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.

 

UK Admits Plans to Inject Aerosols into Stratosphere

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
How about argument from authority? Can you tell me what that is?


Similar to this?


Originally posted by bsbray11
So it comes down to this: Do I take a former FBI chief's word about covert military operations going on, or do I take your anonymous internet layman denial over top of it?

As I said, I'd take this guy's testimony over yours any day of the week. For some reason I bet he can actually spell, too.

edit on 11-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah I remember that. Not the first time he has changed his argument around. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Oh yeah I remember that. Not the first time he has changed his argument around. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.


Considering the fact that I never claimed an argument from authority to be proof of anything, there is a pretty damned big difference between the way I used it on that thread and the way you constantly use it as if it actually does prove something.


It's funny how I repeat these things endlessly and they just can't find a way to sink into your skull.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

It relies on the physical sensations report by the subjects. Since that is apparently the only means knowd to detect "orgone" it's the only way to test the null. A statistically significant result would do that.

Oh, I forgot. You don't subscribe to such things like logic and science.

edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And I'm sure you would take it just as seriously as a science fair project.


It would be a good start. But you've not even got that far.

Emily Rosa's test, BTW, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, when she was just 9 years old.

jama.ama-assn.org... DEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

It's not rocket science. Either it works or it doesn't. If it works then you can demonstrate it.
edit on 11-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
I'm glad we have so many anecdotes to go on about how 'sensitives' can 'feel' 'orgone' energy. I bet they can feel chi too. And skittle energy.


Bitch to "Uncinus," it was his idea of a "scientific" experiment, not mine.

Again, I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that orgone has yet to be scientifically validated.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
And I'm sure you would take it just as seriously as a science fair project.


It would be a good start. But you've not even got that far.

Emily Rosa's test, BTW, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, when she was just 9 years old.

It's not rocket science. Either it works or it doesn't. If it works then you can demonstrate it.

Objection. Appeal to authority. Called it.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It relies on the physical sensations report by the subjects. Since that is apparently the only means knowd to detect "orgone" it's the only way to test the null. A statistically significant result would do that.

Oh, I forgot. You don't subscribe to such things like logic and science.


Phage, plenty of people have already offered anecdotal evidence for the efficiency of orgone and you completely ignore them.

Don't feed me this garbage like you would actually accept anecdotal evidence of anything when you already don't.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Again, I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that orgone has yet to be scientifically validated.


Or demonstrated to work?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Objection. Appeal to authority. Called it.


Close! That wasn't an appeal to authority but it's still a fallacy.

I appreciate you finally taking your own group of trolls to task for me.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Phage
It relies on the physical sensations report by the subjects. Since that is apparently the only means knowd to detect "orgone" it's the only way to test the null. A statistically significant result would do that.

Oh, I forgot. You don't subscribe to such things like logic and science.


Phage, plenty of people have already offered anecdotal evidence for the efficiency of orgone and you completely ignore them.

Don't feed me this garbage like you would actually accept anecdotal evidence of anything when you already don't.

He is saying there should be a difference between chance and actual 'feeling' in tests. There wouldn't be (and wasn't, check out Subject X's own blind tests using the search function).
ETA: She actually did WORSE than chance.
edit on 6/11/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11

Again, I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that orgone has yet to be scientifically validated.


Or demonstrated to work?


Weren't you just calling for anecdotal evidence from people using the machines?

If that really satisfies your burden then just do a Google search my friend.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
He is saying there should be a difference between chance and actual 'feeling' in tests. There wouldn't be (and wasn't, check out Subject X's own blind tests using the search function).


And I'm pointing out that no variables are isolated and all of your "data" in such an experiment would be based on anecdotes and would be scientifically meaningless.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
He is saying there should be a difference between chance and actual 'feeling' in tests. There wouldn't be (and wasn't, check out Subject X's own blind tests using the search function).


And I'm pointing out that no variables are isolated and all of your "data" in such an experiment would be based on anecdotes and would be scientifically meaningless.

You already stated you don't care if science validates it, so why wouldn't you accept that?
ETA: He isolated the 'orgone' variable. Present and not. You should read it.
edit on 6/11/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

In the proposed experiment, if the subjects' sensations were statistically weighted to the test chamber over the control chamber the results would be significant. If not, the null would stand and the hypotheses would not be validated.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
You already stated you don't care if science validates it, so why wouldn't you accept that?


Basically you are asking me why, if I'm not claiming to have scientific proof for orgone, then why wouldn't I accept erroneous "science" as real science? Your asinine question should answer itself.


ETA: He isolated the 'orgone' variable. Present and not. You should read it.


How would you know?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
In the proposed experiment, if the subjects' sensations were statistically weighted to the test chamber over the control chamber the results would be significant. If not, the null would stand and the hypotheses would not be validated.


And what's to stop people from going in and all claiming to have experienced something, or nothing for that matter, regardless of their actual experiences?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
You already stated you don't care if science validates it, so why wouldn't you accept that?


Basically you are asking me why, if I'm not claiming to have scientific proof for orgone, then why wouldn't I accept erroneous "science" as real science? Your asinine question should answer itself.


ETA: He isolated the 'orgone' variable. Present and not. You should read it.


How would you know?

If you READ it, which you seem to have trouble doing (lets not kid ourselves, you didnt even search it) he tested with and without the device pointing at the "sensitives" hands. With and without it present. Care to guess about the results?
edit on 6/11/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
If you READ it, which you seem to have trouble doing (lets not kid ourselves, you didnt even search it) he tested with and without the device pointing at the "sensitives" hands. With and without it present. Care to guess about the results?


They were unscientific and based on purely anecdotal evidence?

Yep.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




And what's to stop people from going in and all claiming to have experienced something, or nothing for that matter, regardless of their actual experiences?

Nothing at all, you're right.It would probably be a good idea to use people who claim to be sensitive to orgone. That would tend to keep the pranksters away.
edit on 6/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

And what's to stop people from going in and all claiming to have experienced something, or nothing for that matter, regardless of their actual experiences?

Nothing at all, you're right.It would probably be a good idea to use people who claim to be sensitive to orgone. That would tend to keep the pranksters away.


Well I have to admit Phage, your agreeing with me, immediately followed by a bunch of vitriolic sarcasm, certainly proves your point.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join