posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
See, you're demonstrating the dogma put out by the mainstream with that word "pseudo-science," meaning doesn't agree with what my textbook
indoctrinated me with.
Again and again, you stick with "indoctrination", while I point out that there are OBSERVABLE phenomena for people to see and check out. If a theory
checks out fine, we think it's probably a useful tool. If it doesn't, it's relegated to history books. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
There is nothing dogmatic about it, quite the opposite.
Now, contrast this with what's being pushed by lazy-ass (like in too lazy to learn) pseudo-science aficionados, e.g. Rodin and his preposterous
"vortex math". Not only the vortex is patently absent in the 3+3 kind of arithmetic he likes to do in his spare time (and yet he likes to keep the
name because it sounds cool), he doesn't hesitate to proclaim on record that he has created a black hole
in the lab. In the absence of
anything close to a faint hint of a proof, I regard these pronouncements as DOGMA which is happily accepted by the dogmatic lazy-ass (like in too lazy
to learn) dimwits.