Originally posted by sirnex
You'll call fallacies when it's convenient for you, but then argue from "common sense" (a totally meaningless phrase) in the next
You argued from authority.
No, I didn't. Telling you to look at the URL and think twice before slinging insults is not arguing from authority. Saying "they're right because
they're from Princeton, an Ivy League school," would have been arguing from authority. I never said anything equivalent to that. This is another
example of you not being up to your own standards when it comes to using logic (correctly). And you never had anything intelligent to say about the
actual website or the project it represents.
The fact remains that independent analysis did not observe any statistical anomalies at all. Again, argument from authority in conjunction with
What "independent analysis" are you talking about? Why do you never give sources when you make claims? Do you think you're the only source that you
or anyone else needs?
So now you're playing the robot whenever your arguments get shot down. Okay. You said our energy fields can't do work. Well work in
physics is defined (one definition) as displacing mass. Electrons are mass. They are displaced. The EM energy fields around our body therefore do
work. That is not a "deflection," that is what you would call a debunking of your claim.
Your deflection of my criticism against the OP's video is once again duly noted
And once again, you claimed the EM fields around our body can do no work, and that is wrong
That is not a deflection, that is your claims on this thread being debunked. This is easy to repeat.
Simply pretending that I'm talking about the inner workings of muscular contraction in hands and arms is rather infantile as no mention of
those causation's has yet to be called into question by myself.
Your ignorant claims would have contradicted the fact that your EM field does
interface with your muscular system and perform work within it.
Using the word "infantile" is only a reflection of your own state of mind.
Again you make a statement with no proof. This is argument from ignorance. Do you have scientific papers to validate this claim?
Hold a compass. Does it still work? Please explain how the Em field emitted by the human organism can affect a planetary magnetic field but has no
affect upon the workings of a compass.
In the same way that it interfaces with your body, which can not only pick up frogs and paperclips but has produced every "civilized" product known to
mankind. It does not have to use brute force to do what it does, and this is what you never seemed to understand. Extremely important information
can be carried from a smaller system to a larger system by small energy levels. That's how your EM fields control your muscles. Your DNA is another
example of something extremely small and otherwise insignificant making a huge impact on your over-all body, and thus your environment, etc.
And also realize that you are still making a logical fallacy. Making a claim, and then when I ask for proof, asking me rhetorical questions instead,
is ignorant of how an actual logical argument is constructed.
So what do you do with all these "deflections" that you take due note of? Do you count them up and see what score you get at the end?
I'm just attempting to make you aware that my issue lays with the OP's video and not with muscular contractions of hands and arms as you keep
You're just mad because you wanted to tell us all that the EM fields are insignificant and useless and you have already been proven wrong. You would
be dead without them.
Yes, I purposefully ignored it, so I could explain what is in the quote of mine immediately above this text. Once again, go back to the
original context. You're trying to say electricity doesn't really control the actions of our arms and legs? Put it this way: without electric flow,
you arms and legs and etc. wouldn't move.
I never said electrochemical processes have no control in muscular contraction. Please quote that specific statement. I appreciate this bout of
entertaining deflection and ill thought out arguments though.
is a deflection. You're just like FOX "News." I'm talking about pure electricity (pure electrical current) causing muscles to seize
up, and you keep weaseling in electrochemical
as if to downplay the critical role of electricity in the whole process. Your entire posts are
orchestrated to deny, insult, deny, insult, deny, insult.
What your doing is called quoting out of context, another logical fallacy, which you appear to be very fond of. My mention of the human
organisms EM field not being strong enough to do work or exert force is clearly (in context) in reference to instances such as moving a paperclip or
affecting the Earth's magnetic field. I do appreciate your entertaining straw man arguments though.
Then your definition of "work" differs from physics' definition of "work," and you are still technically wrong. EM fields do
exert force and
perform work, only on a smaller scale than our arms and legs deal with. Why does your EM field have to pick up a paperclip to be significant?
Because you want Jedi powers, apparently. That's the only reason I can think of. I would say more mature and level-headed individuals are probably
content with what they can already accomplish with their EM fields as it is, and aren't going to be miserable and throwing insults and putting
themselves into denial just because they aren't Obi Wan Kenobi.
Yes, I have. I noted that your argument is an argument from ignorance. You just say it doesn't affect it, and that's it. You think
because you won't accept any evidence for it, then that means you somehow have evidence to the contrary. Too bad it doesn't work that way. That's why
they invented the phrase "argument from ignorance." You confuse being debunked with "deflecting." I'm going to assume that's some form of cognitive
No evidence has thus been provided which indicates that human feelings can affect planetary magnetic fields.
That is your opinion, when you ignore data collected by a scientific project based in Princeton but involving scientists all over the world. Sorry,
but just saying they're wrong isn't science. It's arrogance.
And having started there, to go on and pretend that a lack of evidence is somehow positive evidence to the contrary, you are again demonstrating
argument from ignorance. You aren't going to brute force your way through a logical fallacy by repeating it in so many words over and over, and
finally somehow be right.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a
proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).
Please levitate a paperclip or cause a compass needle to spin by placing your hand over them.
Please show me where I ever claimed to be able to do this, or anyone in the video in the OP
claiming to be able to do this.
You should be banned from accusing others of making logical fallacies ever again after this massive string of them in a row.
Of course I feel great, give me great pleasure in having the common sense to know that if the human EM field has no affect upon a lowly button
compass then it will have no affect upon a larger planetary magnetic field.
Except this is hardly "common sense," "common sense" doesn't even mean anything, and really all you are doing is making yourself feel good by
artificially inflating your ego arguing with people on the internet. And doing it badly. It's really not as flattering as you make it sound.
Sure, but they can't predict how any one person will react to any given stimuli.
I'm not even religious myself. Apparently me posting Einstein quotes is an "argument that he was a religious man." That speaks for
Aww, you don't like the quotes I posted and you want me to go find your favorite one. Noooo.
I appreciate the entertaining four year old ramblings.
I wonder if you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed reading that Einstein's own words were me arguing that he was religious? That was pretty funny.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must
fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal
God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Neither of those quotes contradict his earlier quotes I posted above. Remember, I never called him religious, and I'm not religious either, I just
posted his own words. He even says he finds nature "a magnificent structure" just like he echoes in his other quotes, finding "rapturous amazement"
in it and all the rest. You've proved nothing.
There is that short term memory problem cropping up again. Einstein is not my hero. Please look back at my previous reply if your curious about
my views on him.
You said you were Einsteinian in your thinking, originally. I guess not so much after all, now that you realize he was involved in this
"superstitious garbage and propaganda trying to push a spiritualist everything is connected message."
Please quote a single direct insult.
I didn't say direct
I'm not quite
so stupid as to miss what you mean with words like "infantile." Now are you going to
try to weasel out of that next, or are you just going to use the opportunity to throw another insult (direct or not)? You would make an
The list of philosophical musings that mention the Judaic-Christian deity by non-religious persons is rather lengthy and pointless to argue
about. I do appreciate the attempt to deviate from my initial criticism with yet another straw man tactic.
It's not hard to go off onto these side-topics when you make claim after claim after claim and have proven none of them, and offer nothing but
fallacious reasoning instead. That's why we're talking about non-religious people talking about God in the first place. You apparently thought I was
trying to argue that Einstein was religious, which is wrong.
Einstein's quote reads almost as if he was summing up our entire discussion, rather than just the one point about us being "part of the
whole, called by us Universe." Part of something. That is a relation. You can deny it all you want. It's sad, like you're denying your own family
member or something, like a Westboro member denying their own daughter. You came from the universe yet want to claim that you have nothing to do with
Again, failure to grasp simple rhetoric in conjunction with confirmation bias.
Those are very convenient excuses, good job, but from everything you failed to even try
to address, your argument as to what Einstein's quote
means is much weaker than mine. Being a part of something is having a relation to it. That's what you can't debunk, and for some reason is very
offensive to you, because you want to keep thinking of yourself as separate from everything else. That's what Einstein himself called a delusion.
Show me how that is taken out of context.
You changed your terminology from connected to in relation.
I offer you to post the full definitions of either word from the dictionary of your choice.
I believe either should prove to you that by being a part of the universe, we are automatically connected or related to it. That does not mean
physically connected to every other object in the universe, or that you can shoot fireballs from your eyes, so try not to be quite that dense in
The common definition of connected implies two things being joined together.
Again, source? Post a dictionary definition and do yourself in. You make a lousy dictionary.
My mention of magnetic fields levitating frogs was to show that the human body does not possess the capacity to generate the required
electromagnetic fields to manipulate a planetary magnetic field.
You either don't understand what's being argued in the first place, or you just like being a troll. What exactly do you think we have in mind when
we say that the human body's EM field can interact or "manipulate" the Earth's magnetic field? Tell me exactly what you think we're trying to
accomplish with this. Because all of your arguments are based on trying to move objects of mass and this is completely irrelevant to anything anyone
So what exactly is your argument with me this whole time?
That various claims you
have been making are wrong, whether it's because you just didn't understand the original video or whatever your problem
Do you not subscribe to the idea that human feelings can affect planetary magnetic fields or do you not?
I believe the Global Consciousness Project is a credible organization with credible data, yes. I also believe EM interfaces with more subtle energies
that also play a subtle but significant role in our environment, for example as has already been demonstrated by the "electroweak" force.
I'm having a hard time understanding what your personal beliefs are in regards to this with all these deviations
The deviations are purely your fault, I promise you. I don't "believe" anything. I follow science like what is mentioned above, and unlike
yourself, I don't make excuses for it. I don't believe in unicorns, I'm not Christian, and when I say something, I don't actually mean a million
other ridiculous things that are totally irrelevant like you seem to imagine. Thus what you call deviations.
edit on 4-4-2011 by bsbray11
because: (no reason given)