• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Wiseman

Robin said:
Can I say what this logic sounds like?

1. Scientists sometimes disbelieve things that turns out to be true.
2. Scientists disbelieve theory X
Conclusion: Theory X will turn out to be true.

If you are not saying this, please be specific about what you mean.
Click to expand...
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
 
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.
Click to expand...


The scientific establishment never concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue. When you assemble an argument like this are you being dishonest on purpose, or is it based on just plain raw ignorance like it appears?

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.
Click to expand...


That happens from time to time.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...


When the scientific establishment is wrong, members of that very establishment are the ones who notice the problems and set about the task of correcting them. So it brings us to this question: When you assemble an argument like this are you being dishonest on purpose, or is it based on just plain raw ignorance like it appears?
 
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...
So what about the conclusion part?

Is is now:

4) Evidence X is ignored or ridiculed by the scientific community.

Conclusion: Therefore Evidence X strongly suggests that the scientific community is wrong.​

?

Also, are you saying that the above behaviour is typical of the scientific "establishment", (whatever that might be)?
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...

So the scientific establishment is still denying rouge waves?
 
Also, I am not sure I agree with the implied premiss that the scientific "establishment" on the whole ignores or ridicules psi related experments.

Is this field not getting it's fair share of the science dollar?

Was there not a department in Princeton University for 25 years, dedicated to studying low-level mental telekinesis?

Aren't there a number of departments in publicly funded universities studying paranormal phenomena?

Where does the money for these autoganzfeld studies come from - the time of publicly funded academics?

I am sure that any field in science would like to get a little more of the funding pie but there are many fields and a limited amount of money.
 
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...


4) Scientists get Nobel Prizes for demonstrating that "the scientific establishment" is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...


So the "scientific establishment" still considers that meteorites don't fall from the sky and rouge waves don't exist?
 
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...

The examples you provided showed quite clearly that when evidence developed which strongly suggested the scientific establishment was wrong (putting aside the part where a scientific establishment in the form you describe doesn't seem to exist, and that you never established what it is that they actually resolved), they changed their mind. In order for this to make sense, you must be referring to unverified personal testimony as strong evidence.

So help me out with this, because we have lots of examples of unverified personal testimony which is contradicted by other evidence. How do you decide which to believe? For example, unverified personal testimony puts the number of cures at Lourdes in the range of tens of thousands, and about 7000 people have asked to have their case confirmed as a miracle, yet the medical review board only found 68 of those to serve as examples of a miracle. If a detailed review by people with knowledge and experience is considered strong evidence, then unverified personal testimony is correct less than one time in a hundred. But nobody would be so foolish as to consider something which is wrong 100 times more often than it is right to be strong evidence that something is right, so is it that the detailed review by people with knowledge and experience is wrong? Is it that the more information you gather on a subject, the more likely you are to form erroneous conclusions?
 
Rodney said:
It's more like:

1) The scientific establishment concludes that they have absolutely resolved an issue.

2) Evidence develops strongly suggesting that the scientific establishment is wrong.

3) The scientific establishment responds by either ignoring the evidence or ridiculing it.
Click to expand...
Therefore?
What happened after step 3?

Come on Rodney, no balls to come out and say what you are implying and insinuating.
 
paximperium said:
Therefore?
What happened after step 3?

Come on Rodney, no balls to come out and say what you are implying and insinuating.
Click to expand...


4. Scientists are fraidycats scared of losing their huge grants and lavish salaries so they willingly lie and suppress evidence and will under no circumstances advance a controversial position. That's why they still deny meteorites, rouge waves and the paranormal.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
4. Scientists are fraidycats scared of losing their huge grants and lavish salaries so they willingly lie and suppress evidence and will under no circumstances advance a controversial position. That's why they still deny meteorites, rouge waves and the paranormal.
Click to expand...

See Rodney, if you wait long enough the truth slips out. Now look into this flashy thingy.
 
paximperium said:
Therefore?
What happened after step 3?

Come on Rodney, no balls to come out and say what you are implying and insinuating.
Click to expand...

I think Rodney has been upfront about what he is saying, at least if you take into account his prior participation in this forum. The current status that psi enjoys as the poster-child for pseudoscience is unwarranted. The evidence for psi is much stronger than the "scientific establishment" (of which we are mindless followers) will admit to. And the proof of this is that the "scientific establishment" has ridiculed ideas which didn't warrant ridicule, in the past.

Linda
 
fls said:
I think Rodney has been upfront about what he is saying, at least if you take into account his prior participation in this forum.
Click to expand...
You're giving him way too much credit.
I know of his prior participation in this forum especially his predisposition to believe in various types of supernatural claims.

His inability to even come out and say what he wants to say while attempting to go about in this cowardly fashion is an interesting insight into his character and beliefs. It is the same "wedge" tactic employed by the Discovery Institute. Looks like Rodney has learned something after all these years here.

So no, there is nothing "upfront" about him.
The current status that psi enjoys as the poster-child for pseudoscience is unwarranted. The evidence for psi is much stronger than the "scientific establishment" (of which we are mindless followers) will admit to. And the proof of this is that the "scientific establishment" has ridiculed ideas which didn't warrant ridicule, in the past.
Click to expand...
That is easily surmised by anyone who is familiar with his arguments and history in this forum. What I find more amusing is his lame attempts at insinuating this without having the testicular fortitude to say it.
 
fls said:
I think Rodney has been upfront about what he is saying, at least if you take into account his prior participation in this forum. The current status that psi enjoys as the poster-child for pseudoscience is unwarranted. The evidence for psi is much stronger than the "scientific establishment" (of which we are mindless followers) will admit to. And the proof of this is that the "scientific establishment" has ridiculed ideas which didn't warrant ridicule, in the past.

Linda
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go so far as to say "mindless followers" (with a few exceptions, of course ;)). Again, my point is not that profound (I'm sure you'll all agree with that.) It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment, particularly when the public is generally supportive of those ideas. So, when people claim to have seen meteorites or rogue waves, or when they report paranormal experiences, the prevailing attitude of the establishment is: "Isn't it sad that the masses are so uneducated -- if not downright delusional -- that they believe that kind of foolishness."
 
Rodney said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say "mindless followers" (with a few exceptions, of course ;)). Again, my point is not that profound (I'm sure you'll all agree with that.) It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment, particularly when the public is generally supportive of those ideas. So, when people claim to have seen meteorites or rogue waves, or when they report paranormal experiences, the prevailing attitude of the establishment is: "Isn't it sad that the masses are so uneducated -- if not downright delusional -- that they believe that kind of foolishness."
Click to expand...
It is pretty sad that someone who has nothing to present to support his woo has only this delusion that his strawman arguments are somehow not dishonest and foolish. It's more amusing when Rodney's claims actually falsify his strawman and show his entire argument as nothing more than whining about why science won't give his woo special treatment. The establishment actually changed its mind when presented with good evidence...what does out pathetic paranormal believer have? Nothing except strawmen and special pleading.

So do you have anything else to say or is this whining all you actually have?
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say "mindless followers" (with a few exceptions, of course ;)). Again, my point is not that profound (I'm sure you'll all agree with that.) It's just that, if you look at the history of science, new ideas don't tend to be welcomed with open arms by the scientific establishment, particularly when the public is generally supportive of those ideas. So, when people claim to have seen meteorites or rogue waves, or when they report paranormal experiences, the prevailing attitude of the establishment is: "Isn't it sad that the masses are so uneducated -- if not downright delusional -- that they believe that kind of foolishness."
Click to expand...


So since you believe in the scientific validity of paranormal experiences, how would you suggest you go about breaking through the conspiracy that exists among all the scientists on Earth to keep you shut up about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom