On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > wrote: > >> >> > wait for the Nobel prizes ceremony. That way you can be assured to only >> > hear about the most respectable Scientific endeavours. >> Anything else would be a waste of your time. > > > This isn't a mathematical proof where I have all the information needed to > judge its quality, this is a report of the results of a experiment and as > such is only of value to me if I believe that he is a competent scientist > and actually performed the experiment as described, and in this case I have > no reason to do so. I usually believe what I read in Science or Nature even > if I have not personally done the experiment because over the decades those > publications have established a web of trust between the authors and the > readers and the experiment has been repeated or at least examined by > somebody I trust; > but in this case its just crap somebody posted on the web.
No, this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor (> 4). Nobel laureates have published there. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057620 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_ONE It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability. > I'm more than willing to look at evidence provided it really is evidence, > however I'm not willing to look at the "evidence" posted on a website by > somebody I've never heard of This is a problem because you will never have heard of most active scientists. The human population is now 7 billion. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists. This is not the Victorian era anymore. > because there is no web of trust between me the > reader and the originator of this "evidence" as there is in a legitimate > Scientific journal. PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal. > As a result the only thing stuff like this is really > evidence for is that somebody knows how to type. Like everything else, really. Scientific experiments are very rarely replicated. You live in fantasy land. >> > Ideas of consequence are rarely -- if ever -- produced outside the >> > bossom of the establishment. > > > Bullshit. And speaking of Nobel Prize ceremonies, nobody predicted X Rays > before Rontgen discovered them and neither he nor anybody else had a theory > to explain them until many decades later, but he became the most lionized > physicist of his day and received the very first Nobel Prize in Physics just > a few years after he discovered them. Rontgen was making an incredible claim The problem with this "incredible claim" meme is that there is no way to objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an euphemism for the status quo. > but the scientific community believed him because he had incredible good > evidence, a photograph of the bones in his wife's hand, there is nothing > equivalent to that in NDE. I know very little about NDEs to have an opinion one way or the other. > And even Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which has about as much emotion and > prejudice aimed against it as it's possible for a Scientific theory to have, > was accepted by the mainstream scientific community in less than a decade, > and when he died Darwin was given a hero's funeral and buried in Westminster > Abbey right next to Newton. You really seem to care a lot about this sort of thing. I don't. I prefer how Everett requested for his ashes to be put in the garbage. He's my kind of guy. But none of this has anything to do with science, one way or the other. > People have been telling each other ghost stories and babbling about life > after death for thousands of years but Science doesn't believe a word of it, I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are about Science with a capital S. I love science, and I show my love by not taking it too seriously. Reverence for science is a mockery of science. > not because it upsets scientists preconceived notions about how things work > (in fact that's how you make your reputation in Science) but because the > closer you look at the "evidence" for such things the more it just fades > away. Maybe. Except for consciousness, of course. How do you explain that one? (still waiting for your TOE, btw) > But maybe you believe that it's me that is full of Bullshit and not ghost > stories, I never mentioned ghost stories. You argue like a politician. > if so then you should accept the following bet: If Science or > Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive articel about life > after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $1000, if none of them do > you only have to give me $100. Do we have a bet? Notice that if you make the bet less arbitrary, let's say "any respectable journal with a high impact factor and articles authored by Nobel laureates", I would already have won. Telmo. > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.