3 ms·

> I heartily agree. Yay \o/ common ground! > That's the problem with this area, given that you are the only one in the study. If it's only true to you and no

> I heartily agree. Yay \o/ common ground! > That's the problem with this area, given that you are the only one in the study. If it's only true to you and not to others then it's a perceptual thing. Therefore subjective. This would tend to indicate it's not actually a real effect but a perceived one. > The first area I've determined that shouldn't be as hard, is to construct a way to see an aura in a camera system. Well firstly you're going to have to: - define what an aura actually is. - prove auras even might exist. - prove auras are measurable. - find a system that can detect this form of energy. and.. well... that's been the case for decades. No-one seems to have got much past step 1 because it all seems to fall apart then.

the_af 9y ago
> and.. well... that's been the case for decades. No-one seems to have got much past step 1 because it all seems to fall apart then. Agreed. And while there's nothing wrong with it (hey, it happens with actual science too!), what's infuriating is people claiming "let's be open-minded, if only we approached this in a scientific way, if only scientists (or skeptics, or whatever) gave us a chance!" as if the discussion was new and people had just started trying to do this. Pseudo-science has been going on for ages and they had their chance, with no success. It's not a new discussion, it's an old discussion occasionally re-framed in new terms.