Eodnhoj7 wrote:Fallacy of bandwagon, and then you are left with a circular regress of which came first the scientific method or logic.
The Natural Philosophers arose exactly in opposition to the kind of waffling bullshit that 'logical' metaphysicians such as yourself come up with. For example, when told that a 'pyramid' has special powers that can be detected with dowsing rod they would do something like set the dowsing rods up on a stand and walk about with the pyramid to see if the rods react in any way. Have you tried this yet?
When multiple people "see" the same thing, however all "sight" is dependent primarily on interpretation.
Tested your sticks yet?
False, I am arguing an interpretation not unassailable proof. All proof is strictly definition of a phenomenon and as such is assumed until further proof comes along.
Then test your dowsing rods in the manner suggested and get back to us with the results.
Ad-hominum...you cannot defend your point as you have none.
My point is simple, you have not tested the tools you are using to see if they do what you want them to. As such you are a loon.
If observations are "a load of tripe" then science as observative is "a load of tripe" according to you.
The huge difference is that 'science' then goes on to test it's observations by trying to falsify them, you know by doing a test like setting-up your dowsing rods to see if they actually detect anything.
If memory serves, as I posted this link a weak ago and quite frankly don't remember it, hawking's theories effectively are used as a testing interpretation (ie hypothesis) for the empirical work. Can you provide a link that doesn't support what I say and actually supports you?
Why should I? As you post links that already do.
If your memory is going then maybe you need a tin-foil helmet as you could be losing brain-cells from the deadly dangerous pyramid experiments you are engaged in.
And they never use a calculator, ...
You think they use numbers in their calculations?
computer simulator, etc.?
I think in the main engineers use computer sims and theoretical physicists mathematics.
A test is deam as true or false dependent upon its ability to replicate a similar set of movements within a specific set of boundaries (ie apple falling from a tree). Thus all experiments are contexts, but when the context of the context is changed so is the context itself. For example an apple separating from a tree towards the ground exhibits gravity in the context of earth, but a different context of space results in a different interpretation. The apple is being seperated from the tree in both, hence the framework of "apple seperating from tree" is the same context always...but the context outside of it fundamentally determines it.
The outside context is always just assumed (ie "earth" in the case of the apple falling from the tree).
Thus all experiments, as contexts, as subject to contexts outside of there perceivable definition. ...
Er!? Find me a context where gravity doesn't apply?
Your grammar is deteriorating along with your memory, watch out as it appears your pyramids have terrible side-effects, maybe the Egyptians used them as ion death-rays as well. Time to get a full tin-foil bodysuit to go with the hat.
What you fail to understand, or rather ignore, is that I am "arguing" the experiment should not be limited to that context alone...that is what you don't understand...because if you did it makes you look like an angry ignorant bigot cherry picking for whatever disagreement you can get. I repeatably stated more testing is required and the framework of interpretation is incomplete. ...
LMFAO! "More testing"? You haven't even checked your tools.
Wait...hold on:
You: "Blah, blah, blah...Magic!!...Tinfoil Hats..."
Don't forget, 'Orgone Energy' is most likely involved.
Me: Uhh...no...the experiment is incomplete and needs further information. The apparatus applied where similiar to what would have been historically used in the time of the construction of the pyramids...but the information is not precise enought. ...
What a loon!
You: But dowsing rods are magical! ...
Not me? I think them just bullshit but would love them to be true. So go on, do the tests we have proposed and get a Noble prize or at least win Randi's million bucks.
Me: The dowsing rods are a framework, an incomplete one, and further information and frameworks are needed. ...
So you're saying despite having no evidence that your rods work you're going to build upon your 'discoveries' and try something else. I have an idea try pendulums or special crystals or even better get hold of an Orgone detector.
I can only imagine how helpful the computer it for you to express your thoughts...I can only imagine how cut up your tongue would be as it flaps through your crisscrossed british teeth...and all the spit everywhere. I figure that why the British are so bad at well...philosophy...is that they have a random tooth growing from there gum line up to where there pineal gland should be. ...
What happened to the Muslims?
Now please go on...just make sure to clean off your computer screen from the spit first so you actually "read" what I am saying.
I do read what you are saying and you are proving yourself to be just another of the many delusional narcissistic megalomaniacal loons that have visited this site over the years. Amazing how many of them appear to be American.
