Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

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.

exactly, and all 5 researchers signed off on it, so you can blame your bogey man Lo, you can blame fallon, hanks, amen, and ni gen too, and I bet they have more impressive stats combined that this thread does.

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

not many of the people i have talked to

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?

I have no more information other that what i have given.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Would you care to reveal your badscience.com identity?

I can honestly say I have no identity on badscience.com

 

[Professor Yaffle]

exactly, and all 5 researchers signed off on it, so you can blame your bogey man Lo, you can blame fallon, hanks, amen, and ni gen too, and I bet they have more impressive stats combined that this thread does.

I don't blame the researchers for their poor experiment. Most scientist have performed the odd poor experiment in their time. I only blame them for allowing it to come into the public domain for some poor deluded fool to actually propose that it actually adds to our sum of knowledge.

 

[Mojo]

exactly, and all 5 researchers signed off on it, so you can blame your bogey man Lo, you can blame fallon, hanks, amen, and ni gen too, and I bet they have more impressive stats combined that this thread does.

So all 5 researchers signed off on the study design, and so they should all be prepared to take responsibility for any flaws in it.

By the way, how are their "impressive stats" relevant?

 

[WWHP]

just curious as to the obsession badscience peeps have with me here. Dont you all have a life and exciting conversations to have somewhere else?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

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?

I have no more information other that what i have given.

And you have never thought of asking your good buddy?

 

[WWHP]

I can honestly say I have no identity on badscience.com

then how is it you are so familiar with a nuance on pages 6-9 on a thread 30 pages long from that forum? You just signed up here, I was your first post.

I am deeply suspicious of your statements here, I have to honestly say. You are either from badscience.com or desperatly need some better reading material, or of course, a fan of fun loving ol bubblefish

 

[sinnikal]

TBH Bubba I don't think anyone on this forum has ever posted on badscience.com. But then precision, let alone concision, isn't one of your strong suits either. Still it's fun to see you try and fathom out the 'mystery' of who we really are (well, who we post as in other places).
The advantage we have over you is that your drivel is totally recognisable regardless of the name it's published under.
BTW, the suggestion of NPD wasn't intended to be in any way judgemental, just heplful, but you do use the word 'I' an awful lot.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

just curious as to the obsession badscience peeps have with me here. Dont you all have a life and exciting conversations to have somewhere else?

Maybe they just thought you might like to know what it is like being trolled?

 

[WWHP]

And you have never thought of asking your good buddy?

for what purpose?

 

[Curnir]

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

The world/universe/reality is made up of
1.True (real)
2.False (not real)
0.Mysterious
This is your take on things right?

My take is that the world/universe/reality is made up of

1a. Real, that has been proven to be real.
1b. Real, that has yet to be proven to be real, can be made real using the building blocks.

And if it's belongs to group 1b. and some cool PhD found out about it and wanted to transfer it to group 1a. he would still have to come up with a controlled doubleblind test to prove that it was indeed REAL.

things that are Not Real are *drum roll* NOT REAL.
Another field you seem to have been into is human interaction and statements.

Here I would describe it as a scale or probability ranging from 1True and 0False.
Hmm sounds fuzzy.

A gangmember theatening to kill me? Wow... what can I say.
What type of gang?
From what general area?
Is it part of their conversational style to threaten each other?
And a whole slew of other questions needs to be answered before I can make an estimation of how probable it is that he/she will actually kill me.

Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau threatening to kill me? I don't know if there is a REAL person known as Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau.
Well IF there is, I'd say that the probability of him killing me would be pretty slim, since I don't live in the french speaking provinces.

A guy claiming he can fly.
Given what we know about reality, Id' say that the probability of this guys claim is pretty much non existant. Of course I can't know for sure until I've seen him demonstrate his power. But it would be intelectaully dishonest of me to lable his claim as "Mysterious".
And it would be even worse to start trying to explain HOW his powers work (QM etc) before he has conclusively show that he can do what he claim he can do.

Now, how would you rate the following statements:

I like ice cream.
I like shrimps.
I live in the US.
I live in Canada.
I am a Confirmed Christian.
Humanoids who considered me an alien implanted metal objects into my body.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

then how is it you are so familiar with a nuance on pages 6-9 on a thread 30 pages long from that forum? You just signed up here, I was your first post.

I am deeply suspicious of your statements here, I have to honestly say. You are either from badscience.com or desperatly need some better reading material, or of course, a fan of fun loving ol bubblefish

I can honestly say I have never posted on badscience.com.

However, I have posted on badscience.net. My identity there was wee eck

 

[Mojo]

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.

Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

for what purpose?

Well, you were interested enough to tell everyone that the paper was about to be published. You claim to be interested in the existence of Qi and in it's nature. But you are not interested enough to ask your good friend details of the experiment that would supposedly shed some light on this phenomenon. You have a very unenquiring mind...

 

[WWHP]

So all 5 researchers signed off on the study design, and so they should all be prepared to take responsibility for any flaws in it.

By the way, how are their "impressive stats" relevant?

their credentials are far more important/impressive to me academically to consider than some bloistering text and fumbled irrational opinion from 'mojo, wewill, st, jimbob proff jaff' about what constitutes a reasonable conclusion from a scientific experiment on a discusion forum!

Anyway, good night! I quit smoking today, and this has gone to far, I'm cranky, lookin' for a scratch, and i dont think I can find that here!

 

[WWHP]

Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

Would love to, just quit smoking tobacco, but would love to smoke anything else I can get my hands on....

 

[WWHP]

Well, you were interested enough to tell everyone that the paper was about to be published. You claim to be interested in the existence of Qi and in it's nature. But you are not interested enough to ask your good friend details of the experiment that would supposedly shed some light on this phenomenon. You have a very unenquiring mind...

ah, yes, I have a very unenquiring mind, sorry to disappoint you.

 

[sinnikal]

but would love to smoke anything else I can get my hands on....

Run out of meth then?

 

[WWHP]

I can honestly say I have never posted on badscience.com.

However, I have posted on badscience.net. My identity there was wee eck

dont you have a life outside of this, wee eck? I mean, c'mon man, based on our disussions there, if you're following me around like this posting back and forth, there is something going on with me in your head that your not being so honest about!

 

[WWHP]

Run out of meth then?

dont mention that drug to me even in jest, it's disgusting