The motorists here tried to censor me again.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Cynic on 2 Jul 2010 11:39 On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:06:34 +0100, "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote: >> I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >> homeopathy >No, no-one can. Of course the *claims* being made are capable of being understood. >But you could if there was any scientific proof, which is the reason science >exists. You obviously don't understand what science can and cannot be used for. The fact that something cannot be proven does not mean that it cannot exist. Science is generally very good at providing proof of something, but less useful in *disproving* something. Science is unlikely to ever be able to *disprove* the presence of life (intelligent or otherwise) on other planets, for example. Scientific method involves being able to reliably reproduce a particular phenomenon. Therefore there is an inbuilt assumption that *none* of the "laws of nature" change significantly from second to second or even century to century. Which may be a reasonable assumption, but itself is unproven supposition. And even if it is true, it is quite possible that there is an unknown variable present such that two experiments that *appear* to be set up identically, in fact differ in some unseen but important aspect that results in them producing two completely different results. There are several things that have been observed in a way that is reliable enough that we can be certain that they exist, yet science has been unable to either reproduce or explain them. Ball lightening is a classic example - which was something that was widely disbelieved to exist at all until it was seen by chance by a group of extremely trustworthy observers who also captured it on film. The "green flash" is another phenomenon that became almost a matter of faith by those who claimed it existed, while scientific circles were very dismissive of the possibility until a high-speed camera was set up that captured it on one of the rare days that it occured, and then scientists were jumping on the bandwagon to suggest theories of what caused it, and reasons why previous experiments had all failed. It was, incidentally, something that I had myself considered to be very unlikely after having failed to see it after looking on many tropical evenings. I was certain that it was an artifact caused by after-images on the retina of the observer. I have read of many things that appear to be genuine reports of rare phenomena that are inexplicable. Obviously they could also be due to false reporting, either accidental or deliberate, but it would be foolish to assume that none of them at all are evidence of processes that we know nothing about at all. -- Cynic
From: joe on 2 Jul 2010 12:01 bod wrote: > David wrote: > >"Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:FimXn.99673$NW.51767(a)hurricane... > > > Don't you think a belief in fairies is a pretty naive and foolish > > > view for a grown man to hold? > > > > > > > I know a few! > > Grown men or fairies? Some grown men *are* fairies. Just not faery. --
From: Norman Wells on 2 Jul 2010 12:51 Cynic wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:08:57 +0100, "Norman Wells" > <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote: > >>>> Then tell us what your position is on fairies, rather than evading >>>> the issue. Do you think they might exist, or can you say they >>>> don't? It must be one or the other. >>> >>> I believe it quite probable that people have seen some sort of >>> flying animal or insect they did not recognise and called them >>> "fairies". Fairies obviously exist as a widely understood concept, >>> and in works of fiction. >>> >>> The idea that small sentinent flying humanoids exist on Earth that >>> have the power to do magical things is however so improbable that I >>> discount it as a possibility. >> >> Then you should apply the same reasoning to homeopathy. > > And radio waves? No, don't be absurd.
From: Norman Wells on 2 Jul 2010 12:55 Brimstone wrote: > "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:FimXn.99673$NW.51767(a)hurricane... >> Brimstone wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>> news:vv6Xn.86515$x15.34714(a)hurricane... >>>> Brimstone wrote: >>>>> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>>> news:6m1Xn.110852$aS3.9251(a)hurricane... >>>>> >>>>>> You stick if you like with your view that water can have a >>>>>> memory, and that fairies may exist. What do I care if it makes >>>>>> you ridiculous? >>>>> Someone who tries to deny the existence of something when no one >>>>> knows one way or the other is the most ridiculous of all. "Closed >>>>> mind" is the usual term I believe. >>>> >>>> Do you think fairies exist then? >>>> >>>> Or can you rule the possibility out completely? >>>> >>> In the absence of any evidence either way, I'm ruling the >>> possibility of fairies neither in nor out. >> >> A possibility either exists or it doesn't. You cannot rule a >> possibility neither in nor out. >> >> Since you have not categorically denied that fairies exist, despite >> being asked, it follows you think that they may exist. > > A willingness to accept the possibility of fairies is not the same as > believing in fairies. Oh, but it is. If you have no belief in their existence, you would be able to categorically deny that they exist. Since you don't, you must think they can. >> Don't you think a belief in fairies is a pretty naive and foolish >> view for a grown man to hold? >> > On what basis do you make that assumption? It's not an assumption. It's a question. And one you have conspicuously failed to address.
From: Norman Wells on 2 Jul 2010 12:57
Brimstone wrote: > "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:QnmXn.99680$NW.14569(a)hurricane... >> Cynic wrote: >> >>> I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>> homeopathy >> >> No, no-one can. >> >> But you could if there was any scientific proof, which is the reason >> science exists. > > Does science know everything there is to know? > >> It's a shame homeopaths never bother with it. >> > Perhaps scientists have yet to find out how it works? Perhaps homeopaths have to show it does first. Science exists to enable them to do that. But they don't. |