Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep saying that I'm mocking, but I'm not, as a matter of fact I meditate, and have played around with lucid dreaming (didn't much like it though). Reiki, and magical properties of gemstones as you know I don't believe in, and reserve judgement on acupressure etc., as for brainwave music, I don't even know what that is.
If you meditate and have dabbled with lucid dreaming, I suggest looking into brainwave music. Dr Jeffrey Thompson has some great ones. Dan Gibson is another. It supposedly changes your brainwaves and can induce relaxation, sleep, alertness, some even suggest they can mimic the effects of drugs, alcohol, release adrenaline, etc. I don't into all of it, but while meditating I play Dan Gibson or Dr. Thompson all the time and fell that I enhances the session.
Most "Skeptics" don't do any experiments themselves. They read what others have done and take their word for it.
That is a massive over simplification of the process. In fact the skeptic will read what is written AND read the peer review and detractors of it AND read all of those things in the light of what they know to be true already. This is a lot more complex than simply reading something and taking someones word for it.
Even if you can not test a claim yourself, you can read the work of those that do. You can also test many of the claims that the new claim is based on to ensure their validity.
Checking someones claims is not about merely testing the claim. It is about recursively checking every claim it itself is based on, and in turn the claims those things are based on, and in turn....
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
I am not 100% if it was that magazine. It was a skeptics magazine in a used book store. It could have been an old one. I will go back tomorrow to see if I can find it again.
That would certainly helpful because thus far in the thread I am not sure what you are "100%" on as it all seems a string of vauge ifs and maybes based on a magazine you may or may not have read. It would actually be more useful if the thread did derail into a talk about the imagined magic effects of gem stones.
I think it's pretty obvious. Being educated through books and reading is one thing. Being intelligent and doing your own testing is another. I don't know many atheists or skeptics that do their own research aside from reading other peoples work.
But since we're only supposed to do the testing to satisfy ourselves, you shouldn't expect to know if they do or don't do their own research. It doesn't mean they aren't testing things, as you seem to assume. So what's your point here, really? It seems like a long-winded way to get at "they don't agree with me so they must be doing something wrong".
Not to mention how funny it is to read "most atheists don't do research" when they're disproportionately represented in the sciences. If that means atheists don't do research, true believers must be even worse.
When I want other people to believe what I do, I might do that. However, I do these things for me an nobody else. I wasn't saying to go out and test it for the world. I said test it for yourself. Form your own opinion through your own tests.
My testing has shown that rigorous studies performed by professionals are a more reliable way to find the truth than your subjective approach. Your experiments are subject to all sorts of bias (expectation bias, placebo effect, confirmation bias, lack of statistical significance and so on) while real studies published in reputable journals control for all of those problems. So from where I'm standing, you're complaining because we use sources that are objective.
That would certainly helpful because thus far in the thread I am not sure what you are "100%" on as it all seems a string of vauge ifs and maybes based on a magazine you may or may not have read.
As would be expected if the thread were simply an emotional response spawned from the cognitive dissonance after reading a convincing article which disproved something the OP held on faith. It's a common defense mechanism and we see it all the time around these parts. Don't let the facts get in the way, he knows he's right and will eventually find a way to rationalize it if he throws enough random stuff at the wall to see what sticks. We're just the metaphorical wall in this case.
I'll wager that raison_d'etre doesn't test it himself and relies on the results of others doing so when he makes dozens of decisions every day.
Test for himself which mushrooms are poisonous?
Test for himself whether or not walking in front of a semi is dangerous?
Test for himself whether or not a burst appendix might heal itself?
The whole idea that you can't use somebody elses research and results is absurd.
While few believe everything they read, even fewer question everything they themselves did not test
But since we're only supposed to do the testing to satisfy ourselves, you shouldn't expect to know if they do or don't do their own research. It doesn't mean they aren't testing things, as you seem to assume. So what's your point here, really? It seems like a long-winded way to get at "they don't agree with me so they must be doing something wrong".
Not to mention how funny it is to read "most atheists don't do research" when they're disproportionately represented in the sciences. If that means atheists don't do research, true believers must be even worse.
Depending on the religion.... it's true. They don't do much research. Most Catholics/Christians I know don't deviate from the bible, some don't even study the bible. The atheists that I personally know, don't do any research. They are always saying I read this and that and they instantly pass it off as truth, they don't read about religion other than what is in their atheist books, websites, and magazines. This is no different than a Christian who reads the bible and denies anything else.
My testing has shown that rigorous studies performed by professionals are a more reliable way to find the truth than your subjective approach. Your experiments are subject to all sorts of bias (expectation bias, placebo effect, confirmation bias, lack of statistical significance and so on) while real studies published in reputable journals control for all of those problems. So from where I'm standing, you're complaining because we use sources that are objective.
Objective like James Randi? Yeah, he has no bias in his tests. Give me a break.
As would be expected if the thread were simply an emotional response spawned from the cognitive dissonance after reading a convincing article which disproved something the OP held on faith. It's a common defense mechanism and we see it all the time around these parts. Don't let the facts get in the way, he knows he's right and will eventually find a way to rationalize it if he throws enough random stuff at the wall to see what sticks. We're just the metaphorical wall in this case.
It had nothing to do with anything I believe in. It bashed modern scientific advances and claimed they were bunk.
I'll wager that raison_d'etre doesn't test it himself and relies on the results of others doing so when he makes dozens of decisions every day.
Test for himself which mushrooms are poisonous?
Test for himself whether or not walking in front of a semi is dangerous?
Test for himself whether or not a burst appendix might heal itself?
The whole idea that you can't use somebody elses research and results is absurd.
While few believe everything they read, even fewer question everything they themselves did not test
This is another tactic you guys like to use. Not going to work. As you know that I am talking about a specific area. I doubt skeptics care about walking in front of a semi being dangerous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
