Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Illyrius]

Just now, psyche101 said:

He now practises Pseudoscience 

This is the word i was waiting all the time. Thanks

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not sure why your struggling with that. It's not complex

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

This is the word i was waiting all the time. Thanks

Do you know what it means? 

[XenoFish]

I got this.

1. any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology,psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudoscience

http://www.softschools.com/examples/science/pseudoscience_examples/485/

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by XenoFish

[Illyrius]

Just now, psyche101 said:

Do you know what it means? 

It means something like "false science"? Something that is deceptively presented as science?

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I got this.

1. any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology,psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudoscience

http://www.softschools.com/examples/science/pseudoscience_examples/485/

 

[psyche101]

Just now, Illyrius said:

It means something like "false science"? Something that is deceptively presented as science?

Yep 

[XenoFish]

I tend to think that when ask no one actually looks. So I'm just putting it out there. So there's no excuse to not see it.

There's a reason I associate spirituality with psychology.

[Illyrius]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yep 

Plate tectonics was an extremely controversial theory for decades - Alfred Wegener originally proposed the idea in 1912 but it wasn't generally accepted until the 1960s. Even Einstein was a famous skeptic.

This was also considered as "pseudoscience"....

Need more examples?

Edited February 23, 2018 by Illyrius

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Plate tectonics was an extremely controversial theory for decades - Alfred Wegener originally proposed the idea in 1912 but it wasn't generally accepted until the 1960s. Even Einstein was a famous skeptic.

Again and? 

It had evidence so it had to be accepted, all you have illustrated is science will change according to evidence, like the Phlogiston theory I made you aware of. 

You do know what evidence is right? 

[Illyrius]

Just now, psyche101 said:

Again and? 

It had evidence so it had to be accepted, all you have illustrated is science will change according to evidence, like the Phlogiston theory I made you aware of. 

You do know what evidence is right? 

Yes.

https://www.sheldrake.org/participate/online-staring-experiment-results

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Space is non-responsive to gravity.

Why?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Because space is non-physical.

 

 

Space is responsive to gravity though Will.....this was demonstrated by Einsteins Special Relativity, and it's why we now use the term spacetime.  I don't think you can argue that space is nothing and non-material because gravity does effect it.  I do support the notion that non-material things like spirit may exist, but that's because I believe in it.  Einsteins view of spacetime, as I understand it.....paints a picture of spacetime being more of an elastic mesh or fabric than nothing. 

At least, that's my understanding of it.  And I admit that my understanding of it is basic.  Maybe someone who's more in the know than I am about it can explain it better. 

PS.  Have you ever checked out the notion of holographic universe?  You might find it interesting.    

[eight bits]

Illyrius

From your link:

Quote

These experiments took place under unsupervised conditions, so it is impossible to eliminate the possibility that some people were cheating, or that some starers inadvertently gave subtle sensory clues to the subjects. However, these positive results are very similar to previous results under supervised conditions, and are a useful addition to the growing body of evidence for the reality of the sense of being stared at.

Umm.. results almost certainly not due to chance, in an experiment with a gaping methodological hole ensuring that utterly unmysterious factors other than chance had an unfettered (and discreetly unmeasured) opportunity to make themselves felt in the results.

Kind of ironic in a thread devoted to "inelligent design." Sheldrake's problem isn't so much that he's a pseudoscientist, but he's an incompetent psuedoscientist to boot.

 

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Umm.. results almost certainly not due to chance, in an experiment with a gaping methodological hole

What is this methodological hole?

[Will Due]

8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Space is responsive to gravity though Will.....this was demonstrated by Einsteins Special Relativity, and it's why we now use the term spacetime.  I don't think you can argue that space is nothing and non-material because gravity does effect it.  I do support the notion that non-material things like spirit may exist, but that's because I believe in it.  Einsteins view of spacetime, as I understand it.....paints a picture of spacetime being more of an elastic mesh or fabric than nothing. 

At least, that's my understanding of it.  And I admit that my understanding of it is basic.  Maybe someone who's more in the know than I am about it can explain it better. 

PS.  Have you ever checked out the notion of holographic universe?  You might find it interesting.    

 

Holographic? No I haven't. 

 

I think what Einstein showed with his eclipse experiments is that light photons were affected by the gravity of the sun, not space. Photons are material. Space is not.

Although no one appears to agree with me in the slightest (nothing new) I don't think space is physical. I mean, what is space when there's nothing in it?

Only matter is responsive to gravity, space by itself, is not.

Anyway, thanks for responding.

 

 

[Guyver]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

I think what Einstein showed with his eclipse experiments is that light photons were affected by the gravity of the sun, not space. Photons are material. Space is not.

Although no one appears to agree with me in the slightest (nothing new) I don't think space is physical. I mean, what is space when there's nothing in it?

Only matter is responsive to gravity, space by itself, is not.

 

I think you should check your information there Will.  See if you maintain this point after reading this link.  

[Harte]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Space is not "bent"

Space is not curved. 

Space moves (along with all the matter in it) around the center of the universe.

Space is not infinite.

Space is not responsive to gravity, but the matter in it, is.

The physical matter in space, large and small, photons and other physical energy manifestations; in between all of this matter, space has nothing in it. That space is empty.

Yet the space I just referrenced is there. It exists. It's real.

But it is not physical.

 

What do you think?

I think you must be uneducated in these matters.

Space is most definitely bent by gravity. As I stated, there is simply no question about it.

Sort of like there's no question that the Sun is bright.

It's a given. All you have to do is look.

Harte

[psyche101]

38 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Yes.

https://www.sheldrake.org/participate/online-staring-experiment-results

Perhaps not it seems.

Rupert Sheldrake claims that people can tell when somebody is staring at them. Unfortunately the sequences used in Sheldrake’s research are not properly randomized. When random sequences are used people can detect staring at no better than chance rates.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization

[Harte]

52 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Again and? 

It had evidence so it had to be accepted, all you have illustrated is science will change according to evidence, like the Phlogiston theory I made you aware of. 

You do know what evidence is right? 

Wegener's was an idea, not a theory. His idea was quite different from what we today know to be the truth. So he was wrong to boot.

And, he was never considered a pseudoscientist by anyone.

Harte

[eight bits]

Illyrius

Quote

What is this methodological hole?

The part in the quote box, taken from your link: there were no preautions against cheating or cueing, nor any allowance made in analyzing the results for those factors. The only finding was that chance doesn't explain the results; cheating and cueing explain the results nicely.

[Harte]

28 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Holographic? No I haven't. 

 

I think what Einstein showed with his eclipse experiments is that light photons were affected by the gravity of the sun, not space. Photons are material. Space is not.

Although no one appears to agree with me in the slightest (nothing new) I don't think space is physical. I mean, what is space when there's nothing in it?

Only matter is responsive to gravity, space by itself, is not.

Anyway, thanks for responding.

Then you think incorrectly.

Harte

[Hre2breal]

3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Science researches various things. He is not a Mermaidologist. But a respectable biologist, with pretty respectable bio as a scientist.

I know your talkn bout this other dude bro but Ive become rather interested in a Mermaidologist its sounds very interesting.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Hre2breal

[Only_]

5 hours ago, Illyrius said:

This is the word i was waiting all the time. Thanks

A ''buzzword'', as Psyche101 would call.

[Rlyeh]

13 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Space is non-responsive to gravity.

Why?

 

  Hide contents

Because space is non-physical.

 

 

Actually space is physical, it's defined by the 3 spatial dimensions.

[Only_]

8 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Actually space is physical, it's defined by the 3 spatial dimensions.

Einstein's theory of relativity says that space and time are two aspects of the same thing, namely spacetime. We can distinguish between them, but they are interrelated. So actually 4 known dimensions, including time.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit