Regarding Denial of Ignorance

Reese's Peanut Butter Cup will do.....
Just kidding but you are most certainly welcome and no "return" favor required....you were on target with this topic anyhow.


regards
seekerof

lol Resses are a rarity this side of the pond - a Mars Bar will have to suffice

However much appreciated - and your thoughts - the way ATS works - just how much should someone like us question posts based on dubious evidence ?

I am awere of posting back on a subject and killing it - without meaning to - Im not a kill joy but do have an attention to the facts - like my posts on NESERA tonight - I want to correct things but dont want to kill them for nit picking.

Personally and just my opinion.....
You should refute, respond, deny ignorance, and do it when you feel you need to. As to "how"....as MA teaches and councils.....with tact, but sometimes one must do it with a bit of harshness due to the fact that many believe so passionately in what they have for information......
I, on the other hand, do it selectively, based on how much knowledge I have combined with factual evidences I have found, other than the internet.....the problem is, I have a hard time remembering to write down my citations for quoting from library sources....bad me.....not good.

Follow your heart and mind...it seems, at least in my experiences here, that when you refute too much, people tend to 'avoid' your postings and such.....kinda like you have spoiled the party type of thing and now no one wants to associate with ya......

My gripe, as yours, is that it seems that alot of folks take internet information with great crediability and fail to check the sources and even then, sources get called "bias", BS, etc......so, in a way....one must rely on the information found...key is to check or cross reference the information given with outher sources to see just "how" factual thier information is......
Trust me...I've done the same, been there done that and had to learn this the hard way......
I think that is why I am more critical of some information posted on topic and on topics, in general. That belief that because it is on the internet that it is the gospel truth.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 31-10-2003 by Seekerof]

A great post - and one that should be framed by every ATS members desk Seeker

I agree 199%

and again thank you

Questions:
Where will I find information on orgonomy and radionics other than the visible web that does not debunk it in an unfair way?

According to the accepted mainstream and sciences, it doesn't exist. Yet I find too much evidence that suggest that it does.

That's the problem I have. Of course the web shouldn't be regarded as "holy" and inerrant. But lot's of stuff in the library and in accepted scientific studies also have their faults. Especially when it conflicts with what I personally have experienced and studied from different sides and directions. Like radionics and orgone energy for example. Something which the scientists are heavily divided over and which the mainstream says that it simply does not exist.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Like radionics and orgone energy for example. Something which the scientists are heavily divided over and which the mainstream says that it simply does not exist.

Actually, scientists are NOT divided over this. They say it doesn't exist. At one time they thought there might be evidence for it, but better measurements and better research showed it wasn't so.

However... if you want to research something you feel exists in the libraries, then you need to understand more about the subject. For instance, if you were researching ghost phenomina, the way to do it in libraries is to look at the basic theory (electromagnetic vibrations) and then come up with your own instrument that measures ghosts.

Then give the plans to someone else and let them test it, and give it to a third person and let them test it... then all of you test your devices on the same object.

That's science, and that's how scientists get acceptance for things that may be on the fringe.

For a lot of the "zero point" energy things that have been so widely debunked, you'll have to go back to basic mathematics and physics.

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, scientists are NOT divided over this. They say it doesn't exist. At one time they thought there might be evidence for it, but better measurements and better research showed it wasn't so.

Mainstream scientists say it doesn't exist. They practically destroyed the discoverer (Wilhelm Reich) very unfairly. And his work was critized heavily without the critics even attempting to duplicate his experiments.

www.uiowa.edu...

Then give the plans to someone else and let them test it, and give it to a third person and let them test it... then all of you test your devices on the same object.

This has been done. There are different institutions and people researching it.

These are two of them.
www.orgonomicscience.org...
www.orgone.org...

That's science, and that's how scientists get acceptance for things that may be on the fringe.

No. A famous saying is that science advances when the older scientists die out. Some will simply deny and dismiss all evidence even if it slaps them in their faces.

Not all scientists are brave enough to go do research on this kind of stuff. Some fear for their careers if the even mentioned anything that's related to fringe.

If science is so objective and nondiscriminant, then whe is there such a website as issc-taste.org??? Why do they have to be anonymous to talk about their experiences?

For a lot of the "zero point" energy things that have been so widely debunked, you'll have to go back to basic mathematics and physics.

Hold on, busy here at work. Ppl are driving me crazy!!!

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by TheBandit795]