>From the moles:
1.
- dixiepnum <http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/account.php?u=166>
- 2 hours ago
quote
Ok Mary. It's time. I am a big suck for epistemology. I have been on
this forum since the steorn days and have enjoyed your company. At first, I
thought you were just big oil mib. But then I put you through a test and
stripped you bare naked on this forum over the winter holidays one year, to
try to understand if you were a simple nay-sayer who shot anything down for
your own self-aggrandisement, or who would get in line if there was a shard
of truth in any given theory. This was a fun test, and you fell for it hook
line and sinker. But you showed some sanity.
So now I am asking you again.
Strip yourself bare naked and give us a comparative self-evaluation
between your credentials versus those of Dr.Kim. Be respectful. Then
analyse his theory point by point to the best of your ability. Explain what
is possible, what is not, and why. Be complete. And do not give yourself
any rope by saying you are not qualified in this area. This will expose you
for what you might be.
We don't have enough evidence, and we never will. But is his theory
possible, and within the accepted boundaries of scientific knowledge as it
stands today? Compare theoretical perspectives and constructs.
What say you, the famous Mary? Are we capable of knowing this phenomena?
Expose yourself!
<end>
