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
Is there any current confirmed TIME TRAVELERS ON HERE NOW???
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="MindUnderMatter" data-source="post: 180053" data-attributes="member: 11068"><p>To crusade against something, you must become it.</p><p></p><p>Consider that all but the slightest fraction of what we think we know to be true was handed to us on a silver platter by ... other people. Our standards for accepting something as "valid proof" are as flawed and wildly skewed as anything we would provide as the basis for calling something pseudo science. </p><p></p><p>How do we know the Earth is not flat? Because textbooks and teachers say it is. How do those sources know? Because they were told as well. It all comes back to hearsay, any way you slice it. What we call "proof" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision to trust a given source.</p><p></p><p>The Pons-Fleischman claim regarding cold fusion was false. How do we know? Our instinctive reaction is to claim that x number of scientists the world over performed the experiment and it failed. How do we know they're telling the truth? Were we there? Or are we simply choosing to believe them? How do we even know that anybody attempted to validate the experiment at all? We don't; we weren't there. We choose to believe certain sources. How many "scientists" of today are claiming that global warming is valid? The average volcanic eruption spews out hundreds of times more CO2 than the whole of humanity has since its inception. If you've done much traveling across the United States alone, you will know that the percentage of available land mass that is actually populated is so small that the mere idea that humans and cattle could even begin to harm the atmosphere is ludicrous. They can create a smog blanket around a city, but that city is so tiny relative to the surface land mass of Earth as to be negligible.</p><p></p><p>Since we love to have our cake and eat it too, a single "professionally sourced" claim is usually enough to convince us that the claim being set forth is valid, beyond reproach, absolute. But then we declare that thousands and thousands of witnesses to UFO's are all deluded. Were we there to witness what they might have witnessed? No. We simply make an arbitrary choice to believe them or not. Our bases for making such choices is even more flawed: credentials. "Well Dr. Snarkendinkle has a Ph.D. so why would he lie?" That is not scientific. The problem here is that x number of other people with Ph.D. credentials have reported UFO sightings, and we just as arbitrarily declare with absolute finality that we know what they did and did not see.</p><p></p><p>There is no escaping the circus. Most claims about history, science, etc. trace back to one or two individuals we chose to believe without question. We mistake credentials, the degree of popular embracing of a "fact," and the longevity of such embracing, as "proof." There are few if any criteria for establishing what is proof and what is not, that are not blatantly contradicted within our own personal paradigms many times over - in every case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MindUnderMatter, post: 180053, member: 11068"] To crusade against something, you must become it. Consider that all but the slightest fraction of what we think we know to be true was handed to us on a silver platter by ... other people. Our standards for accepting something as "valid proof" are as flawed and wildly skewed as anything we would provide as the basis for calling something pseudo science. How do we know the Earth is not flat? Because textbooks and teachers say it is. How do those sources know? Because they were told as well. It all comes back to hearsay, any way you slice it. What we call "proof" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision to trust a given source. The Pons-Fleischman claim regarding cold fusion was false. How do we know? Our instinctive reaction is to claim that x number of scientists the world over performed the experiment and it failed. How do we know they're telling the truth? Were we there? Or are we simply choosing to believe them? How do we even know that anybody attempted to validate the experiment at all? We don't; we weren't there. We choose to believe certain sources. How many "scientists" of today are claiming that global warming is valid? The average volcanic eruption spews out hundreds of times more CO2 than the whole of humanity has since its inception. If you've done much traveling across the United States alone, you will know that the percentage of available land mass that is actually populated is so small that the mere idea that humans and cattle could even begin to harm the atmosphere is ludicrous. They can create a smog blanket around a city, but that city is so tiny relative to the surface land mass of Earth as to be negligible. Since we love to have our cake and eat it too, a single "professionally sourced" claim is usually enough to convince us that the claim being set forth is valid, beyond reproach, absolute. But then we declare that thousands and thousands of witnesses to UFO's are all deluded. Were we there to witness what they might have witnessed? No. We simply make an arbitrary choice to believe them or not. Our bases for making such choices is even more flawed: credentials. "Well Dr. Snarkendinkle has a Ph.D. so why would he lie?" That is not scientific. The problem here is that x number of other people with Ph.D. credentials have reported UFO sightings, and we just as arbitrarily declare with absolute finality that we know what they did and did not see. There is no escaping the circus. Most claims about history, science, etc. trace back to one or two individuals we chose to believe without question. We mistake credentials, the degree of popular embracing of a "fact," and the longevity of such embracing, as "proof." There are few if any criteria for establishing what is proof and what is not, that are not blatantly contradicted within our own personal paradigms many times over - in every case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Is there any current confirmed TIME TRAVELERS ON HERE NOW???
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