Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Now, humpty dumpty, you have said that you consider that outright false statements (like someone stating that they would not talk to you and then that person apparently talking to you again) are in the same truth category as subjective statements such as "Apples are delicious". In reacting very differently to what you percieve as an outright falsehood than you would to a subjective statement, you have shown that you do not in fact apply your own categories and methods on your own thinking.

.

when you can propery determine these distinctions as opposed to what your idea about these distinction are, and can actually provide a reasonable argument instead of this obsessive trolling and shaming, perhaps I could come to see what you mean here.

Other than that, you just gave me another opinion, you already gave me your opinion more than 2o times.

Who cares?

I'm not interested in your opinion, and apparently you keep reading me, so you're obviously interested in mine.

 

[Curnir]

i'm touched with such passive aggressivness. like I said, critique the ideas, not the person, or critique the ideas and the person, but at least critically discuss the idea.

Look starfish. Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that your little theory is hogwash? If not why even bother debating with you, you will just remodel the theory over and over as your points are refuted. And then pretend that the latest version of the theory is what you meant all along.

Oh and....have you answered my question yet?

or start a blog, hoser

Ahh such a way with words, not since the late William Topaz MacGonagall has the english language known such a master.

I bow before thee my master.

 

[WWHP]

Look starfish. Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that your little theory is hogwash?.

Yes, REASONABLE and critical discussion. Contradictions in my arguments. I am LOOKING for the flaws, I want to see where they exist. I'm not here to convince people. If I wanted to convince people, i would start a blog. I want conflicting ideas, not passive agressive social tactics designed to get more people here to like you.

Do you actually think you personally have an argument? Do you? I think your fronting, bluffing.

I have a hard time believing, Curnir, that you have actually thought any of this through, either recently or in the past.


Your little starfish,
Bubblefish

 

[Professor Yaffle]

when you can propery determine these distinctions as opposed to what your idea about these distinction are, and can actually provide a reasonable argument instead of this obsessive trolling and shaming, perhaps I could come to see what you mean here.

Other than that, you just gave me another opinion, you already gave me your opinion more than 2o times.

Who cares?

I'm not interested in your opinion, and apparently you keep reading me, so you're obviously interested in mine.

It has not been proved conclusively that wewillfixit and professor yaffle are the same person. But bubblebrain is now acting as if it is true. He has failed to apply his category of mystery, that he has been arguing that we should all be applying when we don't have definitive proof one way or another.

Do as I say, not as I do?

 

[WWHP]

- The scam of IE Crystals, and the resulting embarrassment of being shown to suffer from poor practices in his experiments

doc lo stands behind his research here, I dont know much about IE water crystals, my eyes glaze over. He is waiting for people to duplicate his experiment.

here is a list of his papers on them, or it, or whatever the hell they are.

http://www.shuiyinlo.org/publicationonwater.asp

- Association with ATG, an organization dedicated to quack medicines and MLM schemes

They hired him, he resigned after they showed themselves to be misleading. Lo is easily misled.

here is his brief note about it, poorly explained as is typical of him.

http://www.shuiyinlo.org/my.asp

- Association with Bonavida and homeopathy, which in itself ought to sink the career of any scientist

I dont know anything about this. I do know that homeopaths like one of his books. Doc lo is not into homeopathy as far as I know.

- Association with Scientology (and a terrible can of worms, in and of itself

he is not a scientologist, people who hired him were. I live in LA, scientologists are everywhere. We have to learn to work with those who have ideas that we find strange, it doesnt mean anything other than they have allot of money and we could use it.

It's gonna take some time to overcome these associations.

Like you said, it is only the double blind experiment that is important, and nothing more. You dont have to like Doc Lo, I dont care if anyone does or doesnt. He's just not a fraud, he's a accredited scientist with a distinguished career.

http://www.shuiyinlo.org


BF

 

[The Atheist]

when are all of you fundamentalists going to get over your 'us vs them' way of thinking?

There's no "us" on your team, Bubba, I see you and....... nobody else.

I think that even the truly insane trolls here at the moment - likes of Buzzlightyear - would hesitate to climb into bed with your "shystery".

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Like you said, it is only the double blind experiment that is important

Which double blind experiment is this?

 

[WWHP]

It has not been proved conclusively that wewillfixit and professor yaffle are the same person. But bubblebrain is now acting as if it is true. He has failed to apply his category of mystery, that he has been arguing that we should all be applying when we don't have definitive proof one way or another.

hey Peter Pan, did you read the bottom of my post, the ps? it clearly says

ps, now, I cant be certain this is We will, not by my standard of certainty that is....but it sure 'feels' good if it is!

sheesh, and you wonder how it is I question your other interpretations!

Do as I say, not as I do?

hmm, same thing wewill said to me on badscience.....

This is a dialectical game, and I will probably make the same mistakes many of you do. This is about not being afraid to make mistakes. Making mistakes helps to uncover the truth. Your opponents will find your mistakes, let them help you win, depend on outside points of view to assist in making the correction, co-intelligence, helping each other to discover truth.

are you that pokey you havent got this yet?

are you wewill fix it? can you answer that question on a public forum honestly?

 

[WWHP]

There's no "us" on your team, Bubba, I see you and....... nobody else.

I think that even the truly insane trolls here at the moment - likes of Buzzlightyear - would hesitate to climb into bed with your "shystery".

right, I'm the only person in the world who considers the third value..

get out often? if you socialized outside of groups of people who think just like you, you would find your world view opening up a bit.

and actually, 'woos' have just as much a hard time with the third value as you do, Elmer.

 

[WWHP]

Which double blind experiment is this?

doctor Lo is organizing a new set of experiments on qi as we speak. He hopes to properly publish the results if it is a success.

He's been a rigourous scientist his whole life, I'm sure he knows how to properly conduct an experiment.

 

[Mojo]

He's been a rigourous scientist his whole life, I'm sure he knows how to properly conduct an experiment.

Then why did he make such a mess of it last time?

 

[WWHP]

but "mystery=mystery" is a trivial statment, and when it fails to distinguish between different classes of statments it is restrictive.

it is no more trivial than true=true, and false =false.

there may be distinct definitions of true as well. tautologies, absolutes, relatives.

false, same thing, deceptions, jokes, dreams, delusions, poems.

It's what each value shares in common that is important, this is refrential to the self, it is NOT a formal logic. You already have this in your head. sorry, maybe it would have been nicer to have bigger muscles or 4 arms, but this is just how we came supplied.


BF

 

[Professor Yaffle]

are you wewill fix it?

I can honestly say that I am not wewill fix it.

 

[WWHP]

Then why did he make such a mess of it last time?

he didnt design the experiment last time. please pay attention to what's going on if your going to critique it. and your assuming the last one was a mess, you dont know that! you're just going along with the flock.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

You say that you are not absolutely sure if PF is wewillfixit, but then act as if it is true, The same as scientists do when they say they cannot be 100% sure that Qi (or other woo) does not exist, and then treat it as if it doesn't exist.

 

[WWHP]

I can honestly say that I am not wewill fix it.

have you ever used the moniker 'wewillfixit' on badscience.com?

 

[Mojo]

That sentence is nothing short of breathtakingly meaningless.

you could have said "Bubblefish, what do you mean here?" and it would have been a more honest response and more accurate appraisal. Instead, you gave us personal opinion.

For if my phrase was purely meaningless, then I could not have possibly meant anything by it. And I can assure you I am very clear about the meaning I prescribe.

Are you now claiming that the meaning of the text you post is always the same as your "hidden" meaning? If, as you have previously stated, your personal, or "hidden", meaning is not necessarily the same as the meaning of the mutually viewable text you post, it is entirely possible that while you have a personal, "hidden" meaning that you ascribe to your text, the text itself can be meaningless if you are incapable of expressing your meaning or if you are deliberately obscuring your meaning.

your [sic] confusing my 0's for 1's [sic].

I think you are confusing your 0s and 1s.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

he didnt design the experiment last time. please pay attention to what's going on if your going to critique it. and your assuming the last one was a mess, you dont know that! you're just going along with the flock.

No researcher worth their salt would participate in conducting an experiment if they were unhappy about the design of it (unless they were a lowly research assistant and just told to do as they were told...) Instead they would discuss their concerns with the other researchers and wouldn't continue until they were all happy with the design. Therefore it doesn't matter who was in charge of designing the experiment.

Anyone who has seen your little video can see the experiment's lack of value.

Anyway, you still haven't told us what happened to the paper you told us was about to be published over a year ago. Where was it submitted, was it rejected, and why was it rejected?

 

[Mojo]

have you ever used the moniker 'wewillfixit' on badscience.com?

No. And I'm absolutely sure that Professor Yaffle hasn't either.

 

[WWHP]

You say that you are not absolutely sure if PF is wewillfixit, but then act as if it is true,

so?

The same as scientists do when they say they cannot be 100% sure that Qi (or other woo) does not exist, and then treat it as if it doesn't exist.

Look, I dont know what to tell ya.....I'm not the pope. I wrote what I wrote, and even if your notwe will fix it, that felt good to write, that was my experience with we will fix it regardless, it just would have been more ironic if you are he/she.

I still dont think that you're not for certain either. Wewill's integrity is alittle aloof, and far more concerned with how people view him/her, and I wouln'd put it past him/her to tell a small lie to save face.

Would you care to reveal your badscience.com identity?