Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew
You're post is right on. Conservatives protected things in the past. The new ways of the radical environmentalists are counterproductive. Their destructive ways almost make me think they are infiltrated by the big businesses, any radical environmentalists would deflect the support of conservatives. I smell Rats.
Originally posted by Kromlech
Lol @ everyone on here acting like they've been hugging trees for years...
Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by purplemer
I love this!
One other fascinating laboratory that studies plant vibrational energies is Damanhur,
an intentional community in Italy.
In this peaceful and spiritual ecovillage there is a laboratory in the woods
that offers a beautiful choir of singing trees.
Yeah, you read that right... singing trees.
Since 1976, researchers at Damanhur have invented and
developed equipment that can capture electromagnetic changes on the surface of leaves and roots,
transforming them into actual sounds.
The best part is, these trees seem to control their electrical responses via a feedback mechanism,
and demonstrate a kind of awareness and preference for types of music.
The singing plants and trees of Damanhur have sparked off such a
worldwide fascination that the people began organizing “Plant Concerts”,
where musicians perform to the music created by the trees.
Here's the video from your link..singing plants....
one of Damanhur’s researchers explains the phenomenon.
edit on 12/5/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: Singing trees!!!!!!
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Nevertheless
It matters not if you think scientific results are interesting if they are repeastable. If it is not repeateble it is not science. I clafied that in the first definton you requested from me..
The pink elephant analogy is intresting. Now you are begining to understand and accept that science has limitation..What for example if evolution theory is a pink elephant. You cannt disprove it...
Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific
OK and for the final time science more than gives a rats backside about the subject / object relationship. It is a building principle of science..
In philosophy of science, dualism often refers to the dichotomy between the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). Another dualism, in Popperian philosophy of science refers to "hypothesis" and "refutation" (for example, experimental refutation). This notion also carried to Popper's political philosophy.
I'm sorry.. but.. quantum physics IS science.....? No "principles of science" are breaking down.
Quantum Physics will be the end of dualism...
As for finding papers.. It is not a breeze. Many papers have to be paid for..
Originally posted by LittleByLittle
If you mean it is not dogmatic and small minded like much science is then yes it is pursuit of knowledge wherever it leads no matter preconceived ideas of what is. Science has blind spots where the people doing science do not want to go.edit on 12-5-2013 by LittleByLittle because: Spellchecking
To go there you have to move beyond being a scientist. You will have to be a seeker of truth.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by Nevertheless
Does that make it any less valid.
In medicine, no. As long as you're not trying to treat something that actually needs real treatment.
I'm with you on the concept of "Western Science" being some form of oxymoron, but "Western Medicine"... a great deal of the pharm drugs (chems), especially "chemo" drugs (chems), are based on plant sources (chems). Big Pharm and their FDA minions aren't in the business of legitimizing non-patentable chems, instead only chems that are patented are because they rake in the big bucks. If something isn't patentable then it almost never reaches phase 2 and especially not phase 3 trials. Instead it goes back office, they switch a molecule or 2 around, patent that, then make $10,000+ per dose.