ceckGrad

4 ms·

1.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>some of these papers were successfully replicated, so juxtaposing them to the ones that have not been replicated at all given the title of the page feels a bit off. Not sure if fair. I don't like Giancotti's claims. He wrote:
2.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>Randi dedicated his time and energy to debunking shysters. A lot of people informally call Randi himself a "shyster." But if you mean "shyster" in a legal sense, the only "shyster" Randi spent time and ener
3.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>People are extremely likely to upload footage they think is a real UFO. There isn't a shred of physical evidence for UFOS Is there some central repository of alleged UFO evidence that every single human with a camera is given acces
4.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>that's not how a scientist defines irrationality. ... >In discussions about, for example, dark matter, I am delighted to hear that you are such an expert in how scientists define things. Can I safely assume your expertise in the
5.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>If UFOs were actually real we would have have a lot of footage of them like we have for everything else that's actually real. Who is the "we" with access to everyone's video recording footage? I don't have acces
6.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>If any of this stuff worked, there would be commercial applications by now Criticism A: Lots of people claim to have made money off dowsing/clairvoyance for mineral exploration. Debunking them is nontrivial. McMoneagle would be a t
7.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>Randi dedicated his time and energy to debunking shysters. That's not how I see Randi. I see him as a profoundly dishonest person who claimed to be doing debunking when in fact he was not. Debunking is great, but it requires actual
8.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
I don't know whether IONS is mainstream; it is not a university. It is at: https://noetic.org/about/origins/ Rupert Sheldrake is certainly not mainstream, but he has earned quite a few academic qualifications
9.
by ceckGrad 1y ago
>Scepticism is not the psychological disposition to treat the increasingly implausible with the same equanimity as the increasingly plausible. Okay, maybe that is a fair description of skepticism, but you're stating it as if you&#