "rebuttal" - scientifically, in detail - where I see basic and fundamental errors of science in all of them, and I see various claims and statements made by him that simply don't make sense.

Then next time you see him, ask him about that.

And as I said before, the issue of whether he is absolutely correct in one or two derived items is not the point. The point is that I see errors and misconceptions of science that are so basic and fundamental that it leads me to actually question his bona-fides as a scientist.

What thinker things the prover proves. Your on a mission to discredit him in one area to PROVE ME FALSE in another.

So I certainly don't make the error that I simply dismiss everything he says simply because I disagree with one theory of his - to claim I do is blatant misrepresentation in itself.

Then why bring it into the discussion TO ME when I have clarified the topic?

Who cares? I dont care if you disagree with him, nor do I care if Dr. Lo has written four or five papers on bad science.

I came here to find information regarding the Randi Challenge, and your introducing more strawmen than the prop department on the wizard of oz.

Let's make it clear. If someone is presented to me as a true catholic and an expert in catholicism, and then makes the claim that God and Jesus don't exist, that the pope is gay, that Satan is the true God, that the true practice of the catholic church is to sacrifice virgins and kill chickens - then I think I am quite justified in saying, "I don't believe this person is really a true catholic, because everything he says is at odds with what I know about the subject of catholicism". I don't say that this person is automatically wrong in anything he says - I do say that I don't trust his opinions about what constitutes catholicism.

Ok, who cares? If I say he is a TRUE catholic and is also a priest, and he prints a story refuting the crusifiction, that doesnt mean the man was never baptized, nor does it have to do with him taking the Randi Challenge and my intentions here.

You have represented Lo as an expert in physics and specifically in quantum mechanics.

Please copy and paste my exact words on Dr. Lo. I represent as such no more than his own phd.

You have told us that he has scientific proofs based on his expertise of the existence of "qi". However we can see that firstly his expertise in very basic physics and scientific procedure is highly questionable, as also is his apparent knowledge of quantum mechanics. So I should just take your and his word for it that his work on "qi" is totally sound, when his other work in similar and related areas is so badly flawed?

I never said you had to believe me at all, now your introducing another strawman. I dont expect you to beleive me, and I stated over and over that arguing for proof is NOT WHY I CAME HERE.

Your a bit naft, my friend

And please don't come out with the tired old "deterministic materialist paradigm" crap - that is the fall back position of just about every liar when they're cornered on facts. It's a ridiculous and overused straw man that simply indicates that the person in question has lost the argument.

lol, I am sure I would lose the false and irrelevant arguement you wish to draw me in on.

You claimed that Lo was a legitimate physicist.

yes I did.

Physics is a mainstream discipline with well established rules and procedures. It is not a question of "belief systems" to see his pronouncements are at odds with physics any more than I have to have a catholic belief system to see that my Satanist above doesn't qualify as a "true catholic".

Since dr. lo is not available to argue his work, your arguement against his reads like he said she said, and now you wish to provide commentary on your critique as if that was objective. that's funny.

And this is an example of your honesty?

It is an example of your imagination and deceptive way of trying to pull me into an argument where you have expertise and I dont.

After criticising me above by falsely claiming that I wanted to simply reject anything against my "paradigm", you now compound the error further by trying to lump me in with every other critic so we can be conveniently dismissed as a group.

since you all are i nferring the same thing and providing the same debate tactic, yes, you are in a set called 'Dr. Lo detractors' and I am in a set called 'Representing the Randi Challenge by a phd'

Our individual and rational arguments can be safely lumped together and rejected in entirety without consideration because we're all just evil skeptics. Which is pretty much what racists tend to do incidentally. You have no idea what my ability to understand anything is, but that doesn't stop you making claims about it does it?

YOUR TELLING ME YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND by the way you argue and infer irrationally and irrelevantly.

Dr Lo's understanding of basic physics is extremely relevant to the claim that he has a scientific "proof" of anything that involves physics.

I would imagine so, yes

I cannot and do not say he is wrong about "qi" - I haven't seen any evidence yet. I can and do say that I don't trust that he is an authority on certain areas of physics as claimed. It's quite simple and I cannot see why you cannot understand such a simple concept

Yes, you can say that. but to ARGUE it with me is IRRELEVANT. Why dont you go start a new thread to discuss it?

And you can fantasize all you like about what we do in our heads. The simple fact is that you are dishonest. You have been caught out several times already and your little tirade above only confirms the fact.

again, I have stated my intentions, clarified, and have been consistant.

I took a look at your web site to see what "OS 0 1 2" was all about.

good, I am glad you did

And I saw your comments about the Iraq war and the behaviour of dishonest politicians who make false claims about weapons of mass destruction etc. I took a look because although I doubted that there was anything to it, I was nonetheless interested and I wanted to find out about it and also to give it fair chance to see whether it stood up logically and on its own merits. I also note that you have claimed that what you do is an example of it.

yes

Well, congratulations, you have proved it to be unmitigated crap!

huh? let's say I was dishonest here, how does that make OS 012 false in the logical sense again? can you explain?

Sir, even if I fail at applying it does not make it false.

You don't actually do what you claim on that site, instead you lie, evade and distort like the best of the dishonest politicians.

I have been consistant and have OVER clarified my consistancy. You wish me to argue something irrelevant to my intentions and outside of why i came here, so it is YOU who is being deceptive.

You complain that politicians mislead people by presenting false information about WMD and presenting it as though it were true by misrepresenting claims of alleged experts etc.

yes i do

Then you come on here and do exactly the same thing by bringing in a highly dubious alleged "expert" on physics and representing his claims as fact.

Sir, your a naft one, here you go trying to REINTRODUCE another misleading statement. I came here to discuss the Randi challenge and CLARIFIED I am NOT HERE to discuss PROOF OF Qi.

If I state that Einsten has proof of relativity in 1910, but I dont claim to argue it, am I lying or misrepresenting or just trying to get the man a grant?

When challenged on the actual facts, your response is "I don't know, nor do I care whether what he says is true or not". Oh what a fine example of honesty you are!

You mean when challenged on what you present as actual facts IRRELEVANT to my STATED and CLARIFIED intentions.

And you know something? The politicians are better than you are.

your funny funny

Because you know it's wrong to misrepresent information, you are well aware of the dangers of false and misleading information, and the danger of not checking the facts before speaking.

I am not a reporter and am not here to present an official presentation of anything. If I make a common mistake, I clarify. what are you a fascsist or something? your previous rebuttal to me accuses me over and over deceptivly of all sorts of things your accusing me of now.

You have the benefit of hindsight, knowing how much harm misrepresentation can do. I have no way of knowing if the politicians were aware of these things, but you certainly are. And in spite of all of that, you come on here and do exactly the same thing, and all you have to say when someone challenges the "facts" you present is - to use your own words - "To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me".

Sir, again, your wishing to mislead the audience. I have CLARIFIED my intentions here over and over.

I didnt bring up Dr. Lo's previous research, you all did. I never stated any 'facts' about it, you all did. Some of you have called the man a fraud, and do ANY of you know Dr. lo is a fraud? no.

You claim that Lo has published peer reviewed papers on "qi" - but in reality we later find out that you don't know if that's true (nor do you care if it's true).

Since I clarifed that I assume it is true because he told me and I have no reason to distrust the man, your misleading the arguement again.

You claim that Lo has a tenure at Melbourne, then we find out later that you also don't know if that's true - nor do you care, because if you did you would have made an effort to check your facts before speaking wouldn't you?

I clarified that 'facts' that I speak of. If I make a clerical error, I state it. He WAS at university of melbourne as a physics professor, that is my FACT, his exact position I am unclear of, but perhaps it WAS tenure, I dont know.

Lol, if you guys want to fine me for spitting on the sidewalk to prove your point, go for it. It is MISLEADING especially since you are trying to represent MY INTENTIONS here, which I know CLEARLY WHAT THEY ARE, and have made the HONEST attempt to EXPLAIN THEM and clarify.

So please cut all the self-righteous crap - you have shown yourself for what you are, and it's not pretty from this angle. [/B]

You have tried in numerous deceptive ways to paint an image of me in your head which is misleading, yes, I accuse you of because you are trying to defend your BELIEF SYSTEM.

It's an old trick that doesnt work. try again, go waste more of your time.

Funny not ONE of you try to argue or discuss ANY ISSUE I say I am qualified to discuss, not one.

 

[WWHP]

I was in the process of composing a short essay on Bubblebrain's "OS 0 1 2" waffle, but I do believe that it would not come close to matching Pragmatist's effort above.

lol, well, he needs all the help he can get, even from the little brains. Go for it

 

[WWHP]

Anyone can tell what the claims you have made on this forum are by reading your posts.

indeed.

If you have posted a claim on a forum, then you have made that claim. It is reasonable to assume that you mean what you say.

indeed

If you're going to take the Humpty Dumpty approach to language, and insist that what you post means whatever you want it to mean regardless of its actual content, then it's a complete waste of time trying to communicate with you.

lol, hey dr Elmer, if you wish to invoke Humpty Dumpty to back up your point, I can clearly point out that your only addressing one of his broken shells, and NOT THE REST IN RELATIONSHIP to them.

It is you whom is being selective about what 'claims' I am making.

the BIGGEST CLAIM i have made is my intention here which was to find info and research the Randi challenge and NOT discuss proof of Qi. I have also claimed to CLARIFY my intentions to the effect.

Catch up, Dr. Elmer, and go sit on the wall, eh?

 

[Mojo]

the BIGGEST CLAIM i have made is my intention here which was to find info and research the Randi challenge and NOT discuss proof of Qi.

You may feel that this was your "BIGGEST CLAIM." To me, your biggest (certainly your most astonishing) was this one:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Since only I can know for certain my intentions here, only I therefore can know what my claims are.

This despite the fact that we are discussing claims that you have made on this forum, and which can therefore be read by anyone here!

I have also claimed to CLARIFY my intentions to the effect.

Another claim that you have conspicuously failed to back up.

 

[WWHP]

Oh Dr. Elmer

Apparently that Bubblefish in your head is just at it again. My he is a tricky fellow!

Allow the real bubblefish to clarify for the cartoons your running.

Only I can know for certain what my intentions are. If my intention was to decieve, I would know that. I know my intentions were expressed via my original post, or via clarifications on minutiae that you all seem to pick on like hungry vultures, trying so so so so hard to justify all of this time your spending dealing and dancing with ol bubblefish.

Since I have clarified my intentions (the controversial 'claims') over and over and over, ad nauseum, I can only assume that I will keep you all coming to this thread for weeks, months, years even,til you cant accept that simple fact, or tire of this silly game.

So! Until then, I guess that means a sort of nurturing bond is developing between us, sort of like Abbot and Costello, (your the fat one).

When's your birthday?

 

[pmurray]

Since I have clarified my intentions (the controversial 'claims') over and over and over, ad nauseum

It seems we have a problem with language here. When we say "what is your claim", we are not asking "why did you post". That is not what "claim" means.

The million dollar challenge is a challenge to do a paranromal thing. It can be any paranormal thing. But you must say what paranormal thing you can do, and then you must do it.

This saying of what you can do is what the "claim" is. In english, we say "I claim I can levitate", or "I claim I can predict the future".

Now that I have explained what the words mean, you will understand better why people here are asking you what you claim is.

Perhaps it is interesting that you are working on a theoretical understanding of Qi, but the JREF is not really interested in that. You must show thar you can do a thing.

 

[WWHP]

Wow, an actual rational poster.

So far I have found about 3 of them here.


Hello Pmurry

It seems we have a problem with language here.

ahh,yes, the eternally recapitulating culprit. I agree. I dont think many here understand the english language to well.

When we say "what is your claim", we are not asking "why did you post". That is not what "claim" means

Yes.

The million dollar challenge is a challenge to do a paranromal thing. It can be any paranormal thing. But you must say what paranormal thing you can do, and then you must do it.

Yes, I agree. And like I said, we are looking forward to moving ahead with doing it. That is our intention. My thread on the other forum, as stated, was to 'recon' the situation abit relative to our approach.

If that is simply not how things are done here, then I apologize for making that error. However, I stated my intentions in what I believed to be clear and rational language.

This saying of what you can do is what the "claim" is. In english, we say "I claim I can levitate", or "I claim I can predict the future".

lol. yes, I can follow. Apparently, there is a 'claim' that Qi can be measured, and it's effects recorded empirically.

Now that I have explained what the words mean, you will understand better why people here are asking you what you claim is.

there is or has been no confusion here, at least on my end, but I appreciate your willingness to help resolve the matter.

The claim is that there will be someone who not only can manipulate Qi and use it for healing, but also holds a Phd in Theoritical Physics, who will prove the recorded effects of Qi, and then take the Randi Challenge.

That is the claim.

Perhaps it is interesting that you are working on a theoretical understanding of Qi, but the JREF is not really interested in that. You must show thar you can do a thing. [/B]

Agreed. And this will happen. That is one of the reasons why I am not here to discuss the proof. I came here to ask a few questions and get some background. That was accomplished.

Next, only the most perfect steps will be taken to show that there is nothing mystical or paranormal about Qi at all, using reason, logic, empirical method, and rational explanation. Which was related to my original question, I wondered if we would still qualify for the challenge if the concered parties finds a rational explanation for Qi too.

See, our side doesnt believe in the paranormal either, thus, we can't honestly say relative to our POV that we can prove something paranormal exists. We can only show that Qi is not paranormal, and that it can be measured and tested.

Or so goes the 'claim'.

So let's all wait and see, shall we?

 

[Pragmatist]

I took this statement of yours "You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi."

to mean that I have somehow misrepresented myself in my intentions here. Since I never said i was going to argue or present proof of Qi, ever, indeed, clarifying otherwise, your statement reads to me that I should 'back' something up.

And it still reads that way to me, but fine, you clarified, now I am satisfied.

Yes, I am saying you should back something something up. You have claimed that Lo has proof of "qi". You have offered no evidence in support of that claim. The statement "I'll show it sometime, eventually", doesn't exactly meet the criterion. At the present moment in time you have made a claim which you can't back up. I assume that a honest person would not make such a claim unless he had already seen the proof himself - but if you haven't seen the proof, or you don't understand it, then it was rather unwise to make the claim, no?

How is the statement " i think it to be funny that a phd has proof regarding qi and taking the Randi challenge" an assertion of ANYTHING other than I am ASSERTING I find it funny?

Yes, I assume he has proof for reasons other than I am not disclosing here, and since I said my intention here is NOT to provide that arguement, I am now back at square one with you. You just argued yourself into a circle.

READ THIS ASSERTION: I came here inquiring about the randi challenge in relationship to a phd who claims he can prove it using empirical testing.

That statement is also an assertion that the PhD has proof - Jeez! You claim to be developing a rational dialectic but you have trouble with simple logic?

You assume he has proof - in other words you don't know if he has proof. So your statement that he has proof is not necessarily true. I didn't argue myself into any circle, my argument is perfectly logical and stands on its own merit.

I can accept your last assertion - but it means that I cannot trust the veracity of your previous assertions which contradict that.

Now your assuming how I came to a conclusion.

How can I possibly be assuming that when that is what you explicitly said! You said quite clearly that you believed that Lo had proof because he told you that he did. Now that latter statement is either true or false - if it is true then I cannot be assuming anything about how you came to the conclusion because I am taking you at your word. If it is false then my error is assuming that you are actually telling the truth! Do you really want to argue that I am wrong because you are actually a liar?

The fact remains that you made a definite assertion, but we now discover that your assertion was based on what you were told and what you assumed - you said so yourself.

non-sequitor.

Nonsense, of course it follows. I note only that you've evaded the point. If I tell you one improbable thing you wouldn't believe me - but if Lo tells you an improbable thing you believe him without question. It's legitimate to ask why you indulge in such an inconsistency.

because santa claus DOES NOT EXIST, and even if he did, I am not arguing for his existence, just like I was not arguing for the existence of Qi.

Irrelevant. I asked you why you believe an improbable thing on faith alone from Lo, but not from me. I didn't say you were arguing for its existence.

As an hello and introduction.

Certainly an odd way saying hello and introducing oneself but hey, you're from California, so I forgive you.

yes, HERE meaning the JREF forum. Since I clearly posted a link to the relevant discussion, your comment does not apply.

So this thread is about the challenge and your associated claims.

And just in case there is any doubt:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986300#post1870986300

My friend, i did not come here to discuss OS 012, rather the challenge I mentioned above.

no. you should also then read my first post here.

I did. It mentioned claims about a PhD having proof of qi.

really? how so? can you explain?

Because your statements are contradictory, as I have already mentioned in detail. If you make multiple statements that are mutually contradictory then it means that one or more of said statements must be false. A person who knowingly makes false statements is a liar.

lol, hey, catch up pokey. look at the date and time when I started this thread, and then look at the date and time when I started the other one, k?

And the relevance of that is...?

huh? is this really the critical thinking man's minefield?

Look, when I said 'negotiate' that means to RANDI and the application process, not with you goons here.

Where did I say you had to negotiate with us? I repeat - you said that you were not Lo's agent. But you also said that you were his representative who was authorised to negotiate on his behalf with whomever - it is irrelevant who you were supposed to negotiate with - the fact remains that you claimed in one place that you were his agent and that you claimed in another that you were not his agent.

Regardless of what kind of agent you were, the fact is that you were not telling the truth when you said you were not his agent. Now, of course I have no problem with you being his agent in some things and not others - all I note is that you didn't tell the whole truth the first time round. Now, I assumed that it was simply the case that you had a communication problem and couldn't make yourself clear, that was my original point if you recall. But as you have insisted that you do not have a communication problem, or a problem making yourself clear - I can only assume then that the ambiguity in your remarks was intentional in which case you are being deceptive. Or that you do have a communication problem and are in denial in which case you are being deceptive with yourself as well as us. It's real simple...

consider:

YES, I dont see how you can confuse that I meant to negotiate the application process with you lunatics! Are you all really that dense here? my lord.

No matter what you confuse it to be, I said I am not the man's representative except for the randi challenge. Which means that anything about his work, papers, taxes, women on the side, drug use, political leanings, or grocery list is NOT WHAT I represent!

I didn't make any such confusion. I never was under the impression you had to negotiate anything with us. Nor did I confuse what you were his representative in respect of after you explained it. I merely commented that if you insist you do not have a communication problem, you must be deceptive, because either you are being deceptive about your lack of a communication problem, or you were being wilfully deceptive when you made statements like "I am not his agent". Like I said, it's real simple...

let me make it REAL SIMPLE

Dr. Lo and Bubblefish =inquiring about Randi Challenge=JREF THREAD
Dr.Lo and Bubblefish=negotiate Application process with appropiate parties

Dr.Lo=Phd, peer reviews, research, proof of Qi

I am and have been UBER consistant.

i would recommend you stop talking to the bubblefish in your head, your clearly being confused by the wrong bubblefish

Oh I get it, don't worry. But you have not been consistent let alone UBER consistent. I don't need to talk to the "bubblefish" in my head because firstly I don't have bubblefish in my head (thank goodness), secondly I don't want bubblefish in my head, thank you. The only confusion I have is in relation to the contradictory posts on here made by a person calling himself "bubblefish". Capish?

such as?

Such as the specific examples I've already given.

you first have to point the contradiction, not the percieved contradiction in your mind BEFORE the clarification.

Until then, your arguing a false contradiction that does not exist

My original point to you was that your statements appeared to be contradictory and that I believed you had not expressed yourself clearly and that you seemed to have a communication problem. You insisted that you did not have a communication problem and so I was left with various bits of data:

1. Various contradictory statements
2. A statement that you were communicating clearly and without any problem.

Now, it is self evident that if 2 is true, then 1 implies that those were real contradictions not simply perceived ones. If however I take your new position that there were no contradictions but that you had simply not communicated yourself clearly then of course 2 must be false and as such represents a real contradiction in its own right.

So it doesn't particularly matter whether there is a real contradiction in 1 or a real contradiction in 2 - either way there is a real contradiction which is not merely a false perception.

You're the one arguing in circles - I guess I ought to give you a piece of advice that is a particular favorite of mine (and Hans's as well) - when in a hole, stop digging. Every time you try to wriggle out of one of your contradictions you just compound the situation by contradicting yourself further.

I'm doing fine.

[mode=Sigmund Freud] And just how long have you been having these delusions? [/mode]

it shows the depth of my ability to be sarcastic after I have addressed the same question about a zillion times spun about a million ways.

So you were being sarcastic to Mojo. Why? I checked you know. You were asked the question by 3 posters, Sezme, Mojo and Ashles. The question posed by Mojo and Ashles was more specific and somewhat different to the question asked by Sezme. You only responded to Sezme. You ignored Mojo completely and didn't reply to his (very polite) questions at all, nor did you respond to Ashles, who only asked because you were ignoring Mojo - and who even gave you an example of what we were looking for. So Sezme asked you once and you responded to the question once, but you can count that as twice if you want since you replied once, he replied and you replied again. So your addressing the same question "about a zillion times spun about a million ways" - refers to a maximum of two responses that you actually made.

And I still don't know why you ignored and were sarcastic to Mojo who initially was extremely polite toward you.

Are you always prone to such extreme exaggeration?

And to clarify further, you did not follow up on this:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986560#post1870986560

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?

It terms of Dr. Lo's peer reviewed papers, if you are serious, I will see if I can get you a copy.

Yes, and I clarified that because I assume if he tells me that, he has.

ANd then I clarified that again, and now I am clarifiying that AGAIN.

and I STILL ASSUME HE HAS.

O.K. so you insist that there is nothing dishonest about asserting things to be true that you don't know to be true. Funny, courts of law wouldn't agree, they call that misrepresentation.

google?

No such papers show up on Google. Nor do any such papers show up on any journal search or publication list. Therefore, I will now assert that such papers do not exist and I am calling you directly a liar. Go ahead - prove me wrong.

And of course, you refuse to discuss the papers which do show up on Google - and on the very site that you initially provided. I see claims but no evidence in support of them.

www.google.com.... type in dr.lo's name...not difficult at all

No, not difficult at all - and totally irrelevant since no such papers appear on a Google search. Put up or shut up.

oh my god I cant believe this is a critical thinking crowd. your really giving the bunch of us a bad name. I did ask him, and he told me he would make avialable the paper relevant to THIS topic when it is published in THREE MONTHS.

Go read how many times I wrote that, Johnny Cochran.

So if the paper will only be published in 3 months time, then your claim that it had already been published was false. And you have proven yourself to be a liar. I was being generous and assuming that I was merely misunderstanding you due to the communication problem which you insist you don't have. I thought it was better to assume that, than simply assume you were a liar. But if you want it to be the latter, then so be it.

here we go again, back in the stange loop circle inference that I have clarified about a million times....

More exaggeration.

Your right, I should have said 'you all'. correction noted. my bad.

gee, you have just scored one official bubblefish point. go buy yourself a coke.

Just an observation. It may help if you stop addressing the monolithic skeptic strawman in your head and actually addressed individuals and the actual points they make.

Yes, and I still do. I take the man for his word. i dont have time to hire a friggin private eye for every answer he gives me. and I dont need to even explain myself to you my reasons for trusting him. Since I have made that clarification not one but numerous times, your simply badgering me and are being a troll.

More exaggeration and straw men. It would take 10 seconds to simply ask him for a list of references to the alleged papers. If he's a scientist then he knows what they are and also that we want them given that he has been reading these threads (or were you lying about that?). The fact that he can't or doesn't want to give them is very very telling indeed.

I'm not badgering you at all, I'm replying to your various claims and assertions. We have now established that you don't know various things which you originally asserted you did know and that you can't actually back up your claims with any evidence - that is the purpose of skeptical enquiry - to discover the truth. You thought you could come on to a skeptic site and throw around claims without anybody challenging you and asking for evidence...? Now that really is funny!

And nobody is saying you shouldn't trust him. I have asked however why you should trust him enough to blatantly ignore the evidence presented that implies that he is not all that he seems to be. And whether you trust him or not does not justify you making assertions that what he says is true when in reality you don't actually know if it's true or not, and you're not even qualified to assess whether it is or not.

By the way, did you honestly believe that you could be his representative and negotiator in respect of a skeptic challenge when you consider simple skeptical questions to be "trolling and badgering"? Perhaps you're not qualified to be his representative either.

wow. how long did it take you to come to that conclusion? I take my friends words on blind faith all the time in simple conversation when there is no reason to distrust otherwise.

Oh, that is truly sad...

and your on crack.

Ad hominem and evasion noted.

you just created a false bivalency that does not properly model environment.

Let me make it simple for you.

Someone asked me if he has published work. Dr. Lo told me he has published work on water crystals. I assume that means that he has published work. i say he has published work. I ask if some of you would like to review it, because I assumed it could be made available. I asked Dr. Lo, he said in three months the next peer review on this study will be made available. I said that to you (all). Get it? cuz I am a messenger. And I will also assist in negotiating with the appropiate parties when the time is right regarding the challenge.

YOU ARE NOT THE APPROPIATE PARTIES. you are a bunch of goons on a discussion forum harassing me. I dont OWE you ANY papers to read. I simply ASKED if you want to read them!

It is clear you do. And you can read them when they are available to you in three months.

Dont like the answer? Who cares. that is the answer you get and that is what i have been consistant with.

No I didn't. And I don't believe that you "simply asked if we wanted to read them" without intending to imply that they actually existed. And since you did say that they did explicitly there's no contest. You lied, you were caught out. Wriggle, bluster and evade all you like, the evidence is clear for all to see.

And as for "who cares", that really sums up your attitude - "truth - who cares?"...

Oh my god this is the slowest bunch i have ever encountered. Where did you get that idea? from my METAPHORIC EXAMPLE?

Now your deceptive tactics are showing up well. You know perfectly well that was part of a compound statement - and it is a legitimate question in any event - you have some objection to me asking if you're his press secretary? I don't know what you are - which is why I followed that statement with the rest of the compound which explicitly asked what you were, if you were not his press secretary.

Plus, this sounds pretty much like a press secretary to me:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870992236#post1870992236

yes. I am helping Dr. Lo translate his project into media, and we are looking for the proper direction to go in.

ZILCH! good lord man, do you pay attention at all?

I assume that you have at least followed this thread or the other one somewhat to give yourself a background so you dont look like an ass when you post to me. I guess i assumed wrong. I am not going to keep repeating myself ad infinitum with the conspiracy crowd here.

I note that your answer consists solely of ad-hominem and evades answering my simple question. Why don't you just answer the question? What are you scared of? I repeat - "what precisely is your role in his publication of peer reviewed papers?"

I hope this time I am spelling it you read it.

Yet another evasion - interesting...

I DONT CARE if you dont understand what it is, get it? i dont have to explain it. But if a say I am representing him regarding a possible challenge, I am sure you can figure it out. (wait, after reading this bizarre post of yours, I should not assume that either)

And yet more evasion... very interesting indeed. Hit a sore point did I?

I ASSUME you know what your talking about here. Do I have to go research the net to prove it or can I simply take your statement at face value, asking you to clarify where I dont understand?

DON'T assume - check!!!!! Yes, you should research it for yourself (on the net or otherwise as you wish), and no you should not take my statement at face value - that is the whole point of critical and skeptical thinking - not simply believing things and following like a sheep but actually checking things out for yourself and actually learning something along the way. Get it now?

And of course nothing in that precludes you asking as well if necessary.

We=parties concerned with challenge to Randi on Qi. Since I naturally distinguish US from YOU, I mean 'we' for simplicity's sake.

Confusing? fine, then I have clarified. About a million times.

oh! gee, ask your self, when I say a 'million times' am I using metaphor or am I lying and your about to go recount all my posts?

Your now wasting my time. Go recount my posts and waste yours instead, please.

I dont need to readdress the rest of your post since your asking and infering the same thing over and over and over.

Whilst I understand it's a metaphor it might also be a ridiculous exaggeration, so yes, maybe I'll go and recount your posts. And no you didn't clarify it before, you still haven't explicitly, although reading between the lines I take it that you are saying that you do not have any role in Lo's work at all, and that all your references to what "we" were doing refer only to what Lo (may possibly be) doing, and your references to what "we" had done refer only to things that Lo may possibly do at some speculative time in the future. And in summary, you don't have anything to do with his work. You don't have anything to do with his publication of papers or peer review. You don't know anything about his work. You don't understand his work and you're not qualified to even begin to understand it. And you're too lazy to even attempt to make an effort to understand it. You don't know whether what he told you is true or false, and you don't care whether or not it is true or false. Furthermore you have made various claims but you don't actually know if those claims are true or not, and once again you don't even care if they are true or false or whether you mislead anyone into believing that they are true.

I guess it begs the question, what use are you? You have nothing of substance to offer.

And no I didn't ask and "infer" the same thing over and over - I did explain the same thing over and over because you were obviously not understanding it.

 

[Pragmatist]

Ahh, I see Pragmatist would rather introduce another strawman and avoid the previous rebuttal to him.

So be it.

Liar. I said I would address your other posting when I had more time, I've been busy and just replied to your latest one before the other because it was more interesting at that moment in time.

Not for me to say.

Irrelevant

It was you who raised the point, if it's irrelevant why did you raise it...

Anyway, evasion noted, no substantive answer to my question.

he said she said. irrelevant

Again, I was answering a point that you raised. So once again, evasion noted.

I dont see how I have to take responsibility to a claim Dr. Lo made in the 90's.

I dont have the interest to do the 'math', I already mentioned that. I am not going to get sucked into your strawman.

You might like to go look up the definition of a straw man argument, you don't seem to understand what it is - I am not resorting to such tactics, I don't need to. You however are...

I did not say you had to take responsibility for a claim that Lo made in the 90's. I said that you should take responsibility for the claims you made in 2005 - on this very forum no less. You claimed that Lo had "scientific proof". You now admit that you don't know if that's true and you cannot offer any evidence to support your own claim. Who exactly is throwing straw around here?

I didn't say anything about having to do math, the issue can be understood quite easily without any math.

And you admit that you are not interested in making any effort to find out if your claims are true or not. That tells us everything we need to know about you and your regard for the truth.

And none of that takes into account the fact that you claimed that Lo's work on qi was based on his work on "water clusters" - so the "water clusters" papers are very relevant.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986535#post1870986535

Dr. Lo's says it can be measured with QM through what he calls water clusters.

and

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870992255#post1870992255

Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back.

Lack of interest in doing so. Irrelevant to why I came here.

Yes, you're here to make easy money out of Randi (newsflash: it ain't going to be that easy!). You don't care whether Lo's stuff is true or false or whether what you say may mislead anyone, you just want the cash. I understand.

I never said 'expert' I said respected. I would imagine a Physics professor whom has held some sort of position, whatever they are classified as, be it lecturing, sitting, tenure, or visiting, at cal tech, oxford, university of chicago and melbourne to be a respected physicist.

Crap! You're now trying to say he's not an expert? You were crowing about his expertise:


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986357#post1870986357

It is the argument of Dr. Lo, (who in addition to holding a PhD in Theoretical Physics from The University of Chicago, as well as a sitting or lecturing academic at Cal Tech, University of Melbourne, and Oxford, is also a doctor of Oriental Medicine) that ‘Qi’ is an actual substance that can be measured using QM.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870986388

i dont know if this may go over Randi's head or not, after all, I dont know if he would be qualifed, in the scientific sense, to challenge the data on these machines.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986546#post1870986546

Ririon: As for QM, if you mean quantum mechanics, it has nothing to do with Qi as far as I know. And I use quantum mechanics on a daily basis.

So does Dr. Lo, as he has lectured extensively on it. He apparently disagrees with you.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986649#post1870986649

Dr. James Fallon is in charge of interpreting all test results from this ongoing study. He is famous for showing that brain cells can regenerate and his research has made stem cell research viable in this regard. His credentials are impecable, I am sure he understands the method properly and I can assure you when it comes to empirical testing, we are in the right hands.


yes, and that is also Dr. Lo's position and everyone else involved. These are distinguished men of science that are working on this, I do hope you understand that.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870991530#post1870991530

a former sitting professor with tenure in physics at Melbourne university

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870991670#post1870991670

the man has something like 8 patents and a distinguished career, so if you disagree with him philosophically, at least respect his level of accomplishment as a scientist,

Also, his current research is very professional, and he doesnt want to sully it with Randi hype. Already, someone on this forum contacted a collegue of his about all of this, I mean, come on, be a bit respectful, these are professional people.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994135#post1870994135

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.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994258#post1870994258

If dr. lo was a quack, I dont think he would have had sitting tenure at University of melbourne in physics.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994388#post1870994388

Humpf, quakery does not qualify one for a phd or a respected academic position.

That is my claim, that's it man. Dr Lo has a real PHD, not a fake one. And it was real enough to give him a respected sitting. He has a professional life.

lol, well pragmatist, if I am guilty of doing that in these threads, then most certainly are all of you.

And I still dont see what I have claimed, via clarification, that has warranted that response.

I have clarified where I have come from, and now your trying to spin and reintroduce the entire arguement all over from another angle, trying to attach me to a paper Dr. Lo wrote in the 90's.

So you make a claim, you get called on it, you back down and change your story, contradicting what you originally said and that is a "clarification" but there is no misrepresentation involved even when what you say is provably false... gotcha!

And as far as straw men go, I haven't tried to attach you to Lo's paper, that is your straw man. I've addressed Lo's papers (plural) in the interests of scientific accuracy and for the benefit of anyone who wanted to consider the issues further - and that is quite independent of my specific comments to you except in instances where you have made related claims. You think you are the only person reading this? But guess what? Critiques like mine have a name in science, it's called peer review - the whole idea of publishing a paper for peer review is in the hope that it will attract criticism in order to arrive at the truth - and if you think my criticism is harsh then you would be horrified at what usually goes on in peer review, I'm a pussycat compared to some others! The simple fact that you don't want me to address Lo's paper speaks volumes!

You've already said that you are not the slightest bit interested in making any effort to determine whether Lo's science is reputable, but you still represent the man in the hope of getting money and make claims about his work.

And finally, you yourself said that his work on qi which you raised here was based on the "water clusters" work. Now that it's being shown to be B.S. you suddenly want to disassociate yourself from it.

get real. I posted dr. lo's response to a critique because I found it on the internet in the links you all posted to me. I did the same thing you all did.

Many of you accused him of fraud, and where does it say that? All you have done if is found contention on an irrelevant topic.

No you didn't do the same thing we all did. You claimed that he had "scientific proof" of qi based on water clusters. You claimed he had published (already) peer reviewed papers on qi. You claimed he had sitting tenure at Melbourne. And so on. You now admit that you don't know and don't care if those things are true or not. That defines you.

And I did not accuse him of fraud. In fact I don't actually recall anyone accusing him of fraud. Please would you point out where anyone actually accused him of fraud? The only similar comment that I can find is that Zep called him a quack. So please show the evidence in support of your claim that "many of you accused him of fraud".

I have been perfectly clear in what I said. I have said that I find his science to be highly suspect and that I find it hard to believe that he has real knowledge of the scientific areas in which he claims expertise. Now, of course, if in fact he doesn't have knowledge of those areas but claims that he does, then that is fraud. But unless/until some further evidence is shown I cannot and do not accuse him of fraud.

But what Lo did and what you have claimed about him and his work are two different things that I have never confused. Your attempt to represent my comments out of context are the real straw man arguments in all this. I have called him on his science and I have called you on your claims about his science - the fact that your response to my doing so is to say, "I don't know and I don't care whether Lo's science is valid or not" shows that you are irresponsible and that you don't care if you mislead others. That makes you a fraud, not Lo.

IT IS IRRELEVANT TO MY DISCUSSION

Crap! I repeat: you introduced the issue of Lo's credibility at the outset. You were chortling at the idea that your scientist could make a fool of Randi. Now you're back peddling at full speed as you begin to realise that your "scientist" may not be as credible as you originally thought. It's just one big face saving exercise for you which unfortunately is having precisely the opposite effect!

I am not back peddling at all. I still say he is. Your trying to force this argument in an area where you have expertise and I dont. Nice trick. wont work

You still say he is. You also say you don't know if he is and you don't care if he is. Yeah, right! It doesn't take any special expertise to smell the B.S. here.

I am not answering? huh? I have responded to all of your questions! it is you whom did not respond to my second to last rebuttal to YOU!

I think what you mean is that I am not giving you the answers you would like.

I dont care what you think about me.

"Responding" and "answering" are two different things. I didn't ask you for responses I asked you for answers the fact that your responses don't contain many answers speaks for itself. And I hadn't got round to answering your other post yet, I was busy and a bit out of sync. I've answered it already and it contains a few fine examples of where you haven't answered.

You dont need to. It is inferred in your entire arguement. It's called shadow logic. It's a political method of debate.

Oh jeez! Please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of words before you use them. I think you mean it is implied in my argument. No, it is not. I specifically addressed his knowledge and nothing else. You can try to read into it what you like, but what I actually did is a matter of record.

Yes you do, and even when it is unrelated to MY DISCUSSION HERE. You want to start a new thread about his work? go for it. just dont expect me to join in, and dont accuse me of not backing anything up when I have clarified.

Your claims and comments on here are predicated on the idea that you are representing a legitimate scientific attempt to prove the existence of qi. If however you do not believe that it is legtimately scientific and yet maintain nonetheless that it is, then you are committing fraud. And as long as you maintain that it is legitimate science, by a properly qualified and legitimate scientist, then the scientific credibility of that alleged scientist is perfectly and completely related and relevant to your discussion here. It's quite simple.

Then next time you see him, ask him about that.

That's all you have to say? You're not prepared to retract the lie you told that I had only addressed one paper of his? O.K. your loss not mine - credibility wise that is.

What thinker things the prover proves. Your on a mission to discredit him in one area to PROVE ME FALSE in another.

Oh the naivety! You really don't get it do you? I'll tell you a secret. I don't need to prove you false you've already done that yourself without any help from me!

And no, I am not a mission to discredit Lo. I am analysing the scientific credibility of his work. The process is called peer review and you were very much in favour of it when you thought it supported your claims, now that you know better the story has changed.

Then why bring it into the discussion TO ME when I have clarified the topic?

Who cares? I dont care if you disagree with him, nor do I care if Dr. Lo has written four or five papers on bad science.

I came here to find information regarding the Randi Challenge, and your introducing more strawmen than the prop department on the wizard of oz.

Well duh! Because you're the one making claims about it!!!!!

And we are well aware now that you don't care if Lo's science is legitimate or not, your only interest is screwing money out of Randi even if you have to commit fraud to do it.

Ok, who cares? If I say he is a TRUE catholic and is also a priest, and he prints a story refuting the crusifiction, that doesnt mean the man was never baptized, nor does it have to do with him taking the Randi Challenge and my intentions here.

It does matter if you go around spreading his "faith" for him.

Please copy and paste my exact words on Dr. Lo. I represent as such no more than his own phd.

Done. See above. And you're a liar...

I never said you had to believe me at all, now your introducing another strawman. I dont expect you to beleive me, and I stated over and over that arguing for proof is NOT WHY I CAME HERE.

Your a bit naft, my friend

No you didn't tell me I had to believe you. How does anyone tell someone they have to believe them and enforce it? Ridiculous. You asserted a claim that you do not know to be true and which I believe is false. You offer no evidence to support that claim. Let's get this clear - if that is not why you came here then why did you start throwing ridiculous claims around?

lol, I am sure I would lose the false and irrelevant arguement you wish to draw me in on.

So now you can read my mind and tell the future as well! Fantastic! So when will you be applying for the challenge on the basis of your fabulous psychic powers?

Since dr. lo is not available to argue his work, your arguement against his reads like he said she said, and now you wish to provide commentary on your critique as if that was objective. that's funny.

Mighty strange that! Lo publishes his work but is not available to argue it? Oh well, so much for peer review. And that is a straw man on your part. You accused me of being tied to a "belief system" I argued that spotting discrepancies between what someone says and what someone does doesn't require a belief system. But you can't answer that point can you? Because it's irrefutable.

It is an example of your imagination and deceptive way of trying to pull me into an argument where you have expertise and I dont.

I was answering to your claim that you can read the minds of the people on here. I don't have any expertise in reading minds, I don't believe in psychic powers, since you're the one who claims to be able to, then you're the "expert" and it's something of a stretch to claim I am trying to draw you into an argument where I have expertise and you don't!

since you all are i nferring the same thing and providing the same debate tactic, yes, you are in a set called 'Dr. Lo detractors' and I am in a set called 'Representing the Randi Challenge by a phd'

Do you mean "implying" again? And like I said, trying to pigeonhole people into convenient denigratory groups so you can dismiss their individual arguments is a nasty and disturbing tactic that is most usually associated with racism and religious fundamentalism.

Anyway, thank you for admitting that is what you are trying to do. But shame on you...

YOUR TELLING ME YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND by the way you argue and infer irrationally and irrelevantly.

You wouldn't know "rational" if it bit you on the nose mate...but then again that's exactly what it keeps doing, doesn't it?

Yes, you can say that. but to ARGUE it with me is IRRELEVANT. Why dont you go start a new thread to discuss it?

I am arguing with you about the claims you made about various issues including Lo's scientific credibility. Boy, talk about dense...

again, I have stated my intentions, clarified, and have been consistant.

Consistently dishonest....well....yes...!

huh? let's say I was dishonest here, how does that make OS 012 false in the logical sense again? can you explain?

Sir, even if I fail at applying it does not make it false.

You have claimed that what are doing here is OS 012. You have agreed with me that is what you are doing here. What you are doing here has been shown to be illogical, irrational and dishonest. Therefore if what you are doing here is OS 012, then OS 012 is illogical, irrational and dishonest.

Now of course what you are doing here may not be OS 012 - but since you're the one who defines what it is, and since you're claiming that this is what it is, then I can't see how it can be considered any other way.

Let me quote an extract from your manifesto:

OS 0 1 2 will win all of the time because OS 0 1 2 always upgrades to the dominant idea won in honest discussion amongst global citizens.

So basically, whatever the outcome of any discussion, you automatically declare the winners argument as consisting of OS 012 and define the losers argument as being not OS 012. So you claim that what you are doing on here is OS 012 - but now that you're losing the argument badly, suddenly what you're doing is not OS 012. And if my argument "wins", you declare that what I have been doing is OS 012 and as a result you have really "won" because you introduced OS 012 in the first place.

It's not a logical flaw so much as it is an outright confidence trick. It's a way to pretend you can save face when you are shown to be in error.

This bit I find particularly amusing with respect to your performance on here:

OS 0 1 2 can produce profound results. This is only accomplished in one way and one way only.

Total and complete ruthless honesty. Self honesty and honesty with others is the fuel that operates the mechanisms of OS 012.

Dishonesty in any form is a sign of irrational and poor thinking, a thing of the past.

When performing the dialectic, we are not afraid of making mistakes or being in error, for we rely on our opponents to make our corrections and point out our errors. Thus, pure honest and creative thinking is involved inside of an OS 0 1 2 discussion. OS 0 1 2 can be likened to the art of finding truth by making mistakes.

KEY: Honesty = Integrity. Integrity is a classification of 'synergy'. Human perception has a exalted synergy that functions when human being is honest.

I have been consistant and have OVER clarified my consistancy. You wish me to argue something irrelevant to my intentions and outside of why i came here, so it is YOU who is being deceptive.

Not true as your numerous self-contradictions demonstrate. And all I have done is called you on specific claims you made. I will repeat that indefinitely if necessary because that is the truth and is self-evident upon examination of the record here. Of course you will not admit that you have been inconsistent and contradictory. You change what you say and call it "clarification". Clarification is when someone misinterprets what you say because what you said was ambiguous and you give additional information that supports what you originally said. Clarification is not when you say something false, and then say the opposite.

For example, let's take the statement, "Dr Lo has proof of qi". In reply someone asks the question, "what kind of proof?"

Clarification is when someone says in response to the question, "Dr Lo has scientific proof that was peer reviewed and critically acclaimed when it was published in Nature on the 10th December 1999, issue no, xxxx pages yyy through zzz"

Clarification is not when someone says, "Well I haven't actually seen any proof", and "I wouldn't actually understand the proof even if I saw it", and "I don't actually know if the proof exists, I just assume it does", and "I don't care if the proof even exists or not and I can't be bothered to check".

The latter responses are not clarification they are equivocation that completely contradicts the original assertion that proof exists.

You have not been consistent and you have clarified nothing - other than that we cannot take what you say as being true without extensive interrogation, because what you say is not what you mean - according to your own words.

Sir, your a naft one, here you go trying to REINTRODUCE another misleading statement. I came here to discuss the Randi challenge and CLARIFIED I am NOT HERE to discuss PROOF OF Qi.

If I state that Einsten has proof of relativity in 1910, but I dont claim to argue it, am I lying or misrepresenting or just trying to get the man a grant?

You still don't get it do you? Regardless of what you claim you came here to do, we are responding to what you actually did - get it now? Your intentions are irrelevant, your actions are entirely relevant.

And if you state that Einstein had proof of relativity in 1910, you'd be lying because he didn't get proof until 1918...!

Can you understand that we don't like it when people lie to us? When you make a definite statement it is either true or false. If you make a definite statement as though it were true, and if you do so knowing it to be false, or not caring whether it is true or false, that is misrepresentation in the full legal sense of the word.

You mean when challenged on what you present as actual facts IRRELEVANT to my STATED and CLARIFIED intentions.

Your intentions have no relevance to your actions. The facts of your actions are in dispute. Trying to constantly divert attention away from what you actually did to what you claim you intended is deceptive in itself.

I am not a reporter and am not here to present an official presentation of anything. If I make a common mistake, I clarify. what are you a fascsist or something? your previous rebuttal to me accuses me over and over deceptivly of all sorts of things your accusing me of now.

So it only matters if reporters or officials lie? It doesn't matter if common people publish lies on the web? And no, if you make a mistake you don't clarify, you equivocate, which is not the same thing at all as I demonstrated above.

I accuse you over and over because I hope that sooner or later you will understand that what you did is not open to subjective interpretation, it is clear and unequivocal, and the sooner you admit it and take responsibility for it, the sooner we'll leave you alone.

Sir, again, your wishing to mislead the audience. I have CLARIFIED my intentions here over and over.

I didnt bring up Dr. Lo's previous research, you all did. I never stated any 'facts' about it, you all did. Some of you have called the man a fraud, and do ANY of you know Dr. lo is a fraud? no.

No I'm not, no you didn't, see above.

Sigh...you made claims about his current research including that he had proof based on his previous research on "water clusters". You introduced the matter of his credibility as a scientist and we found his previous "research" which goes to his credibility. I don't recall anyone calling him a fraud, please show where someone did and also explain how that applies to the rest of us, if someone did in fact do so, and finally the last bit assumes facts not in evidence. You have no way of knowing whether any of us know he's a fraud or not, so you're not in any position to state that we don't. Clear and simple enough?

Since I clarifed that I assume it is true because he told me and I have no reason to distrust the man, your misleading the arguement again.

How am I "misleading the argument". Spell it out. Let's break my words down and please point out which statement I made is false:

1. You claimed that Lo had published peer reviewed papers on qi. Yes or no? True or False?
2. We found out later (from you) that you don't know if he has or hasn't published said papers, you only assume he did, but you don't know he did for a fact. Yes or no? True or False?
3. You later said that you didn't care whether he had or hadn't published such papers. Yes or no? True or False?

I clarified that 'facts' that I speak of. If I make a clerical error, I state it. He WAS at university of melbourne as a physics professor, that is my FACT, his exact position I am unclear of, but perhaps it WAS tenure, I dont know.

Lol, if you guys want to fine me for spitting on the sidewalk to prove your point, go for it. It is MISLEADING especially since you are trying to represent MY INTENTIONS here, which I know CLEARLY WHAT THEY ARE, and have made the HONEST attempt to EXPLAIN THEM and clarify.

Talk about "politician speak"! Wonderful! The 'facts' that you speak of (with "facts" in scare quotes). A "clerical error". How many other ways do you want to re-express, "I lied"?

Let me remind you of what you said originally. You said he has sitting tenure at Melbourne. You even used it against other posters in argument in a deliberate attempt to mislead. It doesn't do you any credit.

And forget the "INTENTIONS" game - it won't wash, we don't fall for facile attempts at misdirection. Your intentions are irrelevant, your actions are not.

You have tried in numerous deceptive ways to paint an image of me in your head which is misleading, yes, I accuse you of because you are trying to defend your BELIEF SYSTEM.

It's an old trick that doesnt work. try again, go waste more of your time.

Funny not ONE of you try to argue or discuss ANY ISSUE I say I am qualified to discuss, not one.

You don't know anything about my belief system, you assume you do - but then again we already know you have trouble distinguishing your assumptions from facts.

And what issue can we discuss with you? We can't believe a word you say because you keep contradicting yourself. And so far, you don't seem to be qualified to discuss anything of consequence judging by past performance. That aside, I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who would willingly discuss other issues with you - but that doesn't get you off the hook for the things you've already done. Until you take responsibility for what you claim you won't get much respect on here.

 

[Pragmatist]

I was in the process of composing a short essay on Bubblebrain's "OS 0 1 2" waffle, but I do believe that it would not come close to matching Pragmatist's effort above.

Thanks Zep. You should do yours anyway, it's bound to be more interesting than his drivel.

By the way, did you notice his sig? Hilarious!

 

[WWHP]

double post

 

[WWHP]

Pragmatist,




I find this little tit for tat exchange going on on your end to be a bit delusional and paranoid. You don’t appear to be able to integrate reality too well. Certainly not discussion. Since your arguments are about meaninglessness, I don’t have the time to continually readdress the same inference ad infinitum.

Your wasting my time.

I am not going to restate again what I already have a million times. It’s a waste of time.

I am not here to convince you of anything. I don’t care what you believe or not. I have made my point over and over.

You don’t know how to read or relate to others via discussion, and I don’t have the time to teach you.

Sentences you write like

You claimed that Lo had "scientific proof". You now admit that you don't know if that's true and you cannot offer any evidence to support your own claim. Who exactly is throwing straw around here?

are stupid. I don’t admit I don’t know if it is true that Dr. Lo has proof of Qi, I say I accept, for reasons I am not mentioning, that he does, and have signified that over and over.

You arguing with a character in your head. Your not cognitive fully of this discussion.

Yes, you're here to make easy money out of Randi (newsflash: it ain't going to be that easy!). You don't care whether Lo's stuff is true or false or whether what you say may mislead anyone, you just want the cash. I understand.

I don’t need Lo’s science to prove to me the existence of Qi, I already experience and accept it as a true phenomena.

Crap! You're now trying to say he's not an expert? You were crowing about his expertise:

Your quite lost in language, and are unable to address a rational discussion. I don’t have time to address such silly claims of yours as this.

Let me repeat my points to you once more.

There is a Phd in physics who claims to have proof of Qi. Bubblefish accepts that he has proof of Qi, and presented the idea of him taking the Randi Challenge.

Bubblefish came to the JREF forum to gather information regarding the challenge and not discuss the proof. The information was gathered. Mission accomplished.

The respected parties are willing to move forward now with the Randi Challenge to PROVE THE CLAIM.


The above is TRUE, and argued as true, but I wont repeatedly argue it with a delusional obsessive individual on a discussion forum. Go argue against Bigfoot.

If you wish to argue OS 012, then do so on the OS 012 forum.

I am not going to argue the nature of what YOU think our discussion is about. That is a stupid waste of my time, and will not participate in your delusions or argue them.

 

[scribble]

With Bubblehead well and truly defeated, may I now ask:

What the heck has this discussion to do with "Computers," "links" *or* "the internet?"