Dualism and orgonomy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: Dualism
(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't think we will ever have a fruitful conversation until you learn what a credible source is. Every single time you bring up a website, it's a biased, hasn't been peer-reviewed and contains no external references. An interesting fact about that page is that the author of it edited Nikola Tesla's quote at the top of the page to fit his agenda. Tesla actually said that "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." I encourage you to research this yourself.
Well, it looks like I have to, this is getting weird. You don't get very specific, I'm not sure if you're even looking a the external references, or the things down below the text aren't external references. Let's make a test. Which one of these is a proper external reference and why?
1) H. Burr, Blueprint for Immortality, Neville Spearman, London, 1971; cf. L. Ravitz, "History, Measurement, and Applicability of Periodic Changes in the Electromagnetic Field in Health and Disease", Annals, NY Academy of Sciences, 98:1144-1201, 1962.

2) D. Miller, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, 5:203-242, 1933.

3) R. Becker & G. Selden, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Wm. Morrow, NY 1985.

(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  It seems to me like you don't ever investigate your own sources to see how much woo they actually contain. Earlier this week you laughed about a source, without realizing that it was yours, when you saw the rest of it's content. Did you actually bother to research both sides of the story with James Randi or did you fully trust the website you posted?
Why? Does it misrepresent the Randi's test?
I've heard of this experiment before. The article iis meant to illustrate how a well-meaning skeptic like Randi may construct a nice randomized test. And well-meaning dowsers do not understand their field enough to know that the dowsing phenomenon takes at least hours of continuous flow in the same direction to estabilish. So there's ignorance on both sides, the test is negative and skeptics win by default, because of the burden of proof. Skeptics should be aware of their not yet proven counterparts, but experts in their field and offer their contacts to applicants for consulting. An ordinary dowser and million dollar challenge applicant can not possibly imagine the principles behind his discipline (except in a rudimentary trial and error way) and so he's not able to spot potential problems in tests like that.

(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  And here you are, referring me orgonelab.org again. This is getting tiresome.
Maybe. Did you read through the quote? Sentence by sentence, word after word, plus the references below? (if they actually are proper references, see above)

(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2012 06:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And who gets to decide about the source's credibility? Martin Gardner, apparently.
The section "scientific credibility" on this article on wiki is a good start. Peer-review and external references are just two of the criteria that make a source credible.

I don't think I'm going to bother with this much longer. You already tried to make a case for orgonomy back in 2011 and failed at it. You're still using the exact same sources you used back then. What makes you think they are all of the sudden credible?
There are two most probable errors I could make, one is false humility and the other is bad presentation. So I tried to systematically exclude the false humility.
As for the other, I get a bad feeling about this. There's something itchy at the top of my mind. It might be that we're arrived at a blind spot of mine, some unawareness or cognitive dissonance or something, it's hard to tell yet.
Maybe it's not mine, it's the impression, that this is not about science, this is about the social animal that is a scientist and about social/political skills in academic environment. It's all so nebulous. The Wikipedia article doesn't seem that much exclusive with orgonelab, or I'm missing something. Anyway, who is unbiased and yet willing to do the homework for free? Who can do justice to such a multi-disciplinary field that is orgonomy?

This is a very confusing and frustrating topic, because
- I'm not sure how much you follow my points and look over the materials I post.
- I'm not sure how good or bad is my presentation of the materials.
- I'm not sure how much it is the fault of the researcher(s) that they don't measure up to the criteria or don't put up enough applications for review.
- I'm not sure how much it is the fault of journals and reviewers that they ignore or misrepresent the researchers and their applications for review.
I might even consider writing an e-mail to prof. JDM himself and ask for clarification. Any questions you would like to ask him or I should ask?

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
Dualism and orgonomy - houseofcantor - 30-09-2012, 03:56 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 30-09-2012, 04:08 PM
RE: Dualism - Mr Woof - 30-09-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 30-09-2012, 04:22 PM
RE: Dualism - Mr Woof - 30-09-2012, 04:35 PM
RE: Dualism - Logica Humano - 30-09-2012, 04:40 PM
RE: Dualism - houseofcantor - 30-09-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 30-09-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: Dualism - I and I - 30-09-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: Dualism - Mr Woof - 30-09-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 30-09-2012, 04:55 PM
RE: Dualism - Mr Woof - 30-09-2012, 05:04 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 30-09-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: Dualism - houseofcantor - 30-09-2012, 04:27 PM
RE: Dualism - houseofcantor - 30-09-2012, 05:00 PM
RE: Dualism - Bucky Ball - 30-09-2012, 05:02 PM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 30-09-2012, 05:44 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 30-09-2012, 07:13 PM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 01-10-2012, 01:31 AM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 01-10-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 01-10-2012, 12:30 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 01-10-2012, 04:49 PM
RE: Dualism - Mr Woof - 02-10-2012, 04:17 PM
RE: Dualism - Dom - 30-09-2012, 06:28 PM
RE: Dualism - houseofcantor - 30-09-2012, 06:48 PM
RE: Dualism - bemore - 01-10-2012, 02:08 AM
RE: Dualism - Erxomai - 01-10-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Dualism - bemore - 01-10-2012, 11:11 AM
RE: Dualism - houseofcantor - 02-10-2012, 05:44 AM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 02-10-2012, 06:45 AM
RE: Dualism - houseofcantor - 02-10-2012, 08:44 AM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 02-10-2012, 08:59 AM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 02-10-2012, 07:57 PM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 02-10-2012, 03:08 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 02-10-2012, 04:38 PM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 03-10-2012, 04:43 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 03-10-2012, 07:44 AM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 03-10-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: Dualism - Chas - 03-10-2012, 02:33 PM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 05-10-2012, 09:40 AM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 06-10-2012, 09:01 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 06-10-2012, 06:54 PM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 07-10-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 07-10-2012 03:22 PM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 13-10-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 14-10-2012, 03:14 PM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 14-10-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 14-10-2012, 06:12 PM
RE: Dualism - Bucky Ball - 07-10-2012, 07:42 PM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 08-10-2012, 12:46 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 05-10-2012, 09:50 AM
RE: Dualism - Luminon - 02-10-2012, 01:32 PM
RE: Dualism - Vosur - 02-10-2012, 02:55 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - houseofcantor - 02-10-2012, 04:41 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Luminon - 02-10-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Chas - 02-10-2012, 07:16 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - GirlyMan - 02-10-2012, 07:29 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Dark Light - 14-10-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Luminon - 15-10-2012, 12:52 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Vosur - 15-10-2012, 05:38 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Luminon - 16-10-2012, 01:55 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Vosur - 18-10-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Vosur - 21-10-2012, 01:13 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Luminon - 21-10-2012, 04:27 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Vosur - 01-12-2012, 01:04 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Luminon - 03-12-2012, 01:55 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Vosur - 03-12-2012, 12:54 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Vosur - 01-03-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Chas - 01-03-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy - Luminon - 02-03-2013, 05:28 PM
Forum Jump: