3 ms·

Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psych

Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. It's the equivalent of starting research on dogs to see if they can predict the future. Why am I doing it in the first place?

lelanthran 4y ago
> Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. What does that have to do what what you said? >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. If you're going to test that $FOO abilities exist at all, it's bad science to dismiss animal testing. It's literally the opposite of science! > I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. You're saying that now, and I don't disagree, but that's not what you initially said, which I did disagree with. What you're saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was wrong.
- themitigating 4y ago
  First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. Why test for this on dogs first? It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. I only said it once, and it makes perfect sense - thinking that if something doesn't work on humans it doesn't work at all is primitive and superstitious - it's literally the opposite of science, where things are tested on animals before humans. > Why test for this on dogs first? > It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first? I agree with this, but your original assertion, to whit: >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. is wrong. None of your replies make it any more right.

lelanthran 4y ago

> Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. What does that have to do what what you said? >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. If you're going to test that $FOO abilities exist at all, it's bad science to dismiss animal testing. It's literally the opposite of science! > I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. You're saying that now, and I don't disagree, but that's not what you initially said, which I did disagree with. What you're saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was wrong.

themitigating 4y ago
First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. Why test for this on dogs first? It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. I only said it once, and it makes perfect sense - thinking that if something doesn't work on humans it doesn't work at all is primitive and superstitious - it's literally the opposite of science, where things are tested on animals before humans. > Why test for this on dogs first? > It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first? I agree with this, but your original assertion, to whit: >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. is wrong. None of your replies make it any more right.