Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Common Room
Options
Comments
-
Could you clarify that? One could read from that phrase that (a) there are experiences that aren't currently known to the general body of science, or (b) that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method.(experiences which are currently outside the realm of scientific understanding).
(a) is grand, and quite scientific, as there are many questiosn unanswered and those are the questions we should look at,
(b) is dodgy, as the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world (and there is no other world).0 -
(a) there are experiences that aren't currently known to the general body of science, or (b) that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method.
I would go for both (a) and (b)
remembering (b) is "that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method." (or a=b)
I'm sure every scientist will tell you that is untrue.
(the creation of the universe for example)
There is no unanimous verdict as of yet. (might even be considered paranomal in that sense..and hence the continuous presense of beliefs in "God")0 -
-
ecksor wrote:I think the definition is fine. What assumption and standards do you mean?
The word 'paranormal' is undoudtedly loaded. There are two assumptions entailed in its definition.
Firstly, the assumption is that the experience or event cannot be (note I say 'cannot' not 'is not currently') explained by science...this is an extraordinary claim ... How does one know that?
Secondly, there is an assumption that there probably is a supernatural cause. I think you would agree that this is included in the standard interpretation and use of the word paranormal. It is not, for example, necessarily seen to apply to something which science has not yet answered (for example, we do not say that certain quantum phenomena are paranormal or the activity in black holes is supernatural) but is used as if science can't answer it because it involves variables outside the scope of science; this is an unwarranted and unfounded assumption.
I think the appropriate term to be used is 'anomalous experience' which acknowledges that the experience or event is unusual but does not imply a particular cause.
These experiences are genuinely fascinating and there are many psychology departments who seek to explain these unusual human experiences rationally and scientifically. The Irish Skeptics recently had Professor Chris French from Goldsmith's college over to discuss 'anomalistic psychology'. Their research is fascinating and shows how unusual experiences are explicable from a naturalistic and scientific point of view.0 -
Myksyk wrote:Firstly, the assumption is that the experience or event cannot be (note I say 'cannot' not 'is not currently') explained by science...this is an extraordinary claim ... How does one know that?
Is that not why they try to explain it by science, to test the claim?
Now, that would validate rather than verify the claim in my view, but what conclusion one ends up with is up to themselves to defend. I've seen the no less extraordinary claim that science can explain anything on these forums a few times.Myksyk wrote:Secondly, there is an assumption that there probably is a supernatural cause. I think you would agree that this is included in the standard interpretation and use of the word paranormal.
No argument here, after all if I'd pasted in a little bit more of that site I quoted earlier it would have said adjective: not scientifically explainable : SUPERNATURAL
However, I don't see the methods documented whereby one must necessarily enter an investigate with that assumption. Have you got a link for that?Myksyk wrote:It is not, for example, necessarily seen to apply to something which science has not yet answered (for example, we do not say that certain quantum phenomena are paranormal or the activity in black holes is supernatural) but is used as if science can't answer it because it involves variables outside the scope of science; this is an unwarranted and unfounded assumption.
I haven't actually seen a black hole or quantum phenomena myself or met anyone who has so I couldn't possibly comment on whether they are paranormal or not.
Why are you sticking to talking about what science would do when the argument should naturally be about the limits of science? I think this reveals your bias.Myksyk wrote:These experiences are genuinely fascinating and there are many psychology departments who seek to explain these unusual human experiences rationally and scientifically.
Are they promoting pseudoscience when they interact with paranormal groups or attempt to research their claims?0 -
Advertisement
-
Right a defintion: The Scientific Method: A procedure for coming to conclusions. It is built up of theories and experiments. Experiements are when you trry to measure a thing. Theories are ideas about how to explain a thing, why did something happen, theories must be provable and falseifable, and they must be able to make prediction. Occams razor comes into play there. Plus if they require the existance of other things, then the theory must try to explain them. (ie "God did it", isn't a very good theory).How do you justify that?
Now what other methods are there for discovering how our world works? Not many. (I'm actually drawing a blank here, can anyone provide any?)
Why do I think "the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world"? Firstly imagine there are things that the scientific method can't explain. In order for that to happen the phenomena must not be measureable (because if it's mesaureable then one can create an experiment to mesaure properties about it, and eventually start putting together a theory), so this phenomena is unmeasureable, so can it exits? If it exists there is no way to prove that it exists (since it's impossible to 'see' it), so occams razor comes into play, and it doesn't exist. Thus everything that exists can be explained by the scientific method.
Why do I think "(and there is no other world)". Firstly I don't mean world as in planet, more world as in universe/type of reality. Can there there be a 'world' seperate from our own? If so it either does or doesn't interact with our 'world'. If it does then one can expand our definition of world to include this new world, thus resulting in only one world. If it doesn't/cannot interact with our world, then it's a good as not existing.0 -
Syth wrote:Why do I think "the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world"? Firstly imagine there are things that the scientific method can't explain. In order for that to happen the phenomena must not be measureable (because if it's mesaureable then one can create an experiment to mesaure properties about it, and eventually start putting together a theory), so this phenomena is unmeasureable, so can it exits? If it exists there is no way to prove that it exists (since it's impossible to 'see' it), so occams razor comes into play, and it doesn't exist. Thus everything that exists can be explained by the scientific method.
Well, can you tell me how the scientific method can be used to discover whether the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world? Up to here you seem to have used a philosophical argument to justify that, but since science either can or can't explain something then it would appear as if we have something that we can measure its success by.0 -
ecksor wrote:Is that not why they try to explain it by science, to test the claim?
No. This is what scientists, anomalistic psychology and skeptic's groups do. Paranormal followers are often just hoping to document strange experiences which they then claim to be of supernatural origin.ecksor wrote:I've seen the no less extraordinary claim that science can explain anything on these forums a few times.
Yes. A position I have argued against myself. But this was in relation to particular issues. However, to say that science has difficulty explaining something is not an admission that a supernatural as opposed to a natural explanation is required. In other words, the other pserson is not right just because you may be wrong. In any event, the paranormalists, like the creationists, have no explanatory mechanism for these experiences except to say they are supernatural. Science, on the other hand, offers explanations for these phenomena consistent across huge bodies of accepted knowledge including physics, neurology, psychology, biology, sociology, etc. Science may or may not be able to explain everything but it at least explains a lot.ecksor wrote:However, I don't see the methods documented whereby one must necessarily enter an investigate with that assumption. Have you got a link for that?
It is the general position of parapsychologists that they believe in the existence of supernatural/paranormal phenomena and they are out to prove it, exactly like the PRI. Nothing wrong with that per se but they have produced no solid, replicable evidence to back up their claims.ecksor wrote:Why are you sticking to talking about what science would do when the argument should naturally be about the limits of science? I think this reveals your bias.
This is indeed my bias although I prefer to say it is my position, and one which I am happy to stand over and defend. Science is extraordinarily more successful than any other method of investigating our world. The argument is certainly not about the limits of science, it is about the extraordinary claims of paranormalists ... it is they who must convince me of their position, it is not my duty to prove they are wrong. Ever since Darwin's Brother-in-law Mr. Wedgewood set up the Society for Psychical Research in the last century they have singularly failed to come up with anything remotely convincing. In the meantime science has come up with reasonable and convincing explanations for any number of supposedly paranormal phenomena such as Out of Body Experiences, mediumship, hauntings, psychic 'ability' etc etc.ecksor wrote:Are they promoting pseudoscience when they interact with paranormal groups or attempt to research their claims?
No. If you are attempting to draw a parallel with this sort of activity and Syke's involvement then there is none to be found. Scientists believe that all phenomena have natural explanations. Syke did not express an interest in scientifically challenging the claims made. He apparently believes in 'true paranormal experiences' and wanted to encourage (until recently) unchalleged discussion in his forum.0 -
Myksyk wrote:No. This is what scientists, anomalistic psychology and skeptic's groups do. Paranormal followers are often just hoping to document strange experiences which they then claim to be of supernatural origin.
I don't doubt that many or most do that, but the little I've found about investigators and indeed the thread on the paranormal forum indicating a change of policy suggests otherwise.
When I'm asking for links, there are none coming. Are you reading this offline or can I get a look at your sources, I feel like I'm at a disadvantage.Myksyk wrote:However, to say that science has difficulty explaining something is not an admission that a supernatural as opposed to a natural explanation is required. In other words, the other pserson is not right just because you may be wrong.
I thought I had more or less said that.Myksyk wrote:This is indeed my bias although I prefer to say it is my position, and one which I am happy to stand over and defend. Science is extraordinarily more successful than any other method of investigating our world.
I've not been as clear as I'd have liked on that point. I thought you were building up a case of the promotion of pseudoscience. You can't build a case of pseudoscience without showing that they're trying to be or claiming to be scientific, but you appear to be assuming that they're trying to be scientific and working from there. Now, I'm sure you can find examples and build that case, but then you'd have to answer the question I put to you in the initial post that asked where syke was promoting pseudoscience.Myksyk wrote:No. If you are attempting to draw a parallel with this sort of activity and Syke's involvement then there is none to be found. Scientists believe that all phenomena have natural explanations.
You're speaking on behalf of all scientists there? How do you know that they all believe that?Myksyk wrote:Syke did not express an interest in scientifically challenging the claims made.
I read and post on the star trek forum, I don't challenge the pseudoscience that gets discussed and I take a dim view of those who do, what does that say about me? By the way, I moderate the Mustard forum, you should check it out.Myksyk wrote:He apparently believes in 'true paranormal experiences' and wanted to encourage (until recently) unchalleged discussion in his forum.
syke wasn't a moderator of that forum until very recently, so the policy that the forum was set up with is hardly his fault if that's what you mean.0 -
I personally don't feel I have to convince ayone of anything, if someone is seeking proof, let them find it themselves. (the reason why many attend PRAI investigations is to see for themselves, perhaps you might like to join them sometime)... it is they who must convince me of their position, it is not my duty to prove they are wrong.
This is just untrue. There are as many institutes and scientific bodies still studying particular phenomena and many have achieved interesting results (remote viewing studies seem to be the most valid currently)Ever since Darwin's Brother-in-law Mr. Wedgewood set up the Society for Psychical Research in the last century they have singularly failed to come up with anything remotely convincing. In the meantime science has come up with reasonable and convincing explanations for any number of supposedly paranormal phenomena such as Out of Body Experiences, mediumship, hauntings, psychic 'ability' etc etc.
I would also add that the area of quantum science has grown at a pace in sync with the growth of understanding in areas of "quantum understanding" (psychic awareness)
[edit:is difficult to discuss this with a ten year old talking in my ear continuosly, but I think what I meant to suggest is that many "psychic experiences" can and will be explained under the quantum science platform.
I believe psychic awareness is quantum understanding in practice.
As for results of studies, I've already posted several at the paranormal board before, but I'll take a look later for some more if anyone would like to discuss the results.0 -
Advertisement
-
Right, I've just come across this thread now and while I'm flatered to have 2 pages of spew dedicated to me and my moderating skills I feel obliged to respond and set a few things straight.
First off, what and where I post has nothing to do with my moderating of science, least of all outside of boards.ie. In fact the only place that has any relevance to my moderating of the science forums is on the boards.ie science forums themsleves.Of course Syke may just be advertising boards.ie but why would a promoter of science be interested in encouraging the spread of pseudoscience? He's obviously free to do anything he wants but it struck me as a tad incongruous.
Secondly, that post was made around the time of the opening of paranormal forum and I wasn't mod then. I was trying to give the Paranormal community somewhere to discuss and boards more members. Enhancing both communities. I think it worked rather nicely
Thirdly, I and many other science professionals have a great interest in the supernatual. It usually comes with a desire to find meaning and explanation to things that have none. I have consulted with professional paranormal agencies on matters of science relating to their investigations and even have one informal publication linking our ancestors poor understanding infectious disease with recordings of lycanthropy and vampirism.
Science is about learning and understanding. There is obviously something going on when many people claim to have witnessed events that they cannot understand, and this has occured in a frequent similar pattern over the ages. Merely suggesting it is not what it seems is inadequate. Learning the how and why is ALWAYS a worthwhile pursuit.
Simply going "thats pseudoscience, I don't deal with that" is an attitude that advances nothing and sets REAL science back.This is the domain of the pseudoscientist who wants the kudos associated with the scientific method without a committment to even its basic mechanisms or underlying assumptions.
The big difference between my pointof view and the attitudes expressed here, is that I am respectful enough not to lambast someone elses beliefs until I have a suitably plausable alternative myself.
I have only recently inherited the paranormal mod-ship. I originally suggested paranormal as an alternative to Irish Skeptics which, with all due respect to Davros, is not somewhere I think is condusive to worthwhile scientific discussion.Spooky coincidence that this amendment was posted last night, but it is a welcome change.
I was trying to catch up with the goings on in a quite busy forum, when Simu, who is someone whose opinion I respect, pointed out to me over beers the other week, that debate was discouraged.
I consulted with T4TF before making the change, which is now in place. I hadn't seen this thread until about an hour ago, when ecksor, true to his word here, linked me.I think this is an extraordinary statement from the science moderator. What does Syke mean by 'true paranormal experiences'? Are we to believe that someone has proof which categorically allows an experience they have had to be described as a 'true paranormal experience' as opposed to its being explicable in some other way. You see, to say 'those who have had paranormal experiences' is to proffer an explanation for the experience without evidence. You may have had a 'weird' or anomalous experience but to designate it as 'paranormal' means you believe you know why it happened and that supernatural forces played a role. Otherwise, you would just say you had a weird experience you couldn't explain. If Syke does indeed have evidence to back up his statement about 'true paranormal experiences' I think we would all like to see it.
*If* there are supernatural events, the way to confirm them, like all good scientific theories, is to try and debunk the original assumption first. When one exhausts all attempts at this and cannot debunk the original assumption, one must start taking the assumption with more credability.
I'm taking the positive approach in that statement because from the paranormal forums point of view, that is what is required. However, whether you take the negative or positve slant, the reasoning and methodology is the same. A closed mind is the worst thing any true scientist can have, and I see padlocks on some of the minds here.
Strange but truely a coincidence.Some might call your coincidence a manifestation of some underlying supernatural influence.accept that there those who 'don't believe that scientfic methods are the be all and end all' but for me at least (and I thought for a scientist like Syke, hence my surprise and my original post) the scientific method would be the only reliable investigation technique. If syke is supportive of unscientific investigation of human experiences perhaps he could clarify what these methods might be.
And it seems to me that the naivity here about who scientific method should be correctly applied shows that you don't know as much as you think. See my answer above about how it should be applied in the case of paranormal.Firstly, pseudoscience alludes to that which has the appearance of science (e.g. research "with advanced technologies" as stated in the website) but is not science. Secondly, paranormal certainly doesn't mean something which is scientifically inexplicable, rather it is implies an assumption (usually unfounded and never dmonstrated) that something has a cause which is not natural. It is a term applied to anomalous phenomena most of which have perfectly 'natural' explanations. When science finds something it cannot yet explain it says 'we don't know', it does not assume that the cause is supernatural.
I think you are confusing the supernatural and the preternatural. The trick is to define if the supernatural truely exists or whether it is all preternatural. This can only be achieved (if ever) one case at a time on a case by case basis.
Good, and so do I, but I warn you, the type of remarks and comments I see widely on this forum, and especially on this thread, with result in an immediate, lifetime, no questions asked ban on paranormal. You can debate and debunk with reference to the facts at hand without giving your opinions on the area, the poster or anything else that isn't part of the "scientific debate".well...either that or its some sort of masonic influence...anyways..as a regular of the paranormal board, I welcome any and all skeptiscism (particularly scientific analysis). how else are we supposed to discover stuff.
What an incredible deduction you have drawn with out any facts or basis at all. I hope your scientific reasoning is slightly better. See points above. I though that this would be self evident to unbiased minds. They seem of scant ability here. (see the point below before apologising to me)No. If you are attempting to draw a parallel with this sort of activity and Syke's involvement then there is none to be found. Scientists believe that all phenomena have natural explanations. Syke did not express an interest in scientifically challenging the claims made. He apparently believes in 'true paranormal experiences' and wanted to encourage (until recently)
unchalleged discussion in his forum.syke wasn't a moderator of that forum until very recently, so the policy that the forum was set up with is hardly his fault if that's what you mean.
Indeed.0 -
Syth wrote:Could you clarify that? One could read from that phrase that (b) that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method.
(b) is dodgy, as the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world (and there is no other world).
This, I believe, is a common misconception. Science can narrow down explanations and eliminate many aspects of an assumption, but it is naive to think it can discover or prove everything.
Many of the greatest held beliefs in science haven't been proved at all. Theories and Assumptions made by science (often in physics, an area you have no small understanding of) are often incorrectly portrayed as facts.
As it stands, science's best hope is the sherlock holmes approach. It eliminates the impossible and holds whatever remains to be the truth.0 -
What an appalling post.The big difference between my point of view and the attitudes expressed here, is that I am respectful enough not to lambast someone elses beliefs...
Really Syke? Let's see what you say then.
1.syke wrote:...2 pages of spew...
2.syke wrote:A closed mind is the worst thing any true scientist can have, and I see padlocks on some of the minds here.
3..syke wrote:the naivity here about who scientific method
4.syke wrote:you don't know as much as you think
5.syke wrote:I though that this would be self evident to unbiased minds. They seem of scant ability here.
So, to paraphrase, you think we are naive, closed-minded, biased and scant of ability with a tendency to pour out spew!! ...oh yes and you want an apology!!!!!
I'm sorry but this is not respectful and I think I'm right in saying that you would ban anybody coming on to the paranormal site who used such ad hominem attacks and posed them as rational arguments. These are accusations about people's abilities and characteristics and are entirely unaccepatable and inappropriate. Before your contribution this thread contained no such arguments. It questioned people's ideas while accepting they had every right to do as they wished.
But to clarify, is this the case. If I go on the paranormal forum tomorrow and say that the people there are offering nothing but spew and are naive, closed-minded, biased and scant of ability. will you be perfectly happy with that contribution? I guess the following answers my question:syke wrote:...I warn you, the type of remarks and comments I see widely on this forum, and especially on this thread, with result in an immediate, lifetime, no questions asked ban on paranormal. You can debate and debunk with reference to the facts at hand without giving your opinions on the area, the poster or anything else that isn't part of the "scientific debate".
I would suggest starting by following your own advice. In the meantime I would ask Davros to have a careful look at this "respectful" contribution.0 -
Myksyk wrote:These are accusations about people's abilities and characteristics and are entirely unaccepatable and inappropriate.
What exactly did you expect when you started to question the incongruity of his actions and suggest that he was promoting pseudoscience and judging him based upon what "scientists believe" ? Are you really that naive that you don't realise why this sort of uninformed and overopinionated arrogance and nonsense gives the ISS a bad name and makes people want ye to stay as far away from them as possible?0 -
From what I can see Myksyk you have not been able to refute anything syke has said and instead are attempting to pick holes in his arguement by highlighting this "Abusive" opinions he is sharing on the content of this thread. I would have to agree with his statements and can understand him being a tad annoyed at two pages of people claiming he is a poster boy of pseudoscience all for trying to get a bit of traffic to a forum.0
-
Myksyk wrote:But to clarify, is this the case. If I go on the paranormal forum tomorrow and say that the people there are offering nothing but spew and are naive, closed-minded, biased and scant of ability. will you be perfectly happy with that contribution? I
Excuse me, but your whole contribution to this thread has been a personal attack on me and my ability as a mod, a scientist and my portrayal as a pseudoscientist. Without and justificantion or provocation.
Merely because I posted on a non-boards related website.
This is not the first time you have made comments about me, accusing me of being drunk while posting previously.
My responses, were not directed at one person but at the general level of conversation in this thread.
1. Spew: This is in reference to the illogical leap in judgement that because I promoted boards I am a "pseudoscientist" who isn't a fit mod (or so the implication went) for science.
2. Padlocks: I'm sorry, but the criticism had started on this thread about science role in paranormal investigation before anyone even made an argument. If thats not a closed mind, then what is?
3&4 Naivity: I saw at least three misinterpretations of the scientific method posted. I would suggest that that was naivity.
5. This is in relation to the portrayal in my role on Paranormal policy which has been soley to allow debate and discussion.
You basically came along and started a flame, all because I posted somewhere you don't like. Considering your past histroy in abusive personal attacks (you had a go at Meatproduct before which Davros similarly showed to be totally irrelevant to what you were suggesting) I sincerely hope that Davros actually takes the proper action here.0 -
I read this thread last night, starting with the one where Syke was mentioned. I had noted before that Syke is a practising scientist and had also proposed the Paranormal forum (hey, stranger things have happened). But I certainly didn't think it appropriate to discuss it around here. And I did notice that he has left this forum to its own devices (until being dragged back in) and I respect that.
However Syke had already seen the post and responded himself, including a few of the usual slurs against posters in these parts. But I let that slide since he was not here by choice.
Anyway, now I've been asked to step in and I have to agree with Syke. This is the second time an individual's beliefs have been raised for discussion by Myksyk. Last time I awarded a yellow card so this time it's a banning. Period to be determined.0 -
And on a completely unrelated subject.......http://www.hairloss.ie :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I wonder did 'Dr.' Carmody use this product for his cancer 'cure'.0
-
davros wrote:Anyway, now I've been asked to step in and I have to agree with Syke. This is the second time an individual's beliefs have been raised for discussion by Myksyk. Last time I awarded a yellow card so this time it's a banning. Period to be determined.
While my post my have slurs, I did relate them to the baseless and unfounded accusations and thinking present on this thread.
I see no way anyone who actualy took 10 minutesto look at the situation, could find any area where I took part in pseudoscience (I've made about 6-7 paranormal posts, most have been mod related, 2 were about a picture on ebay where I offered no personal opinion and the rest have been factual have been science jargon.) or where I stopped debating or scientific arguement on the paranormal forum, seeing as my 2-3rd post as th emod was to redefine the charter.
This aside, while I have no interest in posting in Irish Skeptics while threads like this and those cited by myself and ecksor are allowed to manifest unchecked, and the general consensus of reply is to attack the fine points and ignore the posters rationale (which any regular here has to admit is the case), I don't want to see one ofthe forums main posters banned if it can be prevented.
I asked for an apology by MykSyk and if he is willing to publically post an apology and full and detailed retraction of all is comments and statements above, that will suffice for me.
For those who actually think science and paranormal are conflicts, I ask two things. Who says that ones interest in paranormal has to be one of unfounded belief? And secondly, did noone among you watch the X-files with interest?0 -
well its all my fault.
The original idea behind the paranormal forum as far as I was concerned was to have a forum purely for believers or the paranormal. Those that didnt believe and wanted to contest views could bring up their debates in skeptics which was the basis for the forum. A haven for believers in the paranormal. I thought it would make some light reading and be boards.ie own little late night ghost story reading forum. I also originally wanted the forum to be private. I didnt see the problem with it not being centred around debunking "believers" opinions/sightings/experiences, as there is a boards platform for those views called skeptics, so its hardly not allowing people to voice their views really.
Anyhow I gave up trying to explain to people that the forum was for believers and gave up modding it for that reason and also because I didnt have the time to do it properly or indeed to put the effort into it.
As far as Syke is concerned I am also a scientist, a bad one, but by definition I have all the qualifications. Who is anyone to say what hobbies or beliefs are in contradiction, or to make a judgement on that. Its like saying a bank manager cant be into bondage, doesnt mean he isnt a good bank manager. It makes about as much sense to me. Even though you might find it "strange" that a suit wearing professional might wear scanty leather straps in another function. LMAO at this whole thread tbh.0 -
Advertisement
-
Myksyk is, ahem, "hors de combat" at the moment and cannot post. So often on this forum, arguments degenerate into a forensic examination of the meanings of particular words when it is clear enough to an objective observer that they are just being used in different ways by different people.
Myksyk's crime here was to propose (again) a member of the Boards community as a topic of conversation. Regardless of whatever else was said, Syke was the wronged party here and Myksyk has conveyed a sincere apology to both myself and Syke.
But too much was read into Myksyk's language by others. Without wishing to open the debate again, I'm satisfied that it was never Myksyk's intention to impugn Syke's credentials as a scientist and Syke's reputation in scientific matters and as a moderator stands unsullied.
I'm quite sure I could mod Paranormal myself without declaring my own bias or showing favour to one side or the other. I'm no great fan of the X-Files but I was big into Millennium and both The Exorcist and The Ring (Japanese version) scared the bejeepers out of me. Nothing wrong with talking about ghosts and homicidal videotapes.
How about we call it a night?0 -
The price of a lasercomb is not mentioned directly on the site, so far as I can see, but it's there in the linked-to Guardian article: GBP489.54.Calibos wrote:And on a completely unrelated subject.......http://www.hairloss.ie :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I wonder did 'Dr.' Carmody use this product for his cancer 'cure'.
Even if you take the 3-month guarantee, and return the device (along with a cert from a GP that you did not regain any hair) you are charged 20%, or almost 100 smackers, which I don't doubt is itself a handsome return on manufacturing costs.
Nevertheless, it's a slick site. Full marks for plausibility!0 -
Who'd of thought that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle would help hair grow!!The LaserComb bathes your hair root with a nourishing light and is designed to energize your hair with healthy laser energy. Living cells "like" light and your hair is no different. The most common example of light converting into chemical energy is photosynthesis, where plants are fed via light converted into chemical energy.
Scientific studies on cell cultures have shown that laser penetrates into soft tissue and increases the action of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a molecule that is a major carrier of energy from one reaction site to another in all living cells.
Another of many scientific theories is that cells are largely dependant for healthy function on an exchange of energy and 'information' with surrounding cells. This is achieved via individual wave systems by which cells 'communicate' through inter-connective plasma – which is affected by laser phototherapy working at quantum level.0 -
Ah. Um... Damn. You're right. One could argue that the scientific method can discover truth about the physical world, but it cannot be applied to the scientific method itself. Like those "2+2=5 or this sentance is false" phrases. Language and meta-language type stuff. However I conceed that it can't be used to prove it's own validity, however I think it's successcan be measured by it's track history, basically it's done quite well for the past few centuaries.ecksor wrote:Well, can you tell me how the scientific method can be used to discover whether the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world?
Sorry I'm not making much sense, my brain is fuzzy today...0
Advertisement