Mind Control

This is really interesting. If you repeat something over and over again, regardless of how unreasonable it is, people tend to believe it, particularly if it comes from an apparent authority figure. People are very robotic, in this way. This is what the debunkers do, like a mantra. If they say it loudly and long enough people will believe them. It's attempted mind control, on a thread about mind control.

They claim they're not interested in the philosophical underpinnings of science, even when those philosophical principles are directly challenged with reputable experiments like the Princeton photon experiments. Anyone who isn't ego driven or timid can see that those experiments lend strong credence to the idea that the scientist isn't an impartial observer, but becomes an active participant in experimentation.

Does God almighty have to knock on their door and request a spot of tea and a debate with them, before they'd entertain the idea that the universe is not as they imagined? That's it! That's what it would take. Who's hopelessly anthropomorphic? Who has silly sentimental ideas? Who still believes in the fairy stories they were told about science in school? Who has to hold on to outmoded thinking because they're afraid a boogeyman under the bed might grab their toe toes? Who turns red and hyperventilates at the sight of a ufo photo, until Mommy pats their little cheek and whispers soothingly, "It's allright dear. There's nothing out there. Everything's okay."
 
One can only rant at that which they know nothing about.

Did everyone refuse to be your science partner in high school?
 
But since you brought it up, please explain to us what the Princeton photon experiments have to do with anything?

Pony up or shut up.
 
zion said:
I think people who consider themselves scientists need to know that any conjecture purely based on a priori would be a mistake,since empirical evidence matters. There have been cases,(if you read the complete thing) that are empirircally inspiring, but oh! well so much so for being a blind faith skeptic.
Click to expand...
zion, you're back, and as uninformative as ever. I did my best with the site, but if you could please give us a link to those parts which you found specifically "empirically inspiring", I'm sure we'd all be grateful.

Agitprop said:
This is really interesting. If you repeat something over and over again, regardless of how unreasonable it is, people tend to believe it, particularly if it comes from an apparent authority figure. People are very robotic, in this way. This is what the debunkers do, like a mantra. If they say it loudly and long enough people will believe them. It's attempted mind control, on a thread about mind control.
Click to expand...
I'm not particularly keen on the argument that has developed between yourself and (Q) - primarily because it's boring. But I would like to respond to the point you make here, which is that repeating something over and over again is believed. Indeed that is the case. That is why all extraordinary claims (telepathic mind control, alien civilisations) have to undergo rigorous testing under unambiguous laboratory conditions. The trouble with the whole world of pseudoscience is that it more or less consists exactly of just that - statements being repeated again and again. Take astrology, for example. You consult an astrologer, they ask you your star sign and date of birth, and then draw a chart (hopefully nowadays they press a button on a computer display). Then they say things like "Ah, Taurus. Taureans are very extroverted, give everything the stamp of authority and like to have their own way." I'm not arguing here about the typical applicability of an astrologer's statement to anybody. I'm talking about the fact that nobody actually questions where or how the astrologer obtained this information about the characteristics of Taureans, or how such a statement would be tested. (This has nothing to do with post hoc statistical testing which may have been done in the last few decades, it's kind of irrelevant to the fact that astrologers have been making their statements without any such backing for, well, millennia.)

This is more or less the definition of pseudoscience - the pseudoscientist "talks the talk" - and with an artificial air of authority people tend to listen unquestioningly. But can they really "walk the walk"?
 
Last edited:
Hehe uninformative as ever?...do you browse around the forum bro?....chill with a beer.

ok, i will point out empirically inspiring docs.
 
Silas, I stand by my previous statements. I've been swatting at mosquitos and tried to maintain good humour about it and have avoided repetition by refusing to be drawn into hairsplitting inane communications where I end up communicating at cross purposes with some dingbat with a beaker up his ass.

I believe this is psuedo science forum. The onus isn't on me to provide concrete evidence and extensive footnotes on anything I post. My questions are philosophical and my statements are conjectural, but well within the grounds of reasonable discourse. I'm not going to attempt any more defense of this issue ,as I will just be accused of being repetetive and "boring". Hopefully I've been understood.
 
Agitprop,

This is a psuedo-science section of a SCIENCE forum. This section is primarily here to discuss psuedo science misconceptions. I agree that some people here can get into the little hair splitting detail trapping stuff, but you are offering conjecture with no proof or even basis, which might as well be pure fiction. Without documentation and evidence, it's all hearsay.

Either way you look at it, the only proven method of discovery and verification is the scientific method, which you state is not adaquate to investigate your new concepts. Now, you believe that this means that science is faulty, but I believe it means that your concepts are faulty. I don't think either of us will be swayed either way.


I would like to see what Princeton Photon experiments you are talking about that challenge direct scientific principles, since when I type in that in google, I get like 57,000 results, most of which are about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Squeak
 
Last edited:
Agitprop said:
Silas, I stand by my previous statements. I've been swatting at mosquitos and tried to maintain good humour about it and have avoided repetition by refusing to be drawn into hairsplitting inane communications where I end up communicating at cross purposes with some dingbat with a beaker up his ass.

I believe this is psuedo science forum. The onus isn't on me to provide concrete evidence and extensive footnotes on anything I post. My questions are philosophical and my statements are conjectural, but well within the grounds of reasonable discourse. I'm not going to attempt any more defense of this issue ,as I will just be accused of being repetetive and "boring". Hopefully I've been understood.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure who you're arguing with here. You accused debunkers of doing what I consider is actually the hallmark of nonsense peddlers, so I made a comment about it. I'd like to make it clear that I wasn't really accusing you of being boring.
 
Thanks Silas, Outside of the three little words women love to hear,"You're not fat", the three others, "You're not boring" have to be the most important. I wasn't sure who you were calling boring, so no harm done. :)

Squeak, Believe me, I think there is plenty of junk science competing for mindshare with some genuinely compelling "esoteric" material. Guess who always wins? For every 10 serious ufo researchers, who couldn't attract an audience if they were giving away free ponies, there is a David Icke who's repitilian agenda stuff attracts hundreds of thousands.

There are plenty of fantasy prone solipsists out there, and they drive me as batty, or battier than you. As someone interested in ufos and the paranormal, it's a bit distressing (but strangely humbling) to be forced into the same strait jacket with them. They should be treated gently and with humour, as these people are still human beings with their own sensitivities and subjective experiences, that we have no way of knowing about. ;)
 
The onus isn't on me to provide concrete evidence and extensive footnotes on anything I post.

And of course, your non-effort has been overwhelming.

My questions are philosophical and my statements are conjectural, but well within the grounds of reasonable discourse.

Sorry, but everything you've stated thus far is nowhere near reasonable. It has all been farcical and insulting to those who work hard at science.

I'm not going to attempt any more defense of this issue ,as I will just be accused of being repetetive and "boring".

Your fantasies are not a defence, but are becoming repetitive and boring.

it's a bit distressing (but strangely humbling) to be forced into the same strait jacket with them.

Birds of a feather...

They should be treated gently and with humour, as these people are still human beings with their own sensitivities and subjective experiences, that we have no way of knowing about.

They should get educated.

And once again, you have failed to provide anything substantial to your claims.

Clearly, you are a troll and should be banned.
 
the essence of science is to prove an impertinant point with or without a priori.
 
there are other scientists who would see YOUR version of 'science' as being rather old hat!
 
(Q) it was actually your posts that I found somewhat boring. Someone who espouses a paranormal "super-science" view which fits the term "pseudoscience" is clearly not out of place in a pseudoscience section of a science forum. I don't accept Agitprop's viewpoint but she's very far from being a troll.
 
Silas

Agitprop has come here to simply badmouth science and has not anwered anyones questions. She has made no case whatsoever. A troll.
 
(Q), I have to agree with you to a point, but I also see that Agitprop -while providing little of substance- has created several points of discussion that have. Her nonsensical post that created a thread without clear directive that had to do with Catherine Fitts sparked some later posts that had substance. Her failed attempt to discredit CSICOP as an organization provided a venue for showing the credibility of the organization.

Though I do agree that her approach is nothing near science nor is it substantive. I also agree that she can be quite insulting. But then, so are you and I. From time to time.

Is she a troll? I think the jury is still out. I do, however, suspect that she was asked to visit and post at sciforums by another member who was tired of having his/her opinions picked at by the "skeptics and debunkers." But that's only my suspicion based on her choice of words in a couple of posts and the way she "popped" in. She could also have just been "googling."

In the end, I'd have to say "welcome" to sciforum's newest "woo-woo." She certainly isn't as "woo" as many of those that preceded her (i.e. fluid, ufotheatre, chris beachum, etc.)
 
The thread is called "Mind Control" and of course there is that implication of government using some kind of mystical telepathy ray.
Click to expand...
They are, it's called the Cathode Ray Tube. TV is the best mind control device yet constructed after the printing press. Just ask Armstrong Williams, a paid propagandist for the government... and that marketing guy who suggests clever renaming of the issues, like "personal accounts", instead of "private accounts". There aren't even many side effects from TV, except obesity and bad eyesight, and it can be used on children. It mimics the bright colors of traditional entheogens, the cut up editing, and out of context images. Why are people so concerned about some mystery ray, when the most obvious methods are all around us, and they work?
 
heheee yeah, right on, Spidergoat.....TV's the drug for sure. ther's NO fukin war against this drug...ohhh no.
it is noticeable how they are lovin getting all the people getting digital TVs. this means lots and lots of similar channles with similar ads and news--like radio. notice the promise of COMMUNITY TV is not happnin. cause the technolopgy that goes with this propagada drug is beyond the reach of many. and ther's pressure not to be allowed in
its SO obvious. they might as well moon us
 
In the end, I'd have to say "welcome" to sciforum's newest "woo-woo."
Click to expand...
Hah!! :D

zion! I'm not joking!!
zion said:
There have been cases,(if you read the complete thing) that are empirircally inspiring
Click to expand...
zion said:
Hehe uninformative as ever?...do you browse around the forum bro?....chill with a beer.

ok, i will point out empirically inspiring docs.
Click to expand...
Please do what you said you were going to do!! Provide links to the documents you found that were out of the ordinary, or tell us you were mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top