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="J-Truthseeker" data-source="post: 13106" data-attributes="member: 537"><p><strong>Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs</strong></p><p></p><p>Eh Hearte,</p><p> </p><p>Yes I would agree to a certain point that the only field where proof has meaning is mathematics. This is because we live in a universe based upon logic and reason, however the problem with testing theories to find any predictable results is that you are always going to find different variations from different people in what ever scientific experimentation any person could possibly put forth to predict or explain any theories. Even if the differences are not at first readily noticeable, they are still there. This is because even in a mathematical universe there can never be an "exact" unit of measurement when every unit of measurement contains an infinite amount of possibilities or probabilities. The same goes for any person who puts forth the measurements. Skeptics always fail to take into consideration the varying differences of opinion and personality of the observers who will aways produce a sightly different result or opinion. As you said your self "The rest of science operates on the idea that we cannot know a thing in it's entirety". Yet skeptics always act as though they know everything with their stringent ideas, which means that to be skeptical will aways defeat their/your own purpose, their/your own argument and even their/your own means of being skeptical. Of course scientists can't accept anecdotal evidence as actual evidence as proof, because there can never be any such thing as actual evidence, because there can never be a complete observation in its entirety. All it is, is just a show to make people look good and nothing more, because in reality this kind of thinking is not all that much different then a cat that always chases its tail, yet can never get it. </p><p> </p><p>Now for presenting my so called "evidence" for my four theoretical statements along with other definitions, etc, which you demand I define? Well that all depends on what or how you personally define "evidence", plus at this point that would be way to easy. I'm sure I can give you all the psychological statistics and data from the books where I got it from, but like all other things you're now asking me to define and provide evidence and proof for things that will have a different diffintion of proof to your already assumed way of thinking, I'm therefore not going to give you these, because for once I'm sure you can find and read all the required books that I've had to go through to find myself. Anotherwards as a skeptic, let's see you go out there and find these things and definitions for yourself, do your own objective observations, research and field work, and only then maybe we'll talk and have something good to talk about. Even if you agree or disagree, at least you'll then hopefully have a good understanding of these terms and presented proof.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Ever read "history and Systems of Psychology" by James F. Brennan???</p><p> </p><p>He mentions the same majority of names which you've just listed here and gives all the "known" pro's and con's of each person, and how they have played a big part in the development of what we know and define as "modern society" and "modern thinking". In a number of cases he and even others have mentioned how it takes a "fringe in ones thinking", and even how in their "fringe emotional or mental state of mind" which it took for them to get to where they were away from the mainstream way of thinking that existed even back in their time. For starters, if you look at just the first two names on your list; Einstein was said to be dyslexic and Newton was said to have eventually suffered from a nervous breakdown, etc, etc..</p><p> </p><p>James Truthseeker</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-Truthseeker, post: 13106, member: 537"] [b]Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs[/b] Eh Hearte, Yes I would agree to a certain point that the only field where proof has meaning is mathematics. This is because we live in a universe based upon logic and reason, however the problem with testing theories to find any predictable results is that you are always going to find different variations from different people in what ever scientific experimentation any person could possibly put forth to predict or explain any theories. Even if the differences are not at first readily noticeable, they are still there. This is because even in a mathematical universe there can never be an "exact" unit of measurement when every unit of measurement contains an infinite amount of possibilities or probabilities. The same goes for any person who puts forth the measurements. Skeptics always fail to take into consideration the varying differences of opinion and personality of the observers who will aways produce a sightly different result or opinion. As you said your self "The rest of science operates on the idea that we cannot know a thing in it's entirety". Yet skeptics always act as though they know everything with their stringent ideas, which means that to be skeptical will aways defeat their/your own purpose, their/your own argument and even their/your own means of being skeptical. Of course scientists can't accept anecdotal evidence as actual evidence as proof, because there can never be any such thing as actual evidence, because there can never be a complete observation in its entirety. All it is, is just a show to make people look good and nothing more, because in reality this kind of thinking is not all that much different then a cat that always chases its tail, yet can never get it. Now for presenting my so called "evidence" for my four theoretical statements along with other definitions, etc, which you demand I define? Well that all depends on what or how you personally define "evidence", plus at this point that would be way to easy. I'm sure I can give you all the psychological statistics and data from the books where I got it from, but like all other things you're now asking me to define and provide evidence and proof for things that will have a different diffintion of proof to your already assumed way of thinking, I'm therefore not going to give you these, because for once I'm sure you can find and read all the required books that I've had to go through to find myself. Anotherwards as a skeptic, let's see you go out there and find these things and definitions for yourself, do your own objective observations, research and field work, and only then maybe we'll talk and have something good to talk about. Even if you agree or disagree, at least you'll then hopefully have a good understanding of these terms and presented proof. Ever read "history and Systems of Psychology" by James F. Brennan??? He mentions the same majority of names which you've just listed here and gives all the "known" pro's and con's of each person, and how they have played a big part in the development of what we know and define as "modern society" and "modern thinking". In a number of cases he and even others have mentioned how it takes a "fringe in ones thinking", and even how in their "fringe emotional or mental state of mind" which it took for them to get to where they were away from the mainstream way of thinking that existed even back in their time. For starters, if you look at just the first two names on your list; Einstein was said to be dyslexic and Newton was said to have eventually suffered from a nervous breakdown, etc, etc.. James Truthseeker [/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