• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientific Publications

I've been away from home, but I'm back.

The point is about reality and your point, that you have seen something unexplainable, juxtaposed with a pulsar - that was unexplainable, that has never been seen - being more real than your sighting and those of millions of others.
Even if, as our friend pointed out, the saucers (and these are the only form I've mentioned) are some brand of hallucination, then they are an interesting subject for study because of the sheer number of persons involved. In fact, they are waved away as insignificant and the work on quasars, even more indistinct is scientifically praised.
This strikes me as being selective in the extreme.

The annoying medical explanations, about which I only recall writing one sentence: I would try hysteria if I were you. A rich vein of medical gobbledygook if ever there was one. But, don't be surprised if UFO's crop-up again?
 
rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
The only observable element of a pulsar is the tick-tick of the signal. This is presumably calibrated by atomic clocks.
I've posted several links to articles that describe seasonal variations in radioactivity and presumably this applies to atomic clocks by default. I do, in fact, have a long list of references.
Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of science and its tools.

Atomic clocks have nothing to do with radioactivity:
The principle of operation of an atomic clock is not based on nuclear physics, but rather on atomic physics and using the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clocks

I can only assume that you have some references to work carried out proving that atomic clocks are not affected by the seasons in the same manner as atomic radiation?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
No one knows what a pulsar is and we are never likely to know because they are too far away.
Hands-on kind of guy, are you? :roll:

But you could say much the same about almost any astronomical object - if you're prepared to forget about all the advanced instruments we have for observing them and measuring their properties.

For those not afraid of a few facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
When they were first dicovered, the astonomers at the time first thought that they might be some sort of message, signal, or even beacon, out in deep space. Then they realised that they were probably natural in origin, because of their immense immense signal strength, periodicity and distribution It was the case of a discovery made with a new technology that depended on observation, theory, prediction and repeatability, all part of good solid scientific method. Unlike alleged UFOs, they stick around to be examined, with the available technology. We may not be 100% sure that they are what we think they are, but it's the best explanation that fits the observable facts and best available scientific theory. Not only that, but they also foreshadowed the prediction of super-massive stellar objects, like black holes

Of course, if they do eventually turn out to be interstellar lighthouse beacons, or messages to Darth Vader's mum, then a lot of astro-physics will have to be rethought.
Black holes are also unobserved and are the daughters of relativity theory just like pulsars. The spawn of the theory then becomes the proof of the theory in the typical kind of circular logic which pervades science.
It's a bit like the Emperors New Clothes. If you can't see it then it's because you are not clever enough.
 
Ghostisfort said:
It's a bit like the Emperors New Clothes. If you can't see it then it's because you are not clever enough.

That just sounds a bit like an inferiority complex.

Black holes are not hard to understand - the maths and physics is, but the overall theories are not. As to their not being observed, along with quasars, this is untrue. Direct observation of blackholes is somewhat tricky, but their effect on the surrounding in space is not.

WRT evidence for UFOs, what is there? Sightings? Well, questionable. Evidence? No, not really. A wide variety of anecdotal accounts, with a wide variety of themes - assessed under the umbrella of which particular camp you prefer? Yep.This doesn't put the subject on any solid ground, unfortunately.
 
he annoying medical explanations, about which I only recall writing one sentence

Yes I just though it was a surprisingly interesting point.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
It's a bit like the Emperors New Clothes. If you can't see it then it's because you are not clever enough.

That just sounds a bit like an inferiority complex.

Black holes are not hard to understand - the maths and physics is, but the overall theories are not. As to their not being observed, along with quasars, this is untrue. Direct observation of blackholes is somewhat tricky, but their effect on the surrounding in space is not.

WRT evidence for UFOs, what is there? Sightings? Well, questionable. Evidence? No, not really. A wide variety of anecdotal accounts, with a wide variety of themes - assessed under the umbrella of which particular camp you prefer? Yep.This doesn't put the subject on any solid ground, unfortunately.

As usual you hit the nail on the head - it's used to induce an inferiority complex in non scientists; this of course does not work in my case.

If there were a picture of a black hole you would certainly have linked it.
 
Ghostisfort said:
rynner2 said:
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with radioactivity:
The principle of operation of an atomic clock is not based on nuclear physics, but rather on atomic physics and using the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clocks
I can only assume that you have some references to work carried out proving that atomic clocks are not affected by the seasons in the same manner as atomic radiation?
Atomic clocks are a primary standard for timekeeping, because they are more accurate than any astronomical or other physical standard. (That is why they can be used to measure the changes in pulsar frequencies, as well as much else.) From the Wiki link again:
Atomic clocks are the most accurate time and frequency standards known, and are used as primary standards for international time distribution services, to control the frequency of television broadcasts, and in global navigation satellite systems such as GPS.
Why you should think that the seasons on one little planet in an enormous universe should affect the quantum jumps between electron shells in all known atoms is a mystery - perhaps you could enlighten us with some evidence for this?

You won't find any, because you need a better standard time keeper than atomic clocks to measure any such effects.

(Of course, if you can build a better clock, the world of science will beat a path to your door... ;) )
 
Ghostisfort said:
As usual you hit the nail on the head - it's used to induce an inferiority complex in non scientists; this of course does not work in my case.

That's not how you come across.

If there were a picture of a black hole you would certainly have linked it.

There are no pictures of black holes, if you mean photos in the normal sense. I imagine you'd undertsand why this is. As to other types of imaging, you may want to google for 'Chandra'.
 
As usual you hit the nail on the head - it's used to induce an inferiority complex in non scientists; this of course does not work in my case.

As I've asked before, why adopt such an adversarial approach. Why assume that questions relating to your posts are personal.
 
Ghostisfort said:
... Black holes are also unobserved and are the daughters of relativity theory just like pulsars. The spawn of the theory then becomes the proof of the theory in the typical kind of circular logic which pervades science.
It's a bit like the Emperors New Clothes. If you can't see it then it's because you are not clever enough.
That's a bit like claiming the Earth is flat, because you can't see that it's round. Black holes may be difficult to see directly, but their effects are observable. Gravitational lensing I've already mentioned, however, they are now also getting the blame for enormous jets, or bursts, of gamma radiation. Not only that, but it is becoming clear that super-massive back holes are the engines that drive galaxies around their axes. If it wasn't for black holes we probably wouldn't exist.

Feel free to disagree. :)
 
More on primary standards for keeping time:

The need for accurate time

Everyone needs to know what the time is at some point in the day, whether to catch our bus in the morning or to celebrate the New Year at the right moment. For this sort of timekeeping, our personal watches and household clocks are accurate enough. A typical quartz clock manages to keep time to within a second over ten days.

When it comes to sending data down a phone line or navigating by satellites, however, more precision is needed.
Telecommunications rely on accurate timing to ensure that the switches routing digital signals through their networks all run at the same rate. If they did not, those switches running slow would not be able to cope with the traffic and messages would be lost. When speaking on the telephone, you might hear a click or a crackle if just one data packet was lost. If sending a fax, a line might be smeared. If communicating over the Internet, the connection might be lost completely. As we become more and more reliant on the telephone and Internet, we are implicitly becoming more and more dependent on atomic time.

For the navigation of ships, aeroplanes, and more recently family cars, Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites that orbit the Earth broadcast timing signals from their atomic clocks. By looking at the signal from four (or more) satellites, the user’s position can be determined. The time has to be incredibly accurate as light travels thirty centimetres in one nanosecond (or 300 million metres in a second!) so that any tiny error in the time signal could put you off course by a very long way. This system has proved particularly effective during sea rescue operations and in situations such as Arctic expeditions where navigating by traditional landmarks and signposts is impossible.

While we may be more and more dependent on accurate time, where does that time come from? Who looks after the master clock? Well, there is no single master clock for the world. Instead, the international time standard is maintained by 40 time laboratories around the world and is based on the average of some 260 atomic clocks. That diversity provides both safety (a single clock in an earthquake zone would not be a good idea for example) and accessibility (each major industrial nation contributes to the time standard, and hence has direct access to the atomic clocks).

In the UK, it is the National Physical Laboratory that maintains and develops the national time standard. The group of atomic clocks at NPL keep the UK’s time accurate to within one second in three million years which means that the error in a day or a week is minuscule.
The international time standard held by NPL and the other time laboratories is made freely available by radio broadcasts. Sinse the1st April 2007 the Anthorn Radio Station has broadcast a time signal all over the UK using NPL's atomic clocks.

The time signal has a host of applications. When you call the speaking clock, or hear the time 'pips' on the radio, for instance, they will have got the time from the NPL atomic clocks. The Global Positioning System gets its time from the US Naval Observatory in Washington, which gets its time, like NPL, from participating in the international time standard.

Those time signals are not only accurate, but is also very reliable. Systems around Britain and beyond, that rely on accurate timekeeping, have access to this signal so that processes such as telephone conversations and Internet surfing operate smoothly.
This time is compared with other clocks around the world so that everyone uses the same time system. Flying between countries would be an almost impossible task without this co-operation.

So even if your watch is broken, accurate time is around you, helping to make your life run as easily as possible.

http://resource.npl.co.uk/docs/educate_ ... e_time.pdf
 
oldrover said:
As usual you hit the nail on the head - it's used to induce an inferiority complex in non scientists; this of course does not work in my case.

As I've asked before, why adopt such an adversarial approach. Why assume that questions relating to your posts are personal.

Weeeeeell...I can give you a clue?
It's not personal, it's lonely.
As things stand, non adversarial seems to mean agreeing with a small group of scientistic sceptics, (on a Fortean forum) something I'm not prepared to do for reasons that should be obvious, but obviously are not.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Ghostisfort said:
... Black holes are also unobserved and are the daughters of relativity theory just like pulsars. The spawn of the theory then becomes the proof of the theory in the typical kind of circular logic which pervades science.
It's a bit like the Emperors New Clothes. If you can't see it then it's because you are not clever enough.
That's a bit like claiming the Earth is flat, because you can't see that it's round. Black holes may be difficult to see directly, but their effects are observable. Gravitational lensing I've already mentioned, however, they are now also getting the blame for enormous jets, or bursts, of gamma radiation. Not only that, but it is becoming clear that super-massive back holes are the engines that drive galaxies around their axes. If it wasn't for black holes we probably wouldn't exist.

Feel free to disagree. :)

After the scientific madness that accompanied the Velikovsky affair, we saw the start of space exploration and with it the knowledge that all previous theories about the Solar System were wrong.
I see the theories about the regions beyond the Solar System as being in just the same position as were Solar System theories pre 1960 - more likely to be wrong than right.

There are other ways to explain the things you mention, but we never hear about them from the science community because they support Velikovskian type ideas.

There is a whole scientific underground industry in support of the 'electric universe'. Everyone, from school kids upwards, knows that you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Only astronomers deny this fact.
 
Ghostisfort said:
There is a whole scientific underground industry in support of the 'electric universe'. Everyone, from school kids upwards, knows that you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Only astronomers deny this fact.
Really? You amaze me!

You don't need copper wires to carry an electric current. In an astronomical context, the 'current' is mass flows of ionized gases. We can study these in some detail in the turbulence of the solar surface and its sunspots, but magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) applies throughout the observable universe:
MHD applies quite well to astrophysics since over 99% of baryonic matter content of the Universe is made up of plasma, including stars, the interplanetary medium (space between the planets), the interstellar medium (space between the stars), nebulae and jets. Many astrophysical systems are not in local thermal equilibrium, and therefore require an additional kinematic treatment to describe all the phenomena within the system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohyd ... trophysics
 
Ghostisfort said:
As things stand, non adversarial seems to mean agreeing with a small group of scientistic sceptics, (on a Fortean forum) [...]

Again, you seem to have a rather warped sense of who's involved in discussing subjects with you in this thread. Not only that, but one has to remind you again that just because someone doesn't agree with you, it does not make them a cheerleader for everything you oppose. That does not make them 'scientistic sceptics' - that is just tarring various people with the same brush just because they question your assertions.
 
rynner2 said:
You don't need copper wires to carry an electric current. In an astronomical context, the 'current' is mass flows of ionized gases. We can study these in some detail in the turbulence of the solar surface and its sunspots, but magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) applies throughout the observable universe[...]

IIRC, MHD principles could also be used as the basis of various engines here on Earth, and possibly for spacecraft.
 
I'm sorry I couldn't have been clear there. I'm not asking you to agree with me, all I'm suggesting is that you consider the points raised.

This is just my impression but having followed your posts for some time now, you seem to be getting more entrenched and defensive.

It should be a case of discussion rather than argument.
 
rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
There is a whole scientific underground industry in support of the 'electric universe'. Everyone, from school kids upwards, knows that you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Only astronomers deny this fact.
Really? You amaze me!

You don't need copper wires to carry an electric current. In an astronomical context, the 'current' is mass flows of ionized gases. We can study these in some detail in the turbulence of the solar surface and its sunspots, but magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) applies throughout the observable universe:
MHD applies quite well to astrophysics since over 99% of baryonic matter content of the Universe is made up of plasma, including stars, the interplanetary medium (space between the planets), the interstellar medium (space between the stars), nebulae and jets. Many astrophysical systems are not in local thermal equilibrium, and therefore require an additional kinematic treatment to describe all the phenomena within the system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohyd ... trophysics

I find your reply incredible as I posted this on Astronomy News not long ago.
Quote:
The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles – and after a bit of foot-shuffling and throat-clearing, the discussion will be moved on to safer topics. But look, they’re out there. They probably do play a role in galaxy evolution, if not galaxy formation – and are certainly a feature of the interstellar medium and the intergalactic medium.
http://www.physorg.com/print223562554.html

The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself. The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohyd ... trophysics
Where all of this falls down is in the fact that it is also currents that induce the magnetic fields of the cosmos, not mentioned because of the Velikovskian connotations that arise and not as a result of any theoretical difficulties.
As the old guy says in one of his books: he had a dream and Newton appeared. When asked about electric fields Newton answered, "What is electricity". Astronomers are still with Newton on this.

The universe is a different place when the effects of electricity are added to those of gravity.
 
oldrover said:
I'm sorry I couldn't have been clear there. I'm not asking you to agree with me, all I'm suggesting is that you consider the points raised.

This is just my impression but having followed your posts for some time now, you seem to be getting more entrenched and defensive.

It should be a case of discussion rather than argument.

My posts are countered by dogma derived from the sceptical paradigm which in turn uses the authority of science as justification. One only has to read the threads to see that this is true.
Assumptions are made on this basis and I have to counter this with counter- assumptions that expound my own view that science is a tool and not an all-encompassing philosophy of life. A tool, may I add, that has been historically wrong and will continue to be wrong on many issues because of its sceptical, inflexible nature.

The very reason I chose to use the example of saucer-shaped craft was because it highlights the sceptical view. This view states that only 'type one events (those that lend themselves to repeatable experiment) are true'.
Who is it who has said that UFO's are unreal on this thread?
By unreal I can only assume that he means the above, but I'm open to other explanations?

On a Fortean forum, I'm naive enough to expect a logical, not rationalised, Fortean reply that leads to discussion, but all I get is the sceptical.
Until this changes, I will certainly be defensive for again, reasons that should be obvious, but are not.
I am prepared to concede that there may be those who think they are not sceptics but are in fact sceptics, having been brain-washed by education. I'm not prepared to go down that road with them having been there and found it wanting.

I don't see my stance as adversarial, just different and I support everyone's right to be different, as only then do new ideas arise.
 
Ghostisfort said:
rynner2 said:
You don't need copper wires to carry an electric current. In an astronomical context, the 'current' is mass flows of ionized gases.
I find your reply incredible...
Likewise, I'm sure! ;)

There are magnetic and electric fields in space. Astronomers study them, and study their interactions with moving, ionized gases and other bodies.

So your original statement:
Everyone, from school kids upwards, knows that you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Only astronomers deny this fact.
is just plain wrong. All your smoke and mirrors can't support such a ludicrous assertion.
 
Thanks for the manifesto, but I find it rather unconvincing. So far with maybe one or two minor exceptions, my criticism of your posts and website has been about blatant misrepresentation of your source material; science hasn’t come into it with me much if at all. It might just as well be about gardening or pot holing.

I’ve no idea who said UFOs are unreal, but this in some ways at least is at odds with my view. I’ve had a discussion about something similar on the UFO thread, it was conducted by both sides as a discussion about a particular incident and talk was confined to that incident. Neither side posted any assumptions about the other or tried to pigeon hole anyone based on the views they expressed regarding that particular incident.

Brainwashed by education is a strange accusation to level at posters here by the way, perhaps unwilling to be lectured would be a more balanced description of those you’re talking about. Especially as those of us who’ve read the lecture notes and can’t help noticing the discrepancies between them and what’s been said. Again I’m left thinking of Felix Unger.
 
rynner2 said:
[

There are magnetic and electric fields in space. Astronomers study them, and study their interactions with moving, ionized gases and other bodies.

So your original statement:
Everyone, from school kids upwards, knows that you cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. Only astronomers deny this fact.
is just plain wrong. All your smoke and mirrors can't support such a ludicrous assertion.

If this is true, then explain why the Wiki article only emphasises one half of the electromagnetic effect in space?
The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohyd ... trophysics
No mention of charge creating the magnetic fields; it says changes and not creates. Explain why this should be so when a kid knows it?
Also, explain how there can be an original magnetic field without a field-creating electric current.
 
oldrover said:
Thanks for the manifesto, but I find it rather unconvincing. So far with maybe one or two minor exceptions, my criticism of your posts and website has been about blatant misrepresentation of your source material; science hasn’t come into it with me much if at all. It might just as well be about gardening or pot holing.
You would need to find for me an educational discipline (with the possible exception of some of the arts) that is not influenced by science. You can include gardening and pot holing. We are indoctrinated from an early age to accept science as the arbiter of our reality, (somthing you seem unaware of). The fact that said reality is slanted toward an extreme materialist world-view is hardly ever discussed with students. In fact I've spoken to Christians who claim to spin both plates at the same time - such is the confusion it causes, such is the lightness we attach to brainwashing.

Science has created a reality that is becoming more accepted with time simply because no one offers anything else. Not because its true, but because of its power in education, the media and with government. But I seem to be reverting to lecturer!

Felix Unger
I'm not divorced, I,m older than middle age, I'm very untidy - I may clean the car once a year, I'm not a hypochondriac and I don't keep medicines in the bathroom cupboard, I'm nothing like Felix, but I suppose this is confrontational.

I think I prefer your thought provoking threads to the psychoanalysis.
I've already said that I'm a modern version Alchemist - strictly unUnger and not likely to be enamoured of academia.
 
Ghostisfort said:
...explain why the Wiki article only emphasises one half of the electromagnetic effect in space?
The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohyd ... trophysics
No mention of charge creating the magnetic fields; it says changes and not creates. Explain why this should be so when a kid knows it?
Also, explain how there can be an original magnetic field without a field creating electric current.
The article is incomplete. As Wiki points out
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)
As for electric currents, I already explained a few posts ago that they exist in space as flows of ionized material. These will induce magnetic fields, which in turn (as they vary) will induce electric fields, which will create electric currents, which create magnetic fields, and so on and so on.

Electricity and magnetism are inextricably linked together, as has been known ever since the work of James Clerk Maxwell in 1873.
In classical electromagnetism, the electromagnetic field obeys a set of equations known as Maxwell's equations, and the electromagnetic force is given by the Lorentz force law.

One of the peculiarities of classical electromagnetism is that it is difficult to reconcile with classical mechanics, but it is compatible with special relativity. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
There's more about Maxwell's equations here (but a good understanding of maths is needed to follow the details):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Now all this has been known for well over a century, and most astronomers are very well based in physics, so the only mystery really is why Ghostisfort thinks astronomers 'deny' there are electric fields in space when they don't.
 
I’ll come back to the rest of the post but firstly let me apologise for the way you took the Felix Unger remark, which was my fault, and clarify what I meant. It was a reference to a quote I posted a while back which was;

In the words of Felix Unger, "But don't you see the irony of it? Don't you see it?"

I’ve checked it was 10 pages ago, and of course there’s no reason you’d remember the reference. I didn’t realise how far back it was and so as I say I’m sorry Ghostisfort for the way it must have come across. It wasn’t meant as any sort of character appraisal.
 
rynner2 said:
The article is incomplete. As Wiki points out
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)
As for electric currents, I already explained a few posts ago that they exist in space as flows of ionized material. These will induce magnetic fields, which in turn (as they vary) will induce electric fields, which will create electric currents, which create magnetic fields, and so on and so on.

There is no mention of 'electric fields' here for example:
http://wwwold.spacescience.org/Explorin ... ere/1.html
I seem to recall that NASA, not too long ago, was surprised by what it described as "Ropes" that spiraled from Sun to Earth.

Sites like the one below have been talking about such things for years with no acknowledgement from the mainstream:
This has been the briefest of introductions to Juergens' Electric Sun model - the realization that our Sun functions electrically - that it is a huge electrically charged, relatively quiescent, sphere of ionized gas that supports an electric plasma arc discharge on its surface and is powered by subtle currents that move throughout the now well known tenuous plasma that fills our galaxy. A more detailed description of the ES hypothesis as well as the deficiencies of the standard solar fusion model are presented in The Electric Sky.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
The acceptance of the above would require the abandonment of the atomic fusion theory of the Sun by Hoyle as I recall. With it, presumably would go the hot fusion reactor project?
I'm not convinced.
 
oldrover said:
I’ve checked it was 10 pages ago, and of course there’s no reason you’d remember the reference. I didn’t realise how far back it was and so as I say I’m sorry Ghostisfort for the way it must have come across. It wasn’t meant as any sort of character appraisal.

I assure you I was not insulted, just bemused.
 
I grabbed a back issue of FT230 this morning for a quiet read in the loo, as I sometimes do. Opening it I found my library angel had been at work. A book review by Ian Kidd of Michael Shermer's, 'Why People Believe Weird Things'.

Ian says, in a critique of scepticism: "As usual, there is the over-reliance on an idealised conception of scientific knowledge, emphasising evidence, testability and verification that philosophers of science would baulk at...
He continues: "...that evidence is only admissible if produced by scientists. This means that scientists become the sole epistemic authorities, even though they are only qualified to investigate and evaluate certain aspects of this world." "...science is the arbiter of truth claims".

It's intriguing but refreshing to find that I'm not the only one who finds scepticism irritating and out of place on a Fortean forum.

I also note a reluctance to enter into a discussion about my thread that examines the validity of the claim that astronomers acknowledge the electrical nature of the universe. This is not unusual.

I claim the right to scrutinise the ex cathedra pontifications of scientific academics who I see as no more qualified than myself (and less so if they are sceptics) and I encourage others to do the same for the sake of posterity.
 
He continues: "...that evidence is only admissible if produced by scientists. This means that scientists become the sole epistemic authorities, even though they are only qualified to investigate and evaluate certain aspects of this world." "...science is the arbiter of truth claims".

What amuses me Ghostisfort is that you assume this hasn’t occurred to other people. To me as you’ve never discussed this issue on any engagable level. I thought your mention of fakey medical explanations was going to be it, but no, in the next post we were in deep space staring at pulsars.
 
Back
Top