I hope I am not speaking out of turn Pedantichrist,
but I think that is the point he is trying to make. That is isn't a waste of effort to the scientists who have proposed and are working on the project clearly. The fact of the matter is that there may be a spirit world, and there may not be. However, the purpose of science is to prove it one way or the other. Which means that some experiments will need to be done over and over until there is conclusive proof surely?
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:29,
Share,
Reply)
At least they will need to be done if anyone wants to be able to say one way or the other.
To be honest, when the experiment involves putting a picture on the top shelf it seems ridiculous not to do it.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:43,
Share,
Reply)
25 hospitals in the UK and America
All recording the results and analysing them, each requiring effort, time and expense.
Rather more than "jputting a picture on the top shelf"
But then you already knew that. I get the feeling I'm being trolled quite a bit here by about three or four people who seem to have an incontrovertible (yet inexplicable) belief that all experimentation is equally worthy.
It isn't.
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:03,
Share,
Reply)
That is not what anyone has said whatsoever.
However, the argument against your statement is that you say it has no worth. A very different thing from saying it has less worth than finding a cure for cancer say.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:07,
Share,
Reply)
I don't understand what makes you the judge of what is worthy and what isn't.
You haven't offered a rational argument to suggest that you have the capacity to make those decisions.
We'd still be in the dark ages with your idea of "science".
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:10,
Share,
Reply)
I don't think the Rt Hon Gentleman has any response anymore....
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:24,
Share,
Reply)
yes im sure your idea of testing thoeries based on random shit will work great
"care to help me test wether my hypothis being an energy wave based on my expriance of light defracting through glass". "no no im far to busy trying to find the invisable faires down the bottom of my garden, it could be true for all we know you cant prove its not!"
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:46, Share, Reply)
But it isn't random.
Many many people have claimed to have these experiences!
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:49,
Share,
Reply)
yeah many poeple of lots of diffrent hallucniations many times on a common theme
why pick out the haaluncion about death in order to test
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:52, Share, Reply)
Because it is easy to test?
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:45,
Share,
Reply)
If someone has a theory and they want to test it in real life
then that is what we call SCIENCE.
If they get proven wrong, then well done, now we know.
If it can't be proven either way, it isn't science and as such shouldn't be argued about. That would be pointless.
Did you read the article?
"this is a mystery that we can now subject to scientific study"
So if it turns out to be wrong, they get to shut the fuck up.
THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
Do you understand what the scientific method is? It's great, you should look into it.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:56,
Share,
Reply)
im not questiong wether its a scintific exsperiment
im questionig the basis for the beilf that the theory has a resanble exspectation of being true. its not a scintific theory there are such things as scintific thereis im questiong wehter or not the after life is one
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:05, Share, Reply)