[Nameless One]

Scientists consider all evidence, not just 'data' published in scientifc journals. Sure that kind of data is the most powerful evidence, but it is not the only kind of evidence.

Sure, but scientists assign low value to eyewitness testimony and, uh, Youtube videos. The way things work, as you surely know, is that an experiment is devised to replicate the claimed effect. Failure to replicate means our confidence is not high. Based on everything I've read the “Hutchinson effect” has not been replicated nor is the “inventor” able to replicate his results on demand. End result: he's just another circus sideshow for the Bigfoot/UFO demographic and no one in their right mind takes him seriously. Too bad for Mr. Hutchinson and his ongoing search for his cutey patooty BFF.

[edais]

That is not the “definition” of being unscientific. Scientists consider all evidence, not just 'data' published in scientifc journals. Sure that kind of data is the most powerful evidence, but it is not the only kind of evidence.

From my undestanding, scientific journals were created so that we didn't have to have these kind of conversations.  The whole point of peer review is to make sure things are credible.  REAL scientists, despite what you think, do not take in “all kinds of evidence.”  They do not say, oh, there must be truth to this because I saw it in a youtube video.  They either repeat it in a laboratory setting or they read published data in a scientific journal.  Sure, take in everything you find, but don't call it evidence.  Call them observations, thought provoking ideas, theories, whatever, but it isn't evidence.

It is true, peer review can be held with some scrutiny because there have been issues before with say pharmaceutical companies paying researchers to doctor data.  For this reason, I personally think there needs to be even more oversight…like peer review of the peer review, but regardless, scientific journals are the best way we have to establish credibility.  That's why they are there.  Yet, you want to just go throw it out the window because you find youtube videos convincing enough.  I'm not even taking this as a different opinion.  You are now working against the scientific community when you are supposed to be upholding it, and I deplore you for it.

[Banjankri]

DEPLORE I SAY!!!

[Banjankri]

I agree about peer review, if it can't be duplicated you're a quack.

[aktif]

Dumbasses asking dumbasses to review their 'findings' is NOT science.

Extreme yes but it also applies to crazy people, crazy people justifying their actions with other crazy peoples opinions is NOT SCIENCE!

God why is this going on and on and on….The same shit gets repeated over and over and over…how many times has everyone told Abe how foolish and bogus his scientific methods are???

[Banjankri]

A Refresher

[edais]

Dumbasses asking dumbasses to review their 'findings' is NOT science.

Extreme yes but it also applies to crazy people, crazy people justifying their actions with other crazy peoples opinions is NOT SCIENCE!

God why is this going on and on and on….The same shit gets repeated over and over and over…how many times has everyone told Abe how foolish and bogus his scientific methods are???

EDIT: I think I read what you wrote wrong, Nick.

I get a strange sense of self-worth from coming up with new ways to disagree with him and show him his rational world has been skewed.  It's a creative exercise. 🙂

And as institutions usually are the ones that pay/support/review published submissions for journals, it is not ususally crazy people verifying crazy people as you wrote…  It often takes a lot of effort to get a something published in a peer reviewed journal, though I'm sure there are probably exceptions…

[edais]

Haha, nice Blake.  Abe usually only ever seems to get to the yellow circle and then jumps to the left purple bubble.

[PookztA]

This video discusses the Nikolas Tesla technology behind crossing energy frequencies to create new and disruptive patterns of energy. You can create this energy within a mountain, within a building, or within open-space, it does not matter, it just matters where the frequencies intersect, and what frequencies are intersecting.

Colonel Thomas Bearden discusses Nikolas Tesla's Scalar Energy Interference Technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONXMWfDUSA

here is his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Bearden

(note that it says his ideas have received no real support from the majority of the scientific community, so take form whatever opinion about this you want, I just wanted to share it.)

hope this helps.

-Abe

[edais]

Another youtube video huh?  Ok, maybe I'll watch it when I have time and get back to you.  I'm taking off.

[PookztA]

Another youtube video huh?  Ok, maybe I'll watch it when I have time and get back to you.  I'm taking off.

that's fine, did you by chance watch the primary 68 minute documentary which was the center piece of this thread?

no real point in discussing something that people haven't watched… would be cool to see who has watched the documentary and who hasn't…

-Abe

[edais]

Yeah, I watched some of it.  68 minutes is a long time to devote to this stuff, especially when I think the guy's a quack in the first 20 minutes.

[zensphere]

Don't forget the pink bubble!!

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bearden

[PookztA]

Don't forget the pink bubble!!

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bearden

i posted that link above…

did you by chance watch the primary 68 minute documentary which was the center piece of this thread?

what's a pink bubble?

[Banjankri]

Thanks, I think nick means dumbasses like wood and hutchinson. Right?

Its like two novice pilots congratulating each other on a successful flight as they plummet towards the earth.

[img]http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2111672&id=71808551&saved#!/photo.php?pid=33730740&id=71808551[/img]  

[Author]

Posts