John-D
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2001
- Messages
- 198
Heyeee.. i thought we agreed to let this thread die!!
[Edited last by John-D on August 17, 2001 at 04:00 PM]
[Edited last by John-D on August 17, 2001 at 04:00 PM]
It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.
A pretty interesting quote, actually.
the onus of proof as to whether they work is on those who market and make them.
I didn't see anyone trying to market anything in this thread. Why should the people making a claim be expected to prove it, when the people claiming it's impossible aren't expected to provide any explanations? Take this statement, for instance - "The minute vibrations that it MAY encounter however, in most likelyhood will not make a difference... at least not an audible or perceiveable difference." What is that, if not anecdotal? Where is the proof that it will not? Isn't that a claim too?
Am I the only one who sees double standards here?
I had this in my sig for some time.. borrowed from a phrase often used by the knowledgable people at SETI to justify their ongoing search (and their jobs).
------------------
The things we own end up owning us