View Single Post
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:00
  #8124 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Oh, really?

You tell us, then, rvv500, do you think that using the scientific method can support belief in dowsing?

1. Dowsing is non-scientific.

2. Dr. M. is on record as believing in dowsing.

3. A scientist who is on record as believing in something non-scientific is not adhering to the proper practice of science.


You really think that doing '1,2,3' as above, is 'character assassination?' It can be called 'dirt digging,' certainly, but that is not my dirt!

What I wrote is very much to the point of whether we should accept what Dr. M. says about AGW as fact. He has been discredited in several ways by that.

Let me put this to you in a slightly different way, rvv500:

1. Do you support Dr. Mörner's stated belief in dowsing?

2. Do you find that espousing a belief in dowsing is scientifically sound, such that you, too, believe in dowsing?

3. Does it matter to you if a scientist expresses a belief in non-science such as dowsing; would doing that discredit him as a scientist in your eyes?

If you mean that I have not done any of this tedious cut-and-paste stuff you lot are so fond of, what you seem to think of as 'science,' well, no, I have not. No, all I did was to put in two semesters of hard work studying chemistry and mathematics.

Which shows more interest in science, what I did or what you lot do?

I think that you might need to go wave a forked stick around for a while trying to come up with a reasonable answer to what I have just asked you. Just huffing and puffing that i write 'pointless and convoluted ramblings' will not serve to convince everyone who reads this stuff that that's really so. Your crowd, probably, but then it seems that they will swallow just about any nonsense going.
chuks is online now