3 ms·

> Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. Agreed lol. I guess we just don't agree on the merits of materialism. While I definitely think it h

> Your 'unbiased look' at the event is by the guy himself. Agreed lol. I guess we just don't agree on the merits of materialism. While I definitely think it helps explain the world, and is our best friend when it comes to our perceptions or reality, it is a poor agent in even CONSIDERING non-materialistic characteristics in anything. I find the whole thing highly ironic. It's almost like the highly educated / scientifically literate persons in our day and age worship materialism instead of the scientific method. Thats all science is. The methods and the steps we take to create reproducible research. Not the institutions and boards that write to editors claiming that the constant of the the speed of light did NOT change during the 20 years between X and Y. I for one, can hold onto the ideas of constants, without engaging in a flight or fight response in my neocortex that forces me to reject new or creative ideas without even entertaining them. For instance, could you investigate the possibility that global warming isn't because of human action? I could even thought I dont BELIEVE it. The dogmatic idelogue of modern science would have you act like a religious person regarding it. /rant.

warfangle 13y ago
Except no one wants to even peer review or try to replicate this guy's experiments, because a) they're flawed and b) they're batshit insane. The conclusions he draws are -way- out there. It's like newton comparing the dropping of two objects and their rate of fall, and saying the penny drops at the same rate as the bowling ball because the penny thinks faster. Complete disconnect between results and hypothesis. He's saying "look, their behavior changes over time (even this is disputable)! Without the chicks talking to each other! IT MUST BE PSYCHIC." God of the gaps, and all that.

warfangle 13y ago

Except no one wants to even peer review or try to replicate this guy's experiments, because a) they're flawed and b) they're batshit insane. The conclusions he draws are -way- out there. It's like newton comparing the dropping of two objects and their rate of fall, and saying the penny drops at the same rate as the bowling ball because the penny thinks faster. Complete disconnect between results and hypothesis. He's saying "look, their behavior changes over time (even this is disputable)! Without the chicks talking to each other! IT MUST BE PSYCHIC." God of the gaps, and all that.