Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Why I dont believe in HDRs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 13105" data-attributes="member: 443"><p><strong>Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs</strong></p><p></p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div></p><p>JT,</p><p> </p><p>Your lament about the non-acceptance of proof in the scientific community is a straw man. The only field where proof has meaning is mathematics. The rest of science operates on the idea that we cannot know a thing in it's entirety. Therefore are "theories" put forward in an attempt to explain what we are seeing in experiments.</p><p> </p><p>Theories must be testable by experiment or they are not theories. By testable, I mean a theory must make certain exact predictions about the nature of reality and at least some of these predictions must be things that can be checked by setting up experiments in specific ways. A non-testable theory is only a flight of fancy in science.</p><p> </p><p>Results of experimentation either support the theory or not. In either case the results of experimentation can be called "evidence". If the evidence shows a theory to be wrong, it can be said that that theory has been "disproven". If the evidence produced is as predicted by the theory, it is <em>never</em> said that the theory has been "proven," rather it is said that the theory is supported by the evidence. This evidence, whether in support of the theory or not, must be repeatable by any other interested parties.</p><p> </p><p>According to the necessarily stringent ideas held by the scientific community, no "proof where UFOs are reported to be seen" has ever been presented. You should pardon scientists for not accepting anecdotal evidence as actual evidence, and certainly for not accepting it as "proof".</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div></p><p> </p><p>Can you offer any evidence at all for the above four theoretical statements?</p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div></p><p> </p><p>This statement is preposterous. How do you explain Einstein, Newton, Pythagoras, Weinberg, Feynman, Hoyle, DaVinci, Plato, Euler, Reimann, Bohr, Dirac, L'Hospital, Heisenberg, Curie, Maxwell, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Xeno, Euclid, Hubble, Chandrasekhar, Fermi, Fermat, Descartes, Kant, Mozart, Copernicus, Rembrandt, Galileo, Dante, Neitzsche, Fuller, Keynes, Leibniz, Russell, Hypatia, Confucius, Ramanujan, Goethe, Pascal, Shakespeare and all the others I don't care to name?</p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div></p><p> </p><p>Please define "radionic".</p><p>Please submit evidence that "radionics" exists.</p><p>Please submit data explaining how a "radionic machine" works.</p><p>Please define "zero point field".</p><p>Please submit evidence that "zero point fields" exist.</p><p>Please submit data explaining how a "zero point field" works.</p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div></p><p>Please define "natural grid points".</p><p>Please submit evidence that "natural grid points" exist.</p><p> </p><p>Please define "psychic force energy".</p><p>Please submit evidence that "orgone" exists.</p><p>Please submit data explaining how "orgone" is generated.</p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div></p><p> </p><p>Why are skeptical minds always more powerful than psychic ones? How is it that one skeptic can block an entire roomful of psychics from performing even one psychic feat?</p><p> </p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 13105, member: 443"] [b]Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs[/b] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div> JT, Your lament about the non-acceptance of proof in the scientific community is a straw man. The only field where proof has meaning is mathematics. The rest of science operates on the idea that we cannot know a thing in it's entirety. Therefore are "theories" put forward in an attempt to explain what we are seeing in experiments. Theories must be testable by experiment or they are not theories. By testable, I mean a theory must make certain exact predictions about the nature of reality and at least some of these predictions must be things that can be checked by setting up experiments in specific ways. A non-testable theory is only a flight of fancy in science. Results of experimentation either support the theory or not. In either case the results of experimentation can be called "evidence". If the evidence shows a theory to be wrong, it can be said that that theory has been "disproven". If the evidence produced is as predicted by the theory, it is [i]never[/i] said that the theory has been "proven," rather it is said that the theory is supported by the evidence. This evidence, whether in support of the theory or not, must be repeatable by any other interested parties. According to the necessarily stringent ideas held by the scientific community, no "proof where UFOs are reported to be seen" has ever been presented. You should pardon scientists for not accepting anecdotal evidence as actual evidence, and certainly for not accepting it as "proof". <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div> Can you offer any evidence at all for the above four theoretical statements? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div> This statement is preposterous. How do you explain Einstein, Newton, Pythagoras, Weinberg, Feynman, Hoyle, DaVinci, Plato, Euler, Reimann, Bohr, Dirac, L'Hospital, Heisenberg, Curie, Maxwell, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Xeno, Euclid, Hubble, Chandrasekhar, Fermi, Fermat, Descartes, Kant, Mozart, Copernicus, Rembrandt, Galileo, Dante, Neitzsche, Fuller, Keynes, Leibniz, Russell, Hypatia, Confucius, Ramanujan, Goethe, Pascal, Shakespeare and all the others I don't care to name? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div> Please define "radionic". Please submit evidence that "radionics" exists. Please submit data explaining how a "radionic machine" works. Please define "zero point field". Please submit evidence that "zero point fields" exist. Please submit data explaining how a "zero point field" works. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div> Please define "natural grid points". Please submit evidence that "natural grid points" exist. Please define "psychic force energy". Please submit evidence that "orgone" exists. Please submit data explaining how "orgone" is generated. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div> Why are skeptical minds always more powerful than psychic ones? How is it that one skeptic can block an entire roomful of psychics from performing even one psychic feat? Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Why I dont believe in HDRs
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top