144 replies to this topic

[Jeff Albertson]

Sakari, on 12 December 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

Exactly well said also I do beleive we can't shot are self off to new ideas science will not move forward with true beleivers and closed minded skeptics.We ned to follow and apply the scientific method with academic freedom . Like I said in early post if the paper is published we still have to make sure the science is sound. I just am waitning to judge on the peer revied paper science before I make up my mind. I am starting to have my doubts if the paper is real this is all in early post.

[Stardrive]

Sakari, on 12 December 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

Or like a steel trap that's rusted shut.  

[EllJay]

Sakari, on 12 December 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Just make sure you do not open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open.

[cormac mac airt]

EllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open.

A parachute with holes is of no use to a jumper.

cormac

[EllJay]

cormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

A parachute with holes is of no use to a jumper.

cormac

What holes?

[Insanity]

Parachutes do have holes in the center, or along one side, it is what stabilizes them from oscillating about or turning violently.

[cormac mac airt]

EllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

What holes?

Figuratively speaking of course, the ones caused by believing everything one reads/hears. The parachute analogy works both ways.

cormac

[EllJay]

cormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Figuratively speaking of course, the ones caused by believing everything one reads/hears. The parachute analogy works both ways.

cormac

The only way its working (open), or not working for that matter (closed). There ain't no holes..

[cormac mac airt]

EllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

The only way its working (open), or not working for that matter (closed). There ain't no holes..

The initial reason for using the parachute analogy (open mindedness) IMO, is just an attempt to claim all opinions/perspectives are equally valid. At least that's quite often how I've seen it used. They're not.

cormac

[EllJay]

cormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

The initial reason for using the parachute analogy (open mindedness) IMO, is just an attempt to claim all opinions/perspectives are equally valid. At least that's quite often how I've seen it used. They're not.

cormac

And using the analogy about a open mind risking the brains falling out is not just dumb but is also not possible.
Having an open mind is not automatically believing everything you see or hear, but being open to the possibilities that there is a lot of things out there that we don not fully understand yet, and be humble about that.

[cormac mac airt]

EllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

And using the analogy about a open mind risking the brains falling out is not just dumb but is also not possible.
Having an open mind is not automatically believing everything you see or hear, but being open to the possibilities that there is a lot of things out there that we don not fully understand yet, and be humble about that.

True but have you actually paid attention to many of the people who've used the "open mindedness" excuse for validating, somehow, their level of ignorance. That's mind-numbing in itself, without the attempt of using one platitude to counter another.

cormac

[EllJay]

cormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

True but have you actually paid attention to many of the people who've used the "open mindedness" excuse for validating, somehow, their level of ignorance. That's mind-numbing in itself, without the attempt of using one platitude to counter another.

cormac

I usually just "skate by" the obvious loons. Too time and energy consuming to interact wit them. The same goes for totally shut off cynical skeptics. It just ain't worth it. Look at interesting cases and converse with reasonable people, that's the way.

[cormac mac airt]

EllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

I usually just "skate by" the obvious loons. Too time and energy consuming to interact wit them. The same goes for totally shut off cynical skeptics. It just ain't worth it. Look at interesting cases and converse with reasonable people, that's the way.

At times I have to wonder what "reasonable" is anymore. Especially when discussing people such as Melba Ketchum, who apparently can't be bothered with presenting even the most basic of verifiable facts. Nor apparently follow proper scientific protocol instead of "leaking" information.

cormac

[EllJay]

cormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

At times I have to wonder what "reasonable" is anymore. Especially when discussing people such as Melba Ketchum, who apparently can't be bothered with presenting even the most basic of verifiable facts. Nor apparently follow proper scientific protocol instead of "leaking" information.

cormac

Well just have to wait for the paper to be published. It will be scrutinized, and hopefully fairly.
There are many scientists who hint of their discoveries before their study is published, just to bring some attention to it, it is just when the subject is so controversial like this one is, that the attention gets so widespread. She seems confident in her work, we'll just have to wait to see what her critics thinks of it when it's out.

[keninsc]

A lot of times papers due to come out are talked about so it can get immediate peer review, otherwise it might sit at the bottom of the proverbial pile of other new papers.

Will it be given a fair review? I have no clue, however I'd say that if the paper gets published then the publisher must have done some checking themselves. After all, it's their reputation as well. I can say that the scientific community as a whole has been less than accepting of any research done where Bigfoot is concerned and even if a scientific type had an interest they kept it to themselves. Hey, the scientific community is just as biased, bigoted and asinine as any other group in the world. Some how people think these guys are all on a higher plane and above all that when they simply aren't.

Edited by keninsc, 13 December 2012 - 03:41 PM.