Suggestion: Change "pseudoscience" forum to...

ScyentsIzLief said:
I am arrogant when you're the one who stated "As far as I'm concerned, the Middle East would make a fine parking lot for the world's largest strip mall."

Why you believe you make any sense is beyond me.
Click to expand...

You are arrogant because you have the nerve to attempt to justify something that deserves an ultimate in retaliation. The radical Muslim Middle Eastern mind set is sheer insanity. ALL theocratic based societies are.

When is the last time YOU knew the mind of God?

You laughably state something about the US provoking the sacred place of Saudi Arabia. What a JOKE. Those camel riding cavemen would be penniless if it weren't for the United States and our sickening, greed driven, oil consumption.

Other than a few delicious select native Agrarian contributions and some killer hash, what has the Middle East done for ANYONE, ANYWHERE other than Oil?

All problems from the beginning of time stem from the Middle East. Say what you will, but it's the truth. A bunch of confused, religiously insane, zealots, with nothing better to do than to kill one another over a patch of desert.
 
electrafixtion said:
Because Max was talking about the pursuit of scientific ideals, not the elimination of those that don't subscribe to your faith. It didn't need reconciling did it?
Click to expand...
You're the one who suggested elimination of those who don't subscribe to your faith when you suggested "glassing" the Middle East...:rolleyes:
 
I'm done replying to religious nuts. I don't how you found this forum, electra.

And please don't say any of these things you say in public. You will surely regret it.
 
electrafixtion said:
"Pseudoscience" is not really a bad thing at all. I have come to accept it in a most grateful sense. Tremendous intelligence is honestly and openly exhibited "here". To me Pseudoscience, with respect to it's sub categorized location on SciForums, actually represents a place where one can hammer out the devil in one's own details.

I didn't understand "it" when I first came here a short time ago. This resulted in emotional flairs, that somehow, through the process of heating and cooling emotions, became a far more solid platform on which to express myself.

Your time travel hypothesis Stryder is palatable.

PLEASE, I am asking you and all advanced and learned members here on this forum, please check out the DVD Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see that, as you can guess Pseudoscience was one of the forums I moderated before becomes a Supermod. I haven't been as tight in regulation of this forum as some of the other forums and I had a very good reason for this, I wanted people to have the chance to discuss and hash out their thoughts without just being locked or deleted.

This is probably why threads land in here so often.

Btw, The 9/11 thread being put into one superthread was for two reasons, mainly because there was a lot of 9/11 threads and because should they all be left to their own avail the content itself would degrade. While it might seem hickledypickledy it's easier to make sure that people aren't flaming each other in one thread. (Hopefully in the future, I can go through it with Scott and perhaps dissect it back into it's main components. Obviously I don't believe the thermite story, however I know how the main story mightstream be missing some things too.)
 
OilIsMastery said:
You're the one who suggested elimination of those who don't subscribe to your faith when you suggested "glassing" the Middle East...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


That's a sheer lie and don't even try it. I never suggested anything of the sort Sir. I said for all I care the place could be made a parking lot because of what they did to us on 911. That was a direct response to the moronic justification for their attack on the USA.

That has fuck all to do with my faith or theirs.

Incidentally Max Planck's use of the term faith has ZERO to do with religion which is the context you are attempting to place it in.

That's just more ignorance on your part I guess.

Don't EVER put words or additional meanings in my posts son. I'll prove you a trouble maker and a mockery of truth every time.
 
Stryder said:
Btw, The 9/11 thread being put into one superthread was for two reasons, mainly because there was a lot of 9/11 threads and because should they all be left to their own avail the content itself would degrade.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that? Many places, such as JREF (for official story believers) or forums like loose change forums, abovetopsecret.com and letsrollforums.com have -forums- dedicated to 9/11 (in the case of letsrollforums.com and loose change forums, -multiple- forums). As mentioned elsewhere, the reason I don't spend more time there is because I don't feel that I'm challenged enough over there, but I sorely miss the division of the multiple theories of 9/11, such as the twin tower collapses, the collapse of WTC 7, the pentagon attack, why the aircraft weren't intercepted and various others.


While it might seem hickledypickledy it's easier to make sure that people aren't flaming each other in one thread. (Hopefully in the future, I can go through it with Scott and perhaps dissect it back into it's main components.
Click to expand...

What's this? Dissect it? You mean we could break it into a few threads? I'm all for the idea of having, say, an official 3 or 4 threads. Even 2 would be better (WTC collapses and an everything else thread).


Obviously I don't believe the thermite story, however I know how the main story mightstream be missing some things too.)
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should start there. As in, what the main story is missing. There was a recent peer reviewed paper published by Steven Jones and others on certain points that the official story and alternative story believers agree on, which also highlights certain points of disagreement as well.

As you may have seen, I actually made a web site concerning the demolition theory of the WTC buildings. I know it needs work, but I think it's a good start:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/
 
Simon Anders said:
1) Did you just come here to correct me?
Click to expand...

No, I improved on your suggestion.

2) Discussions of scientific topics or hypotheses that are not 1) currently included in mainstream science or 2) have enough research back-up to satisfy the mods, would have included ideas that later became accepted by the mainstream if forums like this existed for the last 50 years.

You think people who come up with new ideas go right into the lab, get immediate supportive evidence and then mainstream science nods their heads all at once.

Nah.

Oh, and of course a lot of fruitless ideas would have been and are included. You can live with that. You can stay in the science forums you like.

Or maybe you can't.
Click to expand...

That's the rub, whether it's science or not. What gets moved into such forums is that which isn't based on science, but instead alternative, non-mainstream, speculation. If there were some actual science to those new ideas, they would not be moved there, but would remain in the appropriate science forum for all to discuss.

Often though, even these types of threads get derailed by the same kooks who do little else but seek attention for their speculations.
 
(Q) said:
No, I improved on your suggestion.
Click to expand...
Well that sounds more positive, though it doesn't answer the question as stressed.

That's the rub, whether it's science or not. What gets moved into such forums is that which isn't based on science, but instead alternative, non-mainstream, speculation. If there were some actual science to those new ideas, they would not be moved there, but would remain in the appropriate science forum for all to discuss.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have done a thorough study of the contents of pseudoscience. I bow to your greater experience.
 
Stryder said:
Simon,
perhaps you are young yourself and feel I'm aiming at all youth. I'm not, I see the "new" poster as a punk and well admittedly that's their own fault, if they want to be treated with respect then should be respectful of others. Their opening passages have already tempted fate per say.

I just get fed up with seeing the same architype's pop up on this forum and then attempt to take the whole place to the toilet, I won't stand for it, nor will other moderators. We are trying to clean the place up which is the main reason for some things getting moved about.

Obviously the forum itself is going to perhaps see some changes in subforums, but for now unfortunately Pseudoscience is a catch all for things that don't fit into the mainstream.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm older than you.
What would be the loss of choosing a more neutral name for the forum?
 
Simon Anders said:
Nah, I'm older than you.
What would be the loss of choosing a more neutral name for the forum?
Click to expand...

It's not so much a loss, there was a discussion held some time back about a forum reshuffle. It was identified that there are basically two types of science Soft and Hard. Soft was pretty much things like Psychology & Humanities while the Hard was more like Physics and Mathematics.

What this forum deals with isn't actual defined sciences, it deals with some theories which might be a protoscience, or conspiracies (which aren't actually science). That's why it's a current catch all. In fact it's still odd that Parapsychology exists as a seperate forum in all honesty, as it too isn't an actual science, over the years Parapsychology degree's have slowly become more and more illusive because mainstream science has been ruling a lot of it out.
 
electrafixtion said:
"The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight from wonder."

Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

I love it when people quote mine.

"The true wonder of sciences is not in its ability to explain the universe, but in its capacity to form new questions." -Isaac Asimov (I think)
 
ScyentsIzLief said:
The 9/11 truth's evaluation of how the towers fell doesn't adhere to the scientific method?
Click to expand...

No, because it starts with a conclusion, then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.

That's not how the scientific method works.

The Earth Expanding Theory backed by peer-reviewed science isn't adhering to the scienctific method?
Click to expand...

Some of it is. The expanding-earthers are wrong, of course, but some of them have done some science, admittedly. There are others who just lie and ignore data, though, and those are akin to the 9/11 "truthers".

OIM is a good example of the latter.
 
Trying to think with a cavity tooth ache is hard (I've moved on fixing that soon; good old mom :)). Nevertheless, I will do my best.


James R said:
Originally Posted by ScyentsIzLief
The 9/11 truth's evaluation of how the towers fell doesn't adhere to the scientific method?
Click to expand...

No, because it starts with a conclusion
Click to expand...

In many cases, the initial conclusion we bought into was the one fed to use by the mainstream media. I include myself in this group. It was only after reading a book from noted conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs on the subject that this changed. In the case of physicist Steven Jones, it changed when he began to review the evidence as well. The same can be said for the creator of the film "9/11 mysteries"; after seeing a film called "painful truths" (I believe), he initially set out to prove that the WTC buildings were indeed taken out by the planes and the fires they induced and came out realizing that it had to be demolitions.


...then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.
Click to expand...

This isn't true either. If that were true, I and other alternative theory believers would simply go to a forum that supports our view and be done with it. Nor is it true for scientists who have dedicated a fair amount of their time towards uncovering the truth behind 9/11, such as physicist Steven Jones, or the architects and engineers who have done the same over at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, or the Pilots for 9/11 truth, or the fine investigative work done by Citizens Investigation Team at thepentacon.com, or the work done by meticulous authors such as Jim Marrs, David Ray Griffin, and excellent articles from Kevin Ryan, who was fired for speaking out against NIST's draft report on the cause of the WTC collapses.
 
James R said:
No, because it starts with a conclusion, then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.
Click to expand...
This book
Griffin, David Ray; Richard Falk. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. ISBN 1566565529. Retrieved on 2007-07-26.
Click to expand...
presents a very rational approach to questioning the official explanation. They analyze a range of potential explanations and certainly use science (and well) in their explanation of where they come down. I don't know if you are including everyone who disbelieves the official version as 'truthers', but I think you are incorrect in saying that they have all decided first and have strayed from the scientific method.

Further the official version was produced with a conclusion already formed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top