The standard skepticism that any scientist should have, wishing to explore, to look at the evidence, to experiment and refine, is , from what I've seen, welcome here. What is not is blindly saying, THis cannot be true, and then, THEN, after deciding something is false, going about poking every hole in it possible. Should the same arguements be made from a point of, Did you consider this, did you take that into account, how can we refine this and make it a BETTER model, then there wouldnt be an issue, I believe.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > I think we need to consider two types of skeptics. If a person does not > even believe the validity of the subject being discussed, what can that > skeptic contribute. If CF is not real, what is the point of discussing why > or how it works? The second kind of skeptics works by considering the > basic idea being true, but have questions about the details. Cude is not > interested in the details of CF because none of the details are correct. I > suggest this kind of skeptic is a waste of time once the basic idea is > accepted. > > Ed Storms > > On May 12, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Vorl Bek wrote: > > On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:53:29 -0500 >> Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b, >>> so >>> I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest >>> replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it. >>> >>> Otherwise, adios. It's been a slice. >>> >> >> It is a pity that J Cude is leaving. While I enjoy a True Believer >> site as much as anyone, after a while it is like eating nothing >> but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of >> articulate skeptics. >> >> >
