It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


I have seen this in a couple of your posts...

Could you provide examples?




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Produce the actual evidence? Why should I? You are obviously interested in debunking it, or you would have sought it out yourself by now. There is tons of it out there in peer-reviewed journals. It is easy to find.

Find it yourself. Or is your Google-fu too weak?

👣


edit on 780ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

It can't really be called evidence until someone tries to disprove it can it?

I would think that if you were interested in the scientific community accepting the evidence then you'd want people trying to debunk it.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JessicaRabbitTx
a reply to: BlueMule

It can't really be called evidence until someone tries to disprove it can it?

I would think that if you were interested in the scientific community accepting the evidence then you'd want people trying to debunk it.



People? What people? Hotties from Texas? People who make a living debunking?

The scientific community is weak, clumsy, foolish, polemical, greedy, indoctrinated, ignorant, arrogant, and short-sighted. They aren't up to the task.

👣


edit on 796Thursday000000America/ChicagoFeb000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Produce the actual evidence? Why should I? You are obviously interested in debunking it, or you would have sought it out yourself by now. There is tons of it out there in peer-reviewed journals. It is easy to find.


Of course I'm interested in debunking it. That is the POINT of falsifiability. If it can't be debunked then it is true. Hiding evidence just shows that you are aware that there are flaws in your evidence and therefore it isn't scientific.


Find it yourself. Or is your Google-fu too weak?

👣



Not my job. You are making the claims so you need to produce the evidence. Also, you still haven't told me what it is you are talking about. Pseudo-sciences covers a broad range of topics.

ETA: See the OP? That is brand new science that opens up a new view point that the Big Bang didn't happen. It contains a paper done using REAL science, is falsifiable and we are all able to debunk it if we can. You can't even be arsed to give me a paper on your topic because you are scared that I will dismiss it as not real evidence. Ironically this situation highlights the difference between real science and pseudo-science.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Ok, I will ask again, more clearly this time:

Can you provide examples (or will you provide) of science being swept under the rug?

Color me curious.....



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

This isn't new in the metaphysical world. Just waiting for 'science' to catch up really. Probably be a long wait.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Of course I'm interested in debunking it. That is the POINT of falsifiability.


You falsify something when you actually know what you’re talking about and attempt to replicate someone's work objectively.

You debunk what you don’t have friggin clue about from the comfort of your armchair.


Hiding evidence just shows that you are aware that there are flaws in your evidence and therefore it isn't scientific.


I'm not hiding anything. I'm just tired of watching ignorant debunkers abuse evidence. So find it yourself.

👣


edit on 883Thursday000000America/ChicagoFeb000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: BlueMule

Ok, I will ask again, more clearly this time:

Can you provide examples (or will you provide) of science being swept under the rug?

Color me curious.....


With an avatar like yours, I would expect you to have examples of your own.

Here this should satisfy your curiosity.



👣



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
You falsify something when you actually know what you’re talking about and attempt to replicate someone's work objectively.

You debunk what you don’t have friggin clue about from the comfort of your armchair.


You continually prove my point about science. It matters little how I try to falsify/debunk something. Valid is valid. If you'd actually take time to read this whole thread you'd see that I even questioned the assertions in the OP since I wasn't sure how this new idea lines up with existing evidence. Skepticism is part of science. But you seem to fear it like the plague.

In your eyes, if someone isn't already in agreement with your position then they aren't worth talking to. That is why you have trashed the name of science in this thread and why you are so resistant to giving me this alleged scientific evidence.



I'm not hiding anything. I'm just tired of watching ignorant debunkers abuse evidence. So find it yourself.

👣


Yea, that's what I thought. Still deflecting. Thanks for proving my point. You don't know what it means for something to be scientific. The rules are, YOU make the claim, YOU back it up with evidence. You don't outsource your responsibilities to your debate opponent. I have no desire to prove your position. As far as I'm concerned, your evidence doesn't exist.

And again, you still haven't told me what you are talking about. So even if I did want to go look it up, I wouldn't know where to start.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

And again, you still haven't told me what you are talking about. So even if I did want to go look it up, I wouldn't know where to start.


I guess I gave you too much credit. I expected you to start with the example I gave you of a pseudo-skeptic in action sweeping evidence of psi under the rug with his shenanigans. I guess it never occurred to you to Google 'remote viewing evidence'

Slap yourself because you just forgot how to use google.

👣


edit on 896ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I didn't forget how to google. I already told you that I'm not looking up your evidence for you. If you were truly looking to be scientific with your evidence, you'd welcome all critiques no matter how they sound to you. So I'm going to say that there was no scientific evidence of any pseudo-science topics, and you were just blowing smoke because you don't know what it means to be scientific.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh no! I guess I had better run out and Google for all the willfully ignorant people out there.

Not.

👣



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Fine suit yourself. I really don't care one way or the other what you do. But I will continue to agree with mainstream science that your pet pseudo-science topic there is properly labeled. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if I WERE to google remote viewing, I'd get a bunch of youtube videos, amateur websites, and conspiracy websites all showing "evidence". Of course, none of it is scientific since none of it is presented as a scientific paper complete with experiment and falsifiable data. If that were the case, it would require you guys to drop your confirmation biases.

Thanks for reinforcing my opinion on pseudo-sciences by the way. You just took your field a step away from real scientific research instead of closer to it. Though naturally you'll continue to blame the scientists for not taking the field seriously while failing to understand why they don't take you seriously. I'm sure you'll also say that I'm closed minded or whatever for not wanting to look into this myself (of course that is an assumption on your part, you have no idea how much I may have looked into this subject in the past), which again is denying the real problem here.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlueMule

Fine suit yourself. I really don't care one way or the other what you do. But I will continue to agree with mainstream science that your pet pseudo-science topic there is properly labeled.


I'm sure you will. I could flood this thread with so much parapsychological evidence from peer-reviewed journals that it would take you years to go through it all. Then you would just hand-wave it all away by appealing to the authority of your mainstream masters like a good thrall.

👣


edit on 914ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

All you have to do is post ONE scientific study. That's all I asked for. And I have no scientific masters. The only masters I have are logic, reason, and the scientific method. That's all I need.

By the way, regardless of if I read your evidence or not, at least you held up your end of the debate and provided the evidence. Why are you so scared that I will dismiss it offhand? It's not like my dismissal will change your mind or anything, and there is always the chance you could prove me wrong and change my opinion on the matter. That's the point of posting evidence. You don't post to people you know will already agree with you. That is just an echo chamber of confirmation bias. You don't learn anything that way. You learn things about your field of study when people disagree with you and point out the flaws (that way you know where you research is lacking and can fix it in the future).

You, my friend, have a long way to go in understanding the scientific method. It's no wonder that you think science is ignoring you. You only care about people who already agree with you.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Thanks, I will watch it when I have the time to dedicate to it.

Meanwhile, just because I like Fringe (it's science fiction, you know) and I am interested in fringe sciences does not mean I jump on any ole bandwagon that rumble by lacking any scientific evidence whatsoever.

I require, at the very minimum, some scientific basis and logic in a subject in order to exercise a tad bit of belief...normally my "belief" will only extend so far as "maybe" since there is, obviously, no solid proof.

If the proof is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, then maybe is the best I can do.

Note that even Walter required science and proof. He was brilliant and ... most importantly...he was/is a fictional character dealing with fictional phenomena.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlueMule

All you have to do is post ONE scientific study. That's all I asked for. And I have no scientific masters. The only masters I have are logic, reason, and the scientific method. That's all I need.


One paper is not enough to do squat. There is a massive body of scientific parapsychological evidence that has accumulated for over a century. Parapsychology has been a branch of science for a long time. You need an introductory overview, and that means reading.

Here start with the parapsychology college textbook. Or f@$# off.

www.amazon.com...

👣


edit on 919Thursday000000America/ChicagoFeb000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Well it's not a research paper, but at least it is something. Too bad I can't review it...



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Here I'm going to give you this paper. You can read it if you want or just ignore it. I don't care. Though if you try to talk about it without reading it, I'll know.

Parapsychology: Science or Pseudo-Science



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join