The motorists here tried to censor me again.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Norman Wells on 4 Jul 2010 04:47 Brimstone wrote: > "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:KTCXn.128358$Yb4.119513(a)hurricane... >> Brimstone wrote: >>> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>> news:TXrXn.106264$EK1.28458(a)newsfe15.ams2... >> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> Why should they? >>>> >>>> To be believed and to have some credibility of course, which anyone >>>> of any morality wants. >>> >>> Quite obviously a great many people do believe them and give them >>> credibility otherwise they would be out of business. >> >> Selling snake oil has always been profitable. >> >> But it doesn't make it right. > > If the buyers are satisfied with the product who are we to argue? You don't set very high standards, do you?
From: Brimstone on 4 Jul 2010 05:49 "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:uUXXn.95402$x15.49589(a)hurricane... > Brimstone wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:KTCXn.128358$Yb4.119513(a)hurricane... >>> Brimstone wrote: >>>> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>> news:TXrXn.106264$EK1.28458(a)newsfe15.ams2... >>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why should they? >>>>> >>>>> To be believed and to have some credibility of course, which anyone >>>>> of any morality wants. >>>> >>>> Quite obviously a great many people do believe them and give them >>>> credibility otherwise they would be out of business. >>> >>> Selling snake oil has always been profitable. >>> >>> But it doesn't make it right. >> >> If the buyers are satisfied with the product who are we to argue? > > You don't set very high standards, do you? > Who are you to set standards for other people?
From: mileburner on 4 Jul 2010 06:44 "The Peeler" <peelingthe(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:7km036p5sjv9ec9nn2vdbaf6sd6hdknhka(a)4ax.com... > What are you, Brimstain, apart from a catatonic, workshy, dole > scrounger? Only fools and horses...
From: Cynic on 5 Jul 2010 07:30 On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:29:31 +0100, "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote: >> 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. >It obviously is. Turn off a bright light of any colour and the retina will >say you're seeing the complementary colour. Turn off red-orange suddenly >and you'll see a green image. >No mystery. So most respectable scientists believed for centuries despite the people who observed it insisting that it was unlike any after-image. There was no proof that any genuine green flash occured, it was fairly rarely seen and could not be reliably reproduced, so it must all be in the imagination of the people who claimed to have seen it. Then, as affordable sophisticated photographic apparatus became available, someone managed to capture it on film. Then more people managed to photograph it. Film suffers from neither "after-image" illusions nor imagination. Scientists were forced to concede that the green flash was real, and went to work thinking of and testing possible explanations. Obviously *you* will continue to disbelieve that it exists despite proof to the contrary. Probably because you don't believe anything that you don't understand. -- Cynic
From: Cynic on 5 Jul 2010 07:41
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:56:15 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>homeopathy, but to play devil's advocate, if water is capable of >>having the type of memory claimed, it does not follow (and is not even >>likely) that such a memory would apply to *every* substance that >>exists. >Oh FFS. I was talking about the water being effected by the glass, not about >the glass having a memory. Affected. So was I. > Glass is just bunch of chemicals too you know >so unless the magic water memory only works on "special" types of chemicals >it should be effected by it. The idea that an effect occurs with some materials but not others is hardly unusual, is it? In fact, it is by far the usual situation. Magnets only affect "special" types of materials, electricity will only pass through "special" types of materials etc. etc. So it is more likely than not that *if* water has a memory, it would apply to some materials but not others. Incidentally, please learn the difference between the words "effect" and "affect" and try to use them correctly. Other words that are often confused are the words "of" and "have" - e.g. "I might have been mistaken," is correct, "I might of been mistaken," is incorrect. -- Cynic |