Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind  Skidoo I don't care who you are, you can be window cleaner, the son of Novella or perhaps some egomaniac  it makes no difference to the case for scientific evidence of psi in lab based parapsychology or empirical occurrences reported by witnesses in the past up till the present day in field research. |
"Empirical occurrences reported by witnesses?" As I've already told you: Witnesses doing "field research" does not constitute empirical evidence. Clearly you don't understand the differences between empirical science, observational science, and anecdotal evidence. Apparently you can't even point out the few examples in your references that actually
do utilize empirical data. Once again: empirical science is based on reproducible tests in controlled conditions of a falsifiable hypothesis.
Your refusal to seek to understand the relevant terminology reveals your bias.
Quote:
|
I think we are wasting each others time? |
Translation: "Skidoo's
argument is better,
his evidence is better, but my blind faith prevents me from conceding gracefully, so I'll just pretend that my position is at least as strong as his, and run away, with my fingers in my ears, shouting, 'Lalalalalala.' "
It's funny how all of this time you've been willing to carry on this debate while you've been able to get away with being coy and disingenuous. Yet, as soon as you're finally pressed to give some actual supporting evidence, and you're faced with logical arguments against it, you hit the exit door faster than a spooked gazelle.
I countered your rebuttals to my evidence. The evidence suggests that you're unable to counter my rebuttals to yours.