--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > This is what happens when science is used for PR > > > purposes. The ME is full of holes. > > > > > Also I don't think it will ever work to use the results of science, > > which measures phenomena objectively, to prove the benefits of a > > technique that has as its purpose the unification of the subject and > > object. As we used to say, 'does not compute'. > > > > The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that the ME > > produces profoundly positive results. How? When? Where? Can't say. > > It's, er, paradoxical... > > > > Why can't science measure such things? Its plausible that the ultimate result might be beyond > scientific measurement, but insomuch as it is a "real world" phenomenon, there should be > measureable real world effects. >
If it exists it can be measured, no question, no paradox. If the results are profound it should be profoundly obvious, we'll see in a year one way or t'other
